Search results

The purpose of this paper is to describe the development of electric lamp renewal systems, an early, successful program to encourage the adoption of new technology, electric lighting.

Much material for the research comes from a variety of archival sources and publications of the early part of the twentieth century.

The free lamp renewal system was brilliant and effective: its high level of customer service and human contact dispelled fear raised by the new energy source, increasing the acceptance and use of electric lighting and thereby electricity. Lighting, in the absence of electrical appliances, was one of the few users of electricity. Thus, the electric companies created a marketing strategy that encouraged adoption of the new technology.

We examined the electric lighting industry at the turn of the twentieth century. Other examples of technology adoption could generalize our findings.

Our research suggests that supportive programs, which are high in customer contact and customized service, can aid in the adoption of new technology and unfamiliar products. By encouraging the use of such free or cheap products, customers are induced to higher usage of related products that increase the revenue stream to the provider.

The lamp renewal system is forgotten today, yet was a crucial factor in winning consumer acceptance of electric lighting and an early example of how companies can encourage adoption of new technology. Although the concept of uniformed men in trucks coming to customer homes once a month to clean and replace light bulbs is quaint – it worked!

In this paper, I demonstrate an alternative explanation to the development of the American electricity industry. I propose a social embeddedness approach (Granovetter, 1985, 1992) to interpret why the American electricity industry appears the way it does today, and start by addressing the following questions: Why is the generating dynamo located in well‐connected central stations rather than in isolated stations? Why does not every manufacturing firm, hospital, school, or even household operate its own generating equipment? Why do we use incandescent lamps rather than arc lamps or gas lamps for lighting? At the end of the nineteenth century, the first era of the electricity industry, all these technical as well as organizational forms were indeed possible alternatives. The centralized systems we see today comprise integrated, urban, central station firms which produce and sell electricity to users within a monopolized territory. Yet there were visions of a more decentralized electricity industry. For instance, a geographically decentralized system might have dispersed small systems based around an isolated or neighborhood generating dynamo; or a functionally decentralized system which included firms solely generating and transmitting the power, and selling the power to locally‐owned distribution firms (McGuire, Granovetter, and Schwartz, forthcoming). Similarly, the incandescent lamp was not the only illuminating device available at that time. The arc lamp was more suitable for large‐space lighting than incandescent lamps; and the second‐generation gas lamp ‐ Welsbach mantle lamp ‐ was much cheaper than the incandescent electric light and nearly as good in quality (Passer, 1953:196–197).

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the most used library software in Lahore using a checklist and seek librarians' opinions about them. It also aims to seek librarians' opinions about the most desired and needed features of Integrated Library Software (ILS).

The paper is based on questionnaire survey, interview, document analysis and personal communication. The questionnaire survey was conducted within automated libraries of Lahore, while interviews were conducted with selected librarians from Lahore. Collected data were analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively to reach conclusions.

A variety of software is being used by the libraries of Lahore. Nor is there available, any standard tool or directory for the selection and evaluation of the software. Evaluation of the software against a checklist reveals the better functionality of Library Information Management System and Library Automation and Management Program than INMAGIC and WINISIS, but librarians were found to be more satisfied with INMAGIC. All the respondents agreed that before selecting any ILS, librarys' actual and perceived needs, available resources and funds should be kept in mind. They also proposed many features of ILS.

The questionnaire survey is limited to the automated libraries of Lahore and focuses on the comparison and evaluation of the most used software only, while selected librarians with good IT skills were chosen for seeking opinions about the most desired ILS features.

The survey results can be helpful to foreign and local vendors of ILS, librarians, higher authorities and other developing countries in selecting and maintaining required software.

It is the first comprehensive study conducted on ILS not only in Lahore, but in Pakistan.

THE following list of errata, adjustments and revisions of the actual classification itself, represents all that it has been deemed necessary to note in the way of such alterations, and the changes have been suggested by the experience of users and the discoveries of various librarians. Those who use the scheme should have the changes noted in an interleaved copy of the book, and others may find it desirable to do likewise, pending the appearance of a revised issue which will be published in the near future. Most of the changes are self‐explanatory, and their meaning can be ascertained at once by reference to the S.C. itself. Suggestions and notes of errors will be very gratefully received, as it is only by the vigilance and practical working of many minds that a classification scheme can ever arrive at even reasonable accuracy and completeness.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Index by subjects, compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.