Annals of Library Science and Documentation 1986, 33(4), 135-142

LIBRARIES AS INNOVATIVEORGANISATIONS:A REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

The concept of innovation as defined byclassical innovation theorists such as Rogers,Shoemaker, Havelock and others are examinedin general terms, and related to specific aspectsof the theory and practice of modern librarian-ship. While the basic objective of this paperwas to highlight the major trends in the innovat-ing process in library organizations, it is arguedthat innovations as the introduction and appli-cation of new ideas, procedures or processesor the manufacture of new products is not new,the scientific study of such developments inlibraries is however, a recent phenomenon.Efforts are made to collocate and thus familia-rize interested scholars of library innovationswith the literature reflecting the state of the artin this apparently new field.

The concept of innovation as viewed andstudied from different perspectives has lentitself to a variety of definitions depending onthe approach. It may be viewed by differentdisciplines and organizations with differentperceptual prisms. In this paper, it is revealedthat majority of the literature currently existingon the study of innovations are outside thefield of library and information science. Andthis situation has been projected further by theabsence of any acceptable theory of innovationin the field. This accounts for the fact that agreat deal of concrete concepts and theorieshave been developed in other disciplines leadingto even wider applications.

A few classical definitions of the conceptwill, however, be examined. One of the mostoften cited theorists of innovation is Rogerswho views innovation as "an idea perceived asnew by the individual" [1] , A more explicitdefinition was later given by Rogers and

Vol 33 No 4 December 1986

MICHAEL G. OCHOGWUDepartment of Library ScienceUniversity of MaiduguriMaiduguri - Borno StateNigeria.

Shoemaker by defining the concept of innova-tion as "an idea, practice or object perceivedas new by an individual' [2J. While the abovedefinitions are basically the same, the one byRogers and Shoemaker goes much further toexplain that an innovation is not just an ideabut also a change which could be substantialencompassing changes in practices, and themanufacture of products or objects. Lucastakes a more critical look at the concept bydistinguishing between "hard innovations" and"soft innovations" [3]. In his view, publicpolicy is an example of a soft innovation whilea change to a completely new practice or theturning out of a new product by a manufactur-ing firm is hard innovation. Innovations fromthe above definitions, therefore, could be seenas a new idea, procedure or product usuallyinvolving substantial changes.

LIBRARIES AND INNOVATION

Innovations as new ideas, processes or productsare not recent developments in libraries. Infact, it could be safely asserted that innovationsare as old in libraries as libraries themselves. Itis widely believed in library history that in thegreat ancient libraries of Egypt and Mesopo-tamia which dates back to about 3000 B.C.,information resources of that period underwenta series of developments in the storage methods.Thus, library records at this time became popu-larly stored in paypyrus and clay tablets inEgypt and Mesopotamia respectively [4]. Andwe have since then continued to witness thetransition of these information storage devicesto the present day books along with otherforms of electronic storage media such asmagnetic disks, tapes, etc.

T ~.')

OCHOGWU

What could be viewed as relatively recent,however, is the scientific study of these de-velopments in the form of innovations in libra-nes.

It was not until the last decade that scholarsin the field of library and information sciencebega~ to give serious thoughts to this emergingbut Important aspect of knowledge utilization.Tech~ological advances and the development oftheones of management science such as thosedevelope~ by Frederick Taylor (1911), Gulickand Urwick (1937), March and Simon (1958)Etzioni (1964) and more recent works b;Evans (1976) and Steward and Eastlick(1981)[5] have been instrumental to the awa-kening of thoughts and consequently to thequest for the scientific planning of differentattributes of innovation in library administra-tion.

RELEV ANT CONCEPTS IN INNOVATIONRESEARCH

Before actually looking at the literature on thistopic, it will be worthwhile to examine someconcepts that are pertinent to the study ofinnovations· in organisations vis-a-vis libraries.These concepts could also be referred to asgeneral variables upon which the successfulimplementation of any form of innovation ina library environment depends. And they in-clude the concepts of actors, barriers to inno-vating and the development of strategies forsuccessful implementation of innovations.

In order to carry out the process of intro-ducing innovations into libraries or any orga-nizations, some individuals termed actors withinand outside that organization have to be activelyinvolved in its planning and implementation.

The university library systems' like manyother organizations are organized along a hierar-chical structure with different actors, i.e., lib-ray staff and users possessing varying degreesof influence. The idea of influence calls for anactive but meaningful role by all categories ofuniversity library staff and users in the innovat-ing process. But studies have shown that this isnot always the case in many innovative attempts.

Munson and Pelz [6] in one of their frame-works identified seven types of actors in anyinnovating process:

1. The source of the innovations, i.e., theinnovator;

2. Managers who make top level decisions;3. Workers;4. Clients (i.e., the community of library

users in the case of libraries);5. Suppliers who provide the necessary sup-

port system;6. Social controllers; and7. Intermediaries.

The roles of the last two actors are usuallynot very pronounced in a university librarysituation since they would not normally in-volve outside persons in the decision makingprocess except for consultancy services.

In any innovative attempts, there arebarriers that have to be overcome. One ofsuch observations was made by Argyris[7]when he observed some problems in introducinginnovations from management perspective. Hewas of the view that when innovations areimplemented only from the above, there couldbe the danger of mistrust and condemnationfrom the subordinates below. He, therefore,suggested the active participation of all actorsin the innovating process. Zaltman, Duncanand Holbek[8] also focused on barriers ascrucial variables in the innovating process inorganizations. They observed that lack ofclarity, skill and knowledge about an innovation,unavailability of required materials and equip-ment including certain organizational arrange-ments were the critical factors to the effectiveimplementation of innovations. These observa-tions support and reaffirm earlier observationsby Havelock that there has been a real needfor new ideas, and approach to introducinginnovations along with the economic andorganizational ability of organizations to utiliseor act upon new knowledge [9] .

Discussing his own view on this issue,Lindberg in a study identified sociological andbehavioural factors apart from technologicalas also very crucial in determining an innova-tion's effective implementation [10].

As far back as 1969, Robert Chin andKenneth Benne had already developed threemajor strategies which they believed could beapplied to the innovating process. These include:

Ann Lib Sci Doc

INNOVATIONS IN LIBRARIES

1. The emperical rational strategy;2. The normative re-educative strategy; and3. The power coercive strategy of effecting

changes in an organization [11] .

In his own approach Utterback focusedon the influence of the organization's externalenvironment and the former's ability to achievethe effectiveness of innovations[12]. Althoughthe author did not make himself clear on thisissue by pointing out specific cases of an ex-ternal environment, it is true to a great extentthat the nature of an organization's externalenvironment could be a crucial factor in deter-mining the effectiveness of its innovative efforts.He goes further to express the fears which couldbe generated about job security that changes inorganizations could create. This is a very rele-vant point in current library practice wheredifferent forms of technologies are findingtheir way into such practices and supplantingolder norms.

Glaser et al in their own view identified aset of strategies which they considered wereconducive to successful innovation. Theseinclude:

" a climate of trust, critical informationregarding anomalies, an incentive system,shared interest in solving common prob-lems and a careful planning for structuralchanges or organizational rearrangementsthat require adoption of certain proce-dures or action" [13] .

While Glaser and Baker still on this point see analternative approach when innovations areintroduced on a pilot basis [14] . Although thiscould be a feasible approach, its success willdepend greatly on the nature of the innovationsalso. Glaser from another perspective empha-sized variables such as integration, discussion,need, feedback, reward, adaptability etc. ashaving major effects on the analysis and durabi-lity of innovations [15] .

The rational-social-interaction political stra-tegy developed by Lindquist in 1978 empha-sized on an integrated process of needs assess-ment, linkage of principal actors, open develop-ment and decision making with a support forthe actual implementation of the mnova-

Vol 33 No 4 December 1986

tion[16]. Innovations by their nature need tobe introduced carefully if they are to achieveany appreciable success. Havelock in this regardwarned about skipping any important phase intotal implementation process [17] .

Havelock in another work was more ex-pansive than Lindquist's model by developinga more concrete set of strategies. He focusedon perspectives to development, and knowledgeutilization in planning innovations in socialsystems. His first strategy is the social inter-action perspective whereby an innovation isbrought to the attention of a potential userpopulation. His second approach is the re-search, development and diffusion in whichhe emphasized change from the perspective ofthe originator. And the third approach is theproblem solver perspective [18] . This approachbasically emphasizes the process of change byfirst identifying an area of concern or by ful-filling a need for a change with a view to im-proving the effectiveness of such performance.For Havelock, this perspective primarily focussesattention on the user of the innovation. All ofthe above models have some relevance to libraryinnovation but of particular significance in thispaper are the problem solver and the socialinteraction models because of their emphasison the innovating process in organizations.Also crucial is their emphasis on the users' needbeing of paramount importance coupled with athorough diagnosis of the problem as part of theinnovating process. Many innovations have beenintroduced into libraries without adequateanalysis of the library's community of users asto whether or not such innovations are actuallydesired.

Gray in another classical model identifiedfour different types of strategies in the processof introducing innovations. The first strategyaccording to him is (a) assistance strategieswhich in his view should provide technical orfiscal support for making organizational arrange-ments to receive and use the innovation; (b) edu-cational strategies which provide individualswith information and training needed to use theinnovation and integrate it into their routineperformances; (c) power strategies which aresupposed to be applied to establish rules andfunctions to force the innovation into operation

137

OCHOGWU

and provide organizational control over its use,and finally (d) persuasive strategies that willshape people's attitudes and values to fosterpersonal commitment to the innovation [19] .

RELATEI:' RESEARCH ON LIBRARY INNO-VATIONS

It was reiterated earlier in this review that theliterature on innovation research in librarian-ship has been relatively scanty. In fact, empiri-cal studies in this aspect of librarianship startedonly during the past decade. This situation hascalled for more analytical studies of differentkinds of innovations in library based systems ofnot only the developing countries but also ofthe developed countries. It is through suchstudies that the principles and theories of inno-vation applied to other disciplines and organi-zation can also be applied to librarianship, andmay be from there theories of innovation asapplied to libraries will develop.

However, there have been some theoreticalattempts to find out the nature of innovationsin libraries. Attempts have also been made toidentify their origins and the channels by whichthey are communicated and problems associatedwith them in different library environments.Perhaps Lucas' observation of innovating pro-cesses have some relevance to libraries. He wasof the opinion that:

it is not generally accepted that mostdeveloping nations have had difficulty inintegrating the available technological andorganizational policy innovation equatedwith modernization. Instead, most develop-ing nations are seen as saturated by "dual"urban/rural political economies that frust-rate adaptation and even effective trialadoption of innovative techniques andpolitics'[20] .

Many scholars III library and informationscience have tried to relate the problem ofinnovating in libraries to a variety of factorslike administrative, financial, social, technicaland cultural. Recognizing these factors, CharlesMcClure [21] stressed the importance of anefficient planning process as a means of im-

138

proving the effectiveness of innovations in lib-rary organizations. He went further to pointout that most library managers give severalirrational excuses for not planning. He identifiedthese factors as too few staff; not enough time;too little money; dispersed geographical loca-tion; too many projects already in hand; etc.

With regard to managing innovations inlibraries, Drake pointed out that certain factorsare critical to efficient management of innova-tion particularly in academic libraries. Thefactors identified by her are as follows:

1. Performance gaps;2. Incentives to innovate;3. The nature of the innovation; and4. The implementation of innovative strate-

gies[22] .

Furthermore, Drake expressed the optimismthat:

"If libraries are to continue their importantcontribution to the instructional and re-search missions of academic institutions, aclimate conducive to change and generationof new ideas must be created" [23] .

She thus warned that:

"library administrators must view inno-vation seriously and provide followthroughto develop ideas into innovations that canbe integrated into library operations" [24] .

McClure [25] after a study conducted in1980 supported the observation made earlierby Drake. He concluded that researchers mustrecognize certain factors that are crucial to thedevelopment and implementation of new ideas.In this regard, he identified variables such asthe effectiveness of shared decision making,management styles, etc. He also stressed theimportance of professional associations, com-munication channels and research activities oforganizations as sources through which inno-vations can be introduced.

Drake and Olsen on the other hand focusedon the economic aspects of library innovations.Focusing on university libraries, the authors

Ann Lib Sci Doc

INN,OVATIONS IN LIBRARIES

defined their economic environment in termsof the following areas:

1. the external environment in which eco-nomic factors are beyond the immediatecontrol of the library;

2. the university setting in which the libraryhas importance and influence; and

3. the internal operational environment Inwhich the library has varying degrees ofcontrol over the allocation of resources(26] .

While it is becoming interesting to notethe various discussions on the theoretical aspectsof innovations in libraries, some writers stillhave certain reservations about the ability oflibraries to embrace innovation. In this regard,Taylor's essay in which he focussed on whetheror not libraries can adapt meaningfully to thenumber and rate of changes being faced cannotbe ignored. He raised a crucial question whichstates:

"Will innovation in present-day librarieschange their objectives?" [27]

He went further to observe that most ofthe technology is available for large scale inno-vation in information disseminating institutionssuch as libraries. But that the problem is nowthat of acceptance, suitability, and adaptation.

A review of some empirical studies thathave been conducted prove some of the abovetheoretical concepts in different directions.Thus, while some studies have been able to reaf-firm some of these principles, others have notsupported them. One of the early studies oninnovations in libraries was Forman's study ofinnovative developments in 1193 liberal artscollege libraries in 1967[28]. Innovationsstudies were various in nature ranging fromchange in administrative practices to automa-tion. Given his limited objectives for the studyand the limits of his research instruments, hecould hardly conceptualize any theories fromhis findings. Nevertheless, the study revealedthat libraries were already embracing generalsubstantial changes.

Vol 33 No 4 December 1986

In 1974, Dougherty and Bloomquist[29]published the results of an investigation con-ducted on centralized and decentralized libraryservices at two universities and the reaction ofthe faculty to an innovative rapid delivery ser-·vice of library materials to their offices. Resultsrevealed that the new service was enthusiasti-cally received at the university where it hadbeen implemented and not at the other univer-sity where they were not adequately informed.They, therefore, concluded that personal experi-ence or lack of it strongly affects one's per-ception and hisfher subsequent evaluation ofnew services.

Dougherty [30] in another study tried toidentify innovatives solutions to existing libraryorganizational, bibliographical and service prob-lems. This study was basically descriptive as norelationships were determined as in the case ofDougherty and Bloomquist. They nevertheless,provided some good work on which many sub-sequent empirical studies of innovation in lib-raries were based.

On perceptions and evaluations of innova-tive attempts in libraries, Berk did a study on aninformation innovation in a scientific com-munity[31J. The study was concerned withthe limited use of the MEDLARS demand ser-vice of the National Library of Medicine. Thefindings of this study suggested that there is apositive relationship between the level of know-ledge of an innovation or its awareness and itsadoption, thereby increases the effectiveness ofsuch innovation.

Using a different methodology, Luquireconducted a study aimed at identifying theselected factors and variables that affect lib-rarians' perception of the Ohio College Librarycentre as innovative project. Basing the findings,he concluded that :

"technological change as a force in librariesmust be coped with from the attitudinal orpsychological point of view perhaps evenmore than from the technical ap-proach"[32J.

Luquire and Berk seem to agree on theirfindings that exposure to an innovation by itsusers have a great deal of influence on the

139

OCHOGWU

latter's evaluation of such innovation. Luquire,however, goes further to substantiate the factthat some relationships exist between the rate ofadoption and effectiveness of innovations.Whitemore conducted a study on user accept-ance of microforms as innovative projects. Thefindings of the study revealed a positive corre-lation between knowledge of the innovationand its acceptance which goes further to reaf-firm Beck and Luquire's earlier findings on thesame Issue.

Helen Howard[33] conducted a study onthe relationship between certain organizationalvariables and the rate of innovation in selecteduniversity libraries in the United States. Thisstudy was built on the framework of an earlierstudy by Haye and Aikem[34] who field-tested some variables with a sample of sixteensocial welfare agencies. The results of herfindings showed positive relationships betweencomplexity, professional training and the rateof innovation as the dependent variable.

Igwilo conducted a study on automatedcirculation systems in university libraries inNigeria[35]. Although this investigator didnot study automated circulation systems as aninnovation per se, he did recognize the magni-tude of the problem of introducing new ideas,products or procedures in university libraries.This was evidenced by his observation that:

"it is necessary to understand the struc-ture of the system and the forces of theenvironment to which it is subjected"[36].

He did not elaborate on this, but there isno doubt that he raised an important pointwhich in turn gives rise to series of diffusion ofinnovations in university libraries.

It is dear from the above literature reviewthat while some empirical studies have alreadybeen done on innovation in libraries, a greatdeal of research is still needed in this area. It isthrough these research studies that the libraryprofession will be able to develop theorieswhich will eventually lead to concrete prin-ciples and laws from where we can build upon.It is also very apparent that a majority of thetheoretical concepts examined in this reviewhave been developed by theorists outside the

140

field of librarianship. We, therefore, do have anurgent need in the profession to develop ourown concepts or adapt the current ones withgreater relevance to the library situation.Furthermore, more empirical studies whetherthey are new or even replications of those al-ready done either in librarianship or in otherfields are needed. This approach will enable usto test the reliability and validity of conceptsand methodologies already utilized in otherfields to librarianship.

With the current pressures on libraries,particularly university libraries, for better ser-vices and performance measures amidst thecurrent financial constraints and in some casesdecreasing library budgets, it becomes all themore crucial that libraries have to seek changesto render their services in more cost-effectiveways. In the area of technological innovations,it is hoped that as technology advances, thecost of introducing such innovations will de-crease, if not in the short run, at least in thelong run. But at the same time, libraries willhave to plan efficiently to be able to face thechallenges. The libraries of the developingcountries have a greater task in this direction.More detailed studies in the area of library in-novation are needed. The results from suchstudies will serve as indicators to be used byuniversity libraries and administrators in plan-ning the introduction of innovation into theirlibrary systems.

REFERENCES

1. Rogers, E: Diffusion of innovations. New York:Free Press, 1962. p.B.

2. Rogers, E and Shoemaker, F F: Communicationof innovations: A cross-cultural approach. NewYork: Free Press, 1971. p.19.

3. Lucas, A: Public policy diffusion research: inte-grating analytic paradigm. Knowledge, Creation,Diffusion, Utilization 1983,4,379.

4. Johnson, E D: History of libraries in the Westernworld. 2nd ed. N.J: Scarecrow Press, 1970. p.21.

Taylor, F W: Scientific management. New York:Harper. Luther Gulick and L Urwick, ed: Papersin science of administration, New York: Institute

5.

Ann Lib Sci Doc

INNOV ATIONS IN LIBRARIES

for Public Administration Columbia University;J ames March and Herbert Simon, Modem Orga-nizations, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey; PrenticeHall; Edward Evans: Managements Techniquesfor librarians, Ne''11York; Academic Press; RobertSteward and John Eastlick Library Management,2nd ed. Littleton, Colorado: Libraries Unlimited.

6. Munson, F C and Pelz, D C: Innovating in organi-zations: A conceptual framework, Ann Arbor:Michigan, 1981. p 18-20.

7. Argyris, Chris: Organization and innovation, Homer-wood, Illinois: Richard Union and the DorsyPress, 1965.

Zaltian, Gerald, Duncan R, and Holbek, J: Inno-vations and organizations, New York: Wiley, 1973,p 63.

8.

9. Havelock, Ronald G: Planning for innovationthrough dissemination and utilization of know-ledge. Ann Arbor, Michigan: CRUSK/ZSR, TheUniversity of Michigan, 1971, p 10.

10. Lindberg, Donald: The Growth of medical in-formation systems in the United States, Toronto:Lekington Books, 1979, p 105.

11. Chirn, Robert and Benne, K: General strategiesfor effecting change in human systems. In Plan-ning of Change: Readings in the applied beha-vioural sciences. New York: Holt, Rimehart andWinston, 1969, p 28-31.

12. Utterback, James: The process of innovations:A review of some findings, Technological develop-ment and economic growth 1971, p 81.

Glaser, Edward et al: Putting knowledge to use:A distillation of the literature regarding know-ledge transfer and change. Los Angeles: HumanInteraction Research Institute, 1976, p 7.

Glaser, Edward and Becker, T E: Innovation re-defined: durability and local adaptation, Evalua-tion 1977,4, 135.

13.

14.

15. Glaser, Edward: Durability of innovations in humanservice organizations: A case study analysis. Know-ledge 1981,3,170.

16. Lindquist, Jack: Strategies for change, Berkely,CA: Pacific Soundings.

17. Havelock, Ronald: op cit. 1971, P 10.

18. Havelock, Ronald: Planning for innovation throughdissemination and utilization of knowledge, Ann

Vol 33 No 4 December 1986

Arbor, Michigan: CRUSK/ISR, The University ofMichigan, 1969, p 70.

19. Gray, T: A model of implementation. Journal ofTechnology Transfer 1982.

20. Lucas, Analissa: op cit. 1983, P 396.

21. McClure, Charles: The planning process: Strategiesfor action. College and Research Libraries 1978,459.

22. Drake, Miriam: Managing innovation in academiclibraries. College and Research Libraries 1979, 504.

23. Ibid. P 504.

24. Ibid. P 509.

25. McClure, Charles: Academic librarians, informa-tion sources and shared decision-making. Journalof Academic Librarianship 1980,6,9.

26. Drake, Miriam and Olsen, H: The economics oflibrary innovation. Library Trends 1979, P 89-103.

27. Taylor, Robert: Innovation in libraries: Effect onfunction and organization. In Conrad H. Rawski,ed. Toward a theory of librarianship (Papers inhonour of Jesse Shera), N.J. Scarecrow Press,1973, p 455.

28. Forman, Sidney: Innovative practices in collegelibraries. College and Research Libraries 1968, 29,486-492.

29. Dougherty, Richard and Bloomquist, Laura: Im-proving access to library resources: The influenceor organization of library collections and userattitudes towards innovative services, Metuchan,N.]. Scarecrow Press, 1974.

30. Dougherty, Richard: Libraries and innovation. Inessays for Ralph Shaw edited by Normal Stevens,Metucher, N.J. Scarecrow, 1975, p 24.

31. Berk, Robert: An experimental case study of thediffusion of an information innovation in a scienti-fic community. (Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation,IlIinoids, University of Illinois) 1974.

32. Luquire, Wilson: Selected factors affecting librarystaff perceptions of an innovative system: A studyof ARL libraries in OCLC (unpublished Ph.D. Dis-sertation, Indiana: Indiana University 1976).

33. Howard, Helen: The Relationship between certainorganizational variables and the rate of innovation

141

in selected university libraries (unpublished Ph.D.Dissertation, New Brumswick, N.J. Rutger Univer-sity) 1977.

34. Hage, Jerald and Aiken, Michael: The relation-ship between organizational factors and the accep-tance of new reHabilitation problem in mental re-tardation (Madison: UNiversity of Wisconsin)1968.

142

OCHOGWU

35. Igwilo, Victor C: Guidelines for the developmentof automated circulation systems in universitylibraries in Nigeria (unpublished Ph.D. Disserta-tion, University of Pittsburgh) 1980.

36. Ibid. P 42.

Ann Lib Sci Doc