Bailey (1991) describes intelligence as the ability to acquire new knowledge; refine procedures for dealing with a novel situation; know, understand, recognise and deal with novel problems; represent, map and access knowledge in memory; control various processes of intelligent behaviour; perform arithmetic operations; use problem-solving knowledge (reasoning); interact with and understand other people, machines and programmes; recognise natural language; and recognise visual images (visual perception). An intelligent library is self-renewing, flexible, functional, integrated, efficient, resilient, autonomous and sensitive (adaptive).

The information explosion (infobesity), the computer revolution, proliferation of new media and the push towards universal bibliographic control have jolted the foundations of conventional information management (Svenonius, 2000). The situation has been exacerbated by the growing ubiquity of the Internet and related communication technologies, which are placing more information management responsibilities on users. Whilst the Internet facilitates users in publishing and accessing more information, it also burdens them with the need to organise it if the full benefits of its availability are to be realised. Emerging information and communication technologies are acknowledged as valuable tools of information management, but they can also lead to an unprecedented information overload as thoughts are spread thin and scattered, in many respects. Herbert Simon, a pioneer advocate of attention economy, warned of information overload as early as 1971, when he stated that a wealth of information creates poverty of attention (Simon, 1971). His prediction appears to be fulfilled daily because of the information revolution. Typically, an individual has to deal with multiple information streams simultaneously. It is not strange to encounter someone chatting with more than two people on Skype, Instant Messenger or Google Chat, while also talking on a mobile phone and reading Twitter feeds at the same time. This information overload affects people’s ability to discriminate and process available data into useful information. This is largely because information is currently presented to its potential users in a scattered and overwhelming manner. Consequently users have to consume diverse pieces of information delivered via myriad platforms and devices to be able to make decisions. It is not unusual that one has to shuttle back and forth between applications, browsers or feeds to complete simple tasks. As Levasseur (2013) points out, this information consumption pattern is costly and unsustainable because as information continues to grow in quantity, scope and complexity, the pressure to manage it effectively also builds up (Robu, 2008). Kelly (2008) explains that findability is a key element of effective information management in the modern era and emphasises that when there are millions of books, millions of songs, millions of films, millions of applications, millions of everything requesting one’s attention – and most of it free – findability is a major determinant of whether the information will be used or not. The pressure to manage the vast information pathways effectively creates the need for innovative content management strategies that can cope with the prevailing ambiguity, heterogeneity and differences in perspectives (Morville and Rosenfeld, 2006) of the current information environment.

Library 3.0 tools draw together diverse information sources and platforms to create a robust information network working seamlessly to facilitate fast, accurate and systematic information searching and retrieval (Belling et al., 2011; Chauhan, 2009). The 3.0 platform integrates disparate information channels, formats and environments to ensure availability, accessibility, searchability and usability of credible information (Chauhan, 2009). The search environment thus created is not only integrated but also comprehensive. Library 3.0 supports expressiveness and interoperability to create synergies between hitherto disparate information resources and systems. These synergies are achieved through federation of content, services and user identities enhanced by vertical searching and the interconnection of information islands to create a rich web of information pathways.

Apomediation is a new scholarly socio-technological term that characterises the process of disintermediation. Intermediaries are middlemen or ‘gatekeepers’, for example, health professionals giving ‘relevant’ information to patients, and ‘disintermediation’ means that they are bypassed. The former intermediaries are functionally replaced by apomediaries, that is, network or collaborative filtering processes (Eysenbach, 2008 [WebCite] and 2007b). The difference between an intermediary and an apomediary is that an intermediary stands ‘in between’ (Latin ‘inter-’, ‘between’) the consumer and information or a service, and is seen as absolutely necessary to get that information or service (Table 3.2). Intermediation has also been observed to affect the quality of the information users receive, because it is influenced heavily by the qualities of the intermediary. In contrast, apomediation means the action of agents (people, tools) who or which ‘stand by’ (Ancient Greek ‘apo’, ‘separate, away from’ and Latin ‘mediare’, ‘to mediate’) (Eysenbach, 2008; O’Connor, 2010) to guide a consumer to information or services or experiences of high quality, without being a prerequisite to obtain the information or service. The switch from an intermediation to an apomediation model has broad implications, for example, for the way people judge credibility, as hypothesised and elaborated elsewhere (Eysenbach, 2008). Apomediation seeks to bridge the gap created by disintermediation, the elimination of intermediaries in the information demand and supply chain, which implies that users may get lost in the vast reservoirs of information available in the infosphere. Users who lose their way in the infosphere may end up accessing inaccurate information, leading them to wrong conclusions and application. Apomediaries offer guidance to users to obtain trustworthy information using less traditional methods or sources. Essentially, apomediation is a shift from the reliance on gatekeepers to networked approaches for identifying, locating and using trustworthy information.

The need to personalise library services, as a means of satisfying user needs effectively, has been constant in the history of libraries. Because of the relatively small numbers of users they served, librarians in former times perhaps just tried to remember the face and interests of each user and endeavoured to offer as much personalised service as was then possible. However, the need for deeper personalisation has become more apparent in the recent past owing to the emergence of information technologies, which have provided greater opportunities for librarians to tailor services and products to the users.

On one hand, Library 0.0 is the oldest and most common library model. It is conservative and traditional and exhibits minimal application of technology. Its performance is largely defined by just-in-case monolithic physical collection and site-based service. Library 0.0 users rely heavily on librarians to mediate access and use of the services and products. Library 0.0 applies rigid routines within established hierarchies, structures and procedures. The Library 0.0 space is ‘sacred’ and total silence is expected therein. On the other hand, Library 3.0 is just emerging and has yet to gain common acceptance. It uses a wide range of technology applications and tools to create a networked environment in which library services are offered through apomediation. Library 3.0’s virtual and physical spaces are defined largely by the users, who sometimes share or personalise them depending on the prevailing need. The use of the physical or virtual Library 3.0 spaces is varied and liberal; for example, noise zones are provided. In spite of their differences in approach and history, both Library 0.0 and Library 3.0 emphasise credibility of information.

Library 1.0 applies the read-only Web 1.0. Although it is traditional and conservative in approach, Library 1.0 exhibits minimal digitisation of library services and products offered through varying degrees of intermediation. This library service model emphasises the expertise of the librarians and limits user participation to negotiating queries within defined boundaries between users and librarians. The services and products offered in a typical 1.0 library are fixed with clear terms of use. Typical 1.0 libraries maintain monolithic proprietary systems as well as linear and hierarchical processes. The focus of services in Library 1.0 is on information resources, not information. The services are delivered uniformly (one size fits all). In contrast, Library 3.0 applies Web 3.0 which offers the users diverse opportunities to contribute to the library services and products through apomediation. There are no fixed boundaries between the spaces and roles of users and librarians in a typical Library 3.0 environment, which facilitates seamless collaboration in meeting the needs of users. Library 3.0 collections are fluid, distributed and often generated on the fly by users, experts and librarians through apomediation anchored on multidirectional processes. Both models emphasise the quality of information and have mechanisms to ensure users access and utilise only credible information sources, albeit differently; in 1.0, through intermediation and in 3.0, through apomediation.

Library 2.0 is very close to Library 3.0, except that the former is anchored on disintermediation, while the latter works through apomediation. Similarly, Library 2.0 provides a network of hyperlinks to information sources retrieved through key words, while Library 3.0 provides links to meaningful data identified through smart searching approaches. Library 2.0 thrives on abundant quantities of information, while Library 3.0 focuses on the quality of information. Nonetheless, both library service models facilitate user participation and innovative dynamism, as well as the development and use of collaborative communities. They also use a combination of liberal virtual and physical spaces. Both library service models use just-in-time library collections which are largely in digital format.

Library 3.0 gives research and academic libraries the tools and approaches to offer personalised services to their users. Personalisation enables libraries to offer services that are tailored to match specific user needs. This benefit is achieved, for instance, through personalised content, context and user interface. Personalisation in the Library 3.0 environment is also achieved through the provision of customisation tools, which enable users to create profiles and experiences which are unique to their needs and preferences. Library 3.0 also provides adaptable and adaptive systems that facilitate personalisation with minimal intervention from users or librarians. Such systems learn the preferences of the users and automatically make provisions for meeting them. 3.0 libraries also achieve personalisation by allowing users to bring and plug in their own devices. This provides an integrated experience that takes care of the users’ personalised data, history, preferences and interests. Those research and academic libraries that have embraced the Library 3.0 model do not treat their users as ‘masses’, but as individuals with specific needs and preferences. Personalisation moves library services and products from just-in-case through just-in-time to just-for-you paradigms. This approach does not only create user loyalty but also enhances the effectiveness of these libraries in meeting the information needs of the users and generating a favourable return on investment. Offering personalised services in research and academic libraries also provides a means of combating information overload and leads to improved productivity.

Convenience is a significant information choice factor in the emerging research and academic library environment. Most research and academic library users want to access and use library services and products with minimal effort. The need for convenience has been compounded by the abundance of information that is steadily inundating research and academic library users. Griffiths and King (2008) explain that convenience is one of the four critical criteria information seekers use to choose a resource. They identify the other three as cost, quality and trustworthiness of the information resource. Connaway, Dickey and Radford (2011) explain that anecdotal evidence seems to suggest that information seekers can sacrifice quality of content to convenience of use. They further point out that this seems to be especially so with younger information seekers. Griffiths and King (2008) conducted a user study, which revealed that library users commonly chose the Internet as an information resource based on its perceived convenience of use rather than the quality of its content. A similar conclusion was reached by Hardesty (2000), who averred that students often accept convenient information, whether appropriate or not, at the expense of relevant but less convenient information. Lee, Hayden and MacMillan (2004) explain that some students find reference services offered in public spaces inconvenient. Such students do not feel free to ask their questions candidly. They recommend that library services should be delivered in convenient locations that are not only accessible but also private.

Findability can be defined as the ability of library users to locate the information they are looking for. It is the quality of information resources of being locatable or navigable; the degree to which a relevant information resource is easy to discover and retrieve (Morville, 2005b). Findability is improved through appropriate information architecture and user interface design. Findability provides intuitive interaction between potential users of information and the resources they are interested in through multiple pathways tailored to the specific users and uses.

Credibility is the measure of believability of an information source. Credibility is expressed through qualities such as trustworthiness and expertise. The credibility of information resources encompasses quality exemplified through accuracy, comprehensiveness, ease of use, format, authority and timeliness; contextualisation; scholarly corroboration; and plausibility demonstrated through approval and acceptance, auditability, objectivity and relevance. In this era of relative ease of publishing, research and academic library users have to constantly deal with serious content credibility crises. They constantly have to make judgments about whether the information resources they access are useful or relevant to their needs, and how much so.

As discussed elsewhere in this chapter, research and academic library users are very concerned about the speed and convenience of service, to the extent that in some circumstances they are willing to compromise the quality of information resources in favour of increased speed of access. The need for fast library services is growing because users, especially part-time researchers or students, have limited time to devote to library usage. Librarians have become aware that they need to help save the time of users now more than ever. Research and academic library users, just like other library users, desire and appreciate instant gratification. Therefore the speed of service is one of the key determinants of how effectively research and academic libraries meet their vision and mission.

The term ‘infotainment’ emerged in the broadcasting industry and is a portmanteau word made from ‘information’ and ‘entertainment’. It is used to denote material that is intended to both inform and entertain in an effort to enhance popularity with audiences (Stockwell, 2004). Several audience studies indicate that infotainment media channels and programmes are more popular with audiences and attract a higher number of adverts than ordinary news channels (Graber, 1994; Brants, 1998; Anderson, 2004).

The realisation that libraries cannot merely operate from a come-and-get-it environment emerged several years ago. Kumbar (2004) explains that as early as 1876, Samuel Swett Green, a founding figure of the American public library movement, was advocating improved personal relations between librarians and readers. Nonetheless, this ‘marketing’ concept did not gain wide popularity among librarians because it was viewed negatively (Lindsay, 2004; Singh, 2009). Kumbar (2004) explains that the negative perception of marketing in libraries may be attributed to the assumption that marketing is manipulative, unprofessional and unnecessary; in many cases, marketing was mistakenly thought to be synonymous with advertising. The situation was exacerbated by the fact that most libraries did not have the resources to support marketing initiatives. Boden and Davis (2006) assert that the situation is changing gradually owing to the realisation that, in the face of the myriad competing alternative sources for supplying information, the marketing of libraries is no longer a luxury but a necessity. Marketing implies a purposive endeavour to understand the needs of present and potential users and comprehensive knowledge of the characteristics and limitations of products developed for the market. Deliberate and sustained efforts should be made to reach out to the potential library community, create an awareness of the services available and ensure the effective use of library resources through a variety of approaches (Schmidt, 2007). Consequently, a growing number of research and academic libraries are creating marketing functions in their staffing structures, with some even employing full-time marketing personnel. The need to market libraries, in the fuller sense defined above, will continue to grow and become more apparent as external competition and internal expectations steadily rise.

The debate on whether or not librarians are still relevant in the modern infosphere has been ongoing for some time now, with some people suggesting that libraries and librarians have actually become obsolete in the wake of the information revolution; typical of this is the view propounded in 1979 by Dennis Lewis (1980), then head of ASLIB. Proponents of the view that libraries are becoming obsolete justify it by pointing to the fact that some libraries are being closed. It is noteworthy, however, that most of the libraries that have been closed are public libraries. It is also noteworthy that while some libraries are being closed, others are being opened. Therefore, the notion that closure of libraries is a global phenomenon is not entirely accurate. Nonetheless, some libraries – including research and academic libraries – are under threat of closure owing to lack of adequate funding, competition from alternative information sources, rising user expectations and technolust, as well as a growing need for value-added services and products.