Corporate Library Resource Selection - Exploring Its Support For Corporate Core Competencies

Corporate Library Resource Selection: Exploring Its Support for Corporate Core Competencies
Author(s): William B. Edgar
Source: The Library Quarterly, Vol. 77, No. 4 (October 2007), pp. 385-408
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/520996 .
Accessed: 26/09/2013 22:37
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
Library Quarterly.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 186.205.27.3 on Thu, 26 Sep 2013 22:37:31 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
CORPORATE LIBRARY RESOURCE SELECTION: EXPLORING ITS
SUPPORT FOR CORPORATE CORE COMPETENCIES1
William B. Edgar2
Many scholars and professionals have noted in recent years that the United States
is experiencing a transformation to an economy based upon knowledge. However,
researchers have only begun to explore how the essence of such an economy, the
creation of wealth by organizations through their use of information, works em-
pirically. This study provides such exploratory empirical research. It uses concepts
from library and information science and strategy to build a theoretical model
describing the relationships between the selection activities of corporate libraries
and the competencies of their parent firms. The research results are testable state-
ments of a theoretical model. These reveal that the breadth and depth of the
parent corporations’ intellectual strengths are supported by corporate library se-
lection activity that is intense, moderately centralized, formalized, moderately spe-
cific, relatively open to user input, and highly automated.
Introduction
Is information wealth? If it is, then the corporate library, an intellectual

service specifically involving information management, should be one or-
ganizational unit easily able to show its contributions to corporate wealth
generation. Yet corporate library managers have had great difficulty doing
so. In fact, three activities most critical to the prestige and survival of the
corporate library—determining its contribution to its parent firm, evalu-
ating this contribution, and justifying its existence based upon this eval-
1. The author’s examination of corporate libraries began during his doctoral years under
the guidance of Marion Paris and Annabel Stephens. The author appreciates their en-
couragement to pursue these ideas. He also would like thank James Matarazzo of Simmons
College, along with Martin Fricke, Patricia Overall, Leslie Kent Kunkel, and Alex Bunz,
all of the University of Arizona, for their comments on drafts of this article.
2. School of Information Resources and Library Science, University of Arizona, 1515 East First
Street, Tucson, AZ 85719; Telephone 520-621-5220; Fax 520-621-3279; E-mail bedgar@u.arizona
.edu.
[Library Quarterly, vol. 77, no. 4, pp. 385–408]

2007 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.
0024-2519/2007/7704-0002$10.00
385

386 THE LIBRARY QUARTERLY
uation—have been the most elusive to define and formidable to accom-

plish. James Matarazzo [1, p. 13] determined that without periodic
evaluation, corporate libraries are targets for elimination. Nevertheless,
nearly two decades later, Laurance Prusak and Matarazzo [2, pp. 10–11]
reported that a significant number of corporate libraries they had studied
had been closed, often because they still had no formal, universally used
evaluation mechanism.
Therefore, if justification is necessary, evaluation is the foremost means
to achieve it. But for evaluation to occur, the corporate library’s intellectual
contribution to corporate effectiveness must first be determined. Devel-
oping a theoretical model to describe some of this contribution is the focus
of this research.
Corporate Library Contribution
To develop this model, this study departed from earlier ones on corporate
library effectiveness in three important ways.
First Requirement—Professional Activities

First, whereas much past research [3–6] has emphasized examining various
phenomena related to corporate library performance, what is needed is
an emphasis upon internal professional activities occurring within a cor-
porate library, such as content item selection, acquisition, or cataloging.
For example, Matarazzo [4] studied thirteen corporate libraries and pro-
vided useful descriptions of their background, staff, collections, services,
physical facilities, and financial resources, but the study did not examine
directly the activities performed by corporate librarians. In contrast, this
research addressed the requirement for a more specific focus by examining
one professional activity occurring within corporate libraries—the selection
of intellectual resources for inclusion within library collections.
Second Requirement—Organizational Intellectual Phenomenon

Second, whereas much past research [7–13] has emphasized examining
the corporate library influences upon the work of individual professionals
or managers within the organization, what is needed is a systematic un-
derstanding of the effects brought about by internal corporate library op-
erations upon organizational-level rather than individual-level phenomena
within the corporation.
For example, Jose-Marie Griffiths and Donald W. King’s [8, pp. 14–15]
research emphasized savings in cost arising from “readings” by individual
professionals of materials provided by the corporate library. They found
that the resulting savings from these readings varied from slightly more

CORE COMPETENCIES 387
than $300 per journal article reading, to around $600 per book reading,
to approximately $1,000 per report reading. “These results have been
found to be remarkably similar from organization to organization and from
two national surveys. Savings across all professional groups and all types
of reading in an organization amount to a dollar value that is an order of
magnitude greater than the cost of acquiring and reading the documents
(about $37 for journals, $83 for books, and $77 for internal reports)” [8,
p. 15]. In their study, respondents said that 45 percent of readings resulted
in saved time or money [8, p. 29]. In contrast, this research emphasized
a higher level of analysis than the individual by examining an organiza-
tional-level intellectual phenomenon—the core competence.
Third Requirement—Corporate Products and Services

Third, whereas much past research [13–19] has emphasized the corporate
library’s contribution to corporate outcomes such as decision making, pro-
ductivity, or projects, what is needed is a focus upon the corporate library’s
contribution to corporate products and services. It is these that generate
corporate wealth.
For example, Joanne Marshall [19, p. 21] took a qualitative approach,
examining the impact of information upon the actions of individual man-
agers in organizations. She found that information provided by special
libraries commonly helped them to decide more effectively on a course
of action, exploit a new opportunity, and improve relations with a client.
In doing so, Marshall demonstrated qualitatively that the perceived value
of corporate libraries derived from their positive effect on managerial
decision making. In contrast, the research presented here examined cor-
porate libraries within firms chosen for their products and services, such
as switches or document management, supporting communication and
knowledge creation.
Premises of Research
Therefore, in departing from these past emphases, this exploratory re-
search is based upon two premises. First, the internal professional activities
performed within corporate libraries, such as selection, both enable the
development and support the continuing existence of organizational-level
intellectual phenomena, known as core competencies. The activities do so
because the employees holding competencies use the results of these ac-
tivities, for example, library collections, to expand and apply these capa-
bilities as they perform corporate processes such as product development
or engineering.
Second, as core competencies are applied to operate corporate pro-
cesses, professional library activities will affect the products and services
that provide value to customers served by specific industries and economic

Fig. 1.—Corporate library contribution
sectors. As customers realize this value by buying corporate products and

services, corporate wealth is generated.
Therefore, the contribution of the corporate library, the positive influence
of its professional activities upon corporate products or services, and the
customer value they deliver is mediated through the corporation’s core
competencies and processes. This progression is depicted in figure 1.
Please see my earlier work [20–21] for a conceptual and methodological
discussion of this process. The exploratory research presented here ex-
amines empirically only steps 1 and 2—the support provided to core com-
petencies by professional selection activity within corporations’ libraries.
It leaves to subsequent research the task of examining steps 3 and 4—the
effect of this support upon corporate products and services. This study
explores the first two steps by asking the following research questions:
What are the breadth and depth of core competencies held by the ex-
amined corporations? What are the intensity, centralization, formalization,
automation, specificity, and openness to user input of the corporate library
selection activities performed in support of these competencies? How do
these attributes of selection activity change to support variations in the
competence attributes?
Literature Review
Research Question 1: Core Competence

Core competence composition.—Much work has been done since C. K. Pra-
halad and Gary Hamel [22] published their seminal article, “The Core
Competence of the Corporation,” to develop the construct of core com-
petence, as a number of researchers have proposed definitions from a
variety of perspectives. The result is an inconclusive definitional literature
lacking specificity as to components of the core competence.
To develop an accurate definition of these competencies, researchers
have used a variety of perspectives. One says a competence involves knowl-
edge of some intellectual discipline or topic, such as molecular biology or
chemistry [23]. A second proposes that a core competence involves an

understanding of some particular phenomenon, such as chemicals, steel,

or electronics [24–27].
A third perspective suggests a core competence that includes some tech-
nology, such as computing, printing, or internal combustion [28–31]. A fairly
large fourth group of researchers suggest that a competence includes some
functional capabilities within an organization [32–39]. Examples could be
marketing, manufacturing, distribution, or production scheduling.
Encompassing many researchers, a fifth perspective proposes that core
competence includes an integrated cross-functional skill [31, 35, 40]. An
example would be the Honda Corporation’s ability to combine engineering
and manufacturing to create high-quality small engines [31, p. 204]. A
sixth perspective argues that a core competence involves more generalized
organizational abilities such as quality management or organizational
learning [32, 37, 41–44]. The results of this research reveal the applicability
of most of these viewpoints in defining the core competence.
Core competence attributes.—The inconclusive nature of the core compe-
tence literature has meant that only a few attributes of competencies (e.g.,
inimitability, durability) have been proposed [43, p. 552]. What is needed,
though, is to identify attributes that can be directly supported by library
activities, ones that lead to a competence’s competitive power based upon
its durability or inimitability. In the research presented here, two such
attributes, competence breadth and depth, defined below, were isolated
for such examination.
Research Question 2: Selection

Selection composition.—A number of conceptualizations of selection activ-
ity have been proposed. William Katz [45, p. 89] delineates only two steps
in the selection process. The first is evaluation—evaluating the intrinsic
value of materials according to some criteria. The second is selection—
determining whether that intrinsic value meets the needs of individual
library users. Kenneth Shearer [46] expands upon this, pointing out that
to perform these two activities, it is necessary to monitor for available
publications and identify which ones would be useful to the library’s host
environment.
William Wortman [47, p. 141] defines the selection activity itself as con-
sisting of three subactivities: (1) identifying items that could belong in a
collection, as defined by users, subjects, levels, intensity level of selecting,
or a collection development policy; (2) choosing from those items that
are particularly relevant or pertinent to users in a situation; and (3) de-
ciding which to buy now. Hendrik Edelman [48, pp. 37–38] further dis-
tinguishes between two types of selection: microselection, in which ma-
terials are chosen one at a time, and macroselection, in which materials
are chosen in sets.

Ross Atkinson [49] uses the emphasis of Shearer and Wortman on mon-
itoring for materials and, as a result, identifying possible collection items.
Atkinson also emphasizes Katz’s concept of evaluating potential collection
items as to relevance once they are identified and Wortman’s idea of de-
liberately choosing among relevant items based upon the evaluation.
This research uses Atkinson’s synthesis and Edleman’s distinction: there-
fore, selection is defined here as a three-step process: monitoring/iden-
tifying potential collection items, evaluating and ranking them according
to some criteria, and choosing a cutoff point arising from the ranking
above which one or a set of items are selected.
Selection attributes.—Emerging from the performance of these selection
steps, the following attributes of selection activity were isolated for study
using selection literature: intensity, centralization, formalization, automa-
tion, specificity, and openness to user input.
Various organizations within the library field have proposed classifica-
tions having to do with collection depth. One, developed by the Research
Libraries Group, has six levels, from zero through five [47, 50]. At level
1, selectors choose only a few items, whereas at level 5 they choose all
items within a body of materials [47, p. 106]. In addition, the American
Library Association has published a classification similar to the one above
[51; 52, p. 85]. These classifications indicate selection’s intensity and the
relative and absolute extent to which a body of materials—as defined ac-
cording to specifically chosen characteristics of content—is actually se-
lected. As more such items are chosen, more selection decisions occur,
increasing selection intensity.
Centralization [53, pp. 186–88] of any activity, including selection, has
to do with the number of people who have power to perform the action.
The fewer people who have the power to perform the activity, the more
centralized it is said to be. In contrast, formalization [53, pp. 186–88] of
an activity is the extent to which an activity is governed in advance by rules.
The more some aspect of an activity is governed by rules, the more for-
malized it is said to be. For collection development activities, and especially
for selection, these rules are usually delineated in collection development
policies. Next, as mentioned above, Edleman [48] pointed out that content
items could be selected individually, in microselection, or in groups, using
macroselection. This implies the notion of selection automation, which
occurs as individual selection decisions bring multiple items of content
into a collection at once.
Specificity of selection involves criteria used to select content. There is
an extensive literature on which criteria can be used for either physical
or digital items of content [54–62]. These criteria can include the date
content was published, its topic, its author, its publisher, its quality, or its
language. The more characteristics used to guide selection, the more spe-

cifically a unit of content can be said to have been selected, and vice versa.
Finally, the sixth selection attribute examined here was its “openness of
selection to user control,” the degree to which selection decisions are made
by users of content instead of by professional librarian selectors.
Research Question 3: Core Competence/Selection Model

Since no theoretical model relating corporate core competencies and cor-
porate library selection activity existed in the literature, the following initial
one was developed for examination in this research: The broader and
deeper a core competence is, the more intense, formalized, specific, and
open to user input the corporate library selection activity to support it will
be. The broader a core competence is, the more decentralized corporate
library selection activity will be to support it and the deeper such a com-
petence is, the more centralized its supporting selection activity will be.
Though not incorporated in the initial theoretical model, selection au-
tomation emerged as an influential selection attribute during data collec-
tion and analysis.
Methodology
Sample
As mentioned above, the parent firms of these four corporate libraries
were chosen for their similarity in providing products and services related
to knowledge and computing. These products included switches, multi-
plexers, routers, transmitters, copiers, printers, scanners, and integrated
circuits; they also included services such as communication network plan-
ning, network design and implementation, and document management.
Procedures
For each of the firms studied, the data collection and analysis for this study
were done in four steps. As depicted in table 1, the first three procedures
were done to answer the study’s first research question. The fourth was
done to answer the study’s second and third research questions.
Content analysis.—Content analysis was applied to corporate documents
concerning the company’s products and services using the software pro-
gram Ethnograph 5.0. Content analysis was applied at two levels: manifest
and latent. Manifest content is the actual words and symbols making up
content, whether in physical or digital format. Latent content, in contrast,
is the content’s underlying meaning, which may or may not be easily de-
tectable solely by examination of content in its manifest form [63, p. 318].
Overall, 150 pages of documents across the four firms studied (approx-
imately thirty-five pages for each) were submitted to manifest content anal-

RESOURCE SELECTION TABLE 1

Research Methodology
Research Question Procedure

1. What are some influential attributes of 1. Manifest and latent content analysis of
corporate core competencies? general corporate documents to deter-
mine breadth of core competencies
2. Semistructured interviews with corpo-
rate managers and professionals to ver-
ify results from procedure A
3. Analysis of corporate patents to deter-
mine depth of core competencies
2. What are some influential attributes of 4. In-depth qualitative interviews with li-
corporate library selection activity? brary selectors to reveal selection attrib-
utes and to test model relating selec-
tion activity and core competence
3. How do the influential attributes of se- 4. In-depth qualitative interviews with li-
lection support those of corporate brary selectors to reveal selection attrib-
core competencies? utes and to test model relating selec-
tion activity and core competence
ysis; these pages, as well as hundreds of additional pages of documents,

were then submitted to latent content analysis. For both the manifest and
latent content analysis, general corporate materials were examined first,
such as business statements within annual reports as well as corporate fact
books and profiles. These described the overall vision, customers, product
capabilities, and products of the firms. Then the investigator moved to
analyzing documents with more detailed content about the firm’s capa-
bilities—such as corporate product catalogs, technical briefs, and research
agendas. All the documents analyzed were publicly available, and they were
also available digitally, usually through the firm’s corporate Web site.
Interviews of corporate staff.—Interviews with corporate professionals pre-
sented them with the results of the latent and manifest content analysis
describing the breadth of the firm’s core competence(ies) and elicited
their reaction to these results. The results were presented to the inter-
viewees in the form of a core competence chart representing their own
firm’s competencies, along with a page of explanation and the actual ques-
tions. In each firm, depending upon availability, from two to five interviews
were conducted of corporate managers and professionals, some who
worked within the corporate library and some who did not, for a total of
fifteen interviews.
The investigator’s contact person in two of the companies studied was
the manager of the corporate library; in the other two the contact was a
corporate library professional assigned to the role. The contact person
identified potential respondents based upon their reputation within the

company for being knowledgeable and thoughtful concerning the firm’s

intellectual strengths. The interviewees’ educational and professional back-
grounds included physics, computer engineering, computer science, re-
search and development, finance, marketing, strategy, product manage-
ment, manufacturing, and customer service.
The interviews, all conducted by telephone, usually lasted between one
and two hours. The instrument was mailed to the interviewees two to three
weeks before the interview so that they had some time to consider their
responses.
Content analysis.—Once the breadth of these competencies was deter-
mined, the next step was to determine their depth. To do so, approximately
7,000 patents held by the four firms studied were analyzed.
Patents held by firms were isolated according to their classes in the U.S.
patent classification system and then were identified as supporting specific
components—understandings of technologies and product/service classes,
or skills—of the firms’ core competencies.
More specifically, for each of the four firms the following was performed:
• The patents issued to the firm during the thirty years immediately
prior to the study were sorted by patent topic classification number.
This was done using the patent file provided by the data service Dialog.
• Within each firm’s patent set, the classes and subclasses within the
U.S. patent classification system having a large number of patents (i.e.,
more than twenty) were isolated.
• The different technologies, product/service classes, and skills asso-
ciated with the core competence were related to the equivalent iso-
lated patent topical classes and subclasses.
Here, a greater number of patents indicated greater competence depth

in that competence component. Though an imperfect measure of com-
petence depth, patents do indicate corporate knowledge that a firm con-
siders important enough to be legally protected.
Qualitative interviews with selectors.—The fourth procedure used in this
research involved in-depth, semistructured qualitative interviews with ten
corporate library professionals responsible for selection. All interviews con-
cerning selection were performed on site at the corporate library. However,
not all interviewees responded to all questions.
The respondents, all professional librarians, held educational degrees
in a variety of subjects, including business administration, English, math-
ematics, information systems, history, chemistry, art history, and library
science. Their work experience included corporate strategy, product
management, market research, science and engineering librarianship,
collection development, serials management, acquisitions, and library

management. Most had many years of experience serving scientists and

engineers within their firms.
Each interviewee was questioned about the attributes of selection using
definitions given in the literature review. Then, using a chart representing
the one or more core competencies of his or her specific firm, each in-
terviewee was presented with questions drawn from the initial theoretical
model relating competence breadth and depth with the selection attrib-
utes.
Results and Analysis
Research Question One: Core Competence Attributes (Breadth and Depth)

As revealed by the manifest and latent content analysis of corporate doc-
uments, these libraries’ collections were primarily found to support the
competencies of their parent firms. Overall, five core competencies were
isolated across the four firms examined. One of these competencies was
based upon the understanding of silicon and the creation of silicon-based
integrated circuits. One was based upon an understanding of knowledge
in its various forms, including databases and documents. Finally, three
involved an understanding of the communication network. Surprisingly,
relatively few core competencies were discovered, but each was quite com-
plex.
For simplicity of presentation, the results spanning the three core com-
petencies based upon the communication network have been amalga-
mated, and figure 2, a core competence chart, presents the common struc-
ture and common instances of understandings and skills across these three.
Also, since this structure was also found to apply to the other two core
competencies based upon integrated circuits and knowledge, the results
describing them are not presented here.
As depicted in figure 2, the dynamic of these competencies is that un-
derstandings of some general technologies by people within a company
lead them to a thorough understanding of some core phenomenon and
related disciplines, which supports their familiarity with product or service
technologies and more specific subtechnologies. This in turn leads to their
understandings of product and service classes that form the basis for their
acquisition of certain skills, which are ultimately integrated into a skill set.
It should be noted as well that, once these integrated skill sets develop,
the various skills and understandings can influence one another iteratively.
During analysis, these understandings and skills were revealed as concep-
tual categories by content analysis (procedure 1 in table 1), while the
iterative dynamic between them was revealed by the interviews with the
corporate professionals (procedure 2 in table 1).

Fig. 2.—Corporate core competence

For example, in three of the firms, understandings of the general tech-

nologies of communication and networks led to an understanding of the
communication networks and the related discipline of computer science.
As depicted in figure 2, this familiarity with the communication network
core phenomenon led to understandings of numerous networking product
technologies—such as switching and routing—and their resulting product
subtechnologies, such as optical switching or digital routing. This detailed
knowledge provided a basis for understanding product classes, such as
optical switches and digital routers themselves. This in turn laid a foun-
dation for functional skills, such as manufacturing optical switches, and
technological skills, such as routing digital data.
Used together, these skills contribute to an integrated skill set held by
people in several of the examined firms in the creation and management
of communication network components as well as communication net-
works themselves. Also, once developed, these understandings and skills
can influence each other iteratively. For example, using the skill of man-
ufacturing switches deepens the understanding of switching technology.
In general, these results supported the perspectives of core competencies
as involving understandings of phenomena, disciplines, and general and
product technologies, along with singular and integrated skills. However,
the results’ focus on the understanding of a specific core phenomenon,
such as the communication network, indicates that core competencies do
not include more generalized organizational capabilities such as quality
management or organizational learning.
Based upon the core competence structure revealed by content analysis
and interviews of corporate professionals, the breadth of a core compe-
tence can be described precisely. Here it can be defined as the number
of members of the different categories of core competence components.
More specifically, it is the number of understandings of different general
technologies, core phenomena, related disciplines, product/service tech-
nologies and subtechnologies, product/service classes, as well as the num-
ber of individual and integrated skills within the core competence. If peo-
ple within a firm have any of one of these understandings or skills at all,
then that understanding or skill is included in the core competence.
Therefore, as a company adds members to any of these categories, the
breadth of its core competence increases. For example, if a firm has a core
competence based upon the core phenomenon of the communication
network and it adds an understanding of the product/service technology
of switching or the skill of manufacturing the components of networks,
then it has increased the breadth of its core competence. Conversely, if it
loses this understanding or this skill, it has decreased the breadth of its
core competence. This is depicted using figure 2. Here each understanding

or skill is a bulleted item. Adding a new item would represent broadening

the competence and vice versa.
Once the structure and breadth of the firms’ core competencies were
determined, the analysis of corporate patents (procedure 3 in table 1)
revealed that competence depth could also be defined precisely. More
specifically, patent analysis showed that this depth consists of the extent
to which people within a company have (1) an understanding of the com-
ponents and subcomponents of the competence’s underlying individual
general technologies, core phenomena, related disciplines, product/ser-
vice technologies, product/service subtechnologies, or product/service
classes, and (2) the extent to which they can perform the competence’s
individual and integrated skills.
Depth information is displayed in figure 2 by indicating, in parentheses,
the numbers of patents held by a firm in an understanding or skill; for
example, the 200 patents held by one firm in the product/service tech-
nology of multiplexing. Here a greater number of patents in a specific
area of understanding or skill indicates greater depth of the core com-
petence in that understanding or skill. (Note too that many competence
elements had no supporting patents.)
Research Questions 2 and 3: Selection Attributes and Theoretical Model

As discussed below, the interviewed corporate library selectors verified the
accuracy of the selection attributes proposed in the literature. In doing
so, they revealed the importance of different steps within selection—for
example, identifying potential collection items—to the different attributes.
To present this, each of a series of relationships between core competencies
and corporate library selection is described as statements of the initial
theoretical model, and the interview results associated with each model
statement are presented. Then, the revised theoretical model arising from
the results is summarized.
Model statement 1: Intensity.—The broader and deeper the core compe-
tence to be supported, the more intense selection intensity will be. Eight
of the ten respondents agreed with this statement, indicating that intense
selection brought about the extensive collections needed to develop core
competencies. However, the respondents identified a pattern by which this
occurs. It had to do with how selection intensity changes as people within
a corporation more deeply learn either a newly created or previously ex-
isting body of knowledge to be added to a core competence.
Specifically, development of a core competence appeared to go through
three phases: (a) underdeveloped, with few written content items sup-
porting the new knowledge held by the firm’s corporate library; (b) de-
veloping, with more content items held by the library; and (c) developed,

with many content items within the corporate library collection. Selection
intensity is the lowest in the development’s first phase, since there are few
items to select, and most intense in the second phase, as library selectors
try to choose content items as people within the firm learn the new com-
petence element, whether it represents a newly developing or a previously
existing body of knowledge. The respondents noted that the second phase
could last a very long time, even many years. By the third phase, intensity
diminishes because the content items have been selected to support the
competence’s new knowledge held by people within the firm.
This pattern had happened in recent years to several of these firms as
their core competencies expanded and deepened to include the core com-
petence-related discipline of computer science. It also occurred more re-
cently with the newly developing competence product/service subtech-
nologies of optical and wireless networking.
Model statement 2: Centralization.—The broader in scope a core compe-
tence is, the more decentralized the corporate library selection activity
supporting it will be, and the deeper in scope a core competence is, the
more centralized the selection activity supporting that competence will be.
Respondents generally agreed with this statement. For selectors, the
pattern involved decentralization of selection responsibility across under-
standings and skills of a core competence and then centralization of se-
lection to support specific understandings and skills. This was done es-
pecially to distribute the cognitive work required of selectors in the early
stages of selection—item identification—as they try to understand the vast
number of ideas usually covered in a core competence. An example was
the division of selection authority across the product/service classes being
supported—for example, switches, multiplexers, and transmission equip-
ment—along with concentration of authority within each product or ser-
vice class. Another example occurred in a firm that had decentralized
selection authority across product-service technologies and subtechnolo-
gies, such as switching and optical networking, while centralizing selection
authority to support specific technologies upon specific selectors.
In addition to distribution of authority among selectors, the respondents
identified two other forms of decentralization. The first involved allowing
users to select their own materials, particularly individual journals or books.
Here selection supporting very narrow or deep segments of knowledge,
particularly in competence-related disciplines such as physics or electrical
engineering, was decentralized and delegated to the library user.
Another form of decentralization delegated selection authority to ven-
dors. This occurred when vendor packages of digital content items or
approval plans were chosen based upon their coverage of and reputation
for excellence in particular competence-related disciplines, such as com-
puter science, or product/service technologies, such as wireless network-

ing. Then, by adding or deleting items within the packages, the vendors
determined which subtopics within the broad topics would be supported
by selection.
Therefore, with these three forms of decentralization, a similar pattern
was followed: decentralization across topics to selectors, users, or vendors
but centralization among them for individual topics. Decentralization
broadened the collections, making them more extensive, while centrali-
zation focused corporate library collections, making them more precise.
Model statement 3: Formalization.—The broader and deeper a core com-
petence is, the more formalized the selection activity for supporting that
core competence will be. Seven of the ten respondents agreed with this
statement, and one disagreed with it. The large majority of the collection
in all four libraries was selected in a formalized manner. However, since
only one of the four libraries studied had a collection development policy,
one issue was the distinction between formalized selection as expressed in
an official collection development policy, which could be termed “official
formalization,” and formalized selection as expressed in informal rules not
in any collection development policy, which could be termed “unofficial
formalization.”
The respondents agreed that multiple selection decisions had to be of-
ficially or unofficially formalized in order to capture the huge number of
ideas contained within the breadth and depth of a core competence being
supported, particularly of their related disciplines such as mathematics, phys-
ics, computer science, or the various engineering fields. This formalization
was especially helpful to selectors in the early stage of selection—item search
and identification—because it more precisely specifies the ideas to be cov-
ered in collections selected to support core competencies.
However, a clarification raised by the respondents was that selection also
had to be formalized because the cost of an individual selection decision
to buy individual intellectual works, especially digital ones, was frequently
prohibitive and often not allowed by vendors at all. If permitted, it could
increase the cost of an item by three to five times if the intellectual work
were to have wide availability of use within the firm. Conversely, better
deals could be had when documents were purchased in groups. Formal-
ization provided better guidance through the complexity of choosing these
groups than did informal, intuitive selection, resulting in more cost-effec-
tive collections supporting core competencies.
Model statement 4: Automation.—Since this selection characteristic was not
anticipated in the early stage of this research, there is no initial statement.
Though the respondents verified that their libraries automated selection
using standardized lists and approval plans, they reported that the primary
mechanism for selecting multiple items at once was the offerings of ap-
proximately 25–30 vendors provided as huge digital packages. These can

hold an enormous variety of items, such as databases, journal and trade

publications, or even specific reports on topics.
Commonly used scientific and technical vendor packages of digital con-
tent items were ones connected to supported competence-related disci-
plines, such as physics, chemistry, or the engineering disciplines. It is im-
portant to note, too, the sheer size of these packages. A good example is
Inspec, which contains millions of journal articles, conference proceedings,
books, and dissertations in physics, electronics, electrical engineering, and
computer science.
The respondents argued that greater core competence breadth and
depth will be supported by higher selection automation for several reasons.
First, the sheer number of ideas covered in a broad or deep competence
made it difficult for selectors to choose items individually. Instead, the
packages—and the intellectual work already done by vendors in selecting
individual items within them—essentially allow the selectors’ intellectual
work to be done in more intellectually manageable “blocks.” This more
easily permitted the growth of extensive collections necessary to support
broad and deep core competencies.
Second, as discussed earlier, buying items in groups incurs large dis-
counts from vendors. Finally, as will be discussed below in the model state-
ment concerning selection specificity, buying groups of items, especially
when the items have been conceptually labeled in formal subject taxon-
omies, strongly supports the spontaneous development of ideas brought
about by browsing.
Model statement 5: Specificity.—The broader and deeper a core competence
of a host corporation is, the more specific the corporation’s selection
activity for content supporting that core competence will be. This model
statement generated the most disagreement of any. Of the ten respondents,
only four agreed with it, and five explicitly disagreed.
Verifying the use of many selection criteria identified in the literature,
these respondents agreed strongly that—particularly during the second,
evaluative stage of selection—recognized criteria were needed to capture
systematically within collections the ideas covered by core competence
breadth and depth. However, slightly more than half of the respondents
argued that using fewer selection criteria, especially those involving item
topics, was often better.
The respondents’ reasoning was that selection using at most only three
and often fewer topical intellectual layers (e.g., three topical layers) did
result in choosing “too much” material. However, this excess of content
enables browsing and its resulting impromptu creation of ideas. Also, this
“information overload” could be moderated because selection was highly
automated, meaning that enormous numbers of items were often chosen
at once using vendor packages that organize their items using conceptual

taxonomies. These eased the cognitive burden upon selectors during the
item monitoring and identification stages of selection by allowing them to
identify broader and narrower topics for extensive collection. This was
particularly useful for supporting the understandings of various compe-
tence-related disciplines, such as physics and computer science.
Managing this tension between selecting too little versus too much con-
tent brought balanced collections supporting core competencies. Less
specificity ensured more extensive collections, while greater specificity
brought precision to them.
Model statement 6: Openness to user input.—The broader and deeper a core
competence of a host corporation is, the more open to user input the
corporation’s selection activity for content supporting that core compe-
tence will be. Five of the ten respondents agreed with this statement, and
two disagreed with it. Respondents noted pressures to delegate selection
to users when supporting a broad core competence because of the need
to ensure that a diverse set of ideas be included in the selected items. They
noted too that the narrower the set of ideas covered by a content item,
usually because the ideas are very advanced ones within a deeply under-
stood related discipline or product/service subtechnology such as math-
ematics, chemistry, or optical networking, the more user input is used to
determine the selection decision for that content item. In both cases the
users’ subject expertise is critical to the selection decision.
In addition, the respondents stressed the cost-related need to give more
say to users for a selection decision whenever more users will be using the
chosen items. This would be likely to occur if the item(s) chosen as a result
of the selection covered many skills or understandings within a core com-
petence or covered relatively many of the components within any particular
understanding or skill. In this case, due to vendor pricing policies, more
users for an item would drive up the cost of the selected items, making it
more imperative that users have input into the selection decision to ensure
that they will actually use the chosen content item(s).
However, the respondents raised an important caveat to their responses.
This was the need to preserve selector authority overall, especially when
selecting to support breadth of a core competence. Only the selectors, not
the users holding the individual understandings and skills, have the overall
grasp of selection necessary to support the entire core competence, and
they, not the users, can best assure that the corporate library collections
do not have gaps or overlaps. Therefore, the selectors are the ones who
must achieve the proper balance for supporting competence understand-
ings and skills.
In essence, library professionals must preserve their authority to perform
the second and third steps of selection—ranking items to be selected and
choosing a cutoff point for an item’s inclusion within a collection. They

Fig. 3.—Selection’s support of corporate core competencies
must do so according to the extent to which the items meet criteria ad-
dressing intellectual needs across the corporation. Managing this tension
between user input and selector authority brings balanced library collec-
tions. User input creates extensive collections, while selector authority
brings precision to them.
Revised Theoretical Model

Core competence breadth and depth together.—Figure 3 presents a graphic of
the revised theoretical model. It predicts (fig. 3, right side) that to support
core competence breadth and depth, the corporate library’s selection ac-
tivity is intense, formalized, and automated. In contrast, the model predicts
that to support core competence breadth and depth, selection must be
only moderately specific and open to user input.
In explanation, the revised model proposes that intense and formalized
selection by the corporate library is necessary to capture within collections
the various ideas underlying the breadth and depth of core competencies.
As core competencies broaden to include understandings and skills in new
or previously existing bodies of knowledge, this intensity will often rise and
then decrease somewhat, creating extensive corporate library collections.
To counter this, formalization identifies ideas to be included within chosen
content items, bringing precision to corporate library collections.
The model also proposes that, to support broad and deep core com-
petencies, selection will need to be formalized officially or unofficially,
since the sheer number of intellectual works necessary for an appropriate
collection creates economies of scale if the works are bought in groups.

These groups are costly and so require that formalized criteria rather than
informal intuition be used to select them.
The revised model proposes that greater core competence breadth and
depth will be supported by higher collection automation through the use
of digital packages of items provided by vendors. This is because of the
cognitive limitations of selectors in choosing huge numbers of items in-
dividually, the economies of scale gained by buying collection items in
large groups, and the need to concentrate large numbers of ideas in spec-
ified places to encourage browsing and its resulting impromptu develop-
ment of ideas.
The model proposes that corporate library selection activity that is open
to user input is necessary to cope with the cognitive demands placed upon
selectors in understanding the sheer number of different ideas contained
within the core competence(ies) of the corporate library’s parent firm. It
also proposes that more user input to selection will be needed to support
greater core competence breadth and depth because of the sheer cost of
content items. Usually purchased in groups of some kind, these packages
often cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. This requires that it be highly
probable that users will in fact make use of these items, and a reliable way
to ensure this is to allow user input in selection. However, despite these
intellectual and financial pressures, the model does verify that selectors’
authority to ensure collection precision through avoiding collection gaps
and overlaps must be preserved.
Moreover, in disagreement with the initial model, the revised model also
proposes that when supporting competence breadth and depth, the need
for high selection specificity will be strongly moderated by the need to
gather a large number of ideas together to facilitate browsing and its
resulting impromptu development of ideas. It is the use of fewer selection
criteria that brings extensive collections, especially once the topics they
cover are more fully developed.
Core competence breadth and depth separately.—The revised model developed
through this research (fig. 3, left side) predicts that to support core com-
petence breadth, selection activity tends to be decentralized, creating more
extensive collections. To counterbalance this, it predicts that to support
core competence depth, selection activity tends to be more centralized,
increasing collection precision.
In explanation, this model proposes that the cognitive demands placed
upon selectors in understanding the sheer number of different ideas con-
tained within a broader corporate core competence will bring selection
decentralization, possibly in several forms. One is through specialization
of selectors; others could include decentralization by delegation to library
users or to vendors of collection items. However, once selection authority
is distributed across topics, it is centralized for each topic so that relatively

complex, topic-specific items can be chosen by those with the deepest

subject expertise.
Summary of revised model.—These results largely support the initial
model’s predictive statements concerning selection intensity, centraliza-
tion, and formalization. They revise the initial model’s statements con-
cerning openness to user input and selection specificity. They reveal the
existence of selection automation. Also, the study’s results, synthesized into
the revised model, add substantial detail by isolating various dynamics
driving the patterns of activities predicted by the initial model.
More specifically, the breadth and depth of the parent corporations’
intellectual strengths are supported by corporate library selection activity
that is intense, moderately centralized, formalized, moderately specific,
relatively open to user input, and highly automated. These relationships
are driven by the need to include certain ideas within selected content,
the need to cope with the cognitive limitations of selectors in choosing
huge amounts of items, the need to manage selection’s cost, the need to
coordinate selection activity as it supports a broad and deep competence,
and the need to gather extensive materials together so as to promote the
development of new ideas. As these dynamics occur, extensive, precise,
and cost effective collections are created to support the expansion of cor-
porate core competencies and their application to corporate processes.
Directions for Further Research
Testing this model.—Since this study was exploratory, one obvious direction
is to continue research on the interactions examined here—steps 1 and
2 shown in figure 1. For example, doing so could involve testing the
revised selection model more extensively in corporations different than
the ones examined in this study, such as firms that provide products and
services related to transportation or health care. The result will be to
refine this model, deepening understanding of selection and core com-
petencies, their characteristics, and the causal dynamics driving the in-
fluences between them. As this occurs, a generalizable understanding of
selection’s support for core competencies will emerge.
Activity/competence/process/products.—Another useful direction for future
research would be to expand the scope of inquiry to include steps 1–4 of
figure 1. Doing so would develop more elaborate theoretical models ex-
amining the relationships between some professional activity of corporate
libraries, such as selection, acquisition, or cataloging; their parent firms’
core competencies; these firms’ processes; and the value delivered by prod-
ucts or services to corporate customers.
These corporate library activity/competence/process/value relation-

ships could be studied in firms similar to the ones examined here or in a

much wider variety of corporations. For example, in testing the revised
model, subsequent research could examine corporate library selection ac-
tivity’s support of core competencies as they are applied through the re-
search and development process to produce products that deliver aviation
or health care value to customers served by these industries. Eventually,
the result would be a generalizable understanding of the influence of
corporate libraries’ professional activities upon the customer value pro-
vided by their parent firm. The greatly expanded explanatory power of
this more inclusive direction for future research is obvious, since it moves
examination of corporate library impact beyond creating capability for
customer value, as contained in corporate competencies, to its delivery, as
carried out by corporate processes.
Conclusion
In summary, this research addressed the contribution that corporate li-

braries make to their parent firms. Its specific accomplishment is a focused
one: it indicated how corporate library selection activity changes to support
an intellectual phenomenon, a competence, held by people working with
the library’s parent firm.
More broadly, though, this accomplishment indicates a direction for
determining corporate library contribution: examining the interactions
between the intellectual and operational organizational phenomena within
corporate libraries and those of their parent firms as these phenomena
create corporate products and services. Once pursued, this direction could
reveal the systematic, rather than anecdotal, contribution of the corporate
library, providing a much stronger basis for evaluating it and thereby jus-
tifying its existence within the corporation.
REFERENCES
1. Matarazzo, James M. Closing the Corporate Library: Case Studies on the Decisionmaking Process.
New York: Special Libraries Association, 1981.
2. Prusak, Laurence, and Matarazzo, James M. “The Value of Corporate Libraries: The 1995
Survey.” SpeciaList 18, no. 1 (1995): 9–15.
3. King, Donald W., and Griffiths, Jose-Marie. Productivity in Libraries and Information Centers.
Rockville, MD: King Research, 1988.
4. Matarazzo, James M. Corporate Library Excellence. Washington, DC: Special Libraries Asso-
ciation, 1990.
5. McClure, Charles R., and Reifsynder, Betsy. “Performance Measures for Corporate In-
formation Centers.” Special Libraries 75, no. 3 (1984): 193–204.

6. Williams, Robert V. “Productivity Measures in Special Libraries: Prospects and Problems

for Use in Performance Evaluation.” Special Libraries 79, no. 2 (1988): 101–14.
7. Griffiths, Jose-Marie, and King, Donald W. A Manual on the Evaluation of Information Centers
and Services. AGARDograph no. 310. New York: American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, 1991.
8. Griffiths, Jose-Marie, and King, Donald W. Special Libraries: Increasing the Information Edge.
Washington, DC: Special Libraries Association, 1993.
9. Griffiths, Jose-Marie, and King, Donald W. “The Value of Information Centers.” In Man-
aging Information for the Competitive Edge, edited by Ethel Auster and Chun W. Choo. New
York: Neal-Shuman, 1996.
10. Keyes, Alison M. “The Value of the Special Library: Review and Analysis.” Special Libraries
86, no. 3 (1995): 172–87.
11. Manning, Helen. “The Corporate Librarian: Great Return on Investment.” In President’s
Task Force on the Value of the Information Professional: Final Report; Preliminary Study. Seventy-
eighth annual report. Anaheim, CA: Special Libraries Association, 1987.
12. Matarazzo, James M., and Prusak, Laurence. “Valuing Corporate Libraries: A Senior Man-
agement Survey.” Special Libraries 81, no. 2 (1990): 102–10.
13. Smith, Christine H.; Winterman, Vivienne; and Abell, Angela. “The Impact of Information
on Corporate Decision Making in the Insurance Sector.” Library Management 19, no. 3
(1998): 154–73.
14. Ashcroft, Maggie. “The Impact of Information Use on Decision Making by Physiother-
apists.” Library Management 19, no. 3 (1988): 174–95.
15 Bouchet, Marie-Laure; Hopkins, Tracy; and Kinnell, Margaret. “The Impact of Information
Use on Decision Making in the Pharmaceutical Industry.” Library Management 19, no. 3
(1988): 196–206.
16. Kantor, Paul B., and Saracevic, Tefko. “Valuing Special Libraries.” In Final Report to the
Special Libraries Association. New Brunswick, NJ: School of Communication, Information,
and Library Studies, Rutgers University, 1997.
17. Kantor, Paul B., and Saracevic, Tefko. Studying the Cost and Value of Library Services: Final
Report. New Brunswick, NJ: School of Library and Information Studies, Rutgers University,
1995.
18. Koenig, Michael E. D. “The Importance of Information Services for Productivity ‘Under-
recognized’ and Under-invested.” In Managing Information for the Competitive Edge, edited
by Ethel Auster and Chun W. Choo. New York: Neal-Shuman, 1996.
19. Marshall, Joanne G. The Impact of the Special Library on Corporate Decisionmaking. Washington,
DC: Special Libraries Association, 1993.
20. Edgar, William B. “Corporate Library Impact Part I: A Theoretical Approach.” Library
Quarterly 74, no. 2 (2004): 122–51.
21. Edgar, William B. “Corporate Library Impact Part II: Methodological Tradeoffs.” Library
Quarterly 74, no. 2 (2004): e1–e18 (electronic publication).
22. Prahalad, C. K., and Hamel, Gary. “The Core Competence of the Corporation.” Harvard
Business Review 68, no. 3 (1990): 79–92.
23. Henderson, Rebecca, and Cockburn, Iain. “Measuring Competence? Exploring Firm Ef-
fects in Pharmaceutical Research.” Strategic Management Journal 15 (1994): 63–84.
24. Grandstrand, Ove; Patel, Pari; and Pavitt, Keith. “Multi-technology Corporations: Why
They Have ‘Distributed’ Rather than ‘Distinctive Core’ Competencies.” California Man-
agement Review 39, no. 4 (1997): 8–25.
25. Meschi, Pierre-Xavier, and Cremer, Eric. “Competence Building and Corporate Renewal.”
Business Strategy Review 10, no. 2 (1999): 43–51.
26. Miyazakil, Kumiko. “Building Technology Competencies in Japanese Firms.” Research Tech-
nology Management 42, no. 5 (1999): 39–45.

27. Walsh, Steven T., and Linton, Jonathan D. “The Competence Pyramid: A Framework for
Identifying and Analyzing Firm and Industry Competence.” Technology Analysis and Strategic
Management 13, no. 2 (2001): 165–77.
28. Drejer, Anders. “How Can We Define and Understand Competencies and Their Devel-
opment?” Technovation 21, no. 3 (2001): 135–46.
29. Duysters, Geert, and Hagedoorn, John. “Core Competencies and Company Performance
in the World-Wide Computer Industry.” Journal of High Technology Management Research 11,
no. 1 (2000): 75–91.
30. Fernandez, Esteban; Montes, Jose M.; Vazquez, Camillo J. “Typology and Strategic Analysis
of Intangible Resources: A Resource-Based Approach.” Technovation 20, no. 2 (2000):
81–92.
31. Hamel, Gary, and Prahalad, C. K. Competing for the Future. Boston: Harvard Business School
Press, 1994.
32. Davies, Andrew, and Brady, Tim. “Organisational Capabilities and Learning in Complex
Product Systems: Toward Repeatable Solutions.” Research Policy 29, nos. 7–8 (200): 931–53.
33. De Carolis, Donna M. “Competencies and Imitability in the Pharmaceutical Industry: An
Analysis of Their Relationship with Firm Performance.” Journal of Management 29, no. 1
(2003): 27–50.
34. Gallon, Mark R.; Stillman, Harold M.; and Coates, David. “Putting Core Competence
Thinking into Practice.” Research Technology Management 38, no. 3 (1995): 20–28.
35. Hafeez, Kahlid; Zhang YangBing; and Malak, Naila. “Determining Key Capabilities of a
Firm Using Analytic Hierarchy Process.” International Journal of Production Economics 76,
no. 1 (2002): 39–51.
36. Javidian, Mansour. “Core Competence: What Does It Mean in Practice?” Long Range Plan-
ning 31, no. 1 (1998): 60–71.
37. Moorman, Christine, and Slotegraaf, Rebecca J. “The Contingency Value of Comple-
mentary Capabilities in Product Development.” Journal of Marketing Research 36 (1999):
239–57.
38. Stuart, Roger; Thompson, John E.; and Harrison, Janette. “From Generalizable to Or-
ganization-Specific Competence Frameworks.” Journal of Management Development 14, no.
1 (1995): 67–80.
39. Thomas, Howard, and Pollock, Timothy. “From I-O Economics’ S-C-P Paradigm through
Strategic Groups to Competence-Based Competition: Reflections on the Puzzle of Com-
petitive Strategy.” British Journal of Management 10 (1999): 127–40.
40. Gorman, Phil, and Thomas, Howard. “The Theory and Practice of Competence-Based
Competition.” Long Range Planning 30, no. 4 (1997): 615–20.
41. Bergenhenegouwen, G. J.; ten Horn, H. F. K.; and Mooijman, E. A. M. “Competence
Development—a Challenge for Human Resource Professionals: Core Competencies of
Organizations and Guidelines for the Development of Employees.” Industrial and Com-
mercial Training 29, no. 2 (1997): 55–61.
42. Bonn, Ingrid. “Developing Strategic Thinking as a Core Competency.” Management Decision
39, no. 1 (2001): 63–71.
43. Petts, Nigel. “Building Growth on Core Competencies—a Practical Approach.” Long Range
Planning 30, no. 4 (1997): 551–61.
44. Tyler, Beverly B. “The Complementarity of Cooperative and Technological Competencies:
A Resource-Based Perspective.” Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 18, no.
1 (2001): 1–27.
45. Katz, William A. Collection Development: The Selection of Materials for Libraries. New York: Holt,
Rinehart & Winston, 1980.
46. Shearer, Kenneth D. “Applying New Theories to Library Selection.” Drexel Library Quarterly
19, no. 2 (1983): 73–90.

47. Wortman, William. Collection Management: Background and Principles. Chicago: American
Library Association, 1989.
48. Edelman, Hendrik. “Selection Methodology in Academic Libraries.” Library Resources and
Technical Services 23, no. 1 (1979): 33–38.
49. Atkinson, Ross W. “Access, Ownership, and the Future of Collection Development.” In
Collection Management and Development: Issues in an Electronic Era; Proceedings of the Advanced
Collection Management and Development Institute, edited by Peggy Johnson and Bonnie
MacEwan. Chicago: American Library Association, 1994.
50. Gwinn, Nancy E., and Mosher, Paul H. “Coordinating Collection Development: The RLG
Conspectus.” College & Research Libraries 44, no. 2 (1983): 128–40.
51. Anderson, Joanne S., and American Library Association Administrative and Collection
Development Committee. Guide for Written Collection Policy Statements (Collection Management
and Development Guides), no. 7, 2nd ed. Chicago: American Library Association, 1996.
52. Evans, Edward G. Developing Library and Information Center Collections. Englewood, CO:
Libraries Unlimited, 1995.
53. Robbins, Stephen. Essentials of Organizational Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall,
1994.
54. Boles, Frank; Young, Julia M.; Yates, J.; Chesnut, P. I.; and Rapport, L. “Appraisal of Archive
Material.” American Archivist 48, no. 2 (1985): 121–40.
55. Clapp, Verner W., and Jordan, Robert T. “Quantitative Criteria for Adequacy of Academic
Library Collections.” College & Research Libraries 50, no. 3 (1989): 154–63.
56. Holleman, Curt. “Electronic Resources: Are Basic Criteria for Selection of Materials
Changing?” Library Trends 48, no. 4 (2000): 694–710.
57. Knapp, Patricia B. The Monteith College Library Experiment. New York: Scarecrow Press, 1966.
58. Kovacs, Diane K., and Elkordy, Angela. “Collection Development in Cyberspace: Building
an Electronic Library Collection.” Library-Hi Tech 18, no. 4 (2000): 335–59.
59. Losee, Robert M. “A Decision-Theoretic Model of Materials Selection for Acquisitions.”
Library Quarterly 57, no. 3 (1987): 269–83.
60. Losee, Robert M. “Theoretical Adequacy and the Scientific Study of Materials Selection.”
Collection Management 10, nos. 3 and 4 (1988): 15–27.
61. Metz, Paul. “Principles of Selection for Electronic Resources.” Library Trends 48, no. 4
(2000): 711–28.
62. Rutledge, John, and Swindler, Luke. “The Selection Decision: Defining Criteria and Es-
tablishing Priorities.” College & Research Libraries 48, no. 2 (1987): 123–31.
63. Babbie, Earl. The Practice of Social Research. Belmont, CA: Wordsworth, 1992.


Corporate Library Resource Selection - Exploring Its Support For Corporate Core Competencies

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Corporate Library Resource Selection - Exploring Its Support For Corporate Core Competencies

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Corporate Library Resource Selection: Exploring Its Support for Corporate Core Competencies

This content downloaded from 186.205.27.3 on Thu, 26 Sep 2013 22:37:31 PM

Is information wealth? If it is, then the corporate library, an intellectual

[Library Quarterly, vol. 77, no. 4, pp. 385–408]

This content downloaded from 186.205.27.3 on Thu, 26 Sep 2013 22:37:31 PM

uation—have been the most elusive to define and formidable to accom-

Corporate Library Contribution

First Requirement—Professional Activities

Second Requirement—Organizational Intellectual Phenomenon

This content downloaded from 186.205.27.3 on Thu, 26 Sep 2013 22:37:31 PM

Third Requirement—Corporate Products and Services

This content downloaded from 186.205.27.3 on Thu, 26 Sep 2013 22:37:31 PM

Fig. 1.—Corporate library contribution

sectors. As customers realize this value by buying corporate products and

Research Question 1: Core Competence

This content downloaded from 186.205.27.3 on Thu, 26 Sep 2013 22:37:31 PM

understanding of some particular phenomenon, such as chemicals, steel,

Research Question 2: Selection

This content downloaded from 186.205.27.3 on Thu, 26 Sep 2013 22:37:31 PM

This content downloaded from 186.205.27.3 on Thu, 26 Sep 2013 22:37:31 PM

Research Question 3: Core Competence/Selection Model

This content downloaded from 186.205.27.3 on Thu, 26 Sep 2013 22:37:31 PM

RESOURCE SELECTION TABLE 1

Research Question Procedure

ysis; these pages, as well as hundreds of additional pages of documents,

This content downloaded from 186.205.27.3 on Thu, 26 Sep 2013 22:37:31 PM

company for being knowledgeable and thoughtful concerning the firm’s

Here, a greater number of patents indicated greater competence depth

This content downloaded from 186.205.27.3 on Thu, 26 Sep 2013 22:37:31 PM

management. Most had many years of experience serving scientists and

Results and Analysis

Research Question One: Core Competence Attributes (Breadth and Depth)

This content downloaded from 186.205.27.3 on Thu, 26 Sep 2013 22:37:31 PM

This content downloaded from 186.205.27.3 on Thu, 26 Sep 2013 22:37:31 PM

For example, in three of the firms, understandings of the general tech-

This content downloaded from 186.205.27.3 on Thu, 26 Sep 2013 22:37:31 PM

or skill is a bulleted item. Adding a new item would represent broadening

Research Questions 2 and 3: Selection Attributes and Theoretical Model

This content downloaded from 186.205.27.3 on Thu, 26 Sep 2013 22:37:31 PM

This content downloaded from 186.205.27.3 on Thu, 26 Sep 2013 22:37:31 PM

This content downloaded from 186.205.27.3 on Thu, 26 Sep 2013 22:37:31 PM

hold an enormous variety of items, such as databases, journal and trade

This content downloaded from 186.205.27.3 on Thu, 26 Sep 2013 22:37:31 PM

This content downloaded from 186.205.27.3 on Thu, 26 Sep 2013 22:37:31 PM

Fig. 3.—Selection’s support of corporate core competencies

Revised Theoretical Model

This content downloaded from 186.205.27.3 on Thu, 26 Sep 2013 22:37:31 PM

This content downloaded from 186.205.27.3 on Thu, 26 Sep 2013 22:37:31 PM

complex, topic-specific items can be chosen by those with the deepest

Directions for Further Research

This content downloaded from 186.205.27.3 on Thu, 26 Sep 2013 22:37:31 PM

ships could be studied in firms similar to the ones examined here or in a

In summary, this research addressed the contribution that corporate li-

This content downloaded from 186.205.27.3 on Thu, 26 Sep 2013 22:37:31 PM

6. Williams, Robert V. “Productivity Measures in Special Libraries: Prospects and Problems

This content downloaded from 186.205.27.3 on Thu, 26 Sep 2013 22:37:31 PM

This content downloaded from 186.205.27.3 on Thu, 26 Sep 2013 22:37:31 PM

This content downloaded from 186.205.27.3 on Thu, 26 Sep 2013 22:37:31 PM

S-ar putea să vă placă și