Editorial

Citation

Harmon, C. (1999), "Editorial", The Bottom Line, Vol. 12 No. 1. https://doi.org/10.1108/bl.1999.17012aaa.001

Editorial

When I was in library school, the professor who taught our library administration class, Alan Samuels, introduced us to the concept of institutions as open systems, affecting ­ and affected by ­ changes in the external environment. Today, with homeless patrons using our restrooms for bathing, with the controversy of Internet filtering dominating our lives, and with our communities using alternative resources for information retrieval, that concept seems to be almost ridiculously obvious. But not too many years ago (but more years ago than I can believe), many libraries were indeed secure, calm little book-lined fiefdoms that operated much the same way they did 50 years ago.

Today, our libraries have the same essential mission, but their vulnerability to the external environment makes Dr Samuels's lecture about open systems seem almost prophetic. I am ashamed to say I had forgotten most of what he said until I started putting together this issue of The Bottom Line. As you read Marina Mercado's article about the huge stakes involved in the Microsoft case, I urge you to think about your own library as an open system and what the outcome of this case means for the evolution of your information technology ­ and its costs. What I found particularly compelling about Dr Mercado's analysis is that either a win or a loss for Bill Gates will affect us. If Microsoft wins, they will essentially control the future development of the information economy ­ the very arena our libraries exist in. If Microsoft loses, however, the future development of information technologies (especially standardization) will be affected in a host of other ways.

Combine these immense changes with pages of financial news in this issue's "In the news" column and you'll see what I mean about vulnerability and change. Indeed, I wonder what future professors of library administration will tell their students about 1998 and 1999. Will Gates be remembered as today's Carnegie, a benevolent benefactor (from the Gates Foundation legacy) or as today's Standard Oil ­ a demagog seeking to control the information infrastructure? Or both? And how will those future professors urge their students to think about the information economy and the place of libraries as just one institution in that big open system?

Speaking of the information economy, I am pleased to introduce with this issue another regular column "On library/vendor relations," written by James Walther. Walther brings a unique perspective to this topic. He has worked as a vendor for many years and is currently a library educator. Perhaps he will be the one to answer some of the questions I raised in the previous paragraph? If so, I hope he will do so within these pages.

Charles Harmon