I worked in an major academic library from 2000 until 2007. Libraries know about the changing landscape and it's the basis of pretty much everything librarians discuss these day. A number of the big academic libraries have added cafes and digital centers. At the university where I worked, most of the network of computer labs throughout campus were put into the library.
There are also services that people aren't really aware of. For example, the article's author mentions that he wanted an article from a 1978 issue of a neuroscience journal that his local library doesn't have. But doesn't actually matter if the local library doesn't have it because practically every library in the US offers an interlibrary loan service and will get you a copy of the article from a library that does have it.
Still, there are a couple things holding libraries back. One is that librarians traditionally have entered the field because they were attracted the old, book-centric library model. Even at the beginning of this decade at my library there were many people who were very much opposed to even the idea of google. There is very low turnover in many big libraries (academic libraries are filled with staff members who have spent decades in the same jobs) and the pay is so low that it's difficult to attract skilled technology workers.
Furthermore, libraries are usually strange, bureaucratic organizations. They operate sort of like businesses, but they have no revenue and, therefore, most metrics and benchmarks always felt somewhat contrived, and therefore office politics had a more prominent role in decision-making processes. It's also very, very difficult for most academic libraries to fire people, so they attract people who are looking for jobs with good benefits that they can coast in. I'm guessing public libraries are similar.
The result of all of this is that libraries often make bizarre decisions about technology. Librarians hop on mainstream technology fads in ridiculous ways. For instance, when I left in 2007, the most prominent issue discussed on library blogs was how important it was to have a presence on Second Life.
There are also services that people aren't really aware of. For example, the article's author mentions that he wanted an article from a 1978 issue of a neuroscience journal that his local library doesn't have. But doesn't actually matter if the local library doesn't have it because practically every library in the US offers an interlibrary loan service and will get you a copy of the article from a library that does have it.
Still, there are a couple things holding libraries back. One is that librarians traditionally have entered the field because they were attracted the old, book-centric library model. Even at the beginning of this decade at my library there were many people who were very much opposed to even the idea of google. There is very low turnover in many big libraries (academic libraries are filled with staff members who have spent decades in the same jobs) and the pay is so low that it's difficult to attract skilled technology workers.
Furthermore, libraries are usually strange, bureaucratic organizations. They operate sort of like businesses, but they have no revenue and, therefore, most metrics and benchmarks always felt somewhat contrived, and therefore office politics had a more prominent role in decision-making processes. It's also very, very difficult for most academic libraries to fire people, so they attract people who are looking for jobs with good benefits that they can coast in. I'm guessing public libraries are similar.
The result of all of this is that libraries often make bizarre decisions about technology. Librarians hop on mainstream technology fads in ridiculous ways. For instance, when I left in 2007, the most prominent issue discussed on library blogs was how important it was to have a presence on Second Life.