1 / 65

Library Automation Systems:

Library Automation Systems:. Breaking from the Past into a New Future. Marshall Breeding Director for Innovative Technology and Research Vanderbilt University http://www.librarytechnology.org/. Northwestern University Library November 27, 2007. Summary.

javen
Télécharger la présentation

Library Automation Systems:

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. Library Automation Systems: Breaking from the Past into a New Future Marshall Breeding Director for Innovative Technology and Research Vanderbilt University http://www.librarytechnology.org/ Northwestern University Library November 27, 2007

  2. Summary • Breeding will provide an overview of where we have been and where we are going in the ILS (Integrated Library System) environment. ILS’s have been around for 35 years and technology has changed exponentially during this timeframe. This session will provide a review of the evolutionary path that the ILS has taken to date, give a look at some of the next-generation library interfaces, and offer some suggestions for a more transformational approach possible for the future.

  3. Automation Trends • Business environment where commercial companies prevail, offering proprietary systems • ILS developers struggle to adapt to changing technology expectations. • OCLC acquiring library automation companies –no one is really sure of OCLC’s intentions and motivations • Libraries hard at work creating library automation software, willing to share with peer institutions • A major new ILS product created by a publicly funded library agency • Developers from that agency form a new company to promote and support that software in other libraries

  4. When?

  5. 1982!

  6. The Ghost of ILS Past

  7. Library automation 25 years ago

  8. Technology Environment • Age of turnkey systems • Large-scale mainframes, transition to: • Minicomputers • Super-micros • Very high hardware costs • Limited telecommunications bandwidth • Proprietary operating systems • Proprietary programming languages • Open systems beginning to emerge • Unix • VMS

  9. Top commercial vendors: • CL Systems Inc / CLSI • Cincinnati Electronics • Data Phase -- ALIS • Geac – GLIS 7000 • Biblio-Techniques -- BLIS • Universal Library Systems -- UTLAS • VTLS • Electric Memory – EMILS/3000 • Card Datalog – DTI Data Trek • Carlyle Systems – TOMUS (The Online Multiple User System)

  10. Major products Launched • Sirsi begins offering Unicorn beyond original GA Tech site • Innovative launches INNOVAQ • Data Research Associates begins to market ATLAS • Follett enters ILS market (1983)

  11. Libraries developing ILS products • Northwestern launches NOTIS (1983) • Internal development and use since the late 1960’s • Penn State launches LIAS (1983) • Georgetown LIS (1983) • Washington University School of Medicine Library (St. Louis) BAGS (Bibliographic Access and Control System) • Tacoma Public Library – Alice-B

  12. Companies Supporting Public Domain ILS • ILS – Developed by NLM Lister Hills Laboratories for Biomedical Communications; owned by U.S. Government; essentially in the public domain. • Avatar – Provides Support for Lister Hills ILS – company created by ILS developers from NLM • Online Computer Systems – Marketed Lister Hills ILS

  13. OCLC makes its foray into the ILS • OCLC develops LLS (Local Library System) internally • OCLC acquires Total Library System from Claremont Colleges • OCLC adopts public domain Lister Hill ILS • drops LLS development; • Joint development agreement with Online Computer Systems • Acquires Avatar in 1983 • launched as LS 2000 in 1983 based on ILS • OCLC acquires ALIS I and ALIS II from failing DataPhase (1987) • Withdrew from the ILS arena in 1990

  14. Library Automation M&A History

  15. The Ghost of ILS Present

  16. Technology Landscape • Most ILS products from commercial vendors mature • None less than a decade old • Approaching end of life cycle? • Evolved systems • No success in launching new systems • Horizon 8.0 • Taos

  17. Current Vintage • ALEPH 500 1996 • Voyager 1995 • Unicorn 1982 • Polaris 1997 • Virtua 1995 • Koha 1999 • Library.Solution 1997 • Evergreen 2004

  18. Business Landscape • Library Journal Automated System Marketplace: • An Industry redefined (April 1, 2007) • An increasingly consolidated industry • Moving out of a previous phase of fragmentation where many companies expend energies producing decreasingly differentiated systems in a limited marketplace • Venture Capital firms have cashed out • Private Equity playing a stronger role then ever before • Narrowing of product options • Open Source opportunities rise to challenge the grip of traditional commercial model

  19. Other Business Observations • Level of innovation falls below expectations, despite deep resources and large development teams. • Companies struggle to keep up with ILS enhancements and R&D for new innovations. • Pressure within companies to reduce costs, increase revenue • Pressure from libraries for more innovative products

  20. Companies owned by private equity • Golden Gate Capital • Infor  Extensity  Geac (formerly a public company) • Francisco Partners • Ex Libris (acquired from Tamar Tech, Walden, Hebrew U.) • Endeavor Information Systems (acquired from Elsevier) • Vista Equity Partners • SirsiDynix (acquired from Seaport)

  21. Private Holding Company • Croyden • Polaris Library Systems (Formerly part of Gaylord Bros)

  22. Public companies: • Auto-Graphics • De-listed from SEC reporting requirements • Was OTC:AUGR now Pink Sheets:AUGR • OpenText • Spin-off form Battelle • Information Dimensions • Acquired by OCLC, run as for-profit business unit • Sold to Gores Technology Group • Acquired by OpenText • Move involved in enterprise information management than ILS

  23. Founder / Family owned companies • Innovative Interfaces • 100% ownership by Jerry Kline following 2001 buy-out of partner Steve Silberstein • The Library Corporation • Owned by Annette Murphy family • VTLS – tech spin-off from Virginia Tech, wholly owned by Vinod Chachra • These companies not under the control of external financial interests

  24. Cambridge Information Group / Bowker • Emerging as a major library technology company: • Serials Solutions • Syndetic Solutions • Electronic Resource Management • Federated Search • E-Journals data • AquaBrowser • Next-gen Interface

  25. OCLC in the ILS arena? • Increasingly overlapped with library automation activities • WorldCat Local recently announced • Pilot in University of Washington Libraries • UC System will migrate Melvyl to WorldCat Local • Penetrating deeper into local libraries • Library-owned cooperative on a buying binge of automation companies: • Openly Informatics • Fretwell-Downing Informatics • Sisis Informationssysteme • PICA (now 100%) • DiMeMa (CONTENTdm) • ILS companies concerned about competing with a non-profit with enormous resources and the ability to shift costs.

  26. Open Source Alternatives • Explosive interest in Open Source driven by disillusionment with current vendors • Beginning to emerge as a practical option • TOC (Total Cost of Ownership) still roughly equal to proprietary commercial model • Open Source still a risky Alternative • Commercial/Proprietary options also a risk

  27. The Open Source Front • Index Data • Founded 1994; No ILS; A variety of other open source products to support libraries: search engines, federated search, Z39.50 toolkit, etc • LibLime • Founded 2005. Provides development and support services for Koha ILS. Acquired original developers of Koha in Feb 2007. • Equinox. • Founded Feb 2007; staff formerly associated with GPLS Pines development team • Care Affiliates • Founded June 2007; headed by industry veteran Carl Grant.

  28. Open source ILS Benchmarks • Most decisions to adopt Open Source ILS based on philosophical reasons • Open Source ILS will enter the main stream once its products begin to win through objective procurement processes • Hold open source ILS to the same standards as the commercial products • Hold the open source ILS companies to the same standards: • Adequate customer support ratios, financial stability, service level agreements, etc. • Well-document total cost of ownership statements that can be compared to other vendor price quotes

  29. Open Source Market share / Perspective • Open Source ILS implementations still a very small percentage of the total picture • Initial set of successful implementations will likely serve as a catalyst to pave the way for others • Successful implementations in wider range of libraries: • State-wide consortium (Evergreen) • Multi-site public library systems (Koha) • School district consortia (OPALS-NA)

  30. ILS Migration Trends • Few voluntary lateral migrations • Forced Migrations • Vendor abandonment • Need to move from legacy systems • Exit from bad marriages with vendors • Exit from bad marriages with consortia

  31. Products surrounding the ILS • It’s never been harder to justify investments in ILS • Nothing transformational about a lateral migration • Need for products focused on electronic content and user experience • Next-gen interfaces • Federated search • Linking • Electronic Resource Management

  32. An age of less integrated systems • Core ILS supplemented by: • OpenURL Link Resolvers • Metasearch / Federated Search • Electronic Resource Management • Next Generation Library Interfaces

  33. No longer an ILS-centric industry • Portion of revenues derived from core ILS products diminishing relative to other library tech products • Many companies and organizations that don’t offer an ILS are involved in library automation: • OCLC • Cambridge / Bowker • WebFeat • Muse Global

  34. Working toward next generation library interfaces • Redefinition of the library catalog • More comprehensive information discovery environments • Better information delivery tools • More powerful search capabilities • More elegant presentation

  35. Comprehensive Search Service • More like OAI • Problems of scale diminished • Problems of cooperation persist

  36. Incorporate Web 2.0 concepts • A more social and collaborative approach • Web Tools and technology that foster collaboration • User supplied ratings, rankings, and reviews • Blogs, wiki, blogs, tagging, social bookmarking • Example: LibraryThing for Libraries

  37. Web 2.0 supporting technologies • Web services • XML Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) • AJAX (asynchronous JavaScript and XML) • RSS • OpenSearch vs SRU/SRW

  38. Redefinition of library catalogs • Traditional notions of the library catalog are being questioned • It’s no longer enough to provide a catalog limited to print resources • Digital resources cannot be an afterthought • Forcing users to use different interfaces depending on type of content becoming less tenable • Libraries working toward consolidated search environments that give equal footing to digital and print resources

  39. Interface expectations • Millennial generation library users are well acclimated to the Web and like it. • Used to relevancy ranking • The “good stuff” should be listed first • Users tend not to delve deep into a result list • Good relevancy requires a sophisticated approach, including objective matching criteria supplemented by popularity and relatedness factors. • Very rapid response. Users have a low tolerance for slow systems • Rich visual information: book jacket images, rating scores, etc.

  40. Faceted Navigation • Well established discovery method in e-commerce arena • Let users drill down through the result set incrementally narrowing the field • Faceted Browsing • Drill-down vs up-front Boolean or “Advanced Search” • gives the users clues about the number of hits in each sub topic. • Navigational Bread crumbs

  41. Current Next-Gen catalog products

  42. Common characteristics • Decoupled interfaceMass export of catalog dataAlternative search engineAlternative interface

  43. Endeca Guided Navigation • North Carolina State University http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/catalog/ • McMaster University http://libcat.mcmaster.ca/ • Phoenix Public Library http://www.phoenixpubliclibrary.org/ • Florida Center for Library Automation http://catalog.fcla.edu/ux.jsp

  44. AquaBrowser Library • Queens Borough Public Library • http://aqua.queenslibrary.org/

  45. Ex Libris Primo • Vanderbilt University http://alphasearch.library.vanderbilt.edu • University of Minnesota http://prime2.oit.umn.edu:1701/primo_library/libweb/action/search.do?vid=TWINCITIES • University of Iowa http://smartsearch.uiowa.edu/

  46. Encore from Innovative Interfaces • Nashville Public Library http://nplencore.library.nashville.org/iii/encore/app • Scottsdale Public Library http://encore.scottsdaleaz.gov/iii/encore/app • Yale University Lillian Goldman Law Library http://encore.law.yale.edu/iii/encore/app

  47. VUFind – Villanova University Based on Apache Solr search toolkit http://www.vufind.org/

  48. OCLC Worldcat Local • OCLC Worldcat customized for local library catalog • Relies on hooks into ILS for local services • Washington University Libraries http://uwashington.worldcat.org/ • University of California Melvyl Catalog

  49. Library-developed solutions • eXtensible Catalog • University of Rochester – River Campus Libraries • Financial support from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation • http://www.extensiblecatalog.info/ • Just received a second round of funding from Mellon • Wider institutional participation

  50. The Ghost of ILS Yet to Come

More Related