在图书馆追求效率的思考.doc

中国石油大学（华东）毕业设计（外文翻译）关于效率在图书馆中的思考学生姓名：孙 科学 号：07065105专业班级：信息管理与信息系统07-1 指导老师：刘玲（理论）陶正梁（实践） 2011年6月关于效率在图书馆中的思考作者：大卫邦德；出版社：翡翠集团出版有限公司关键词：图书馆和信息网络；资源效率；图书馆管理读了美国国会图书馆工作组的最后的关于书目控制的未来的报告，我情不自禁的注意到在整个报告之中，效率一词显而易见地超过了其它词语所占的比重。在Bade,我说：“对效率的需求引出了在书目控制活动中，我们需要试着去做些什么的问题，即怎样有效率的做事情。”这个问题促使我去看看效率的论述在LIS中是如此的广泛和详细。我所参与的第一批项目中的一个是1913年的一篇由John Crerar Library图书馆的一个叫Aksel G.S. Josephson的编目员编写的文章。他提出了效率的如下定义：效率是指当我们取得期望的结果时是以最少的开支和产生最少的废物量为前提的，当我们的任务以每走一步，直接向它计数的方式完成时，当每一次努力产生相应的成就，当由此产生的垃圾量是最少的，然后我们面前才有了效率的结果（Josephson, 1912-1913, pp. 7-8）。Josephson在问是否“目前的书目情况”是有效的时，将这个概念放在了图书馆的内容中。在更具体的条款中，他问：“我们是否能够聚集这个国家所有地方的每个人都希望去调查的有关所有主题的书目记录的一个完整系列？”现在的可用的记录是否充足？材料中提到的记录是否可用？他的期望“一个所有主题的书目记录的完整系列”应该提出很多反对意见，因为调查我们理解的文献中的效率的目的包括这个假设是很有启发性的。任何熟悉20世纪末期和21世纪早期的图书馆学的人，将注意到一个鲜明的对比，Josephson的从一个人使用图书馆的角度来看，效率应该伴随着完整性、充分性和可用性的，和效率关乎着图书馆成本的降低，这也是我们这个事时代的图书馆的特点。在图书馆管理学中，效率已经意味着经济效率，但通常只是降低成本，并经常从有用性中分离出来被作为单独讨论的东西。曾有谨慎的声音，例如Hernon和McClure(1990年，第8页)在他们的书的开头所说的：关注效率而不是有用，会导致没有考虑到两种措施之间的可能的折中关系。一项活动或服务的效率不能在不伤害该活动或服务而超过临界而得到改善，反之亦然。因此，继续关注提升各种活动和服务的效率对有用性的标准可能会适得其反。 最近，Marc Storms在他关于“太多的管理者奔跑于荷兰的图书馆之间”的抱怨了中提出了同样的区别。管理只注重确保一切保持有效运行，这并不是我会建议的。一切都需要有效地工作效率是指以适当的成本和正确的用人手段，而有用则只是指完成工作。不幸的是，在图书馆管理的文献中，关于效率，大部分都不这么仔细地考虑，我没有发现任何效率的性质的详细讨论。效率不是被定义为迎合作者的目的，或仅仅被假定为没有问题。关于效率的相关信息技术文献遭受了同样的待遇。在LIS的边界之外，有一篇文章将效率与时间、技艺（比技术更广泛的一个概念）、合作、竞争、公正和许多其他事项关联起来。在2009年已经产生了一个来自不同理论观点的大丰收，从中我选定了4条来看看。它们展现了4种非常不同的方式来理解效率，但是它们之间提供互补而不是彼此之间主题冲突。不是依据他们自己的学科定位来回顾每一本这些书籍-关联、工效/可靠性工程、法律和环境经济学。我建议重新看看LIS文章中效率的含义：在LIS中效率到底是什么意思？效率是个技术问题吗？一个道德问题？一件必需品？经济意义或者毫无意义？管理宣传或只是一个词，我们用来证明组织变革的？这些正是在书中各种提出和讨论的问题的综述，事实上“效率”这个词的管理话语含义是Callender的效率和管理的主题。在他的序言中，Callender表示，在商界和政府的经历促使他尝试“去更好的了解管理使用，甚至崇拜长期效率”。他选择的方法是检查使用和在文献工程，管理学，经济学，会计，人力资源管理和专业的采购中效率的不同含义，增加在大众媒介经济评论个案方面和铁路、采购等行业的研究。他争论道“是彻底的崩溃而不是效率的提高”，这表明不同于西方工业化国家，“崛起中的亚洲和世界其他地区的经济似乎有一个概念如何制定有效的做法”。他的主要目标是，他写到：去证明，尽管历史管理支持技术效率的观念直到20世纪中叶，现代效率的观念在现代管理实践中有一个有限的影响，尽管它在管理话语中经常地被使用。另外他的发现证实了效率的描述性的概念已发展为一个在管理话语平民化的概念，是典型的简单性、规范性条款的解释，从而限制了在管理实践中的技术意义。那些有责任的似是而非的管理评论家似乎是假定管理效率将通过他们的各种方子来产生，并且是提供长期的物质状态而不必创建。他所研究的内容显示，他所争论的东西已经不是对效率的反对，而是这个词在该领域研究的意义和被使用的途径。效率已经成为了，他争论道“一个有思想性的陈述支持任何的管理计划，而不是一个切实可行的方法来告知一个管理行动的范围。”由于这个相当幽默的言论，他说道：这是不太可能的-行政总裁（首席执行官）希望将其报酬与最低成本的概念联系起来，尽管他们的言论涉及企业效益和股东投资回报率往往可能促成这个观点。依据最低成本的概念，他界定了一种称之为经济效率的效率，这个他是从其它的效率中区分出来的，比如描述效率、资源配置效率、技术效率和动态效率。（他为多样性的含义使得其相当的令人困惑。他诉诸于缩写也导致了阅读非常的困难。）依据一个经济学的定义当适用于单一情况时，像“最低成本”或者“相对于成本的最大效益”对理解效率这个难题是可以量化的，但是这两个词都是受个人的诠释传统来描述。如何知道一个组织，它已经实现了成本最低的目标？这个词最少是否意味着至少有一个绝对值，或者是随着时间而改变？相对于组织的成本，什么是最大的利益衡量？这些值是否有限或者最大利益是否跟随最低成本的值随时间的变化而变化？Callender在管理文学史上追溯了“效率”一词，揭示了效率的使用的进程是从“技术效率”（最大限度的提高性能）走向“经济效率”（最低成本），从工程角度集中于打算去取得什么转移到管理学的角度，仅仅关注最低的成本花销和利润。他对在英国和威尔士的20世纪90年代新南铁路改革的案例研究是一个在一种系统的设计和开发需要相当严格的专业经营标准的环境下，经济效率对技术效率取得了胜利的例子。政府所采取的新政策是基于服务的模式，寻求“以改善客户服务的整体水平，降低经营成本的公共铁路网络的状态，提高劳动效率”。国家铁路局新南威尔士的人员都致力于“这种以效益为重点的经济理性主义思想”，并认为“更好的服务需要振兴铁路，并保有安全和无数承建商们不知如何照顾到现在承建铁路的维护体现出的管理效率”。这些新的管理者，他写到“似乎认为放任的方法对技术效率不会有任何重大的结果”。在新南威尔士铁路重组的十年里，司法调查意外事故导致了许多建议以扭转1996年的政策变化。Callender写到，这些政策的主要成果-在实现更高的效率的利息-有强烈的媒体关注是一个对政策的实际效果，对事故的司法审查，“时间运行没变的情况下，安全标准去下降了”，在工作人员大幅减少，“有限的财务业绩的改善”和“新的监管机构导致经营成本增加”。尽管新南威尔士系统几乎是回到了它以前，铁路系统有一个“尚未交付的，不管是依靠现有资源能够展示更高的输出的技术效率（临时）还是依靠业主提供最低成本的局面”。政府推动的效率和竞争里的结构“不考虑历史、文化和技术的这种变化的后果”。这种“效率冒险”的代价，Callender写到“生命的失去、职业的损毁、政治信誉和金钱将不再被认同”。Callender的最后一章打开了对他的研究结果的简明摘要：在这项研究中收集的证据表明，管理学科已经漂流到允许在经济学学科的范围内定义效率的概念为任何活动是一个较低或者最低的成本的结果的结果，不论这个结果是否可以被证明。如果是这样的话，那么证据也意味着效率已逐渐被作为一种意识形态的表现而不是被定义个管理或者组织的业绩标准。总之，效率一词已成为一种语言中的词汇意义的数字经理。确切的意思对背后的管理者来说几乎是不重要的，作为长期单纯使用的表面，所报告的结果是合理的。人们只需要探讨图书馆管理情报学来验证Callender的结论。然而，我们这些谁真的感觉有必要去讨论与效率相关的东西，对他们来说，这并不是一个思想武器或者宣传事宜？对这样的读者，Erik Hollnagel的书是对Callender的完美补充。关于ETTO的原则，首先需要注意的是它并不像Callender的书一样是可以轻而易举的阅读的。Hollnagel写得很好，他写到“谁，由于种种原因，都不愿意从一个传统的教科书或者科学工作开始。”他选择了为业外人士写，用一些语句来总结每一章节，为了你的利益，可以去深入也可以随意的跳过，而不是提供给读者一种高密度的、用语性复杂的、包含参考和学术工具的文本。第二个需要注意的是，Hollnagel刚从世界领先的研究人员之一的观点写在为什么事情在技术系统的操作有时候会出错。他对效率的定义既不是思想性的也不是经济的而是实用的。效率最先开始讨论是出现在停止规则上的他的评论里面。由于事故调查的目的是找一个适当的解释发生了什么事，分析应尽可能明确详细。这意味着它不应该停留在它找到的第一个原因，而是继续寻找其他的解释和可能的有意义的因素，直到仍然没有对结果的正确性、合理性的怀疑。结束一个分析，当一个很好的解释被发现时或者当时间或者资源都耗尽时，用发现的所有东西来作为解释，即使知道对应着效率的标准，它可能已经在原则上继续进行了。我们可以称之第一种办法彻底，其中的原因相当明显。我们可以称第二种方法效率，因为它依靠最短的时间、最少的费用、努力和废物量达到了预期的效果。这是个非常简单的定义，依靠它，Hollnagel将扩写好几页纸，这儿他还提供了“彻底”的额外定义。第三件要注意的是已经在短短引述的一段话：效率的定义是与它的对立面相关的。该书的主要观点是，效率和彻底性是“既有必要，但很少同时可能”。这就是ETTO原则规定：在他们的日常活动中、在工作中或者在闲暇时，人们经常在效率和彻底之间做一个选择，因为它们不可能同时出现。如果对生产力或性能要求高，直到生产目标得以实现，彻底性才会降低。如果对安全要求高，直到符合安全目标，效率才会降低。Hollnagel进而扩大了对效率的定义：效率意味着为实现既定目标使用或者需要的投资水平或者资源的数量要保持尽可能低。这里的资源可以表示为时间、材料、资金、心里努力（工作量）、身体努力（疲劳）、人力资源（人数）等。适当的水平或数量是由实现目标的主观评价决定的，例如足以依靠停止任何应用规则以及外部的需求和要求是可以接受的。效率是必要的，因为时间和资源都是有限的，彻底性是必要的“以确保我们在按正确的方法做事，让我们能获得我们打算，避免不良后果”，其中后者是生产效率低的主要产生者。Hollnagel的及时强调是特别有趣的；Callender也指出对效率的需求通常是伴随着一个接一个的失败，没有考虑到时间的发展和潜在的后果，Merlini（2009）在他的分析中心，把改变时间经验作为一个技术发展。古典经济决策理论，Hollnagel提醒我们，假定“方法以及标准不变而做出决定，因此时间是不存在的”。在现实世界，然而，当一个人希望做一些事情时，总是有两种选择。一个是等待，以收集更多的信息，看事态如何发展，或者只是希望有一个更明确的水平-或更少的不确定性。另一种是走在假设的前面，情况足够好，替代方法也是足够清楚。正是这种在时间思考和时间做之间困境作为了ETTO规则的核心。ETTO的规则命名了一个现象或者一个强烈的个人或者集体的特点-性能，即人们在动态变化的，因此不稳定，部分不可预见的情况，知道这是在时间到了之前做事情是更重要的，但不管它是否多么的不完美，当找到最完美的反应时，为时已晚。这会提醒读者们在图书馆文献中关于快速完整的编目，及时获得“完美记录”的讨论。这正是Hollangel的领域，虽然没有进入图书馆的讨论，他讨论时间敏感数据的收集、分析和传播加拿大办事处信息、调节和控制的工作。这个办事处需要“每周一份报告并且要尽可能的准确”，它们办到了。对图书馆业务特别感兴趣，是Hollangel的“ETTO协作”第六章的讨论。所有的行动，尤其是合作的行动都不会孤立地发生，而是遵循或者受他人的影响。我们可以想象一下，在他人的行动的范围内我们的行动无论是从效率观点还是彻底性的观点。在这种情况下，彻底意味着人不是简单地接受来自什么地方或者什么人，而是努力工作以确认它是正确的。同样的，彻底将意味着人认为可能的副作用及次级结果当他做了工作时候，结果无论谁去工作，在一定意义上都会有这种心态。同样的，效率意味着人相信，他或她做的工作是正确的，也就是说前面那人是不效率的。效率还意味着人假定下一个人，结果无论是谁去工作，将进行必要的检查和核实，也就是说那个人不效率。Thinking about efficiency in librariesAuthor(s)：David BadePublisher: Emerald Group Publishing LimitedKeywords: Library and information networks, Resource efficiency, Library managementReading the final report of the Library of Congress Working Group on the Future of Bibliographic Control I could not help but notice that efficiency as a value that trumped all others was evident throughout the report. In Bade (2009) I remarked “The demand for efficiency begs the question of what we are trying to do in our activities of bibliographic control, i.e. efficient at doing what?” (Bade, 2009, p. 1). This question prompted me to set out to look more broadly and more carefully at the discourse of efficiency in LIS. One of the first items I located was a 1913 essay by a cataloger at the John Crerar Library named Aksel G.S. Josephson. He offered the following definition of efficiency:Efficiency exists when we achieve the desired results with the least expenditure of effort and the smallest amount of resultant waste When our task is accomplished in such a manner that every step counts directly toward it, when every effort results in a corresponding accomplishment, when the amount of resultant waste is a minimum, then we have before us the results of efficiency (Josephson, 1912-1913, pp. 7-8). Josephson put this in the context of a library by asking whether or not “the present bibliographical condition” is efficient. In more concrete terms he asked “Can we gather together anywhere in this country a complete series of bibliographical records of any subject that anyone wishes to investigate? Are the existing and available records adequate? Is the material referred to in the records available?” (Josephson, p. 9). While his apparent desire for “a complete series of bibliographical records of any subject” ought to raise plenty of objections, for the purpose of investigating our understanding of efficiency the passage including this assumption is instructive. Anyone familiar with the library literature of the late twentieth and early twenty-first century will note the sharp contrast between Josephsons association of efficiency with completeness, adequacy and availability from the viewpoint of one using the library, and the reduction of efficiency to matters of cost for the library that characterizes the literature of our time.In the library management literature efficiency has come to mean economic efficiency, often simply cost-cutting, and has frequently been discussed as something separate from effectiveness. There have been voices of caution such as Hernon and McClure (1990, p. 8) who wrote at the beginning of their book:Attention to efficiency rather than effectiveness fails to consider the likely tradeoff relationships between the two types of measures. Efficiency of an activity or service cannot be improved past a certain “critical point” without injuring the effectiveness of that activity or service, and vice-versa. Thus, continued attention to increasing the efficiency of various activities and services may become dysfunctional or counterproductive to effectiveness criteria. More recently Marc Storms made the same distinction in his complaint about “too many managers running around libraries in The Netherlands”:Management that focuses only on making sure that everything keeps running efficiently is not a path I would recommend. Everything needs to work effectively Efficiency means the right cost and employing the right means, but effectiveness means getting the job done (Storms, 2003, p. 9) Unfortunately the majority of references to efficiency in the literature of library management are not so carefully considered, and nowhere have I found any detailed discussion of the nature of efficiency. Efficiency is either defined to fit the writers purposes or simply assumed to be unproblematic. The literature on efficiency in relation to information technologies suffers from the same kind of treatment.Outside the boundaries of LIS there is a literature relating efficiency to time, technique (a concept broader than technology), cooperation, competition, justice, and many other matters. The year 2009 has already produced a bumper crop of studies from diverse theoretical perspectives and from these I have selected four for review. They present four very different approaches to understanding efficiency, but provide complementary rather than conflicting treatments of the topic. Rather than reviewing each of these books in terms of their own disciplinary orientations management, ergonomics/reliability engineering, law, and environmental economics I propose to review them with an eye on the LIS discourse of efficiency: just what is meant by “efficiency” in LIS? Is efficiency a technical issue? An ethical issue? A necessity? Economic sense or nonsense? Managerial propaganda or just a word we use to justify organizational changes? These are precisely the kinds of questions raised and discussed in the books reviewed here, and in fact the meaning of the word “efficiency” in managerial discourse is the main topic of Callenders Efficiency and Management.Callender remarks in his preface that his experiences in the business world and government led him to try “to better understand the management use, even worship, of the term efficiency” (p. xiii). The method he chose was to examine the use and varied meanings of the term efficiency in the literatures of engineering, management, economics, accounting, human resources management (HRM) and the procurement profession, adding case studies of economic commentary in the mass media, and of the railroad and procurement industries. What he argues is “the demise rather than the rise of efficiency” (Callender, p. xiii), suggesting that unlike the industrialized nations of the west, the “rising economies in Asia and other parts of the world seem to possess a concept of how to enact efficient practice” (Callender, p. xiii). His principal objective is, he writes: to demonstrate that, despite the historical management support for the notion of technical efficiency until the middle of the twentieth century, the notion of efficiency now has a limited impact on contemporary management practice despite its constant usage in management discourse. (Callender, p. 3) and what he finds confirms:that the notion of descriptive efficiency has been developed as a populist concept in managerial discourse and is typically interpreted in simplistic, normative terms and thus has limited technical meaning in management practice. In the hands of plausible management commentators who have seemingly assumed that management efficiency will emerge from the adoption of their various prescriptions, the term provides status without necessarily creating substance (Callender, p. 3). What his study revealed and what he is arguing is not an objection to efficiency but to the meanings that the term has come to have in the fields investigated and the way the term is used. Efficiency has become, he argues, “an ideological statement of support for any management intention, rather than a practical means to inform a range of management actions” (Callender, p. 3). As a wonderfully humorous example of this he remarks that: it is unlikely that Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) would wish their remuneration to be linked to least cost concepts even though their rhetoric concerning corporate efficiency and shareholder Return on Investment may often promote such views (Callender, p. 19) Defining efficiency in terms of least cost is an example of what he calls “economic efficiency” (abbreviated in the book as EEec) which he distinguishes from other meanings of efficiency such as descriptive efficiency, allocative efficiency, technical efficiency and dynamic efficiency. (The multiplicity of meanings and the terms he provides for them are confusing enough; his resort to abbreviations makes reading very difficult.) The problem with understanding efficiency in terms of an economic definition like “least cost” or “greatest benefits relative to cost” is that these terms:may be quantified when applied to a single situation, but both terms suffer the legacy of the descriptors least and greatest, both of which are subject to individual interpretation. How does an organization know that it has achieved its least cost goals? Can the term least ever imply an absolute value, or is it subject to change over time? What are the measurable greatest benefits relative to costs for an organization? Are these values ever finite or will greatest benefit vary as the nature and value of costs change over time? (Callender, p. 20). Callender traces the history of the term “efficiency” in the management literature, revealing a move away from the use of efficiency to mean “technical efficiency” (maximizing performance) towards “economic efficiency” (least cost, etc.), a shift away from the engineering perspective focused on what one intends to achieve, to the managerial perspective narrowly concerned with cost cutting and profit. His case study of the railroad reforms of the 1990s in the UK and New South Wales is a narrative of the triumph of economic efficiency over technical efficiency among those responsible for the rail system “in an environment where system design and operation requires the maintenance of quite rigid professional operating standards” (Callender, p. 146-147). The new policies adopted were service-based models that sought “to improve general levels of customer service, reduce the cost to the state of operating the public rail network and increase the efficiency of labour” (Callender, p. 146). The officers of the State Rail Authority of New South Wales were committed to “the competitive outcomes-focused ideology of Economic Rationalism” and assumed that “better service was the path required to rejuvenate rail, with safety and operating efficiency being somehow looked after by the myriad of outsourcedDB contractors that now undertake rail maintenance.” These new managers, he writes, “seemingly believed that a laissez-faire approach to technical efficiency (TEmp) would not have any significant consequences” (Callender, p. 168).Within a decade of the railroad reorganization in New South Wales judicial inquiries into accidents led to recommendations to reverse most of the policy changes of 1996. Callender writes that the primary achievements of those policies made in the interest of achieving greater efficiencies have been an intense media scrutiny of the practical results of policies, a judicial review of an accident that “linked a decline in safety standards in the interest of on-time running”, a major reduction in staff, “a limited improvement in financial performance” and new regulatory bodies that increased operation costs (Callender, p. 167). And although the New South Wales system is almost back to where it was before, the rail system has “yet to deliver either technical efficiency (TEmp) by demonstrating higher output from existing resources or by delivering rail owners least cost outcomes” (Callender, p. 171). The government promoted efficiency and a competitive structure “without regard to the history, culture and technical consequences of such a change” (Callender, p. 168). The price of this “efficiency adventure” Callender writes, “of lives lost, careers destroyed or damaged, and political credibility and money will never be known” (Callender, p. 169).Callenders final chapter opens with a concise summary of the results of his study:The evidence gathered in this study suggests that the management discipline has drifted into allowing the notion of efficiency to be typically defined within the confines of the economics discipline as any activity that results in a lower or least-cost outcome, whether or not this outcome can be demonstrated. If this is the case, then the evidence also implies that efficiency has come to be seen as an ideological expression rather than one that defines standards of management or organizational performance. In short, the word efficiency has become a meaningless figure of speech in the vocabulary of managers. The exact meaning implied by the management user is almost unimportant, as the mere use of the term suggests that the outcomes being reported are justifiable. (Callender, p. 182) One need only look into the literature of library management to verify Callenders conclusions for LIS