1 / 75

Strategic Cooperation in Library Automation

Marshall Breeding Independent Consult, Author, Founder and Publisher, Library Technology Guides http://www.librarytechnology.org/ http://twitter.com/mbreeding. Strategic Cooperation in Library Automation. Future library services and Technologies. 21 February 2014.

glain
Télécharger la présentation

Strategic Cooperation in Library Automation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Marshall Breeding Independent Consult, Author, Founder and Publisher, Library Technology Guides http://www.librarytechnology.org/ http://twitter.com/mbreeding Strategic Cooperation in Library Automation Future library services and Technologies 21 February 2014 Library Association of Republic of China

  2. Library Technology Guides www.librarytechnology.org

  3. Progressive consolidation of library services • Centralization of technical infrastructure of multiple libraries within a campus • Resource sharing support • Direct borrowing among partner institutions • Shared infrastructure between institutions • Examples: 2CUL (Columbia University / Cornell University) • Orbis Cascade Alliance (37 independent colleges and universities to merge into shared LSP)

  4. Traditional model of Automation • Single Library System • Includes branches or divisional facilities • Automation strategies often set when capabilities of automation systems were limited • Institutional solo of collection management

  5. Integrated Library System Branch 6 Branch 5 Branch 4 Branch 8 Branch 2 Branch 1 Branch 7 Branch 3 Main Facility Search: Holdings Patrons useCirculation featuresto request itemsfrom other branches Model: Multi-branchIndependentLibrary System Floating Collectionsmay reduce workload for Inter-branchtransfers BibliographicDatabase Library System

  6. Library Consortia • Groups of libraries want to work together to share an automation system • Number of participants limited by the perceived capacities of the automation system

  7. Consortial Borrowing Systems • Each library system operates its own automation environment • Relies on manual and automated processes to allow patrons to discovery and request materials among participants • INN-Reach (Innovative Interfaces) • ShareIT (Auto-Graphics) • Relais ILL • URSA (SirsiDynix, now defunct)

  8. Consortial Resource Sharing System Resource Sharing Application Branch 5 Branch 7 Branch 3 Branch 2 Branch 1 Branch 4 Branch 5 Branch 8 Branch 6 Branch 7 Branch 8 Branch 4 Branch 7 Branch 5 Branch 4 Branch 3 Branch 1 Branch 1 Branch 2 Branch 6 Branch 3 Branch 6 Branch 8 Branch 2 Branch 6 Branch 7 Branch 8 Branch 1 Branch 2 Branch 3 Branch 7 Branch 4 Branch 5 Branch 8 Branch 1 Branch 2 Branch 6 Branch 4 Branch 5 Branch 4 Branch 3 Branch 2 Branch 1 Branch 3 Branch 7 Branch 6 Branch 5 Branch 8 Main Facility Main Facility Main Facility Main Facility Main Facility Main Facility Discovery and Request Management Routines Search: NCIP NCIP Holdings Holdings Holdings Holdings Holdings Holdings NCIP NCIP BibliographicDatabase BibliographicDatabase BibliographicDatabase BibliographicDatabase BibliographicDatabase BibliographicDatabase BibliographicDatabase Inter-System Communications NCIP SIP ISO ILL Z39.50 Staff Fulfillment Tools Library System D Library System E Library System A Library System C Library System B Library System F NCIP NCIP

  9. Shared Infrastructure • Common discovery • Retention of local automation systems • Technical complex with moderate operational benefits • Common discovery + Resource Management Systems • Shared Resource management with local discovery options

  10. Shared Consortial ILS Library 6 Library 1 Library 8 Library 7 Library 10 Library 4 Library 3 Library 2 Library 9 Library 5 Search: Holdings ILS configured To support Direct consortial Borrowing throughCirculation Module Model: Multipleindependentlibraries in a Consortium Share an ILS BibliographicDatabase Shared Consortia System

  11. Stand-alone Automation: Advantages

  12. Locally responsive • Accountable only to the local institution • Automation policies set according to the needs of the local institution. • Compromises not necessary to accommodate external institutions

  13. Policies set according to local preferences and strategies • Circulation loan rules • Local cataloging practices • Indexing (MARC fields, including local) • Online Catalog display policies

  14. Self-reliant for support and training • Local systems staff plays a dominant role • System administration (local or hosted) • Management of data loads

  15. Well defined integration and interoperability • Patron records from student management system • Business transactions to or from ERP (Enterprise resource planning, such as PeopleSoft) • One-to-one data exchange

  16. Direct funding model • Easily understood by funding authorities (university, government agency, etc) • Decision processes take place within the institution • Procurement decisions • Operational policy decisions • Collection management

  17. Operational decisions • Processes defined within the institution • Library committees • Administrative mandates • Streamlined Decision making process

  18. Collection Management • Ability (requirement) to collect materials that directly correspond to the curriculum and research agenda of the institution

  19. Stand-alone Automation: Disadvantages

  20. Costs • The library or its parent institution bears the full cost of the automation system • Software Licenses • Server and other hardware • Inefficacy: unused capacity

  21. Resource Allocation • Technical personnel dedicated to system administration • Server security, software updates, policy table maintenance • Unit managers and other key personnel involved in committees related to ILS policies and operation • Time subtracted from higher-value activities

  22. Collections • Self-reliant collections large unachievable • Limited universe of content offered to library users • Inefficient mechanisms for resource sharing

  23. Strategic Priorities • Resources allocated to automation system need to be proportional to new priorities and strategies • How much attention to spend on managing print collections of decreasing priority • Technical personnel may need to be directed toward: • Digital collection management and preservation • Research data involvement • Web site user experience enhancement

  24. Shared Infrastructure

  25. Governance • All stakeholders represented • Decision making processes that achieve the strategic goals of partnership within the tolerance of each member

  26. Administrative mandates • Some movements to shared systems have not been voluntary • Higher-level authorities assert requirement to share resources and save costs • Even these forced partnerships can produce benefits • Sometimes the only way to overcome local politics and inwardly facing decision making processes

  27. Technical deployment options • Larger scale local deployment managed by lead institution • National or state library • Large academic library • Agency managed • Consortial office • Participation in cloud-based service (multi-tenant software as a service) • Vendor hosted

  28. Strategic cooperation • Members of the partnership have commitment to strategic cooperation • Balance of priorities • Compromise local preferences for higher-level advantages

  29. Collection management • Cooperative Collection Development • Stronger technical support for collection decisions • Immediate awareness of holdings of partner institutions • Use statistics and metrics to assess need and impact • Many new-generation systems have built-in collection analytics tools • Increased ability to fulfill requests among institutions • Informal collection development partnerships often lack technical and organizational support

  30. Advantages forPatrons • Larger universe of materials available • Simple mechanism for placing requests for materials • Expedited delivery of physical materials

  31. Aligned with legacy system replacement • Many libraries operating legacy systems oriented to print collections • Lack electronic resource management despite fundamental shift in collection proportions • Selection of a library services platform will require fundamental reconsideration of resource management workflows • Opportunity to also shift from local to shared resource management model • Lateral shift vs transformative change

  32. Centralization or Distributed Operations • Centralized infrastructure does not require centralized services • Opportunities for partial or complete centralization of specific activities • Technical services: Acquisitions, cataloging, etc. • Leverage specialists across multiple institutions

  33. Remote Storage Facilities • Many libraries must convert selected collections areas to user-oriented spaces • Cost of off-site storage facilities disproportionate for single institutions • Shared physical facilities • Shared infrastructure enables more efficient management and shared access to off-site materials

  34. Challenges of Shared Systems

  35. Compromises • Must moderate local preferences • Distinguish high-value local policies from preferences • Traditional loan rule periods • Meaningful requirements for local stakeholders • Need to rely on partner institutions for agreed upon subject specializations

  36. System suitability • The platform implemented must be able to accommodate the needs of all member libraries • Type, size and complexity • Select a system that has the ability to meet the needs of the largest and most complex members without overwhelming small institutions • Systems with simplified functionality may not be suitable for large academic and municipal libraries

  37. Objective and Measurable Benefits • Must deliver on promised objectives • Increased patron satisfaction • Fulfillment of strategic priorities • Decreased costs • Failure to meet goals can result in exit of members

  38. Operational Complications • Decisions made among multiple institutions • Accommodate applicable policies or business rules among multiple campuses or agencies

  39. Legal and Policy Complications • Data policies: • Mandates for institutional data to be housed locally, instate, or in country • Contract issues: requirements for local legal verbiage

  40. Funding models • Prevailing business policies factor into participation options • Funding as an external service rather than direct costs of local system • Easier to justify if savings are documented • Contract issues • Allocation of public funds may be restricted

  41. Technical Complications • Many-to-one data exchange relationships • Patron records from multiple campus systems • Financial records with multiple financial systems • Cross-institutional authentication • Record loading for multiple institutions

  42. Complex Collection management • Ability to negotiate content procurement for multiple institutions (lower per institution pricing?) • Manage shared and local licensed materials

  43. Accommodation of local Concerns • Options to preserve branding of local institution • Some degree of local policy support • Adequate representation of local stakeholders in collective decision-making processes • Flexibility in operational and technical issues

  44. Library Service Platforms

  45. Academic Libraries need a new model of library management • Not an Integrated Library System or Library Management System • The ILS/LMSwas designed to help libraries manage print collections • Generally did not evolve to manage electronic collections • Other library automation products evolved: • Electronic Resource Management Systems – OpenURL Link Resolvers – Digital Library Management Systems -- Institutional Repositories

  46. Comprehensive Resource Management • No longer sensible to use different software platforms for managing different types of library materials • ILS + ERM + OpenURL Resolver + Digital Asset management, etc. very inefficient model • Flexible platform capable of managing multiple type of library materials, multiple metadata formats, with appropriate workflows • Support for management of metadata in bulk • Continuous lifecycle chain initiated before publication

  47. Library Services Platform • Library-specific software. Designed to help libraries automate their internal operations, manage collections, fulfillment requests, and deliver services • Services • Service oriented architecture • Exposes Web services and other API’s • Facilitates the services libraries offer to their users • Platform • General infrastructure for library automation • Consistent with the concept of Platform as a Service • Library programmers address the APIs of the platform to extend functionality, create connections with other systems, dynamically interact with data

  48. Library Services Platform Characteristics • Highly Shared data models • Knowledgebase architecture • Some may take hybrid approach to accommodate local data stores • Delivered through software as a service • Multi-tenant • Unified workflows across formats and media • Flexible metadata management • MARC – Dublin Core – VRA – MODS – ONIX • Bibframe • New structures not yet invented • Open APIs for extensibility and interoperability

  49. Policies $$$ Funds BIB Vendor Holding / Items CircTransact User Integrated (for print) Library System Public Interfaces: Staff Interfaces: Interfaces Circulation Cataloging Acquisitions Serials OnlineCatalog BusinessLogic DataStores

  50. Policies LicenseTerms BIB Vendors Holding / Items CircTransact User Vendor E-JournalTitles $$$ Funds LMS / ERM: Fragmented Model Public Interfaces: Staff Interfaces: ` Application Programming Interfaces Circulation Cataloging Acquisitions Serials OnlineCatalog E-resourceProcurement LicenseManagement Protocols: CORE

More Related