College and Research Libraries the repetition in Library-College USA is a bit overwhelming. It is true that the pub- lication of these twenty-one essays does al- low the reader to observe the evolution of Shores's gospel as well as to see the various emphases delineated in the arrangement of the essays. Still, a well-edited condensation would have provided a good synopsis of the philosophy of the library-college movement in a much shorter space and in a much more readable fashion.-Richard ]. Vor- werk, Governors State University, Park For est South, Illinois. Review of Automation for Libraries. Pa- pers presented at the C.A.C.U.L. Work- shop on Library Automation in a Pre- Conference Workshop of C.L.A. at Ham- ilton, June 20-21, 1970. Canadian Asso- ciation of College and University Li- braries, 1970. This C.A.C.U.L. workshop continues a b·adition begun in 1967 at the University of British Columbia. These workshops were started for the purpose of providing a place where " ... institutions actually using or ac- tively planning the use of computers in li- brary operations ... could keep up-to-date, share information, and discuss the problems they might have in common .... " (Intro- duction to 1967 workshop) The present volume continues this tradition and adds one additional goal, ". . . to discuss the con- tinuing need for this type of meeting .... " (Introduction to 1970 workshop) The workshop at which these papers were given was organized into a two-day session with the four working papers pre- sented the first day, and a discussion session held on the second day. The papers cover a computerized serials system at Laval Uni- versity, an interuniversity circulation data system, the use of MARC at the University of Saskatchewan, and an automated cata- loging system for the University of Guelph library. Two of these papers are unabashedly how-we-do-it-in-our-library (Tom and Bur- gis) and remind one of the now defunct Universi-ty of Illinois Clinics on Library Applications of Data Processing. Of the re- maining two, one (Anable) is a plea for li- brary cooperation through the creation of an " ... Inter-university Circulation Data System ... " which would "1. Measure the Recent Publications I 147 quality of service; 2. Predict future de- mands; 3. Aid in selection of new materials; and 4. Aid in establishing hierarchial stor- age requirements .... " ( p.123) The fourth paper (DeVarennes) reflects on the trials of implementing a new computerized seri- als system at Laval University. The first two papers (Tom and Burgis) are descriptive, excruciatingly detailed, and (for librarians) very technical. Their au- dience is, therefore, somewhat limited both by expertise and interest. What was even more distressing to this writer was the fact that both papers make assumptions about the usefulness of the manual systems which are not made explicit to the reader. Indeed, one author ( Burgis) disparages the neces- sity for even examining the existing manual system by deciding ". . . that if the Manual (sic) system had not been perfected over the last 10 years to a satisfactory state, then something more than a time and mo- tion study was needed, and therefore, de- cided (sic) to get MARC printouts into the hands of the Cataloging Department as soon as possible .... " (p.71-72) Such an attitude ignores the most basic premise of all library systems work: that you must first study the existing operation. Ignoring this basic requirement leaves the library EDP professional vulnerable to criticism. The workshop suffered from a lack of critical analysis and review of existing procedures both in-house and in other libraries. This was evident both in the body of the papeis and in their review of other systems. Only two of the papers (DeVarennes and Bur- gis) took the trouble to search the litera- ture and document their work with a bibli- ography. The entire conference left this reviewer with a feeling of dissatisfaction. No one can quarrel with the work described or even with the systems themselves. The new sys- tems are innovative and a great amount of hard work has gone into their creation. Yet this reviewer was disappointed that he found only the most meager evidence that any analysis had been made of the basic as- sumptions (why put any label on card pock- ets? See p.13) governing the existing man- ual systems with any degree of rigor. For example, it would be nice to know why " ... it was agreed that an automated li- brary system designed to complement the 148 I College & Research Libraries • March 1972 building would be a goal worth pursu- ing . . ." ( p.8), or why an accessions file was maintained to produce selective lists by department. (p.13) One wonders if we are still falling into the old trap of automat- ing manual functions without first question- ing their usefulness. Could it be that de- signing systems is fun, while making them perform is just plain hard work? Poor editing of the papers also detracted from their effectiveness and often puzzled this reviewer. Why, for example, was there a reference on page 83 to page 17 when the page numbering had obviously been changed? Hand-lettering of the flow charts (p.51ff.) was sometimes difficult to read, and why the reader must be subjected to pictures of a map of Canada (p.118) or of a mini-reel of MARC tape (p.96) is beyond this author's comprehension. Flow charts, tables, diagrams, and even floor plans (p.94) are also forced upon the reader with little explanation.-Robert W. Burns, ]r., Librarian for Research and Development, Colorado State University, Fort Collins. Olson, Edwin E. Interlibrary Cooperation. Part of a Program of Research into the Identification of Manpower Require- ments, the Educational Preparation and the Utilization of Manpower in the Li- brary and Information Profession. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1970. Each new aspect of library operation produces a concomitant concern with train- ing appropriate for the task. The relation- s'hip of the "educational technologist" or "media specialist" and the librarian, espe- cially the school librarian, caused a great amount of curriculum study and revision. Computer entry into the library world had its impact in the "documentalist" or "infor- mation scientist" controversy with librarian- ship. As a result, the library school curricu- lum has been broadened to encompass training for computer uses. Now another library trend, that of interlibrary coopera- tion and especially the evolvement of li- brary networks, has made such an impact that there is a need to evaluate the training requirements of this mission. Some library schools have already enlarged their course offerings from the traditional "Larger Units of Service" to include courses in library co- operation and networks. Olson's study has as its first objective: "To identify and categorize the major di- mensions of interlibrary cooperation which have implications for manpower develop- ment in librarianship." The other objectives are derivatives from the definition of these dimensions and are not fully attained, as Olson points out in the introduction. The study centers on three dimensions which Olson feels have implications for manpower development in librarianship. From Norton Long, Olson borrows the con- cept of the "power budget" to ascertain capability of a cooperative as represented by its structure, resources, and decision- making processes to accomplish its goals. The domain of a cooperative is taken to mean the current and future claims the co- operative stakes out for itself in terms of the range of services and the population dealt with. The final dimension is that of opportunities and constraints which Olson restricts to the orientation of the director, the perception of carriers to goal achieve- ment, and staff development. The study of these dimensions was conducted by means of two extensive questionnaires reproduced in the appendix of the report. The first questionnaire was entitled "Interlibrary Co- operative Service Policies Questionnaire," while the second is called "Interlibrary Co- operative Administrator's Questionnaire." In terms of the dimensions considered, Olson then draws conclusions from the data col- lected via the questionnaire process. Olson is not sanguine about the ability of library networks to effect any social change or any significant modification in library patterns. The "power budget" does not seem to carry enough clout in cooperatives to influence members, and cooperatives have only a minimal leadership role in setting goals, re- solving conflicts, and mobilizing resources. The directors of cooperatives emphasized the means of cooperation rather than the end of moving the aggregation of libraries toward substantially different goals. Translating these dimensions into man- power requirements, Olson sees a need for significant changes in the education for staffing library cooperatives. Specifically, he mentions the principles and techniques of building interorganizational structures, communication linkages, mobilization of re-