alberta public libraries technology report and recommendations€¦ · this document is the alberta...

Alberta Public Libraries Technology Report and Recommendations

Prepared for

Alberta Municipal Affairs Public Library Services Branch

Prepared by: ACSI VISION TEAM

Date: March 25, 2011

ACSI

Suite 300 5 Richard Way SW

Calgary, AB T3E 7M8

Alberta Public Libraries Technology Report and Recommendations

Prepared for


Contents

Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. i Purpose ................................................................................................................................................................. ii Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................................... iv

Objective #1: Seamless Access — All Holdings and Services Accessible by all Albertans .............. v Objective #2: Support Technology and Enable Innovation ........................................................................ vi Mandate ........................................................................................................................................................................... vii Context and Methodology of the Technology Plan.......................................................................................... ix Nature of the Technology Report ............................................................................................................................. x Technology Report Recommendation and Candidate Projects ................................................................. xi

Outline ....................................................................................................................................................... 1

Methodology ........................................................................................................................................... 2

Notes and Assumptions ....................................................................................................................... 4

Barriers to Success ............................................................................................................................... 5 Leadership, Management, and Critical Mass ...................................................................................................... 5 Personnel................................................................................................................................................................ ........... 6 Sustainment ................................................................................................................................................................ ..... 6 Policy ................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Processes and Organizations .................................................................................................................................... 7 Other Factors ................................................................................................................................................................... 7

Recommendation R1: Transparent Access to Public Library Holdings ............................. 8 Objectives ............................................................................................................................................................. 9 Issues ..................................................................................................................................................................... 9

1. How to achieve transparent access? ................................................................................................................. 9 2. Local Autonomy and the ILS ............................................................................................................................... 10 3. Presentation: Which OPAC? ............................................................................................................................... 10 4. Presentation: Asking a Librarian. .................................................................................................................... 11

Candidate Projects ......................................................................................................................................... 11 Project R1.1: Revitalized TAL Online............................................................................................................... 13 Project R1.1.1: Union Catalogue ............................................................................................................................ 16 Project R1.1.2: Universal Access ............................................................................................................................ 20 Project R1.1.3: Integrated Inter-Library Loan (ILL) ...................................................................................... 25 Project R1.1.4: Branding and Advertising ......................................................................................................... 29 Project R1.2: Improved Ask A Question ......................................................................................................... 31 Project R1.3: Extend the Revitalized TAL Online ........................................................................................ 34 Project R1.4: RFID Technologies Support ...................................................................................................... 37

Recommendation R2: Centralized-Decentralized Information Technology Support ........................................................................................................................... 40

Objectives .......................................................................................................................................................... 41 Issues .................................................................................................................................................................. 41

1. Costs and Duplication ............................................................................................................................................ 41 2. Training Deficits ...................................................................................................................................................... 41 3. Consistency of Services ......................................................................................................................................... 42 4. Management of Services ....................................................................................................................................... 42

Candidate Projects ......................................................................................................................................... 42 Project R2.1: Cloud-based Data Backup ............................................................................................................. 44 Project R2.2: Network & Server Reporting Services ..................................................................................... 48 Project R2.3: Network Traffic Management ..................................................................................................... 52 Project R2.4: Network Mail Security .................................................................................................................... 55 Project R2.5: Wireless LAN Reporting ................................................................................................................ 57 Project R2.6: Configuration Management System ......................................................................................... 59 Project R2.7: Central Help Desk ............................................................................................................................. 62 Project R2.8: Content Management Training ................................................................................................... 65

Recommendation R3: Collaborative Communications and Content Creation (C4) ...... 68 Recommendation Management ................................................................................................................ 70 Objectives .......................................................................................................................................................... 72 Issues .................................................................................................................................................................. 73

1. Communication Network Gaps .......................................................................................................................... 73 2. Appropriate Spaces ................................................................................................................................................ 73 3. Content Creation Technologies ......................................................................................................................... 73 4. Expertise, training ................................................................................................................................................... 74

Candidate Projects ......................................................................................................................................... 74 Project R3.1: Collaborative and Creative Technologies Innovation Support ...................................... 76 Project R3.2: Videoconferencing Technologies Support ............................................................................. 79 Project R3.3: Community Connectors ................................................................................................................. 83 Project R3.4: Alberta Information Innovations ............................................................................................... 88 Project R3.5: Mobile Digital Media Creation Lab ............................................................................................ 91

Recommendation R4: Alberta Centre for Information Technology and Services ........ 94 Objectives .......................................................................................................................................................... 95 Issues .................................................................................................................................................................. 96

1. Technology Report and Candidate Projects Oversight ............................................................................ 96 2. Project Management .............................................................................................................................................. 96 3. Technology Development Deficiencies .......................................................................................................... 96 4. Technology Training Deficiencies .................................................................................................................... 96 5. Technology Support Inefficiencies and Deficiencies ................................................................................ 96 6. Long-term Sustainment ........................................................................................................................................ 97

ACITS Structure Recommendation .......................................................................................................... 97 Candidate Projects ....................................................................................................................................... 100

Project R4.1: Technology Report Support ...................................................................................................... 101 Project R4.2: ILS Migration Support ................................................................................................................. 104 Project R4.3: Cloud Computing Sandbox......................................................................................................... 108 Project R4.4: OSS-based DAISY app for Android and iPhone ................................................................. 111

Recommendation R5: Electronic Resources ........................................................................... 113 Objectives ........................................................................................................................................................ 113 Issues ................................................................................................................................................................ 114

1. Lack of eReader Support ................................................................................................................................... 114 2. No Transparent Access to eResources ........................................................................................................ 114

Candidate Projects ....................................................................................................................................... 114 Project R5.1: Mobile eReader Training ............................................................................................................ 115 Project R5.2: eResources Transparent Access Investigation .................................................................. 118 Project R5.3: Print-disabled Online Resources Technology Investigation ....................................... 121

Recomendation R6: Infrastructure ............................................................................................ 123 Objectives ........................................................................................................................................................ 123 Issues ................................................................................................................................................................ 124

1. Connectivity ............................................................................................................................................................ 124 2. Security ................................................................................................................................................................ ..... 124 3. Capacity and Performance ............................................................................................................................... 124 4. Long-term Sustainment ..................................................................................................................................... 125

Candidate Projects ....................................................................................................................................... 125 Project R6.1: SuperNet and Internet Network Audit ................................................................................. 126 Project R6.2: Connectivity Options Investigation ........................................................................................ 129 Project R6.3: Library Business VPN .................................................................................................................. 131

Top Candidate Projects .................................................................................................................. 133 Recommendation R1: Transparent Access To Public Library Holdings .................................. 133

Project R1.1: Revitalized TAL Online ................................................................................................................ 133 Recommendation R2: Centralized-Decentralized Information Technology Support ......... 134

Project R2.1: Cloud-based Data Backup .......................................................................................................... 134 Recommendation R3: Collaborative Communications and Content Creation (C4) .............. 135

Project R3.2: Videoconferencing Technologies Support .......................................................................... 135 Recommendation R4: Alberta Centre for Information Technology and Services................. 136

Project R4.1: Technology Report Support ...................................................................................................... 136 Recommendation R5: Electronic Resources ...................................................................................... 137

Project R5.2: eResources Transparent Access Investigation .................................................................. 137 Recommendation R6: Infrastructure .................................................................................................... 138

Project R6.2: Connectivity Options Investigation ........................................................................................ 138

Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 140

Glossary ............................................................................................................................................... 142

References .......................................................................................................................................... 143

Alberta Municipal Affairs Public Library Services Branch ............................................................ 143 Other Sources ................................................................................................................................................ 144

Appendix A — Interviews .............................................................................................................. 147

List of Figures Figure 1 Technology Report project outline ................................................................................................. i

Figure 2 Alberta’s Public Library Service mandate [1] ............................................................................ v

Figure 3 Capability Maturity Model Integration levels ............................................................................ x

Figure 4 The main technology recommendations .................................................................................... xi

Figure 5 Transparent Access Recommendation candidate projects ................................................ xii

Figure 6 Centralized-Decentralized Information Technology Support Recommendation candidate projects ..................................................................................................................................... xiv

Figure 7 Collaborative Communications and Content Creation (C4) candidate projects .......... xv

Figure 8 Alberta Centre for Information Technology and Services candidate projects ........... xvi

Figure 9 Electronic Resources candidate projects ............................................................................... xvii

Figure 10 Infrastructure candidate projects ......................................................................................... xviii

Figure 11 Transparent Access Recommendation candidate projects ............................................. 12

Figure 12 Project R1.1.1 where does the union catalogue live? ........................................................ 16

Figure 13 Project R1.1.1 “build or buy” decision .................................................................................... 17

Figure 14 Project R1.1.1 timeline ................................................................................................................. 18

Figure 15 A universal access system is behind both user interfaces ............................................... 20

Figure 16 Universal access system functional requirements for TAL-based interface ............ 21

Figure 17 Universal access system functional requirements for local library-based interface ............................................................................................................................ 21




Figure 21 Project R1.2 timeline. .................................................................................................................... 31



Figure 24 Centralized-Decentralized Information Technology Support Recommendation candidate projects ..................................................................................................................................... 43






Figure 30 Main functions of a configuration management system. ................................................. 59




Figure 34 An example C4 project proposal development and review process. ............................ 72

Figure 35 Collaborative Communications and Content Creation (C4) candidate projects. ...... 74


Figure 37 Videoconferencing Technologies Support request process............................................ 81


Figure 39 Community Connectors proposal process. ............................................................................ 84




Figure 43 A suggested ACITS organizational structure ........................................................................ 97

Figure 44 Alberta Centre for Information Technology and Services candidate projects. ...... 100

Figure 45 Project R4.1 timeline. .................................................................................................................. 102




Figure 49 Electronic Resources candidate projects. ............................................................................ 114


Figure 51 Project R5.2 timeline ................................................................................................................... 119


Figure 53 Infrastructure candidate projects. ......................................................................................... 125

Figure 54 Project R6.1 Option 1 timeline. ............................................................................................... 127

Figure 55 Project R6.1 Option 2 timeline. ............................................................................................... 127



List of Tables Table 1 Project R1.1.1 cost estimates........................................................................................................ 189

Table 2 Project R1.1.2 cost estimates.......................................................................................................... 23



Table 5 Project R1.2 cost estimates ............................................................................................................. 32



Table 8 Some advantages and disadvantages of cloud-based storage. ........................................... 45


Table 10 Project R2.2 cost estimates........................................................................................................... 50












Table 22 ACITS organizational element definitions .............................................................................. 98

Table 23 Recommendation R4 budget. ....................................................................................................... 99

Table 24 Project R4.1 cost estimates......................................................................................................... 102







Table 31 Project R6.1 audit costs per library. ........................................................................................ 128

Table 32 Project R6.2 cost estimate........................................................................................................... 130

Table 33 Project R6.3 cost estimate........................................................................................................... 132

Table 34 Projects affected/impacted by Project R1.1 ......................................................................... 134


Table 36 Projects affected/impacted by Project R3.2. ........................................................................ 136




i

Introduction This document is a Technology Report written in response to a request for proposal (RFP) by Alberta Municipal Affairs Public Library Services Branch [2]. The project started October 6, 2010 with a final objective of a Technology Report to be completed by March 31, 2011 [2].

The objectives of the Technology Report are defined by the requirements of the RFP [3] and the accepted proposal response [4]. In essence, the project was to develop Technology recommendations and projects executable over a three-year period and applicable for three to five years. The project was divided into three main phases shown in Figure 1 and defined as follows:

• Phase 1 — Library Technology Literature Survey and Trends review; execute a literature search with a focus on past and current electronic library technologies and technology trends,

• Phase 2 — Technology Needs Identification & Analysis, Technology Inventory Assessment; through stakeholder consultation and library technologies surveys, assess the current state of technology deployment and use in Alberta Public Libraries,

• Phase 3 — Technology Report Development; based on the results of Phases 1 and 2 and the expertise of the project team, develop a set of recommendations and actions that will comprise a Technology Report.

Figure 1-Technology Report project outline

Interim reports were used to capture the results of Phases 1 and 2 [13][14] and serve as key background documents for this document, which is the Technology Report and main deliverable of Phase 3.

ii

Purpose This document is the Alberta Public Libraries Technology Report and Recommendations developed according to the request for proposal (RFP) by the Alberta Municipal Affairs Public Library Services Branch [2], and in accordance with the Public Library Services Branch supplied requirements [3].

The main purpose is to define technology-based recommendations and candidate projects that can be executed over a three-year period. The intention of the report is to address technology needs identified by public library stakeholders that have been identified prior to and during the development of the report. The needs are to be addressed both in the current timeframe and in a way that anticipates future technology trends and uses.

The Technology Report is the result of a larger initiative defined in the MLA Committee Report Framework for the Future: Positioning Alberta Libraries for the 21st Century [1]. As explained below, the Technology Report directly addresses the five main technology recommendations from the report and supports five other recommendations that are directly influenced and supported by technology.

The Technology Report is comprised of six recommendations that together support two main objectives. The objectives were identified in the MLA Committee Report Framework for the Future: Positioning Alberta Libraries for the 21st Century [1] as explained below. For each recommendation, a number of candidate projects are proposed and described that can be considered for execution. The candidate projects and recommendations are mutually supportive in several ways; the objectives and results of individual projects may support other projects, a set of projects may be sufficient to realize a recommendation, and taken together, the selected projects and recommendations can effectively realize the two main objectives of the MLA Committee Report Framework for the Future: Positioning Alberta Libraries for the 21st Century [1].

The Technology Report has been defined so that it is neither prescriptive nor proscriptive; that is, there are many combinations of candidate projects that can be selected for execution. A good plan needs flexibility so that decision makers and project managers can respond to changing conditions and requirements.

The candidate projects generally follow a simple template that includes a high-level project plan, cost estimates, and measureable outcomes and expectations. From a business perspective, the project definitions are to be used to formulate “go no go” decisions. Any project selected for execution will require further project planning and development to ensure:

• Accurate assessment of effort, costs, and timelines:

• Coordination with other project and project management; and

• Rationalization against the overall Technology Report, which includes development of a master project plan and budget.

iii

This Technology Report is supported by the Alberta Public Libraries Technology Report; Literature and Trends Review [13] and Alberta Public Libraries Technology Report; Technology and Needs Assessment [14] documents, both developed as part of the Technology Report project. They and other key documents [1]-[12] should be consulted to establish the context for the Report.

iv

Executive Summary The Alberta Public Libraries Technology Report and Recommendations1

[1]

has been formulated around two main objectives identified in the 2009 MLA Committee Report Framework for the Future: Positioning Alberta Libraries for the 21st Century , which was supported by stakeholder input. The first objective is directly deducible and can be expressed under the umbrella term of “Seamless Access”. The second objective is implied and recognizes the enduring need within the library community for an innovative technology –enabling and technology–supportive environment. Both objectives are briefly defined and discussed below and followed by a discussion of the Technology Report’s mandate and context.

A set of six recommendations is proposed to help realize the two objectives. Each of the six thematic recommendations is supported by a series of proposed candidate projects designed to meet the goals of the respective recommendations. The recommendations can be thought as mission statements supporting the objectives of the MLA Committee Report. The candidate projects within each recommendation range in complexity and duration, and are proposed for consideration by the Public Library Services Branch (PLSB) and library stakeholders who may play a role in the implementation of the recommendations. The implementation of candidate projects is intended to provide the concrete means to realize the goals of each of the thematic recommendations, which in turn will fulfill the mission statements.

A primary goal of the Technology Report is to present recommendations and candidate projects with sufficient detail to enable informed and pragmatic project management decisions in the selection and implementation of the candidate projects. Decision makers will be able to use the information provided to make effective “Go/No-Go” decisions and to develop initial project plans. It is considered the responsibility of PLSB and library stakeholders to make use of the recommendations by selecting and executing key candidate projects as dictated by scheduling and resourcing priorities.

It is critical to understand the nature and context of the Technology Report, and the activities suggested or implied by the recommendations and candidate projects. This summary will therefore describe in greater detail the two objectives identified in the MLA Committee Report Framework for the Future: Positioning Alberta Libraries for the 21st Century [1] are elaborated, which in turn describes the approach, mandate and context for the Technology Report.

In the final part of the summary, each of the six recommendations and key projects are briefly described.

1 Hereafter, “Technology Report” or “Report”.

v

Objective #1: Seamless Access — All Holdings and Services Accessible by All Albertans

The main problem and the main challenge identified in the MLA Committee Report is embodied in the statement

“To fully realize the potential of Alberta’s publicly funded libraries, we must create a seamless network of library services and information for all Albertans.” ([1] page 10)

This is echoed in the quote from a stakeholder;

“We want seamless access to the services and resources of all publicly funded libraries for all Albertans.” — Library stakeholder ([1] page 3)

Figure 2-Alberta’s Public Library Service mandate [1]

“All Albertans” is self-evident, meaning any and all Alberta residents.

“Services and resources of all publicly funded libraries” encompasses those that are offered today, though not necessarily by all libraries in Alberta, and those that might be potentially offered.

“Seamless access”, from the perspective of the definition of all Albertans, means access from the user’s perspective. Though not defined in the MLA Committee Report, it can be inferred that “seamless” means that Albertans must be able to access resources and services independent of location, situation, and access method or medium. This statement implies considerations outside of the scope of a technology report, such as economic and social status. However, the Technology Report includes considerations of access technologies, location, and some demographic distinctions such as categories of urban, rural, and aboriginal populations [13][14].

The Technology Report identifies and discusses technologies that support and impact the delivery of library resources and services to library users in Alberta. Beyond library users, the Technology Report also recognizes that library staff and other stakeholders are affected by technology in their provision and delivery of library resources and services.

vi

Objective #2: Support Technology and Enable Innovation

The second key objective from the MLA Committee Report is to provide an innovative technology-enabling and technology-supportive environment for publicly funded library organizations in Alberta. That environment is needed not only to support library services, but to also support collaboration with other government and non-government organizations as clearly mandated in the MLA Committee Report [1]. The linking of technology with five non-technology specific recommendations (3, 6, 7, 8, and 11 [1]) makes obvious this objective.

Over the past 10 years there have been numerous technology trends [13]. Some have been short-lived; others have been identified and then faded from the library community’s focus only to reappear with great impact. For example, eBook technologies have been viewed with great interest by libraries for more than a decade, but it is only within the last 3 years as sales of books and readers have started to ramp up that libraries have had to take notice. Trends can be very quick to develop; for example, in late 2009 when the need for this Technology Report was identified the iPad did not exist. By the time the Technology Report process was launched, iPads were newly available in Canada in small quantities; at the time of this writing, some 13 weeks later, iPad 2 had been announced and then released. With numerous library-related applications available and more than 15 million iPads sold in 2010, the iPad represents a significant technology trend that libraries have had to address, but one that was hard to see coming and arrived with great speed.

The point is that it is very difficult to project technology trends and impacts. A naive and short-sighted approach would to be to continue to simply provision technology as if it were the same as infrastructure. Electronic, networking, and computing technologies are used by libraries as tools. They are tools that are ever changing and require training and support for the best use to be made of them, but they are tools nonetheless. Libraries understand this well [14].

It is essential therefore for public libraries to be able to develop and deliver effective services in a flexible, technology-enabled environment2

• supportive technology infrastructure;

. That environment is defined by:

• expertise and experience in technology use and innovation; • support for end-use and development training; • availability of collaborative communications to support technology and sharing experience; and • self-sustaining technology groups.

There are other elements required in the fostering of a technology-supportive environment, and certainly some that will emerge once the environment is established. Many of the elements for such an environment are already in place in varying degrees. This Technology Report seeks to support consolidation, extension, enhancement, development, and support of initiatives that will further support and develop a technology-enabled environment.

2 This is undoubtedly true for other organizations in Alberta as well—Libraries are not unique.

vii

Mandate of the Technology Report The recommendations and candidate projects defined and discussed in this document are purposefully aimed at the public library system. Although it is clear that the intent of the MLA Committee Report is to consider all publicly funded library resources, the diversity of the other publicly-funded library organizations is too great for comprehensive consideration in this Technology Report. Rather, the recommendations and projects are geared to support development of a base technology capability that is flexible, open, adaptable, and scalable in size and over time. Public libraries hold the largest collections of interest to the most people. Lessons learned while sorting out the challenges in the public library system will uncover many problems that will also be relevant to other library organizations. Successful execution of the selected Technology Report candidate project will serve to entice participation by and support from those other organizations.

Consideration of the technology-specific and related recommendations In the MLA Committee Report, at a minimum this Technology Report is mandated to address the following issues [8]:

• One Card; o Using a common identification means (“one card”) provide access for any Albertan

subscriber to all the publicly funded resources available in the Province. • One Integrated Library System (ILS);

o Creating a means to manage the operations of libraries, such as catalogue management and circulation, using a consistent and unified software system.

• Centralized Information Technology (IT); and o Provision of IT support for libraries in a way that increases resource and expertise use,

reduces costs, and provides better technology support. • Electronic Resources (e-resource).

o Rationalization and enhancement of available electronic resources.

The first two issues, One Card and One ILS, are considered within Recommendation R1: Transparent Access to Public Library Holdings. The other two issues are considered within Recommendations R2 and R5, respectively.

Considering recommendations 8 and 11 from the MLA Committee Report, the Technology Report is mandated to include elements that foster and support collaboration and sharing between library organizations, and between governmental and non-governmental organizations.

The reader should (must) consider that unlike retail businesses, libraries lack a purely commercial driver and sometimes are expected to provide un-economic /non-economic services for the benefit of their communities. Investing in the recommendations of this Technology Report is not without risk. Successful Technology Report projects may result in cost savings or better operational efficiencies and the library community should capitalize on them. On the other hand, for other successful projects, libraries will want to derive other, additional, perhaps intangible benefits rather than just the knowledge that services or technologies are costing less.

The Technology Report encourages projects with quantifiably measureable results and outcomes. At the same time, there are some candidate projects where more subjective results might be expected. Library community decision makers and stakeholders are encouraged to seek quantifiable results wherever possible and to use those results to create follow-on and new projects and initiatives.

viii

Cost saving benefits are identified, those savings may be re-invested in an improved library, longer opening hours, additional services, etc. Benefits more openly described and supported by actual case studies may persuade library leaders to take the risk and invest in the supportive technologies. The Technology Report suggests that managers and leaders collect and publish case studies to support beneficial innovation.

ix

Context and Methodology of the Technology Report The context for this Technology Report was set first by the state of the public library system in Alberta prior to the Technology Report project. It was then elaborated by the activities of the Technology Report project, namely the first two phases of the Technology Report project:

• Phase 1 — Library Technology Literature Survey and Trends review o Execution of a literature search with a focus on past and current electronic library

technologies and technology trends

• Phase 2 — Technology Needs Identification & Analysis, Technology Inventory Assessment o Through stakeholder consultations and library technologies surveys, assessment of the

current state of technology deployment and use in Alberta Public Libraries

The recommendations and candidate projects described herein are informed and designed by that context. A consistent view of the public library system was established by considering the background materials provided by the PLSB; by gaining further insights through meetings with stakeholders [59]-[102] and discussions with PLSB (both as the project manager and stakeholder); and by analyzing those interviews and the results of the online survey, all the while measuring for consistency with the literature survey and trends review.

Insofar as possible, the recommendations and candidate projects have been formed and selected taking into consideration the Public Library system context. We understand that not all recommendations and projects will be perceived equally within the Public Library community; some stakeholders will get more or less out of some recommendations and projects. With that in mind, we have worked hard with stakeholders to provide a range of opportunities. Many projects are structured so that they scale—all that is required is for a stakeholder or stakeholder group (PLSB, APLEN, TAL, a library, or group of libraries) to champion the project. Some projects are explicitly structured that way, while others can be adapted depending on the final project plan.

This document is a technology study and is necessarily written from the perspective of technology development and use. A consistent logic was employed so that the proposed candidate projects can be easily expanded and elaborated into full project proposals when the need arises. Each section of a candidate project is necessarily brief in this Report, but is amenable to better and deeper descriptions and motivations.

x

Nature of the Technology Report In many respects the Technology Report describes what are essentially research and development (R&D) activities. Library stakeholders have expressed a strong desire to continue to innovate, in effect to “elevate their game.” However, innovation for libraries increasingly relies on technology acumen and an ability to quickly and effectively adapt to and use existing and new technology, often with an element of development involved. Several of the candidate projects require significant experience and effort in:

• Systems architecture development;

• Software development;

• Systems integration; and

• Systems management and maintenance.

Libraries do not generally have R&D plans or groups, yet they carry out what amounts to R&D on a regular basis. From a broad technology industry perspective, we observe that library organizations tend to be at the lowest level of R&D maturity; working at that level means greater risk of failure, suboptimal results, or wasted time, effort and budget. Tolerance must be fostered for periodic failure or occasional errors in judgment, and/or libraries generally must enhance their collective R & D capacity.

Partly in recognition of this challenge, the Technology Report contains Recommendation R4, the formation of the Alberta Centre for Information Technology and Services (ACITS) or the consideration by APLEN to adopt aspects of ACITS in a revised APLEN structure. This body will be dedicated to information technologies and services on behalf of the public libraries, and potentially to other Government of Alberta organizations. ACITS may also focus on and promote higher levels of technology activities, including those that are or have the appearance of R&D.

Figure 3-Capability Maturity Model Integration levels (adapted from [18])

xi

Technology Report Recommendation and Candidate Projects The six Technology Report recommendations are shown in the mind map of Figure 4. Each recommendation is general in nature and is supported by several candidate projects, each with specific goals and outcomes. The recommendations are summarized in the subsections below.

Figure 4-The main technology recommendations

xii

Recommendation R1: Transparent Access to Public Library Holdings

In effect, revitalize the The Alberta Library (TAL) services vision to fully realize its mandate of providing transparent access for Albertans to all public library holdings in Alberta.

One of the key objectives of the Framework for the Future [1] is to provide Albertans with seamless access to all publicly funded library holdings in Alberta.

This is a vision long recognized by the library community and long supported by Government policy (on resource sharing) and through Government establishment and ongoing funding for regional library systems, interlibrary loan, The Alberta Library (TAL) [9], and the Alberta Public Library Electronic Network (APLEN) [8].

The Alberta Library’s online services [10], TAL Online, Ask A Question, and the Online Reference Centre are the original seamless access services developed by APLEN, TAL, and public library stakeholders.

The intent of this recommendation is to follow up the success of the TAL services through enhancement and extension using modern technologies, to in effect provide truly seamless access at a level expected by today’s Internet generation.

Figure 5-Transparent Access Recommendation candidate projects

Update and create services that realize transparent access to all public library holdings for all Albertans.

xiii

The candidate projects support the re-design, development, and deployment of modern web-based services that will support a contemporary user experience. Moreover, the projects promote the development of open access to library holdings information and the streamlining of holdings-related services such as inter-library loan.

Recommendation R2: Centralized-Decentralized Information Technology Support

This recommendation aims to centralize and share information technology (IT) resources and services where and when possible. It ensures that IT resources at the local and regional levels are left in place and supported to provide timely and effective local service. The centralized aspect aims to pool expertise and experience, develop training programs and resources, and share this all within the library community.

In the APLEN Public Library Technology Issues Paper [8], the concept of “Centrally Administered IT” is briefly described, and an option for “Distributed, Centralized Services” was endorsed by a majority of APLEN representatives. Several of the services mentioned are elaborated as candidate projects under this recommendation.

As a long-term objective, the recommendation considers the sharing of centrally managed and supported information technology services and programs between or across Government of Alberta ministries. Progress towards realizing the recommendation and the creation of additional candidate projects should be based on the performance of the selected candidate projects.

Each project (shown in Figure 6) is designed to augment or replace existing library IT services or supporting systems using a centralized approach designed to save time and money, and probably liberate IT resources to concentrate on tasks of more direct relevance to the delivery of library services. The projects’ structure is proposal-based; interested libraries are invited to develop simple proposals justifying the need for the particular project technology or service. Each project is, in effect, stand alone and will deliver quantifiable results; but when coupled with support from a central technology body, the projects serve to help build a capability that might be applied across government organizations.

Centralize and share information technology (IT) resources and services where and when possible. Ensure IT resources at the local and regional levels are left in place and supported to provide timely and effective local service. Pool expertise and experience, develop training programs and resources, and share within the library community.

xiv

Figure 6-Centralized-Decentralized Information Technology Support Recommendation candidate projects

Recommendation R3: Collaborative Communications and Content Creation (C4)

This recommendation is meant to support past and current innovation by libraries in information exchange between people (collaborative communication), and support the emerging role of libraries as facilitators and co-creators of content (collaborative creation).

Based in the existing, widespread, and successful use of collaborative communication technologies (specifically, video-conferencing), this recommendation lends itself to the establishment of a leadership group. The potential to define and nurture such a group with a quantifiable mandate represents an opportunity to strengthen public library leadership in Alberta’s information economy and support the development of services and programs that support distance education, training, and other knowledge and expertise based services.

By enlarging the mandate of the recommendation to include new and emerging collaborative technologies, technology diversity and adaptability are encouraged. This fits well with the intent of Objective #2: Support Technology and Enable Innovation.

Support the extension of and innovation in collaborative communication technologies. Recognize that library users are increasingly content creators; become facilitators and co-creators in a collaborative environment.

xv

The secondary recommendation recognizes that in the domain of collaborative communications there is already demonstrable leadership potential in Alberta public libraries. This should be encouraged as part of the recommendation using candidate project management needs as a catalyst.

Figure 7- candidate projects

The first two candidate projects are aimed directly at supporting the primary and secondary recommendations above, while the other three projects are aimed at fostering innovation in collaborative communications and content creation. Both these aspects—communications and content creation—are at the heart of what defines library services. Libraries are information providers and facilitators. With the rise of user-generated content, libraries are increasingly user content custodians, collaborators, supporters, and sometimes co-creators.

A secondary recommendation is to foster expertise and experience in libraries or library groups so that they can become de facto leaders in specific collaborative communications or content creation technologies.

xvi

Recommendation R4: Alberta Centre for Information Technology and Services

The Technology Report recommendations and candidate projects require oversight and management in their execution. Resources are required to execute individual projects, and while some may be best executed via competitive contract solicitation (RFP processes), there are many instances when retaining knowledge and expertise “in-house” is highly desired.

In the recommendations and candidate projects descriptions of the Technology Report, the Alberta Centre for Information Technology and Services (ACITS) is referenced as a group that can or should support Technology Report projects. Of course, this assumes that the development of ACITS is an adopted recommendation. If not, then it may be assumed that some other organization will have responsibility for the roles and functions of ACITS as it is conceived below.

Figure 8-Alberta Centre for Information Technology and Services candidate projects

It is suggested that ACITS might be created within APLEN as it exists today, or as part of an APLEN restructuring plan. This is a consideration that is broader than the scope of this Technology Report, but is strongly recommended that it be considered. As discussed below, the focus for ACITS (or the concept of ACITS) should be on getting the right mixture of technology professionals and library domain experts. Only by focusing people on what they do best can a technology-enabled environment realize its potential and serve the needs of public libraries (and, eventually, other government organizations).

Establish a technology group overseen by library domain experts that manages and executes the Technology Report projects and provides information technology support. Ensure continuity through the development of yearly project and activity goals and demonstration of quantifiable results.

xvii

Though few in number, the first two of the candidate projects shown in Figure 8 are broad in scope. They establish ACITS support for all the recommendations of the Technology Report and are intended to realize the goal of establishing a central pool of expertise and experience upon which libraries can draw.

Recommendation R5: Electronic Resources

The plethora of eBook formats and readers is very challenging for libraries to address; if they independently try to address it, there will be large duplication of effort and training.

The other issue that was identified in the Framework for the Future [1] and echoed by TAL, PLSB, and stakeholders is the current state of eResource licensing. There are many issues complicating the provisioning of eResources. However, from the perspective of the Technology Report, this is not a technology problem, but rather a licensing and coordination problem. It is being addressed by the libraries, TAL, and PLSB, and is outside the scope of this Report.

Figure 9-Electronic Resources candidate projects

The first candidate project, shown in Figure 9, addresses a stakeholder-identified need, namely the urgent desire to “get up to speed” on the deluge of eReader and eBook technologies. The other two candidate projects are aimed at supporting Recommendation R1: Transparent Access To Public Library Holdings. Bringing both electronic resources and resources for the print-disabled into systems supporting transparent access is a logical progression of Recommendation R1. Of course, the project may be included under R1, but being fundamentally electronic in nature, the media involved belong under eResources.

Seize the opportunity of eBooks by using technology to include them in the Seamless Access vision. Support the relevance of libraries by ensuring access to and familiarity with eBook technologies.

xviii

This recommendation is one that demonstrates clearly the mutually supportive nature of the Technology Report recommendations.

Recommendation R6: Infrastructure

Public libraries rely heavily on the SuperNet to support operations and services, and that staff and patrons expect high-quality, fast, and secure access to networks including the internet. All stakeholder discussions and survey results indicate that libraries rely heavily on the SuperNet to support library operations and services, and that staff and patrons expect high-quality, fast, and secure access to networks including the Internet.

Figure 10-Infrastructure candidate projects

This recommendation recognizes the key roles the SuperNet and Internet play in the provisioning of modern library services. Since both are, essentially, existing infrastructure, the candidate projects are aimed more at incremental capability improvement and enhancement, and at planning for future needs. The first two, shown in Figure 10, are aimed at those goals. The third addresses a stakeholder-identified need that will be increasingly necessary, if not mandatory, to support Recommendation R1.

Ensure that the SuperNet and internet—the backbones of modern Library services—are utilized effectively and efficiently by all public libraries.

1

Outline The remainder of the document is organized as follows:

• A brief discussion of the methodology employed in building the Technology Report is presented. It should be considered in light of the other two main reports generated earlier in the project [13][14].

• A section that describes any notes or assumptions pertinent to the Report follows. These are specific to the candidate projects and may be kept in mind when reading the main body of the report, but also when considering which projects to pursue and how best to manage each.

• Recognizing the explicit and implicit ambitions and challenges in the Technology Report, and considering input from key stakeholders, we have prefaced the main body of the Report with a section on “Barriers to Success”. It is meant to offer suggestions to strengthen the use of the Report as a tool in realizing the objectives and recommendations of the MLA Committee Report Framework for the Future: Positioning Alberta Libraries for the 21st Century [1]. Many of the observations are based on experience running successful RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT organizations and businesses. Others reflect our understanding, gathered through stakeholder interviews and interactions, of the practical challenges facing Public Libraries and other similar organizations.

• The main body of the Report is devoted to a description of the six recommendations shown in Figure 4. In each recommendation subsection, a set of supporting candidate projects is presented. All follow generally the same format to facilitate consistency and subsequent project planning and elaboration, at least for those selected.

• A short glossary of terms is provided followed by a reference section including a list of stakeholder interviews.

2

Methodology It should be no surprise that the approach in compiling this Technology Report has been to first consult libraries and library organizations and library stakeholders as identified by Alberta Municipal Affairs, Public Library Services Branch. This was done through site visits and interviews, brainstorming sessions, and by using an online survey [14].

Background material [1]-[14] has been provided by Alberta Municipal Affairs Public Library Services Branch.

Online searches utilized traditional search engines, meta-search engines, and an artificial intelligence-augmented search tool (DevonAGENT3). The digital libraries of the IEEE4, ACM5, and Emerald Publishing6

All electronic documents, web links, and other digital (or scanned) artifacts were stored and catalogued in a database

were consulted in particular for scholarly articles related to library technologies and trends. Online document repositories, digital libraries, news reports, digital and print magazines, podcasts, and other sources were used extensively.

7

We must admit that the approach and results in this Report are by no means exhaustive. First, the rapidity and diversity of technology change means that there is no way to keep up. Second, the scope of the project is such that we must focus on technologies used in (or related to) the delivery of library services. In the discussion above concerning technology context, we recognized that technologies known, not known, and yet to be developed or invented, help to establish the context for library services. If the intent of libraries is to better engage members and users in the creation and sharing of knowledge and experience, then we can expect members and users to introduce technology in unanticipated ways.

. It facilitated categorization, tagging, search, and analysis of materials.

Finally, we observe that much of the information gathered for this Report—especially from online sources—falls into the domain of “grey literature” [15] (sometimes referred to as grey publications). From the perspective of this document, a good definition is provided on the Grey Literature Network Service’s site [16];

"Information produced on all levels of government, academics, business and industry in electronic and print formats not controlled by commercial publishing i.e. where publishing is not the primary activity of the producing body." (Luxembourg, 1997 - Expanded in New York, 2004)

3 DEVONTechnologies, www.devon-technologies.com 4 Intitute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, www.ieee.org 5 Association for Computing Machinery, www.acm.org 6 Emerald Publishing, www.emeraldinsight.com 7 DevonTHINK Pro, DEVONTechnologies, www.devon-technologies.com

http://www.devon-technologies.com/�

http://www.ieee.org/�

http://www.acm.org/�

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/�

http://www.devon-technologies.com/�

3

During the course of research for this Report, we have assumed that grey literature includes sources like:

• Blogs;

• Wikis;

• Online conference proceedings (text or audio);

• Podcasts;

• Self-published materials, like slide presentations, non-profit organization reports, market research reports;

• Vendor-supplied documentation; and

• Other online publications.

All grey literature sources are cross-referenced to other sources to confirm veracity, with the exception of vendor-supplied documentation and podcasts.

It is interesting to note that the bulk of the source material would have been considered “truly grey” less than 20 years ago. Today, it is not possible to find this information through a library OPAC [17], which is interesting to keep in mind as you read this Report.

All source materials are in the public domain and either available freely or by purchase or subscription.

4

Notes and Assumptions For candidate project costs, the acronym “TBD” (to be determined) generally means that cost estimates for the associated item(s) need to be determined at the time of project execution. Variables affecting estimates may include competitive quotes, needs of a particular development plan or architecture, or availability of existing or substitute systems already possessed by one or more libraries.

Price estimates are generally based on vendor list price. This approach was used to ensure that should a project be put to competitive bid, vendors would be able to respond on a level playing field and customers could expect competitive bids. Large (bulk) purchases, government price lists, and other approaches may be useful in obtaining more favourable estimates.

All candidate projects considered for implementation are subject to review and further development by the project management team.

Readers are encouraged to investigate and pursue opportunities for “leveraged funding”. There are many needs, operations, and processes that are common to technology-based or technology-using organizations, both within and outside of government. Libraries collaborate and work with many sectors and are creative in finding solutions, including solutions to funding challenges.

5

Barriers to Success The Technology Report is ambitious in terms of scope and the kinds of technologies and expertise required to realize the recommendations and candidate projects.

In this section, we provide some brief comments on the potential barriers to success. These are not meant as criticism of the people involved in Alberta’s public library system or the Government of Alberta. Rather, they represent observations and experience of the consultant in the planning and execution of similar endeavours. They are not exhaustive by any means, but are meant to generate discussion and thought about how best to use the Technology Report as a tool to realize the objectives and recommendations of the MLA Committee Report Framework for the Future: Positioning Alberta Libraries for the 21st Century [1].

Leadership, Management and Critical Mass

One of the key challenges articulated by stakeholders and recognized in the course of the Technology Report development is the need for technically strong, passionate leadership. If the Technology Report does have a strong RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT flavour, then it requires strong RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT leadership.

One of the reasons the ACITS group is structured as shown in Recommendation R4 is to leave room for the right person or group to establish leadership. There are many ways to address this challenge. When looking for leadership, some desired characteristics include:

• Successful product or service delivery experience;

• Technical expertise and experience balanced with a strong appreciation of the value of domain experts (Library stakeholders). In effect, leadership should understand the technical challenges behind the Technology Report, but in the context of the “marketing” challenge of delivering good solutions to library “customers”;

• A commitment to delivery of pragmatic, practical, measurable results;

• A commitment to the Technology Report. One of the main outcomes should be continuity of experience and expertise;

• Passion for the challenge; and

• Good diplomatic and personal skills. Very good communication skills.

Obviously, the leadership position requires support from a critical mass of the library stakeholder community. There also has to be a critical mass of support for the Technology Report and at least some of the candidate projects. Ideally, there is strong support and determination to see both of the main objectives succeed. It is tempting to equate that to support for the mutually supportive nature of the Technology Report where the sum of the projects is greater than the whole, but perhaps it is enough to recognize that after the fact.

6

Personnel

In practical terms, the libraries are not the number one career destination for engineering, computer science, information technology, or other technical people—that is just reality and not a comment on the value of work performed in libraries. Still, it is a challenge to attract and retain good people.

Some flexibility in hiring or engagement of people for the candidate projects is probably needed. It may be desirable to hire from within the library community. Perhaps a secondment or a sabbatical arrangement can be made for key personnel. That would have the benefit of returning very experienced personnel back into the library community.

A preferred option is to hire people either as permanent employees or, if needed, as contractors. There may be concerns about continuity with contractors, but our experience has been that employees are just as likely to leave positions. It is a risk that needs to be managed. Ideally, this problem is avoided by finding people that have a passion for information technologies in a library setting.

As mentioned elsewhere in this Report, one of the main objectives is that working and funding continue past the three-year mandate. One necessary element is to find people that believe in continuing past that point, people that are committed to creating and demonstrating the value needed to enable the continuity of their efforts (in other words, to justify continued funding and even the creation of permanent positions).

Sustainment

A challenge with any project bound by time and finite funds is to find maintenance or sustainment funding. This is partly why the candidate projects have been specified with measureable outcomes. Being able to demonstrate concrete results makes it much easier to find sustainment funding when the initial monies run out.

Initial and future costs must be accounted for in detailed project plans. A purely capital project may not do anyone any good. As one stakeholder quipped, “Oh boy, here comes another successful project,” which meant here comes something else I have to find money for in the budget.

Policy

Even though questions of policy are outside the mandate of the Technology Report, they must be considered during implementation of agreed-upon strategic directions and projects. Public Library Services Branch (PLSB) must work closely with the public library community in Alberta, especially APLEN, to draft, revise, and take forward policy that supports and enables the sustainability and feasibility of province-wide technology projects. As the Government entity, PLSB will take a leadership role in this aspect of the Technology Report.

7

Processes and Organizations

Like policy, questions of organizational processes and structures are outside the mandate of the Technology Report, but at the same time they must be considered. As suggested above and in Recommendation R4 (page 94), the structure of ACITS has been carefully defined to provide both desired results within the Report and to promote consideration by other Government organizations of the Technology Report in general and ACITS specifically.

Some projects invite process and policy refinement and change.

As mentioned in the section above on the nature of the Technology Report, technology-related processes are to be encouraged. The objective is for the library community to be able to define, plan, and successfully execute technology-based projects in a repeatable fashion. This may require a change in thinking and approach by libraries. It may not be possible to expect all libraries to manage this on their own, hence the recommendation to establish a group like ACITS.

Other Factors

Another factor that may hinder the success of the Technology Report is a lack of proper promotion. Public-facing projects are no good if no one knows about them. Effective promotional programs for projects are needed (hence, the candidate Project R3.4: Alberta Information Innovations). Libraries do a good job at the local community level, but things like a revitalized TAL Online or C4 projects need provincial exposure by definition.

In researching and writing the Technology Report, we are aware that there are several concurrent activities within the library community that bear on the Report. These should be carefully coordinated with the Report to avoid duplication of effort, budgets, personnel, or other factors, and to ensure that no project works at cross-purposes with some other effort.

8

Recommendation R1: Transparent Access To Public Library Holdings

One of the key objectives of the Framework for the Future [1] is to provide Albertans with seamless access to all publicly funded library holdings and services in Alberta. Indeed, this one of two main objectives upon which this Report is based:

• Objective #1: Seamless Access – All Holdings and Services Accessible by all Albertans

This is a vision long recognized by the library community and the impetus behind the formation of The Alberta Library’s online services8

The intent of this recommendation is to follow up those successes through enhancement and extension using modern technologies, in effect providing truly transparent access at a level expected by today’s Internet generation. In this context, transparent means that users are able to search for and access information about public library holdings, and if so desired, initiate borrowing of items in a way that is independent of the user’s location or the location of the item sought. Implicit in the recommendation is the need to provide open access to information about public library holdings. This means that anyone, not just Albertans, should be able to search for and identify public library holdings, but to borrow or otherwise access holdings you must be an Albertan.

, TAL Online, Ask A Question, and the Online Reference Centre.

At the same time, in the interest of providing cost-effective loan services, the recommendation needs to support the enhancement of inter-library loan systems.

Although integral to this recommendation as part of publicly funded library holdings [1], electronic resources such as those available through TAL’s Online Reference Centre are considered as part of Recommendation R5: Electronic Resources (page 113). Electronic resources require special consideration and effort to be fit into the technologies and projects discussed here.

Finally, this recommendation does not address all services offered by libraries; hence, the term does not appear in the recommendation title. It is focused on library holdings and directly related services.

8 www.thealbertalibrary.ab.ca/services.html

Update and create services that realize transparent access to all public library holdings for all Albertans.

http://www.thealbertalibrary.ab.ca/services.html�

9

Objectives

• Provide simple, fast access to all public library holdings in Alberta to all Albertans. Do this in a way that complements the existing library systems.

• Ensure that all holdings regardless of form and format can be accessed.

• Provide a user experience that employs best practices from the library and web-based information sectors, and that matches user expectations.

• Update and improve the Ask A Question service. It reflects a key differentiator for libraries as a public resource, which is the ability to obtain expert assistance with information discovery and access.

• Acquire, develop, and employ technologies that support modern web services and best practices to support open access to information by other organizations. In this way, ensure the future scalability of the system, which includes the ability to add new library catalogues and support Alberta’s growing population.

Issues

1. How to achieve transparent access?

As mentioned above and illustrated in Figure 2 (page 14), the vision for this recommendation (and indeed, the key goal of the Framework for the Future [1]) can be broken down into three related concepts:

1. All Albertans; 2. Services and resources of all publicly funded libraries; and 3. Seamless access.

This recommendation concentrates on the holdings part of the second concept. In practical terms, these imply two main functional objectives:

• A searchable, unified catalogue of public library holdings; and

• A universal identifier for Albertans to gain access to those holdings.

A third functional objective results if the first two are realized, namely, the ability to obtain requested holdings, which in effect requires an integrated inter-library loan system.

One of the main challenges in an Integrated ILL system is the inconsistency in materials transport mechanisms and systems across the Province. From reliance on Service Alberta courier services and Canada Post’s Library Book Rate program to libraries (municipalities) providing their own courier services, there are issues of strained capacity, mismatched payment burden, and general inefficiencies. The current inconsistent approach should be rationalized.

That being said, this aspect of the Integrated ILL challenge is not a technology-dependent problem per se and, thus, outside the scope of this Plan to address. It is recommended that it be considered through some other process.

10

The three functional objectives are related, but can be addressed via the first three candidate projects outlined below (R1.1.1, R1.1.2, and R1.1.3). It does not make sense to do only one or two of the three projects, but because they can stand alone in terms of measureable project deliverables, the timing of each project can be independent. That being said, it would make sense to execute the Unified Catalogue project and Universal Access project in parallel since they will share the common requirement of accessing library ILSes and may share similar or the same core software technologies. Both will benefit from a web services-based architecture. The third project, Integrated ILL R1.1.3, follows naturally behind the first two—without their success there is no reason to execute R1.1.3.

The fourth candidate project, Branding and Advertising R1.1.4, is concerned with communicating the success of the first three. If TAL Online can be revitalized, the public needs to be informed.

2. Local Autonomy and the ILS

In speaking with stakeholders, a key consideration for any project involving the ILS is the potential for loss of local autonomy. Concerns over managing fees, fines, patron data, and other aspects of local library operations were brought up repeatedly. An option explored by APLEN in the Public Library Technology Issues Paper [8] was to migrate libraries to a single (one) ILS, something that would indeed affect library autonomy.

However, to realize the goals above, it is not necessary to move to a single (one) ILS. All that is needed is access to the information managed by the ILS, namely the bibliographic records and some patron information like name, library identifier (bar code digits), and current standing. TAL Online currently does this in effect, just not in a way that provides the transparent access objectives.

As recommended below, the idea of a single ILS is not abandoned, but more of an evolutionary approach is taken.

3. Presentation: Which OPAC?

While stakeholders appreciated that TAL Online provides a relatively efficient snapshot of holdings from multiple libraries, a common observation was that the presentation of results was not very appealing or useful compared to more modern OPACs.

For example, there is no automatic link between the user and their local library, only a request that the user consider their local library first in the search results before making a request from another library. There is no easy way for the user to navigate back to their local library where they can manage their own account and activities. The results of a TAL Online search are not saved to the local library OPAC.

Stakeholders mentioned these and other reasons as deficiencies in presentation and function.

11

Two possible remedies were suggested:

1. Use a modern interface like BiblioCommons [15] as a “layer” over the union catalogue that in effect provides a universal access interface for users; or

2. Provide a “headless” TAL Online service that provides access to the union catalogue through the local library’s OPAC.

Whether one, or even both options are desirable requires further input and consideration. The implications of both are discussed as part of the R1.1.1 and R1.1.2 project descriptions below.

4. Presentation: Asking a Librarian.

A very important service provided by libraries is availability of information experts. Assisting patrons with information search and retrieval, and other related tasks is a primary librarian skill and service. Recognizing this, TAL developed the Ask A Question service.

Similar to TAL Online, it is a service that stakeholders have identified as having aged somewhat and that has fallen behind user and library expectations for such a service. There are better, more powerful and flexible systems available to support library community-based “question and answer” services.

Candidate Projects For this recommendation, the candidate projects are organized as shown in Figure 11 (page 12). There are two master projects. The first, Project R1.1: Revitalized TAL Online, involves four sub-projects. As mentioned above, these are inter-related and build on each other.

Projects R1.1.1 and R1.1.2 are the foundation necessary to provide transparent access. The Union Catalogue (R1.1.1) contains the information on all public library holdings in Alberta, while Universal Access (R1.1.2) enables access to that catalogue by all Albertans.

Project R1.1.3, the Integrated Inter-Library Loan (ILL), is required if the Union Catalogue and Universal Access project proceed. Of course, if they do proceed, the Integrated ILL is necessary to realize the Revitalized TAL Online.

Integrated ILL has two major elements to it. On the technology side, there are challenges to overcome to provide automated, transparent library holdings requests. On the organizational side, there are inconsistencies, inequities, and system capacity issues that need to be addressed. These are especially important if the objective of transparent access is realized—it is expected that ILL rates will increase. The organizational challenges are outside the scope of this project.

Project R1.1.4, Branding and Advertising, may be necessary depending on how TAL Online is revitalized. In other words, it may be necessary to promote the revitalized TAL Online, or it may not be.

12

The second master project, Improved Ask A Question project R1.2, is intended to complement the Revitalized TAL Online project. If a revitalized TAL Online system will provide Albertans transparent access to library holdings, an updated Ask A Question service is intended to complement that access with transparent assistance.

Project R1.3: Extend the Revitalized TAL Online is suggested as a possible follow up to Project R1.1: Revitalized TAL Online. The focus for R1.1 is on Public Libraries only, so if successful it is logical to extend the success to include more publicly funded library holdings. This would include post-secondary institutions, public schools, and even government libraries.

The final project, Project R1.4: RFID Technologies Support, is provided to help support an opportunity to improve library material handling. It also addresses the recognition that in a more integrated library assets environment, differences in identifying assets will lead to inefficiencies. Some libraries in Alberta already use radio frequency identification (RFID) systems to manage their assets, while others use bar codes and similar approaches. Exchanging materials between libraries using different systems requires duplication of effort and technology support. As there is a clear evolution towards the use of RFID technologies, this project is meant to support it.

Figure 11-Transparent Access Recommendation candidate projects

13

Project R1.1: Revitalized TAL Online

Description

The current TAL Online service provides users with the ability to search many public library and some post-secondary library holdings and place requests for borrowing; approximately 270 libraries are represented.

Stakeholders have remarked that while usage of TAL Online seems to have stabilized, as a tool meant to facilitate transparent access to public library holdings for all Albertans its functionality is lacking in several important areas, for example:

1. The underlying architecture and software technology returns results from library catalogues using an instantaneous search approach. For a given user query, multiple concurrent queries are launched to retrieve results from as many library catalogues as possible. To ensure low latency (a timely response), only as many results as can be retrieved in a timely fashion are used. That means that the final result may not truly represent what is available. All search results are discarded once the user’s session ends.

2. The borrowing request process is not as transparent and easy as it should be, both from the user and library perspective. The process is not fully automated and requires user and librarian intervention more than is necessary. Some libraries will not accept borrowing requests through TAL Online.

3. Some base technologies are no longer supported by either a vendor or the open source community.

This project encompasses three other technical projects and one marketing project as shown in Figure 11 (page 12). Together, they realize the transparent access goal.

A key question from stakeholders is whether it’s preferable to maintain the TAL Online model of access through a standalone web site, or if it is better (and even possible) to find a solution that can be integrated behind existing library user interfaces. The idea is that any search conducted in the library or via its website would in effect search the union catalogue of all public library holdings in Alberta, but would naturally return local results first. Consideration of this question is built into the candidate projects below in the form of optional project requirements and tasks.

Approach

This is a top-level (master) project and should be considered as coordinating all of the sub-projects:

• Project R1.1.1: Union Catalogue;

• Project R1.1.2: Universal Access;

• Project R1.1.3: Integrated Inter-Library Loan (ILL); and

• Project R1.1.4: Branding and Advertising.

We refer to them simply as projects hereafter.

14

The first three projects are clearly inter-dependent as each relies in some way on the libraries ILSes. Combined oversight will help to ensure that the efforts are coordinated, that methods and solutions are re-used where possible, and that interactions with stakeholder libraries can be coordinated.

The main challenge in each project—developing a union catalogue, universal access, and integrated ILL—is to access and acquire data from library ILSes. A common pool of technologies will likely be needed to accomplish this; NCIP [21][22], Z39.50 [20], SIP2, and other standards.

Each of the Projects, R1.1.1, R1.1.2, and R1.1.3, overlap in the need for solution investigation and architecture development. Though requiring different data and possibly access, the need for each to interact with library ILSes means that there are likely several areas of common effort. Although in the candidate projects subsections below each project is described in terms of standalone effort, it is likely the resources and efforts can be combined to some degree. Careful planning and common management are needed to verify that hypothesis. Some relevant suggestions are made below in the Resources, Effort and Budget section.

The fourth sub-project clearly requires that the others be successful.

Here and below, the transparent access projects will be sometime referred to as being under “TAL” or “TAL Online” or “revitalized TAL Online”; this is a convenient label to use, but it should be kept in mind that Project R1.1.4: Branding and Advertising suggests that the transparent access system may be branded differently.

Resources, Effort and Budget

As mentioned above, the first two projects should be run in parallel. It may be possible and desirable to offset R1.1.2 in time since the effort to assess ILS catalogue access can be taken advantage of when looking at accessing patron information.

It is possible to execute the Integrated ILL project, R1.1.3, in parallel with the first two projects, but only if the resources are available. Executing the project later will mean that knowledge and experience from R1.1.1 and R1.1.2 can be used to advantage. It also defers test and integration of the integrated ILL with the Union Catalogue and Universal Access systems, which avoids a “big bang” task that is always risky.

The fourth project, Branding and Advertising R1.1.4, very much stands alone and is defined as an awareness and publicity campaign.

Expected Outcomes

The outcomes for the four projects are described in their respective subsections below. In general, we expect to achieve:

• A system that can be shown to provide transparent access to public library holdings;

• An improved, rationalized, integrated interlibrary-loan system and processes; and

• Open APIs for accessing bibliographic and other data on the holdings, open to the Library community at the very least, but preferably to the public at large.

15

Measures of Success

• A demonstration of the system showing transparent access to a majority of public library holdings in Alberta.

o Electronic resources, resources for the print-disabled, and non-public library holdings do not need to be a part of this in version 1.

• Examples of how to use the open API to access bibliographic and other data on the holdings, open to the library community at the very least, but preferably to the public at large.

o This does not equate to access to the holdings, just discovery.

• At least the outline of a plan to add other publicly funded holdings to the system.

Risks

General risks are considered here, and include:

• Lack of stakeholder, Government, or other support for the projects.

• Lack of cooperation by libraries.

• Lack of time or personnel to execute the projects.

For specific risks for each of the supporting projects, see below.

16

Project R1.1.1: Union Catalogue

Description

The goal of this project is to develop a software system that is capable of building and maintaining a catalogue of all publicly funded library holdings in Alberta, with an initial focus on public library holdings. It should be able to accommodate holdings of all media types currently available, and have provision to add records for future media types. Item record structure should be rich enough to meet anticipated library needs, meaning that records must be at least as detailed and useable as today’s MARC or other bibliographic records. Records must show the state of holdings; checked in, on hold, etc.

The system shall support a public application programming interface (API) that supports read-only access to records by third parties. The API should support web service standards; that is, the API shall be useable by web services clients and other service.

Approach

As mentioned above, the revitalized TAL Online project may be realized as a standalone service accessed by a user via the Internet and a user interface (that can be thought of as an OPAC), or it may be realized as a kind of back-end for local libraries to incorporate into their own OPACs. A third possibility is to provide both. The first key task in the project is to investigate these questions.

Figure 12-Project R1.1.1 where does the union catalogue live

17

At the same time, it would be wise to investigate if a vendor product will meet the objectives of transparent access. At this time, only WorldCat Local [23][24] appears to be a reasonable candidate. The pros and cons of using it over building a custom system should be investigated. This can be accomplished within the first task.

Figure 13-Project R1.1.1 “build or buy” decision

The decisions illustrated in Figure 12 and Figure 13 will influence the design of the union catalogue software system and impact the execution of projects R1.1.2 and R1.1.3, so an initial investigation of the options is required. Selection of the WorldCat Local option will change this project, but may not necessarily have the same level of impact on the other two projects; universal access and Integrated ILL will still be very much local (to Alberta) systems.

Both “build or buy” options will likely require that libraries implement or add support for NCIP, SIP2, or other access methods. These likely require capital and yearly support investment; these costs need to be determined as part of the first task.

The “build custom system” option is assumed for the remainder of this project description.

The key project tasks are the public API Design and System Design, shown in Figure 14. They can be executed in parallel because requirements and decisions for one will affect the other.

Implementation and basic testing will require only test ILS databases to develop against and, as self-contained activities, be relatively straightforward to accomplish. It’s recommended that one or more libraries willing to assist act as test systems. The risk to the test systems is low since data is only being pulled from their systems; no data will be altered on their systems, only “pulled” from the systems.

While investigating accessing ILS data to form the union catalogue, it would be wise to consider how to access other ILS information; this would support Projects R1.1.2 and R1.1.3.

A test server is needed to host the union catalogue and software services.

Open source software like MySQL, PostgreSQL, SOLR9

9 See theGlossary, page

, and others should be considered. Linux is preferred over proprietary OSes.

147.

18

An update mechanism needs to be developed so that records are reflective of the item state. For lending and other purposes, state information includes the status of the item in the home library (on hold, checked in, lost, etc.). Since state is altered at the home library (via their ILS), the union catalogue requires an update mechanism. This can be synchronous or asynchronous—choosing which approach is better or more feasible is beyond the scope of this document and rightly belongs as part of the System Design task. However, in the spirit of a web services approach, stateless interactions between the union catalogue and home library ILSes are encouraged.

The real challenge is in integration and deployment over all libraries in Alberta. This is why significant time is allocated to those activities.

Timeline

Figure 14-Project R1.1.1 timeline


An intermediate programmer led and assisted by a Senior Software System architect is required. A second intermediate programmer would be desirable.

Software development computers are required for each team member. It is assumed that open source software libraries and tools can be utilized, so development software costs should be low.

For integration and deployment, licenses for NCIP [22] or other required ILS interfaces are required. As mentioned above, associated costs are to be determined and planned for to support these tasks. An installation plan for these interfaces is required as part of integration and deployment.

19

Item Description Qty Unit Cost Total

Personnel

Senior Software System Architect 1 $8,300/month $129,000

Intermediate Programmer 2 $6,700/month $208,000

Development Hardware 3 $3,000 $9,000

Test and Integration Hardware 1 $4,000 $4,000

Development Software Misc (provisional) $5,000 $5,000

Other costs

ILS catalogue interfaces (NCIP, etc.) Approx. 20 TBD TBD

Table 1-Project R1.1.1 cost estimates

Expected Outcomes

• System and API design documentation, including overall architecture.

• A union catalogue of public library holdings.

• Dynamic update mechanism for the catalogue.

• A web-services compliant API to access the catalogue.

• If not full, then significant funding and installation support for interfaces and software required to expose ILS information.

• Complete system operations documentation.

Measures of Success

• Successful design reviews for the system.

• Demonstration of ability to build a union catalogue from two or more source ILSes.

• Demonstration of ability to extract data from the union catalogue using the API developed.

• Documentation of API.

Risks

• Insufficient budget.

• Underestimation of the task.

• Unable to find programming resources.

• Unknown deployment process; may involve more or less time than budgeted.

20

Project R1.1.2: Universal Access

Description

This project’s main objective is to provide the means to authenticate a user that wishes to obtain an item from public library holdings. The user is required to be identified as an Albertan and meet library criteria to receive a library item.

A key requirement is to make the method of identification from the user’s perspective simple, easy, and familiar—it is recommended to adopt the username/password approach that is common on the web.

Implementation of universal access via either a revitalized TAL Online service or local library user interfaces is a key goal.

What user interface is appropriate for universal access is a question to be answered, and then the choice implemented.

Approach Like Project R1.1.1: Union Catalogue, this project is a core building block for the transparent access objective.

It is necessary to identify and authenticate a user as being an Albertan. There are many means that can be employed, including proof of residence, issued government identification, school cards, and others, but the Public Library system’s membership program is captures the most Albertans without regard to age, sex, and geographic location.

Figure 15-A universal access system is behind both user interfaces

21

Similar to Project R1.1.1: Union Catalogue, the actual implementation of a universal access method depends on whether it is part of a stand-alone service accessed by the user via the Internet (e.g. via TAL Online), or part of a back-end for local libraries to incorporate into their own OPACs. As with Project R1.1.1, a third possibility is to provide a universal access method or methods that support both. The result of the investigation task in R1.1.1 directly determines the development path for this project.

Both options present different requirements for universal access, but can probably fit within the same basic project plan. The requirements are illustrated in Figure 16 and Figure 17.

Figure 16-Universal access system functional requirements for TAL-based interface

Figure 17-Universal access system functional requirements for local library-based interface

Identifying the user as a library member requires accessing patron information in libraries, so like Project R1.1.1; this project relies on access to library ILSes. It is advisable to combine investigation of ILS access for patron data with the ILS database access investigation task of R1.1.1.

22

A common requirement is to provide a more “web-like” user experience by using a simple username and password combination, which in effect is the user-perceived “universal access” method. The implication is that via a one-time registration process, the user will be identified as an Albertan through their home library card (14 digit PIN aka “bar code” and, perhaps, library name). Of course, the usual support for password recovery and such will be required.

Once logged in, there is enough information to support union catalogue searches. Local library affiliation is easily done via a query back to the home library of the user or against a locally maintained database. If a hold of a library item is requested, a simple query to the user’s home library can verify the user’s standing.

A key requirement is to maintain minimal information about the user; only that which is necessary to support union catalogue access, searching, and placing holds is necessary.

A key activity will be to determine the best method to validate user affiliation with a library and access to member standing. A commercial product like EZProxy [25] may be suitable, but may also be overkill.

Reasonable efforts need to be made to secure user information, but since only minimal information is to be stored in the system and there will be no information that can be used to link the user with home address or other sensitive information, the security provisions need not be too complicated.

There are many examples of how to set up a secure username/password system that can be used to guide the project and determine the required software system components.

There does not seem to be a requirement for a public application programming interface (API), but an API for library use should be developed.

For the case where universal access will support a TAL-based system, the use of BiblioCommons or a comparable user interface may be an option to consider. A requirement is to implement a user interface supported by universal access.

For the case where universal access will support a local library-based system, it is already the case that BiblioCommons is in use by many libraries in Alberta. For other libraries, it may be motivation to change to BiblioCommons or a comparable user interface, or to integrate universal access with their own system. In the latter scenario, it may turn out that the local library appears very similar to TAL Online in terms of user registration. That is, the same system and tools needed to support TAL Online would apply to the local library. This is something to investigate. Regardless, the requirement is to demonstrate universal access support of local library user interfaces. If, as part of the deployment plan, not all local library interfaces can be changed to support universal access, then a subsequent project to do so needs to be planned.

23

Timeline



As shown in Figure 18, the project is dependent on the results of Project R1.1.1’s initial task. Once complete, the tasks follow a pattern similar to those in Project R1.1.1. However, because the complexity of the project is lower and there are well-known approaches for setting up username/password systems, the required time should be much less.

The “Implementation” task may take 6 weeks or more depending on the challenges in determining the patron information interfaces for the ILSes in use in Alberta public libraries.

For the costs outlined in Table 2, it may be possible to combine efforts with the Union Catalogue project (R1.1.1) and save a programming resource and, likewise, save on development hardware.


Personnel



Test and Integration Hardware 1 $4,000 $4,000


Other costs

ILS patron data interfaces Approx. 20 TBD TBD

Table 2-Project R1.1.2 cost estimates

24

Expected Outcomes

• A union catalogue of public library holdings.

• A web-services compliant API to access the catalogue.

• If not full, then significant funding and installation support for interfaces and software required to access ILS information.

• Complete system design and operations documentation.

Measures of Success

• Demonstration of ability to support username/password-based user affiliation from two or more source ILSes.

• If required, a plan to support local library-based universal access. o Stretch goal would be to demonstrate non-local user access via the local library

interface.

• If required, a plan to support TAL-based universal access.


Risks

• Extracting patron data from ILSes may be more difficult than anticipated.

• Costs for ILS vendor-supplied patron data access modules may vary.


• Underestimation of the task.



25

Project R1.1.3: Integrated Inter-Library Loan (ILL)

Description

There are two elements to achieving an Integrated ILL:

• Technology-dependent - user requests to borrow non-local library materials must be fully automated; and

• Organization-dependent - transfer of requested items between libraries.

The organization-dependent aspect of ILL has to do with the mechanics of physically managing the transport and delivery of requested items. Within their own walls, libraries have materials handling systems that meet their needs. What happens between libraries needs to be addressed. Libraries and library systems use multiple transport mechanisms that vary across Alberta. From reliance on Service Alberta courier services and Canada Post’s Library Book Rate program to libraries (municipalities) providing their own courier services, there are issues of strained capacity, mismatched payment burden, and general inefficiencies. The current inconsistent approach should be rationalized.

That being said, this is not a technology-dependent problem per se and, thus, outside the scope of this Report to address. At the same time, it is not a problem that necessarily stops the realization of transparent access. Not addressing the inconsistencies in ILL transfer, means there is inefficiency and potential wasted effort in the system. As mentioned above, it is recommended to address this issue.

For the remainder of this candidate project, we consider the technology-dependent aspects of an Integrated ILL.

If a union catalogue provides a user with a unified or integrated view of all library holdings in Alberta, it follows that the user should be able to request an item from any library. Of course, this is already possible via TAL Online and from within libraries and library systems, but (especially in the case of TAL Online) from both a user and librarian perspective there are serious deficiencies in performance and fulfillment of loan requests. The opportunity in developing a system to provide transparent access is to address those deficiencies, which is the main intent of this candidate project.

The key criteria for effective loan request fulfillment include:

• Identification of the requestor;

• Status/standing of the requestor with their home library and the library holding the requested item;

• Status of items potentially able to satisfy a request (location, available, on hold, in transit); and

• Status of a requested item (available, on hold, in transit, etc.).

Detailed bibliographic and other information of the requested item is often used as part of the loan process. Individual libraries or library systems may utilize additional criteria.

These and other criteria or data are used as part of ILL workflows.

26

Inter-library loan functions are supported using ILS vendor-supplied modules or third-party software. There are several academic libraries using the ILL product from Relais [29], but in the public libraries OCLC’s VDX product [30] dominates. As noted in the Technology and Needs Assessment [14], library stakeholders interviewed and surveyed had many complaints about VDX function and use. One library [100] provided four pages of deficiencies for consideration in the Technology Report.

What is not clear is whether ILL support for the union catalogue and universal access proposed above can be realized using technologies and systems in current use by libraries, or if new software systems are needed, or if it’s some combination of both. For example, in building a union catalogue and being able to define records and data structures from the ground up, it may be possible to address VDX problems directly by either altering or supplementing VDX, or bypassing it completely with new software.

As with Projects R1.1.1 and R1.1.2, there may be a dependency on where transparent access is to be realized—as a revitalized TAL Online service, as a service accessible through local library interfaces, or both.

A separate candidate project is provided below to support the further adoption of radio-frequency identification (RFID) [27] technology for asset identification and tracking. It is not necessary to have all libraries using this technology to enable an integrated ILL, but it does provide significant benefits in the ILL automation process for individual libraries. Moreover, because some libraries are already using RFID tagging for assets, it means for loaned items:

• Libraries without RFID technology support cannot take advantage of it;

• Libraries with RFID technology must maintain legacy (old barcode and numbering system) management systems for items received from other libraries; and

• Libraries with RFID technology must maintain legacy (old barcode and numbering system) identification for items they loan out.

Project R1.4: RFID Technologies Support provides a mechanism for libraries to migrate to RFID technology.

Approach

Like Projects R1.1.1 and R1.1.2, this project benefits from an investigation of the problem and possible solutions. In the timeline of Figure 19, it’s assumed that investigation of Integrated ILL technology options can be done as part of the Project R1.1.1 Investigation of Options task.

Once the investigation of technology options is complete, parallel efforts to design a suitable system and API(s) support for an Integrated ILL are needed. API and system details will depend on deployment choices (revitalized TAL Online or behind local library interfaces) and the degree to which libraries need to interact to support Integrated ILL functions. There may be significant functional differences because of deployment.

27

Recognizing the complexity of data and workflow management inherent in ILL operations, the subsequent implementation, test, integration, and deployment tasks are significantly longer than those in R1.1.1 and R1.1.2.

Care should be taken in project planning and staffing to ensure that the project scope is manageable. It is recommended that focus be on core ILL operations support; workflows and data that are rarely used or needed should be delayed or discarded where possible.

We choose to show the project timeline in Figure 19 starting at the same time as Projects R1.1.1 and R1.1.2, but as mentioned above, it may be desirable to delay the start of this project because of resource considerations or because of dependencies on R1.1.1 and R1.1.2 decisions or developments.

Timeline



A senior architect is required for the API and System design tasks only. An intermediate programmer can handle all other tasks. Task loading is 100%.

Test and Integration hardware can be shared with other projects (R1.1.1 or R1.1.2).

There may be a requirement for ILL-supportive software, so provision has been made in the budget; cost estimates are not available at this time and depend in part on what contracts/licenses exist today.

28


Personnel

Sr. Architect 1 $8,300/month $12,450



Other costs

ILL software (VDX?) Approx. 20 TBD TBD Table 3-Project R1.1.3 cost estimates

Expected Outcomes

• System and API design documentation, including overall architecture.

• Fully (or close to) automated ILL processes.

• Complete system operations documentation.

Measures of Success

• Successful design reviews for the architectures.

• Demonstration of ILL functions based on the union catalogue and universal access.


Risks




29

Project R1.1.4: Branding and Advertising

Description

Assuming a positive outcome of the candidate project R1.1, stakeholders and the public need to be made aware of the new services.

If a revitalized TAL Online system is desired, then it may be useful to re-launch the web site, or even re-brand it entirely.

Approach

Initiate a planning process once confidence in the success of the first three projects (R1.1.1, R1.1.2, and R1.1.3) is high.

Conduct a campaign to inform the public of the new services. This may need to be executed at the local libraries and library systems level, at a provincial level, or some mix of both.

Timeline



One month of planning a campaign should be sufficient. A person capable of this task is required at the Province’s level.

The campaign may run over 3 or more months. It is assumed that at the local library and library systems level, stakeholders will be able to contribute personnel resources.

Advertising media and materials need to be determined based on the campaign.

30


Personnel

Provincial-level library management 1 $8,300/month $8,300

Other costs

Advertising materials and media ? TBD TBD Table 4-Project R1.1.4 cost estimates

Expected Outcomes

• Increased awareness and use of new transparent access systems.

Measures of Success

• Increased ILL rates attributable to the new transparent access.

• Use of revitalized TAL Online service (if that option is executed).

Risks

• Poor planning and execution.

• Insufficient funds for desired campaign coverage.

31

Project R1.2: Improved Ask A Question

Description

The existing Ask A Question service is slowly dropping in usage and support by libraries. This is due in part to funding and other issues for participating institutions, but may also be attributable to the functionality provided. As often happens with web-based technologies, advances in technology and user expectation have given rise to much better and effective Q & A systems.

A planned upgrade of the service was put on hold due to a loss of resources in 2009 [57].

As mentioned above, alongside providing access to information in the form of library holdings, libraries also provide trained information experts able to help patrons search and find information.

The web is replete with examples of question and answer systems. For technology, there are sites like StackOverflow.com that provide simple, but effective user interfaces, simple-to-use search capabilities, and social functions like “voting up” answers.

In revitalizing the TAL Online service, it makes sense to consider improving or replacing the Ask A Question service.

Approach

Examine various comparable or alternate online question and answer systems. At the time of this report, at least two seem promising:

• Open Source Q & A system: www.osqa.net; and

• Shapado: www.shapado.com

Customize the selected system as needed, host, and launch.

An option would be to execute this project as a university or college course project, or to utilize a co-op or summer student.

Timeline

Figure 21-Project R1.2 timeline

http://www.osqa.net/�

http://www.shapado.com/�

32


A junior programmer can manage all tasks.

Referring to Figure 21, the initial investigation of open source software solutions and some quick validation of functionality should take only two weeks. The initial implementation task involves reviewing desired functionality with library stakeholders and creating demonstration systems. This is an iterative process, so two months has been estimated. A limited beta test follows, to be conducted over two months with stakeholder and user feedback gathering being the primary objective. The final implementation (changes) and deployment should take about 1 month.

All tasks are loaded at 100% except the beta test, which should need at most 25% loading. Total effort is about 4 person-months.

It’s assumed that beta and final deployment hardware is the same as the current Ask A Question (AAQ) hardware.

There is no provision to migrate the existing AAQ database to the new system as too much desired context would be missing.


Personnel

Junior Programmer 1 $5,000/month $20,000



Other costs

None? Table 5-Project R1.2 cost estimates

Expected Outcomes

• Modern online reference question system for use by librarians and patrons.

• APIs allowing further development; for example, extension to mobile applications.

Measures of Success

• Working reference question system.

• Deployment to multiple, if not all public libraries.

33

Risks

• Use of a student resource will require more time, and may be at risk for required expertise and experience.

• Significant work may be required to provide localization feature for libraries (if desired, or even needed).

o May not be possible to integrate with patron access systems like BiblioCommons

34

Project R1.3: Extend the Revitalized TAL Online

Description

Based on the success of the TAL Online revitalization project, it is desirable to:

• Extend the accessible holdings by incorporating electronic and other resources in the union catalogue;

• Add other libraries and their holdings, including academic institutions and public schools; and

• Add publicly accessible government catalogue information.

This is consistent with the recommendation above to concentrate first on public library holdings, delaying the goal of making all publicly funded assets available so that the earlier projects are tractable10

The objective of this project is to look backward at the results of Projects R1.1.1-R1.1.4 and analyze what is necessary to extend those results to achieve the goal of making all publicly funded library assets available to all Albertans

.

[1].

Approach

Not all libraries view the ownership of their holdings the same way; universities, colleges, public schools all acquire their holdings via a variety of means and view many things as “their own”. There are further inter-operability problems to address because these libraries make use of other systems (compared to the public library system).

This project is mostly planning-driven. If and how other publicly funded organizations wish to join in the effort to provide transparent access must be determined. Then, using the expertise and experience gained from the execution of Projects R1.1.1-R1.1.4, gather the necessary information and data to develop one or more projects to integrate their holdings into the union catalogue, extend universal access, and support anticipated increases in inter-library loan requests.

10 Attempting to provide seamless access to all publicly funded library holdings in the Province maybe deemed too large a challenge to accomplish in a single project or all at once.

35

Timeline



The project plan shown in Figure 22 reflects the approach described above. The first task requires discussions with organizations not yet represented in the transparent access project (i.e. not represented in the union catalogue). Arranging meetings and interviews is usually a sporadic activity so the task is weighted at 50% effort. All other tasks are weighted at 100%.

In the feasibility analysis task, those libraries (library systems) interested in participating must be analyzed to assess what technical components are required to support access to their data, patron, and ILL systems, and if required, support their operations as impacted by the revitalized TAL Online project. Each task is two weeks in duration and shown as sequential activities, though they may be overlapped.

It’s assumed the experience will allow for a relatively short project planning activities (six weeks), especially since the objective is to develop recommendations on how to integrate the other libraries (i.e. it’s not necessary to generate detailed project plans). Two weeks are allocated to develop a recommendations report.

Thus, the total effort is eight weeks * 50% + 16 weeks = 20 weeks


Personnel

Project Manager 1 $6,700/month $33,500 Table 6-Project R1.3 cost estimates

36

Expected Outcomes

• Recommendations report outlining plans to incorporate the interested libraries into the revitalized TAL Online system.

Measures of Success

• The recommendations report is recognized as feasible.

Risks

• Underestimating the time to analyze the requirements needed to incorporate a given library’s (library systems) information and support their systems.

37

Project R1.4: RFID Technologies Support

Description

Radio-frequency identification (RFID [27]) tags are being increasingly used by organizations with significant material handling systems, including libraries [13][26]. It is a mature, trusted technology that is already deployed in many libraries in Alberta.

As mentioned above in Project R1.1.3: Integrated Inter-Library Loan (ILL), the use of RFID tags for library holdings is not strictly necessary to achieve the main goals of the Transparent Access To Public Library Holdings recommendation. However, because some libraries are using RFID for their holdings, there is a technology imbalance or gap that both hinders efficient integrated ILL and denies some libraries the benefits of RFID.

Use of RFID has benefits outside ILL applications in that it better supports patron-mediated library functions like self-checkout, returns, and more. It also supports better, automated security for library items, helping to reduce theft and other problems.

Finally, because RFID tags add an element of spatial localization to an item’s asset description, there is the potential for innovative approaches to item location and tracking within library facilities. For example, the trend towards so-called “proximity communications” for mobile devices may allow patrons to retrieve bibliographic and other information for a book simply by being near it. One might imagine an augmented reality [13] display of that information via the mobile devices camera and viewing system.

Approach

This project is about enabling the adoption of RFID technology by a library.

This can be done through two means:

• Provide technical expertise and support for RFID systems installation and use in libraries; and

• Make available a pool of funds to help offset capital costs associated with RFID technology installation.

The technical expertise can be grown and managed within the Alberta Centre for Information Technology and Services (ACITS) group recommended below. Addition support may be available from those libraries that have already implemented RFID systems.

Although a budget for the capital funding pool is suggested below, it may be wise to survey libraries that have installed RFID systems to gauge total costs involved, and to survey those libraries without RFID systems to measure interest and readiness. Those results may be used to assess the size of a pool to offset capital costs.

Libraries wishing to take advantage of the pool should be required to make an application that can be reviewed and assessed by ACITS or another responsible organization.

Expertise and experience may be used in the future to develop projects for consideration by ACITS.

38

Timeline



As shown in Figure 23, there are two main tasks. The first is to investigate the typical costs associated with the installation of an RFID system and assess the likely demand by libraries desirous of RFID technology. The objective is to establish expectations for support levels.

The second task is to support RFID capital projects proposed by libraries.

The two task resource requirements are loaded at 100% and 14%, respectively, yielding one plus five months of total effort. The project consists of labour and support costs only, as shown in Table 7.

The capital cost estimate will likely need revision pending a review of the Technology Report recommendations and candidate projects.


Personnel

Technician/Analyst 1 $6,700/month $40,200

Other costs

Capital Pool 1 $60,000 $60,000 Table 7-Project R1.4 cost estimates

Expected Outcomes

• A refined estimate of the support required to assist libraries migrating to RFID technology.

• One or more libraries successfully migrate in whole or part to RFID asset identification and tracking.

• Development of expertise and experience.

• Subsequent project concepts based on use of RFID technology or asset catalogue information.

39

Measures of Success

• Need for capital pool and resource is justified by use.

• One or more libraries make successful proposals to access this pool.

Risks

• Underestimating the capital costs involved so that capital pool assistance is a negligible portion of the library’s project costs

40


In the APLEN Public Library Technology Issues Paper [8], the concept of “Centrally Administered IT” is briefly described, and an option for “Distributed, Centralized Services” endorsed by a majority of APLEN representatives. Several of the services mentioned are elaborated as candidate projects under this recommendation.

Although not described in the Public Library Technology Issues Paper [8], the interviews and survey data [14] gathered as background to the Technology Report make clear the intent to leave alone, even enhance those IT resources and services that are best placed locally. There are day-to-day needs that cannot be effectively met by centrally dispatched IT personnel; needs that are being met well by local libraries and regional systems today.

An aspect not mentioned in the paper, but obvious in discussion with stakeholders and through the online survey data [14], is the need for IT personnel training and training resources.

The aim of the candidate projects suggested below is to support this recommendation. Aspects of the projects, especially expertise, experience, and training-related activities may be supported as part of the Collaborative Communications and Alberta Centre for Information Technology and Services (ACITS) recommendations, R3 and R4 respectively. For example, training program delivery can be supported through online multi-media communications while specific centralized support functions may be hosted under an ACITS mandate.

An interesting aspect of this project when considered in combination with Recommendation R4, the Alberta Centre for Information Technology and Services, is that together they serve as a template for possibly similar information technology support activities within Alberta Municipal Affairs and across Government of Alberta Ministries.

Centralize and share information technology (IT) resources and services where and when possible. Ensure IT resources at the local and regional levels are left in place and supported to provide timely and effective local service. Pool expertise and experience, develop training programs and resources, and share within the library community.

Consider sharing centrally-managed and supported information technology services and programs between or across Government of Alberta ministries. Base decisions on the performance of the recommendations made in this Technology Report.

41

Objectives

• Identify technology services that can be centrally supported. o Determine what is a priority at the local level and what can be moved up to regional or

provincial level. o Promote collective purchasing of hardware, software, and services.

• Develop and share information technology resources and capabilities where possible.

• Promote the use of virtualization (shared hardware) and cloud computing as a way to save costs and resources.

• Build up shared training programs and training resources.

• Cooperate with ACITS, drawn on ACITS resources.

• Create template (model) for other Alberta Municipal Affairs groups to use; support shared knowledge outside of public libraries.

• Reduce load on local IT resources, allowing them to provide better support in delivery of public-facing services.

Issues

1. Costs and Duplication

Stakeholder interviews and the online survey [14] demonstrate that there are many common technologies and services supported by Alberta’s libraries. The establishment of seven regional library systems and the continued trend to the formation of consortia (e.g. through shared hardware and/or software) has done much to reduce duplication of costs and systems.

Nevertheless, there is still duplication of systems and costs that can be addressed by centralized services and systems. Modern software and hardware systems, including virtualized servers and cloud computing [31]-[34] can do much to reduce cost and service duplication.

In the development and support of centralized services and systems, there is an opportunity to reduce duplication in IT personnel training and knowledge. For example, many libraries in Alberta run the same ILS11

2. Training Deficits

. Major (or minor) system upgrades take substantial amounts of time and effort by IT personnel, efforts that are obviously duplicated around Alberta. Since these upgrades are generally not “emergencies”, (i.e. they can be planned in advance, having central IT support handle them means that local IT personnel can be free to do other, better, more interesting tasks).

Library information technology staff do not receive the same levels of training as non-IT staff [14]. Whether this is due to excessive workloads and demands, an imbalance in priorities, or because many are in contract positions, they are often hindered by a lack of training.

11 Two ILS vendors dominate the public library system in Alberta.

42

Centralizing information technology functions and services can ameliorate this situation by:

• Removing the need for in-depth training on some things:

• Creating central “experts” on subject matter who can share knowledge as needed (see the ILS upgrade example above);

• Promoting the sharing of knowledge as central support personnel travel to the libraries for service needs and “rub shoulders” with local personnel; and

• Freeing time for local IT personnel to receive training.

In addition, through collaboration of ACITS (Recommendation R4 and the Collaborative Communications (Recommendation R3) projects, there is the opportunity to create training programs and materials.

3. Consistency of Services

The establishment of seven regional library systems, the efforts of the large libraries, and the continued trend to the formation of consortia (e.g. though shared hardware and/or software) have done much to bring consistency in library services, especially those based on technology. Libraries today don’t create “silos” [1], but instead make efforts to break barriers.

Nevertheless, inconsistencies of service exist between libraries, and even with library systems. As recounted by stakeholders [14], mixed systems of software and hardware for computers, networks, and other technologies present significant challenges in IT management and present their patrons with a “mixed bag” of library systems.

4. Management of Services

Consideration is required concerning which organization manages the centralized IT services and support. As suggested, this recommendation may be tied to the Alberta Centre for Information Technology and Services (ACITS-Recommendation R4). It is also possible that TAL or APLEN can muster the resources required.

In the candidate projects below, we shall use ACITS as a representative group when discussing management of projects with the understanding that some other group may be preferred.

Candidate Projects

For this recommendation, eight candidate projects are organized as shown in Figure 24.

The first seven candidate projects are services that are available from various vendors. In general, vendor-supplied management and support is available, or support can be managed through ACITS12

It is assumed that a single project manager within ACITS can oversee these projects. That cost is not included here.

.

12 Or, as mentioned above, an equivalent body overseeing the Technology Report projects execution and management.

43

Cost estimates for Projects R2.1 though R2.7 inclusive are supplied based on the authors’ research should not be considered binding.

Cost estimates for Projects R2.2 through R2.7 inclusive assume no support from the customer libraries or their municipalities. Pursuit support from those and other sources is encouraged.

The last candidate project (R2.8) is to develop a training resource for web site content management.

Figure 24-Centralized-Decentralized Information Technology Support Recommendation candidate projects

44

Project R2.1: Cloud-based Data Backup

Description

Another option for ACITS to consider is to offer a centrally based data backup solution for the libraries.

By taking advantage of the bandwidth and reliability of the Alberta SuperNet, libraries can utilize cloud-based storage solutions [14] to serve as primary or secondary backup systems. This option offers the libraries a viable and secure backup option. Indeed, at least one library system in Alberta already takes advantage of cloud-based backup [14].

There are advantages and disadvantages to cloud-based backup (quoted directly from [35]) as shown in Table 8.

Advantage Disadvantage

Efficiency and reliability. Cloud providers utilize state-of-the-art technology, such as disk-based backup, compression, encryption, elimination of data redundancies, server virtualization, storage virtualization, application-specific protection, and more in SAS 70-certified data centres. In addition to the security that accompanies their certification, many providers offer 24/7 monitoring, management, and reporting — features and capabilities that may not be afforded by many companies otherwise. Furthermore, there's no need to worry about upgrades, migrations or technology obsolescence; the burden of the backup infrastructure lies with the service provider.

Seeding data and full recovery. Depending on the total capacity of data, the first full backup and/or full recovery of site data could prove to be too time-consuming and impactful on production systems.

Scalability with capital savings. Organizations can leverage the unlimited scalability of a third-party cloud provider without the upfront capital expenditure. In fact, the pay-as-you-go model significantly reduces the procurement and provisioning headaches for backup. This approach allows for predictable management of capacity growth and operational costs.

Size limitations. Depending on bandwidth availability, every organization will have a threshold for the most reasonable capacity of data that can be transferred daily to the cloud. These limitations will have an impact on backup strategies.

45

Advantage Disadvantage

Improves recovery time for small data sets. For a recovery from tape, an operator would need to recall the tape, load it, locate the data and recover the data. Conversely, file recovery from cloud storage is faster; it doesn't require physical transport from the offsite location, tape handling or seek time. Files to be recovered are located and streamed over the WAN connection, saving time and eliminating the need for a local tape infrastructure.

Discontinuation of the service. Understanding the most graceful "exit strategy" for the service is just as important as vetting specific features. Termination or early-withdrawal fees, cancellation notification, and data extraction are just a few of the factors to be considered.

Accessibility. Cloud backup may be attractive to organizations that couldn't afford the investment and maintenance of a disaster recovery infrastructure -- or for those who can, but recognize the greater efficiency and cost savings to be gained by outsourcing. Offsite data copies -- accessible from any internet-connected device/location -- provide an added measure of insurance in the event of a regional disaster.

Nonexistent service-level agreements (SLAs). The performance of the service and the "guarantees" that backup is completed successfully is not always in the provider's control. For example, availability of sufficient bandwidth, the amount of data that has to be transferred over the network, and accessibility to systems to be protected are all scenarios that could contribute to non-compliance with service-level agreements.

Table 8-Some advantages and disadvantages of cloud-based storage

Libraries, like any organization, must ensure they have off-site backup holdings or facilities as part of a disaster recovery plan. At the very least, cloud-based backup can meet that need. However, a cloud backup vendor should have a disaster recovery plan that may suffice for library disaster recovery planning.

Depending on the stability of the library’s live data storage systems, it may be feasible to use cloud-based data backup as a primary backup system. It would depend on the library’s current primary data backup process; factors like incremental backup and full backup frequency, total data volumes, and others would determine the feasibility.

In pursuing this project, libraries should carefully consider vendor offerings in light of the disadvantages listed above and any others that due diligence activities uncover.

This project will require very little or no capital costs, but will obligate participating libraries to monthly fees plus usage fees according to vendor contracts.

46

Approach

In general, this project can be executed either by the library itself (or a group of libraries), or by using a third-party integrator. Since cloud-based services are generally contracted remotely (require little or no on-site work by the cloud services vendor), library IT staff may possess all the knowledge required. Conversely, it may make sense for regional library systems or consortia of libraries to consider a third-party integrator.

Both approaches should consider conducting a full disaster recovery plan as an initial step.

A general project plan that may be followed includes the following steps:

1. Assess current primary and secondary data backup strategies and needs. 2. Conduct a full disaster recovery plan review. 3. Review cloud-bases backup service providers. 4. Select an integrator:

a. From within the library system; or b. A third-party integrator.

5. Select a candidate cloud-based backup services vendor. 6. Design a migration plan including test procedures. 7. Execute the plan for each library or library region participating. 8. Finalize installations/deployments, document processes, and capture lessons learned, etc.

Some key criteria to consider in selecting a cloud-based data backup service provider include,

• Capital costs (either per library, library region, or for all identified participating libraries).

• Installation costs.

• Installation timelines.

• Maintenance costs.

• Vendor reputation and stability: o Reliability of services to date. o Ability to scale to meet anticipated needs. o References from other customers.

Timeline


47


The general project timeline is shown in Figure 25.

An IT technician experienced with backup systems should be able to manage the project. As mentioned above, use of a third-party integrator is an option and assumed for cost projection purposes. If an integrator is used, it’s assumed the IT Technician is loaded at 25%.

Actual cloud-based backup system vendor costs, such as set up, maintenance, and usage fees are assumed to be covered by the customer library.


Personnel: in-house option

IT Technician 1 $5,000/month $21,250

Personnel: third-party integrator option

IT Technician 1 $5,000/month $12,800

Integrator 1 $6,000/month $13,500 Table 9-Project R2.1 cost estimates

Expected Outcomes

• A functional cloud-based data backup system.

Measures of Success

• Participating libraries will provide a report after one or two years outlining realized cost savings

Risks

• Costs are too high.

• Poor integrator project execution.

• Lack of ongoing cloud-based back services vendor support.

48

Project R2.2: Network & Server Reporting Services

Description

Libraries may wish to consider purchasing a suite of cloud-based network monitoring services.

It is a significant challenge to monitor and troubleshoot network and application performance in real time. It is important for Libraries to gain access to real time data that details what is on the network and when. This way Libraries can quickly identify and resolve issues without impacting the efficiency of their network and services.

Not only is reporting important for troubleshooting but also making a decision on whether adding more bandwidth is the answer. We think understanding what is running on the network is the first step. How much bandwidth is too much? The traditional method of resolving network issues is by simply throwing more bandwidth at the problem. This can temporarily alleviate network congestion but more often simply encourages more of the same problems. It’s just a matter of time until clients are faced with another bandwidth upgrade, and the capital and reoccurring costs that come with it.

Obviously, implementing network traffic management as suggested in Project R2.3 complements this project. Seeing the problem and being able to address it is the “full-circle” solution.

Network monitoring tools allows libraries to ensure network usage is aligned with public library business and customer priorities. If network links are starting to fill, you identify and throttle back recreational and non-business apps to free up more capacity for business critical applications and processes. This saves money and encourages the right behavior when it comes to network utilization.

Proactive monitoring of network components and servers can be a critical component to simplifying management of a diverse network environment. With the large number of servers, applications and network devices throughout the province monitoring solutions will provide proactive alerting of potential issues ranging from hardware component failure to network bandwidth issues (as described above).

With a network based reporting tool, libraries can benefit from the following:

• Increased network and server activities visibility. o The ability to identify and separate business from recreational applications to ensure

optimized application and network performance.

• Assurance of network utilization and performance. o The ability to examine utilization and performance issues by links, users or applications,

such as business critical, recreational and unsanctioned traffic types.

• Better application response time. o Tools to monitor and audit application response times, helping to isolate performance

issues and identifying server or network related issues in real time.

• Monitoring and enforcement of Service-Level Agreements (SLAs).

49

• Reduced down time. o Identify and monitor in real time performance or network issues before they impact the

user and branch. Monitor server responses (TCP Health), network efficiency, traffic captures, traffic forensic history and more.

• Proactive alerting and reporting for hardware components.

• Ease of use. o Performance monitoring and management for both servers (physical and virtual) and

network components from a single console.

Approach

In general, this is a project that can be developed and executed by a third-party vendor. As a centralized service, it may be desirable to install and bring online (make operational) this service for all interested libraries and library systems, or to stage installation (e.g. regionally). This is a choice for the vendor and participating libraries, and can be written into an RFP.

The general process is to:

1. Solicit proposals from vendors. 2. Select one that meets expectations and budget. 3. Execute a contract. 4. The selected vendor executes the contract. 5. Final review and sign-off of the contract.

Some key criteria to consider in forming an RFP include:





• Vendor reputation and stability. o Similarly, the reputation of quality of the equipment bid.

There may be other costs incurred to facilitate installation or operation, such as network bandwidth or equipment upgrades; these depend on the project configuration and implementation and cannot be anticipated here.

50

Timeline



The general project timeline is shown in Figure 26. The execution of the project shows as being delayed from the contract signing date, but generally depends on the terms in the RFP and contract.

Note: The project cost estimate provided in Table 10 are based on vendor-provided or catalogue list costs. No discounts have been applied for bulk purchase or other conditions. Estimates are provided assuming deployment that includes the seven regional library systems, Edmonton Public Library and Calgary Public Library, the seven other large urban libraries (Grande Prairie Public Library, Lethbridge Public Library, Medicine Hat Public Library, Red Deer Public Library, St. Albert Public Library, Strathcona County Library, and Fort McMurray Public Library), and all other libraries that are part of a library system.

In general, the project estimate includes capital, installation, training, and some period of maintenance.


Vendor Costs

Project Estimate 1 $175,000 $175,000

Other costs (example)

Network bandwidth increase Library dependent TBD

Other network equipment upgrades Library dependent TBD Table 10-Project R2.2 cost estimates

Expected Outcomes

• A centrally managed network and server monitoring system.

Measures of Success

• Participating libraries will provide a report after one or two years outlining realized cost savings o As mentioned above, this assumes use of a management system to address issues

detected by the monitoring system.

51

Risks


• Poor vendor project execution.

• Lack of ongoing vendor support.

52

Project R2.3: Network Traffic Management

Description

Ever-increasing network bandwidth demands due to patron and staff needs has created new challenges for the libraries to support and manage network traffic on their existing wide-area network (SuperNet).

A network application traffic management solution can be deployed in conjunction with a library’s WAN to support current or future demands for voice, streaming digital media, data, and other traffic. Installation of network traffic management devices will improve the efficiency of network resources and allow the library to realize the maximum use of existing bandwidth before having to contract for increased bandwidth.

The benefits of network traffic management include:

• Optimal performance for voice, video conferencing, and similar services via quality of service (QoS) measures;

• Identification and control of recreational applications on the WAN and Internet to preserve/manage bandwidth costs;

o Enforce bandwidth caps, block applications, control them.

• Optimized performance of real-time applications like thin client transactions;

• Guaranteed bandwidth for key business applications; ensure business-critical applications have the resources they need to operate effectively over the WAN and Internet;

• Optimization of existing connection capacity;

• Prioritized applications and sessions; prioritize more important applications over less important ones;

• Minimize network congestion and maximize responsiveness by managing delay, jitter, and other metrics;

o Mark packets with prescribed DiffServ, IPTOS/Precedence, VLANs and others.

• Suppress DDoS, Virus and Worm Propagation – Enhance the security of your network and application infrastructure by finding and stopping infected PCs and tracking every flow through the network; and

• Recover wasted bandwidth to provide room to add other new services like video conferencing & VoIP services.

Approach

In general, this is a project that can be developed and executed efficiently by a third-party vendor. As a centralized service, it may be desirable to install and bring online (make operational) this service for all interested libraries and library systems, or to stage installation (e.g. regionally). This is a choice for the vendor and participating libraries, and can be written into an RFP.

53








• Vendor reputation and stability. o Similarly, the reputation of quality of the equipment bid.


Timeline





54



Vendor Costs

Project Estimate 1 $520,000 $520,000


Network bandwidth increase Library dependent TBD


Expected Outcomes

• A centrally-managed network traffic management system.

Measures of Success

• Participating libraries will provide a report after one or two years outlining realized cost savings o As mentioned above, this assumes use of a network and server monitoring system to

detect and monitor system issues.

Risks




55

Project R2.4: Network Mail Security

Description

Cloud-based or centrally managed Network Mail security provides an effective barrier against the ever-rising volume of spam and maximum, pre-emptive protection against sophisticated message-based attacks. Typical vendor provided solutions offer inbound and outbound scanning, advanced anti-spam and anti-virus filtering capabilities, denial of service attack prevention and detection, IP address black/white listing functionality and extensive quarantine and archiving capabilities.

By relieving libraries of the sunk costs and management efforts required for local secure messaging filtering device installations, libraries can realize the following benefits:

• Layered protection improves messaging security, separates low-latency perimeter and high-latency email functions for more efficient operation.

• Advanced inspection capabilities and additional IP/anti-spam filtering functions improves protection against sophisticated message-based threats, including phishing.

• Compliance analysis to flexibly support internal use policies and library-specific messaging regulations.

• Stops spam before it consumes messaging system and network resources, reducing capital and support expenditures on messaging functionality.

• Advanced messaging content archiving, quarantining, and routing capabilities help achieve simple integration into any existing standard e-mail system.

Many of the libraries have implemented unified threat management systems and given major consideration to the protection of their messaging systems. A centrally managed network mail security system offers libraries shared, consistent, and easily managed protection.

Approach

The approach for this project is identical to the approach for Project R2.3.

Timeline


56






Vendor Costs

Project Estimate 1 NA $328,000


None anticipated… Table 12-Project R2.4 cost estimates

Expected Outcomes

• A centrally-managed network mail security system.

Measures of Success

• Participating libraries will provide a report after one or two years outlining realized cost savings.

Risks




57

Project R2.5: Wireless LAN Reporting

Description

Managing wireless network infrastructures can be intimidating. Access points, controllers, security policies, and client connection issues all impact IT and non-IT library staff, and take away from more library-specific service delivery opportunities. Much of this burden can be reduced by employing a centrally managed wireless LAN (WLAN) reporting system to support existing library WLAN deployments. Like the other centrally managed systems in Projects R2.2, R2.3, and R2.4 this service provides a single, easy-to-use console to provide full visibility and control over wireless networks and their users. Benefits include:

• Real-time monitoring of every wireless user and device connected to the network, with rapid drill-down from network-wide to device-level monitoring views.

• Centralized discovery and configuration management of controllers and wireless access points to ensure that policies are applied uniformly across the entire network.

• Archived device configurations for intelligent management, auditing, and version control.

• Efficient remote software distribution to eliminate time-consuming and error prone manual software updates.

• Assurance that policies are being uniformly enforced and security best practices are being maintained.

• Automatic correction of wrongly configured devices.

• Multi-architecture support for autonomous (“thick”), lightweight (“thin”), and mesh access points as well as point-to-point and WiMAX devices.

• Multi-vendor support for wireless infrastructure.

• Report generation, including historical access, usage, and other trends.

• Pre-emptive alerts and troubleshooting assistance for network problems.

Approach


Timeline


58






Vendor Costs



Required local library equipment changes (e.g. wireless access points, routers, etc.)

Library dependent TBD


Expected Outcomes

• A centrally-managed wireless LAN reporting system.

Measures of Success

• Participating libraries will provide a report after one or two years outlining realized cost savings.

Risks




59

Project R2.6: Configuration Management System

Description

Libraries and library systems maintain a diverse set of computing environments. Even at the local library level, multiple computers may be in use as staff and public workstations. They are often of varying vintages and must, because of computational capacity limitations, run different operating and software versions. Within a large library or across a regional library system, the challenges and problems increase (seemingly) geometrically.

Following in the footsteps of other large corporate and government organizations, libraries are turning to configuration management systems [36]. They are software suites that provide a robust set of workstation management features, including remote support and access tools, application deployment tools, a workstation imaging infrastructure, and integrated patch management. These functions are illustrated in Figure 30, and are typically realized using:

• Software agents on each workstation/server to allow interaction with the infrastructure;

• A software update module that ensures workstations receive their patches in a timely fashion;

• An application deployment module that provides automated installation for key applications;

• A computer imaging module that ensures workstations are built the same way every time; and

• A hardware and software inventory module to track and report workstation configuration.

Figure 30-Main functions of a configuration management system

Once a vendor’s configuration management system has been configured, it is possible for an administrator to completely control the core points of the workstation lifecycle simply and easily from a central console. The system allows for tighter and more reliable control over the workstation desktops, as well as streamlined support, enhanced flexibility for management, and simplified application upgrades and patching.

60

Approach


Timeline




Note: The project cost estimate provided in Table 14 are based on vendor-provided or catalogue list costs. No discounts have been applied for bulk purchases or other conditions. Estimates are provided assuming deployment that includes the seven regional library systems, Edmonton Public Library and Calgary Public Library, the seven other large urban libraries (Grande Prairie Public Library, Lethbridge Public Library, Medicine Hat Public Library, Red Deer Public Library, St. Albert Public Library, Strathcona County Library, and Fort McMurray Public Library), and all other libraries that are part of a library system.



Vendor Costs



Workstation replacement Library dependent TBD

Other network equipment upgrades NA $80,000 Table 14-Project R2.6 cost estimates

Expected Outcomes

• A centrally-managed network traffic management system.

61

Measures of Success


Risks




62

Project R2.7: Central Help Desk

Description

Library IT departments rely on vendor support for key hardware and software installations. A common practice is to purchase “help” or “support” tickets that can be redeemed for vendor-specific assistance, or assistance from industry certified engineers/technicians. As mentioned elsewhere in the Technology Report, one of the challenges for IT personnel in libraries is training, which implies that gaining additional technology-specific certifications is likely even more challenging.

IT personnel need to be able to turn to industry experts for timely help, but that help is expensive when it’s contracted on a per instance basis. It would be better if, by pooling resources and buying power, libraries considered bulk purchases of third-party help tickets for common technical issues.

Choosing what help tickets to bulk purchase and managing them on behalf of libraries is the essence of the Central Help Desk project. Through it, libraries can gain instant access to expert support staff and timely solutions across multiple platforms. Some of the benefits they will enjoy include:

• Access to and support by industry certified engineers and technicians with real world experience anywhere in the province.

• Reduced per ticket cost; no more hourly support costs to resolve technical issues.

• Escalation paths for all supported products; problems can be escalated to the vendor as necessary with no additional charge or effort to the customer.

• Multiple products supported with just one call.

• Total yearly coverage including around the clock support—24/7/365.

• Remote, secure presence and service capabilities available to support any location in the province (e.g. access via SSH).

• Independent and objective technical expertise that is not vendor/product biased.

• Reduction in existing technical support costs for libraries.

Central help desk systems are especially useful for problems that are infrequent; library IT staff avoid having to gain expertise for a problem that they will likely never see again.

This project fits well with the ACITS mandate to provide central support for technology and technical issues that are infrequently required, such as ILS upgrades.

One challenge in this project (and likely other candidate projects in this report) is a long-term funding model. Current Technology Report funds may be utilized to launch the service, but to be truly valuable it must be self-funded. Participating libraries need to formulate some kind of funding structure that is fair and equitable. Likewise, the service should be scalable and responsive to the changing needs of participating libraries. These are questions not directly dependent on technology, but rather on policy and agreement. As such they fall outside the mandate of the Technology Report.

63

Approach

This is a project that can be developed and executed by a third-party vendor or can be supported directly under ACITS (or the equivalent organization) as part of their mandate to manage the Technology Report project and provide a pool of library IT services and technologies expertise.

Regardless, of who executes the project, the general approach can be the same. If ACITS is “sole-sourced”, the proposal stage of the project can be treated as a planning stage, but the vendor selection task can be eliminated.

Unlike previous centrally managed services, there is no reason not to deploy this service for all participating libraries at the same time.




• Vendor experience.

• Availability of qualified personnel.

• Service-level agreements and guarantees.

• Vendor reputation and stability.

• Customer and independent recommendations.

• Example support contracts.


Timeline


64



Note: The project cost estimate provided in Table 15 are based on vendor-provided or catalogue list costs. No discounts have been applied for bulk purchases or other conditions. Estimates are provided assuming deployment that includes the seven regional library systems, Edmonton Public Library and Calgary Public Library, the seven other large urban libraries (Grande Prairie Public Library, Lethbridge Public Library, Medicine Hat Public Library, Red Deer Public Library, St. Albert Public Library, Strathcona County Library, and Fort McMurray Public Library), and all other libraries that are part of a library system.



Vendor Costs



Third-party help tickets NA NA Table 15-Project R2.7 cost estimates

Expected Outcomes

• A centrally-managed help desk.

• Demonstrably better pricing for help tickets compared to what the same number of individual libraries might arrange.

Measures of Success


• Demonstrably better pricing for help tickets compared to what the same number of individual libraries might arrange.

• Sharing of help ticket purchasing costs.

• Efficient allocation of help tickets.

Risks


• Poor vendor performance.


• Lack of cooperation between participating libraries. For example, inequitable prioritization of service.

65

Project R2.8: Content Management Training

Description

From stakeholder interviews [14][59]-[100] it is clear that while some libraries and library systems in Alberta are skilled at web site construction and content management, others struggle with issues of available expertise, training, and time. They expressed a desire for assistance as they try to update sites, provide small libraries with their own sites, or even migrate to newer technologies like Drupal [37].

Under the auspices of ACITS or perhaps through designation of one or more libraries as centres of expertise, a pool of expertise can be made available to other libraries needing content management help.

This project can benefit from the user interface activities implicit in the projects under Recommendation R1, Transparent Access To Public Library Holdings. In those projects, there is a need to either provide a new, universal access user interface for a revitalized TAL Online service, or integrate universal access with existing library user interfaces, or both. Potentially, there is work with BiblioCommons and other user interfaces using HTML (5), Drupal, and other web technologies. Sharing the experience and expertise with library personnel seems like an obvious side-benefit of the projects.

Approach

Coordinate the user interface development and enhancement activities under R1 within the managing support organizations (ACITS or other) in a way to support sharing of experience and expertise.

Some form of collaborative repository, like a wiki, may be useful. A wiki is especially easy and quick to stand up, and can be organized to support both development activities and the capture of materials useful for training (short tutorials, links to useful sites, etc.) and to help libraries make use of the results of the Transparent Access projects (e.g. widgets, etc.).

As the Transparent Access projects proceed, add content to the wiki. Things like design documents, prototype software and content, notes, etc. would be relevant. Create training outlines (“HOW TOs”) that can be used later for workshops.

When appropriate, such as when the first Transparent Access interfaces are launched, hold workshops to share experiences with and train interested library personnel on the technologies used.

For subsequent workshops, solicit input on topics of interest and develop suitable training materials.

These activities do not have to consume significant resources. In fact, much of the development of training materials might be met by mandating the Transparent Access development teams with providing good documentation, both in the design and development phases and for later Transparent Access systems support phases.

66

Timeline



If, as suggested, this project is carried out in parallel with the Transparent Access projects, it may be possible to leverage project management and developer efforts to build up content management training materials and develop workshops based on the need to support user interfaces. Effort and cost for this approach is considered part of the Transparent Access projects (though they may need to account for a little extra effort).

If this is not possible, then after developing and standing up the wiki, a part-time resource should be able to develop materials, support the wiki, and hold workshops. Effort for this approach is shown in Table 16, based on loading a developer with ten person-weeks. It’s assumed that the wiki can be hosted by an existing system (e.g. by a library participating with the Transparent Access projects).


Personnel

Web developer/trainer 1 $5,000/month $12,500

Other costs

None? Table 16-Project R2.8 cost estimates

Expected Outcomes

• An online site where people can find information, examples, tips, and discussion related to user interface design and development related to the Transparent Access projects.

• A series of workshops with an initial focus on user interface design and development related to the Transparent Access projects.

o workshops can be driven by library community interests and needs.

67

Measures of Success

• Libraries are better able to develop and maintain online content.

• A collection of information on the wiki related to content management.

Risks

• Low participation rates by libraries.

• May be other, better sources of information, or this may not be assessed as a high priority need. o This risk should be measured early and the project altered or canceled as needed.

• If support is through ACITS and part of their work on Transparent Access, higher priorities may starve this project of resources.

68


The recommendation is meant to support past and current innovation by libraries in information exchange between people (collaborative communication), and support the emerging role of libraries as facilitators and co-creators of content.

Libraries, from one perspective, are centres for collaborative communications. Books and other media are a form of broadcast communications linking one or more authors with an audience. Readers are motivated to communicate about books and other media. Libraries are the embodiment of the importance a community places on communication of information, ideas, knowledge, experience, and other values of the community. We put people at the heart of the library who collaboratively share their experience and expertise.

One of the key technology recommendations of the Framework for the Future [1] is:

15. “Plan, develop and implement videoconferencing services with other public organizations (Alberta Advanced Education and Technology, school boards and Service Alberta) to ensure libraries have access to these services without duplication of taxpayer investment.”

Part of the recommendation speaks directly to collaboration; “Plan, develop and implement … with other public organizations…” might be replaced with the word collaborate. The other aspect of the recommendation is the specific technology and video-conferencing.

In discussions with stakeholders and from the results of the online survey [14], it is clear that videoconferencing systems are an important means used to provide services both for library patrons and in support of library functions. The RISE network is an example of a recent initiative that is growing in success through the efforts of member libraries and regional library systems.

Support the extension of and innovation in collaborative communication technologies. Recognize that library users are increasingly content creators; become facilitators and co-creators in a collaborative environment.

69

Videoconferencing is by nature a collaborative communications medium. It is not the only medium we might consider any communication means that involves two or more people to be collaborative — one person “sends” while the other “receives”. If other media are included, we might consider the idea of Unified Communications (UC) [38]-[40]. It can be defined as:

Unified communications (UC) is the integration of real-time communication services such as instant messaging (chat), presence information, telephony (including IP telephony), video conferencing, call control and speech recognition with non-real-time communication services such as unified messaging (integrated voicemail, e-mail, SMS and fax). UC is not a single product, but a set of products that provides a consistent unified user interface and user experience across multiple devices and media types [40].

Unified communications is commonly used in the context of business process integration and aims to simplify and integrate all forms of communications with the aim of improving efficiency and efficacy.

The key elements of UC include [40]:

• Presence - provides real-time notification of users' current availability and ability to communicate.

• Instant messaging (IM) - short text messaging that is supplanting email as a form of fast text-based communication; started on the desktop, but quickly moved to mobile platforms.

• Unified messaging - integration of voice, fax and email messages and message notification.

• Speech access and personal assistants - use of speech commands, personal or virtual assistants to allow users to access email, calendars, reminder (Getting Things Done) lists, and other personal organizational and information tools.

• Conferencing and collaboration - includes audio, video and web conferencing, as well as collaborative capabilities such as shared workspaces, electronic/virtual whiteboards, document sharing and more. “The fastest-growing technology in the collaborative portfolio is web conferencing, which brings collaboration to the desktop via a web browser and an internet connection, allowing participants to view presentations and other documents while participating in a real-time conference”.

• Mobility - wireless mobile devices are the fastest grown category of computing and communications devices. Just as laptops have overtaken desktops in terms of sales and use, so have mobile devices become the platform for everything else a laptop doesn’t do, and much that it does. Streaming music and video applications and use are exploding.

These are all elements recognized and supported by libraries in Alberta to varying degrees, but mostly in relatively narrow contexts, in piecemeal fashion. That is not to downplay what is being done collaboratively, but there is so much more that could be accomplished by libraries if they are supported.

Instead of unified communications, we feel that “collaborative communications” is a much better term for human-centric libraries. Regardless, it is an “evolving communications technology architecture [that] automates and unifies all forms of human and device communications in context, and with a common experience. Its purpose is to optimize business processes and enhance human communications by reducing latency, managing flows, and eliminating device and media dependencies” [38].

70

It’s important to note that communication technologies, like computer and automation technologies, have lead to dramatic increases in productivity. Indeed, Canada, with its vast distances, has been a leader in the development and deployment of communications technologies throughout the 20th and into the 21st centuries. Not only have these technologies supported new enterprises with new markets, products, and services, they have arguably saved billions of dollars by facilitating business and other interactions and eliminating the need for travel and transport. In that sense, collaborative communications are very “green”, environmentally friendly technology. Library regions in the RISE network have reported savings of almost 700 hours in travel time and 70,000 km, leaving more time and money for staff to deliver services. Over the entire RISE network, it’s estimated that more than 10,000 videoconference participants saved an average of 20 km of travel in a year [101].

Collaborative communications is responsible for new business and organizational models such as offshore outsourcing and, perhaps very interesting for Alberta, the recent idea of “rural outsourcing” [47]. This refers to the practice of companies using communication and computer technologies to allow workers to live in non-urban communities (i.e. rural). Since living costs are generally lower than in large urban centres, and employees don’t need to commute, companies can realize substantial savings while being able to retain highly qualified employees. There are many advantages to retaining onshore employees compared to offshore outsourcing to places like India, and rural outsourcing is one way to achieve this.

When we consider the key elements of unified (collaborative) communications listed above, we realize that the technologies supporting them provide ample opportunity for information (aka content) creation. Indeed, the internet13

If libraries are people places, and people are content creators, it only follows that libraries are places to create content. It is certain that stakeholders see this happening. Just as certain is that libraries mostly lack the means to facilitate content creation, either indirectly or as co-creators.

is the backbone of many collaborative communication technologies, and that’s where we find YouTube, Facebook, Yahoo Pipes, blogs, wikis, RSS aggregators, and more.

Just the same as collaborative communications, library stakeholders are keen to dive into facilitating and collaborating in content creation.

Recommendation Management

Unlike other recommendations in the Technology Report where projects can be directed to RFP or for management and execution by ACITS, this recommendation is very much inwardly focused. It’s about sharing and communication of information, activities that are at the heart of what defines libraries.

Given the broad scope of collaborative and content creation technologies and activities outlined above, it has been challenging to identify a “champion” organization for this recommendation. A suitable library or library system would require breadth in experience and depth in capacity to take on this recommendation’s explicit and implicit objectives (some of which are found in the candidate projects below).

13 More properly, TCP/IP networking…

71

The idea of specifying a “Centre of Excellence” approach has been deliberately eschewed in favour of the library community “growing” its own leadership group or groups. This may allow libraries or small library groups to establish excellence in a particular domain and then take responsibility for it.

The execution of collaborative communications and content creation projects will allow that leadership to emerge. For the time being, a body like ACITS or APLEN may be able to manage this recommendation’s projects.

For some of the candidate projects below, we suggest that interested libraries be required to create lightweight project proposals complete with traceable metrics and processes. Other approaches are possible, but this has the advantage that an organization in charge of project proposal review and selection, but not fully dedicated to managing the recommendation can still provide guidance and oversight.

Any motivated library may develop a proposal for a collaborative communications or content creation project and, if the project is accepted, receive material, technical, and knowledge (experiential) support. The general process followed is shown in Figure 34.

A secondary recommendation is to foster expertise and experience in libraries or library groups so that they can become de facto leaders in specific collaborative communications or content creation technologies.

72

Figure 34-An example C4 project proposal development and review process

Objectives

• Encourage the exploration emerging collaborative communication and content creations technologies.

• Provide support to enhance and expand videoconferencing systems and use.

• Help to facilitate content creation in libraries; encourage libraries to be co-creators.

• Support the development of collaborative communications and/or content creation technology leaders.

o Require the leaders to support technology innovation in the library community.

• Through the success of initiatives, foster collaborative communications with other Provincial organizations in service to library patrons and, indeed, all Albertans.

73

Issues

1. Communication Network Gaps

Stakeholders consider gaps in connectivity a serious problem. Two main areas were identified:

• SuperNet connections; and

• Extending video-conferencing to libraries that desire it.

Despite the best efforts of the Government of Alberta and library stakeholders, there remain still a few libraries not connected to the SuperNet. In addition, libraries14

There are libraries that strongly desire to participate in videoconferencing systems, yet lack the means or are otherwise blocked. While regional and related policies may be part of the problem, these libraries need technology, training, and sustainment support.

that relocate are finding it cost-prohibitive to reconnect to the SuperNet. These and other similar issues are discussed in more detail in the Infrastructure recommendation section.

2. Appropriate Spaces

Stakeholders are being asked by their patrons to provide support for web-based collaboration technologies like web-conferencing, voice over IP applications (like Skype), and others. Patrons seek not only to understand and use the technologies, but also to have “quiet corners” within libraries to participate in web-based conferences.

Libraries have long facilitated digital print and image content creation using desktop publishing and business application software. However, for other media like audio and video that are inherently distracting, they lack the proper spaces. Libraries want to have video and audio creation and editing studios, collaborative creation rooms, gaming rooms, and more.

While this is not an issue that can be dealt with effectively within the Technology Report, it is important to keep in mind for some of the candidate projects the impact they might have on space use and configuration in libraries. Some may have a negative impact, exacerbating the need, while others (like better support for e-Resources) may actually ease the problem and allow existing spaces to be re-purposed.

3. Content Creation Technologies

Equipment and software for content creation can be expensive. If the content is meant to be accessible online, then networked servers and storage devices are required. Just getting software is not enough; capable hardware is required. Requiring a new server or workstation for a content creation or hosting project and not having the means is enough to kill many projects.

14 Not just libraries, but any Provincial or Municipal office that relocates.

74

4. Expertise, training

Just as not being able to afford content creation technology stops content creation, not being able to use those technologies or facilitate their use is a barrier. Library staff are being asked to support an ever increasing array of technologies including content creation, but are close to the limits of what they can handle without assistance.

Candidate Projects

For this recommendation, five candidate projects are organized as shown in Figure 35.

In general, all the projects are probably best managed and executed by the library community, with help and support from ACITS (or APLEN, or another suitable group) as appropriate. Although it’s not likely that ACITS resources need be specifically tasked, we believe that several other projects in this Technology Report will directly or indirectly support C4 projects.

Figure 35-Collaborative Communications and Content Creation (C4) candidate projects

Projects R3.1, R3.2, R3.3 and R3.4 are structured to provide support to interested libraries on the basis of project proposals. That is, an interested library is required to develop a project plan with clear objectives, measurable results, timelines, and a budget. An example process is shown in Figure 34 (page 72). The purpose is not to present barriers to access, but to gain some assurance that results meaningful to library stakeholders and their patrons can be achieved.

Also, as recommended above, a proposal-driven approach will help to develop collaborative communications or content creation domain experts that can in time be the technology leaders.

Project R3.3 is aimed at fostering collaborative, cross-organizational communications in support of governmental and non-governmental community agencies in the Province. Various private and public (Government of Alberta) organizations provide services that are critical, such as emergency planning and support, or are community-supportive. Libraries are effective community conduits and centres, and are able to efficiently and effectively support service and information delivery.

75

The last project, R3.5, provides mobile digital content creation and training services that will be especially welcomed by resource-starved libraries. There is also the side-benefit of increased community engagement, especially with younger demographics.

76

Project R3.1: Collaborative and Creative Technologies Innovation Support

Description

The general objective in this project is to provide technical and capital support for libraries interested in collaborative communications or content creation innovation. This is aligned with Objective #2: Support Technology and Enable Innovation. The specific mechanism is project-driven and involves proposal submission, review, and award process overseen by a management body15

An example process is outlined in

.

Figure 34 (page 72).

Projects might be built around the following ideas and technologies, which are meant as examples:

• Videoconferencing combined with shared workspaces, online white-boards.

• Building an online repository for training materials; for example, archives of especially effective videoconferencing sessions, recorded training sessions, and other media produced for library services, or even government services.

• Bulk licensing of web-conferencing products.

• Development of mobile collaborative communications tools focused on library activities.

• Development of mobile content creation tools focused on library activities.

Support for these and other projects might come from APLEN or TAL. Some might fit neatly into the ACITS mandate, for example, making use of the Cloud Computing Sandbox project.

Project should look for outcomes like:

• Bulk licensing of software licenses (perhaps via floating licenses);

• Bulk purchasing of equipment;

• Shared training on technologies;

• Developing expertise and experience that can be drawn upon by libraries;

• Development of new content for libraries;

• Development of new collaborative communications facilities and technologies; and

• Statistics on use of new technologies, and if possible quantifiable metrics on impact.

Developing a wiki to track and support ongoing projects might be an interesting idea. It would make transparent the project development and support better sharing of experience and expertise.

15 As mentioned in the Recommendation Management section above (page 91), this body is to be determined, but may grow out of the development of a leadership group.

77

Approach

Develop and publish framework for project proposals. This should include:

• Proposal submission guidelines.

• Proposal format guidelines and review criteria.

• Funding and support formulas (what the project may have access to, funding rates, etc.).

• Intellectual property rights and expectations.

• Project (in-progress) reporting and review requirements.

• Expected planning and execution elements, such as built-in reviews, milestones, off-ramps, etc.

• And other criteria as needed.

Review the suggested budget below and update as required. For example, in light of the other Technology Report recommendations, it’s expected that budget and resource prioritization will be required.

Solicit proposals from the library community. This can be open or close-ended (i.e. a one-time window within the mandate of the Technology Report may be defined, or proposals may be accepted over a longer duration). This is a decision for the management body.

Review and rank proposals, then award them and let the winners execute the work.

Provide lightweight project management for the duration of the project and a final review and wrap-up session on completion.

If necessary and desired, promote the results of completed projects.

Timeline



As shown in Figure 36, there are two main tasks. The first is to develop a project proposal framework that can be used to solicit, review, and manage projects from interested libraries.

The second task is to support C4 projects proposed by libraries that meet the criteria of the framework and pass review by the management body.

Project development and management can be executed by a project officer. That person needs to be familiar with project management practices and, preferably, experienced in project proposal development and the solicitation and review process.

78

The two task resource requirements are loaded at 100% and 14%, respectively, yielding 1 plus 5 months of total effort. The project consists of labour and support costs only, as shown in Table 17.



Personnel

Project Officer 1 $6,700/month $40,200

Other costs


Expected Outcomes

• A project proposal framework (that may be used for other, similar Technology Report projects).

• One or more libraries develop and submit proposals. o One or more proposals are reviewed and deemed supportable. o One or more projects are executed.

• Development of expertise and experience in C4.

• Subsequent C4 project concepts.

Measures of Success



• One or more projects are judged to be successful o Success criteria may be subjective or concrete

Risks


79

Project R3.2: Videoconferencing Technologies Support

Description

This project directly supports the Framework for the Future [1] recommendation on videoconferencing mentioned above and repeated here for convenience:

15. “Plan, develop and implement videoconferencing services with other public organizations (Alberta Advanced Education and Technology, school boards and Service Alberta) to ensure libraries have access to these services without duplication of taxpayer investment.”

Much like Project R3.1, this project is conceived as a managed pool of support to be accessed by libraries interested in acquiring or enhancing videoconferencing technologies and in participating in videoconference networks. Support in the form of installation and operations expertise, and capital to offset equipment costs is made available to libraries via a proposal submission process.

Unlike Project R3.1, there is a candidate organization with Alberta’s library system that may be able to assume the management of the support activity, namely the RISE Network [41]. It was formed with a specific mandate by a group of three regional library systems and has been in place for over two years.

With the possibility of an existing pool of expertise and experience, it makes sense to develop this project in two phases; first establish a support centre/group that can support requests via a project proposal process, then in the operational phase, solicit, review, and help fulfill requests.

Approach

As just mentioned, the general approach is to first establish a support group or centre, then have that centre solicit and help fulfill requests for videoconferencing technologies.

Phase 1 — Establish a Support Centre

In conjunction with the Technology Report managing body partners like APLEN, TAL, or others, the mandate for the Videoconferencing Technologies Support Centre should be developed. It may take the form of several documents including terms of reference and guiding policies.

Some criteria to be considered include:

• Assessment of the level of Province-wide demand and interest;

• Requirements for fair and unbiased consideration of requests across the Province;

• Demonstration of capabilities, such as ability to coordinate installation or upgrade of equipment across the province;

• Plans (or an intent to develop a plan) for integration of legacy systems and support of multiple vendor systems;

• Clear identification of responsibilities and accountability;

• Other policies representative of comparable projects or organizations within the public library system;

80

• Sustainability of a videoconference system;

• Availability of staff for training and support; and

• Any other criteria of merit.

It is important that all the stakeholders recognize the Support Centre as a group that will act on behalf of them all. As a strong candidate for a Support Centre, RISE should be approached in this context.

Phase 2 — Solicit Project Proposals and Execute

Once formed, the Support Centre can begin to solicit and review proposals from interested libraries. The Centre should establish a clear process to be followed. The process may be modeled on that shown in Figure 37. There should be in the process:






The Support Centre should be expected to assist in the development of proposals, providing input on costs, timelines, and other practical issues.

An important requirement for project proposals is a review of existing options. As mandated in the Framework for the Future [1], recommendation #15, libraries should demonstrate that there is no duplication of capability in their community. For example, if there is an existing videoconferencing system available in a public school, the library should first explore opportunities for shared use. It may not be an option, and an explanation should be part of the proposal.

Successful libraries may be required to submit usage statistics and other measures of impact.

The Support Centre may generate its own proposals. This is appropriate for needs that are more complex than the installation of an end point in a library. For example, it may be required to develop a videoconferencing hub/bridge for a group of end points.


81

Figure 37-Videoconferencing Technologies Support request process

Solicit proposals from the library community. This can be open or close-ended (i.e. a one-time window within the mandate of the Technology Report may be defined, or proposals may be accepted over a longer duration). This is a decision for the Support Centre.

Support awarded proposals as per the proposal plan.


If necessary and desired, promote the results of completed projects.

Timeline


82


As shown in Figure 37 (page 81), there are two main phases in this project. The first is to establish a support centre for videoconferencing technologies, and the second is to develop and manage a proposal framework that can be used to solicit, review, and manage projects from interested libraries.

All personnel costs are borne by the participants, including the Support Centre and its governing body (if any). It is assumed that the Support Centre either has personnel for things like pre-installation preparation, training, and ongoing system support, or that they can be contracted.

The capital and support cost estimate is meant to cover new equipment, equipment upgrades, installation, and support costs. It will likely need revision pending a review of the Technology Report recommendations and candidate projects.


Personnel

N/A

Other costs

Capital & Support Pool 1 $200,000 $200,000 Table 18-Project R3.2 cost estimates

Expected Outcomes



• Development of expertise and experience in large-scale videoconferencing systems.

Measures of Success

• Need for Capital pool and resources are justified by use.


• One or more projects are judged to be successful. o Success criteria may be subjective or concrete.

Risks


83

Project R3.3: Community Connectors

Description

Libraries are safe, trusted places for people in a community. An integral part of the community, both physically and as a community conceives of itself, libraries are well connected to the people and organizations within the community. For those people and organizations, libraries serve as a conduit and means to inform and educate; everything from the promotion of local school, theatre, government, and other events to the facilitation of local clubs and societies, to the focus for community festivals and events are mediated by libraries.

Likewise, in times of emergency, libraries are a focus for information, coordination, and even material support. For widespread emergencies, like flooding, severe weather, power outages, and others, the library might be the only common point of communication and information.

The objective of this project is to promote and support collaborative communications proposals that facilitate connecting communities with regional and Provincial organizations and agencies, including Government of Alberta agencies16 [101]. Some initial interest has already been demonstrated by :

• The Alberta Emergency Management Agency [48];

• Youth Justice Committees [49];

• Volunteer Alberta’s KnowledgeConnector project [50], and others.

Just about any Government of Alberta Ministry is a potential collaborator for a project. Some obvious natural collaborators include [51]:

• Aboriginal Relations;

• Advanced Education and Technology;

• Agriculture and Rural Development;

• Children and Youth Services;

• Education;

• Employment and Immigration;

• Health and Wellness;

• Justice and Attorney General;

• Municipal Affairs;

• Seniors and Community Supports; and

• Tourism, Parks and Recreation.

16 We choose to exclude local organizations and agencies so that broad geographic collaboration is encouraged and because local (community-based) collaborative communications can accommodated in one or more other candidate projects of the Technology Report.

84

Partnering with government and non-government organizations potentially offers new perspectives and approaches, access to other funding sources, and expertise and experience not usually found in public libraries. Likewise, libraries offer dedicated, local support that is well connected to the pulse of the community. The library system itself has a strong culture of information and resource sharing that allows broad, yet deep insights across Alberta’s communities.

Like other candidate projects in the Technology Report, the specific mechanism to realize community connectors is project-driven and involves proposal submission, review, and award process overseen by a management body17

Based on the example process outlined in

.

Figure 34 (page 72), a process similar to that shown in Figure 39 might be followed. The key to proposal development is partnership and collaboration with organizations that are looking for better connection to local communities on a regional or Provincial basis.

Figure 39-Community Connectors proposal process


85

Projects might be built around variants of the following ideas, which are meant as examples:

• Facilitating the building of online resources and materials;

• Coordinating training and information sessions;

• Connecting regional offices with central offices for special events or meetings (e.g. yearly strategic planning); or

• Development of new services or training, etc.

Support for these and other projects might come from APLEN or TAL. Some might fit neatly into the ACITS mandate, for example, making use of the Cloud Computing Sandbox project.

As the projects are completed, it may be useful to catalog and reuse common elements for new projects.

Project should look for outcomes like:

• Measured savings in time, travel, staffing, and related costs.

• Realized cost savings for partners who avoid needing to invest in collaborative communication technologies.

• Leveraged funding models.

• Improved information and service impact measurements.

• Shared training on technologies.

• Developing expertise and experience that can be drawn upon by government and non-government organizations.

• Statistics on use of new technologies, and if possible quantifiable metrics on impact.

Developing a wiki to track and support ongoing projects might be an interesting idea. It would make transparent the project development and support better sharing of experience and expertise.

Approach

Develop and publish framework for project proposals. This should include:




• Intellectual property rights and expectations.





86

Solicit proposals from the library community. This can be open or close-ended (i.e. a one-time window within the mandate of the Technology Report may be defined, or proposals may be accepted over a longer duration). This is a decision for the management body.

Review and rank proposals, then award them and let the winners execute the work.


Timeline




The second task is to support Community Connectors projects proposed by libraries and their partners that meet the criteria of the framework and pass review by the management body.

Project development and management can be executed by a project officer. That person needs to be familiar with project management practices and, preferably, experienced in project proposal development and the solicitation and review process.


The capital cost estimate will likely need revision pending a review of the Technology Report recommendations and candidate projects. It should be noted that the Capital Pool should be augmented by in-kind support from project partners.


Personnel


Other costs


87

Expected Outcomes


• One or more partnerships develop and submit proposals. o One or more proposals are reviewed and deemed supportable. o One or more projects are executed.

• Demonstrated effectiveness of the approach from the partner perspective. o Measured outcomes such as number of members/clients served, cost savings. o Development of new information and service delivery methods. o More effective and efficient use of partner budgets.

• Subsequent Community Connectors project concepts.

Measures of Success


• One or more partnerships make successful proposals to access this pool.

• One or more projects are judged to be successful o Success criteria may be subjective or concrete

Risks

• Underestimating the capital costs involved so that capital pool assistance is a negligible portion of the project costs.

• Unable to create winning proposals. o No interested partners.

• Partnership objectives are not clear from the start resulting in failed expectations.

• Organizational policies, jurisdictions, etc. preclude partnerships.

88

Project R3.4: Alberta Information Innovations

Description

The purpose of this project is to establish and support means to share experiences and news about information technologies and application innovations in Alberta. The intent is to use technology to tell success stories about information technology innovation in Alberta.

A key element of the project is to establish a web-based repository that can be linked to, searched, and otherwise accessed by libraries and others to inform and promote information technologies and application “stories”. Access shall be via web services, either at the program level to facilitate derivative content works, or at a normal web-view level (via a web browser). This repository is a candidate for Project R4.3: Cloud Computing Sandbox (page 108), at least as a proving ground for the repository.

Results of projects executed under this project will be made available via the repository.

The other aspect of the project is to support ideas to communicate successes in information technology innovation. This may be simply to inform Albertans, but it may also be the catalyst for innovation in information technologies. The specific mechanism is project-driven and involves proposal submission, review, and award process overseen by a management body18

An example process is outlined in

.

Figure 34 (page 72).

Projects might be built around using existing technologies, developing new uses, or even development of new technologies. Outcomes might include:

• Novel presentation of library information and services;

• “HOW TOs”, examples, templates, and other materials related to successful collaborative communications projects;

o For example, joint presentation of local community information or events.

• Creative “mash-ups” of digital content;

• Creation of new spaces and uses for spaces in libraries with a technology angle; or

• “Stories” about Technology Report projects and outcomes.

There is a strong allusion to the work of the DOK (as evangelized by the Shanachies) in Holland [42][43], but it is hoped that with projects like this, Alberta can carve out a unique identity and “socialize” successes.

This project may itself be seen as a possible proposal for Project R3.1.


89

Approach

The approach is the same as in Project R3.1 except that the project proposals are concerned with using technology to “socialize” information technology innovation in Alberta.

Timeline




The second task is to support Alberta Information Innovations projects proposed by libraries that meet the criteria of the framework and pass review by the management body.

A project officer can execute project development and management. That person needs to be familiar with project management practices and, preferably, experienced in project proposal development and the solicitation and review process.




Personnel


Other costs


Expected Outcomes

• A project proposal framework (that may be used for other or borrowed from, similar Technology Report projects).


90

Measures of Success

• Need for Capital pool and resource is justified by use.


• One or more projects are judged to be successful. o Success criteria may be subjective or concrete.

Risks

• None.

91

Project R3.5: Mobile Digital Media Creation Lab

Description

To address the shortage of digital media creation software, facilities, expertise, and training in public libraries, it’s proposed in this project to create a mobile digital media creation lab.

APLEN possess a mobile training lab complete with training computers and other assets. With the addition of a few specialized editing hardware/software tools, the lab can be easily converted into a mobile digital media creation lab.

The same as its current use, the lab can be “parked” at a library and used in a multitude of ways, including:

• Training for staff or patrons on content creation tools and systems;

• Training for staff on how to assist with content creation, including uploading of works to the web;

• Workshops for patrons; and

• Unstructured public sessions, and more.

An interesting possibility would be to coordinate with schools courses for children and teens. It is recommended to explore use outside the library system, both to increase the impact of the lab, and also to explore potential sources of project sustainment (support operational costs).

This project can be coordinated easily with Project R5.1: Mobile eReader Training (page 115) by including a collection of eReaders and suitable training materials. It also lends itself to supporting activities in Project R3.4: Alberta Information Innovations (page 88) because of the high sensory impact of digital media.

Approach

Coordinate use of the mobile lab with APLEN.

Poll Alberta libraries to determine what digital media creation technologies and activities are most used or requested.

Acquire a suitable number of hardware and software systems to be able to conduct training sessions and workshops for anticipated numbers of clients. Develop training and workshop materials, configure systems, and identify suitable trainers and facilitators.

Conduct one or more pilot sessions with select libraries. Review the results, update materials, and make available the lab for general bookings.

92

Timeline



As shown in Figure 42, there are two phases. In the first phase of the project, needs are assessed and a system assembled judge to be appropriate for the majority of interested libraries. After some trials are conducted to iron out the wrinkles, the mobile lab is made available for general bookings.

Ideally, the principal lab manager/facilitator runs the project from start to finish. Planning the uses, assembling and testing the systems, and conducting the trials is akin to the preparation time needed to effectively deliver any course.

The acquisition task is loaded at 50% since it can be assumed that some time should be allocated for delivery of materials. We assume lab utilization will represent a 15% load on the lab manager. The other tasks are loaded at 100%. In total, there are 10.75 person-months of effort, which is rounded up to 11.

Since computing hardware and software is the backbone of the lab, it’s assumed that IT support will be needed for 10% of the 30 months when the lab is serving libraries.

To generate a ballpark hardware and software estimate, we assume 20 creative media stations configured as follows:

• 10 Graphics + Publishing (Adobe Creative Suite).

• 10 (alternative/affordable) Web site creation and publishing (RapidWeaver).

• 20 (alternative/affordable) Photo editing (Aperture).

• 10 Video editing (Final Cut Express).

• 10 Audio recording and editing (Logic Express).

• 20 (affordable) Digital media creation suite (iLife).

• 20 DVD/CD recording (Toast).

For convenience, storage, and flexibility, Apple MacBook Pros are assumed for workstations; maximum RAM is installed since digital media work always benefits from extra memory.

Where possible, educational pricing should be sought (commercial retail prices are used for estimating).

The project cost estimates are shown in Table 21. The estimate will likely need revision pending a review of the Technology Report recommendations and candidate projects.

93


Personnel

Lab manager 1 $5,000/month $55,000

IT support 3 $6,700/month $20,100

Other costs

MacBook Pro 17” (max. RAM configuration)

20 $2,800 $56,000

Adobe Creative Suite 10 $2,000 $20,000

Aperture 20 $80 $1,600

Rapidweaver 10 $90 $900

Final Cut Express 10 $200 $2,000

Logic Express 10 $200 $2,000

iLife 20 $50 $1,000

Toast (DVD/CD) 20 $180 $3,600 Table 21-Project R3.5 cost estimates

Expected Outcomes

• An effective digital content creation mobile lab is configured.

• Libraries (line up to) request training sessions, workshops, and use of the lab.

Measures of Success


• Booking rates are high.

• User and staff feedback is positive.

Risks

• This is a relatively costly project that has limited reach in terms of number of patrons that can be served.

• May require outside support (e.g. libraries and municipalities) to support.

94


The Technology Report recommendations and candidate projects require oversight and management in their execution. Resources are required to execute individual projects. While some may be best executed via competitive contract solicitation (RFP), there are many instances when retaining knowledge and expertise “in-house” is highly desired. For example, contracting a third party to manage installing or updating an ILS means that experience cannot be applied for the next installation or update.

What is also apparent from conversations with stakeholders and other review activities conducted in the development of the Technology Report is that many libraries are constrained in their ability to make use of technology and, by extension, innovate. There are many factors, including:

• Lack of time; staff are too busy to develop and execute projects or to learn technologies needed.

• Lack of knowledge; staff lack experience and training, or are not exposed to new technologies.

• Lack of means; many technologies and technology-based project require computing and networking resources. Libraries are not set up like technology development organizations and don’t have the infrastructure to develop services effectively. Requiring a test server for a new service and not having the budget pretty much kills a project.

Finally, as discussed in Recommendation R2: Centralized-Decentralized Information Technology Support, there are some technology support functions that make sense to have managed centrally. Those that involve direct support by personnel require a central organization of some kind to support. The example above of managing ILS upgrades is one such need; it makes sense to use a central resource to support ILS upgrades and, thus, relieve IT personnel in the library of needing to learn a lot of technical detail that is of use one time only.

For these three key needs:

• Need for Technology Report oversight, management, and execution;

• Need for support for technology-based innovation; and

• Need for central technology support.

Establish a technology group overseen by library domain experts that manages and executes Technology Report projects and provides information technology support. Ensure continuity through the development of yearly project and activity goals and demonstration of quantifiable results.

95

We recommend establishing a technology group overseen by library domain experts that manages and executes the Technology Report projects and provides information technology support. A possible name for the group is Alberta Centre for Information Technology Support, or ACITS as it is referred to elsewhere in this document. Furthermore, it is suggested that ACITS be either a part of an existing organization like APLEN or be the result of a restructuring process focused on APLEN.

In addition to a direct role in the Technology Report and its recommendations and in general support of information technologies, successfully establishing ACITS will provide other opportunities. ACITS can serve as a technology management and support organization template for other groups within Alberta Municipal Affairs and other Government of Alberta ministries. For example, there are potential links with Service Alberta and their Technology Initiatives [45] and Records and Information Management [46]. Service Alberta is a key agency in the SuperNet, which is the backbone of library services in Alberta. Records and Information Management is an obvious partner in extending the Seamless Access vision to include Government information.

Last, this recommendation is a means to provide long-term continuity to the Technology Report. If there is no lasting effect from the projects suggested in this Report—i.e. beyond its 3-year mandate—then the Report becomes little better than a grant mechanism. An organization with a focus on supporting the two main objectives defined in the introduction, is key to ensuring that Alberta and Albertans maintain their place in the Information Age.

Objective #1: Seamless Access – All Holdings and Services Accessible by all Albertans.

Objective #2: Support Technology and Enable Innovation.

Objectives

• Establish an organizational structure that can effectively manage and execute Technology Report projects;

o Demonstrate project successes.

• Develop, share, and maintain technology and project management expertise that benefits the library system;

o Be a centralized IT support resource consistent with Recommendation R2, Centralized-Decentralized Information Technology Support.

• Develop and execute new projects over the duration of the Technology Report mandate;

• Provide technology support for Alberta libraries; o Be a focus for centralized IT support as per Recommendation R2. o Develop and sustain centralized IT services.

• Validate the ACITS function and effectiveness with the intent to develop operational support beyond the mandate of the Technology Report; and

• Engage other Government of Alberta organizations and ministries; and o Serve as a template for similar organizations; or o Extend the ACITS mandate to support similar organizations.

96

• By the end of the Technology Report mandate, establish a need to continue ACITS and its mission.

o Find budget and other supports needed.

Issues

1. Technology Report and Candidate Projects Oversight The Technology Report involves recommendations with many technology facets and challenges. The recommendations are mutually-supportive; for example, projects supporting the development of Transparent Access (Recommendation R1) share much with projects supporting Electronic Resources (Recommendation R5) and Centralized-Decentralized IT Support (Recommendation R2).

Coordinating the projects and rationalizing the work between them requires experienced technology project coordination and execution. Issues like duplication of effort, counter-productive efforts, coordination of architecture and design, and more require a high-level, broad perspective. At the same time, strong experience with technology and systems is needed to appreciate issues.

2. Project Management

All projects require some form of project management. The Technology Report with its many projects would benefit from consistent, informed project management. Should the projects be managed by separate groups, there is a strong potential for disagreement between the groups. Without experienced “upper management” to rationalize and make decisions in the interest of all projects, the Report may put into jeopardy.

3. Technology Development Deficiencies

While larger libraries have good technology resources, many regions and small libraries do not. In particular, when it comes to developing innovative technologies and technology applications, they are hamstrung by a lack of development resources. Their existing resources are generally fully allocated, and being critical operational systems, cannot be used for “experimental” development—the risk of loss of service is too high. Libraries generally don’t maintain excess hardware and software systems capacity.

4. Technology Training Deficiencies

Library staff and IT support staff in systems across Alberta have many common training needs. However, delivery of training is sporadic, dependent on the library or library system. There are opportunities to provide common training and save replication of effort.

5. Technology Support Inefficiencies and Deficiencies

IT personnel in libraries perform support functions common to most libraries. Some functions, like ILS upgrades, network set up, and workstation configuration, are relatively infrequent and represent a significant investment in time and energy without yielding ongoing benefit. Put another way, IT staff sometimes spend days and weeks on a project that they will rarely, if ever need to do again. Providing centralized technology support would reduce duplication of effort in libraries.

97

6. Long-term Sustainment

Libraries, like many organizations, face challenges in sustaining infrastructure and services. It is often easy enough to get funding and technical support to launch a new service or system; the hard part is sustaining it.

Similarly, libraries are fluid in terms of staff turnover, especially in the IT domain. Knowledge and experience disappear when staff leave or move positions.

ACITS Structure Recommendation

It is up to the library community and other stakeholders to define a working structure, terms of reference, policies, and other elements that define ACITS. However, with respect to the efficient management and support of technology, we would like to recommend the organizational structure shown in Figure 43.

Figure 43-A suggested ACITS organizational structure

The ACITS organization is comprised of the four main elements shown in Figure 43. The function and responsibilities of each element are described in Table 22 (page 98).

98

Steering Committee • Generally comprised of library domain people.

• Provide guidance on project priorities, project selection, and other matters.

• Responsible for budgets, reporting, and other functions.

Director • A mid- to high-level technical leader and manager.

• Coordinates ongoing projects.

• Develops new projects from a technical perspective.

• Presents candidate projects on a yearly basis to the Steering Committee for consideration and funding.

• Receives input from Steering Committee.

• Reports regularly to Steering Committee on project progress and other matters.

• Responsible for timely delivery of projects with demonstrable results.

Library Domain Expert(s) • Peer of the Director.

• Serves as day-to-day resource to answer questions about library-related aspects of projects.

• Ensures that the “products” produced match the needs defined.

Technical Personnel • Have background, training, and experience developing technology and technology-based systems.

• Rely on Library domain experts for guidance on what to develop.

• Develop and support projects.

• Support information technologies.

• May provide training support to libraries.

Table 22-ACITS organizational element definitions

An important principle behind this organizational structure is to keep separate the objectives of each domain. A simple analogy can be found in product development where marketing is concerned with defining products and services while engineering is concerned with producing the products and services defined by marketing. Engineering is not concerned defining the products and services since they do not interact directly with customers—that’s marketing’s job. Likewise, marketing is not concerned with technology required to realize products and services—that’s engineering’s job.

As soon as one group tries to do the other’s job, the result is always a sub-optimal product or service.

In the context of the Technology Report, libraries and librarians are “marketing”. They define the services and products needed based on a long-term and deep understanding of their patrons. To match that marketing role, an “engineering” or technology role is needed.

99

Another advantage to keeping the technical domain based on primarily technical people is to maintain a degree of independence from library-specific technologies and services. This makes it easier in the future to expand the role of ACITS to support other organizations in Municipal Affairs and in other Government of Alberta ministries.

Some open questions regarding ACITS include:

• Where should it be based?

• What is an appropriate process to follow to form the group? o Should it be part of TAL or APLEN, or be part of the restructuring of APLEN?

• How are library domain personnel identified for involvement? What is the incentive to get involved?

• How are the technical resources (Director, personnel) engaged? Are they staff, contractors, or something else?

• In light of Project R4.1, are the resource estimates below adequate?

Note that there is no specific project that deals with the formation of ACITS. We have added that task to the first candidate project with the understanding that forming ACITS should be considered in the overall Technology Report. The task could be fit into other projects should Project R4.1 not be selected.


Unlike other recommendations, ACITS requires (and is defined by) people, who in turn represent a labour expense. We suggest that expense may come out of the Technology Report budget and provide a rough estimate in Table 23.


Personnel

Director 1 $10,000/month $300,000

Technical Personnel 2 $6,700/month $402,000 Table 23-Recommendation R4 budget

Assuming some time will be required to get ACITS formed and running, it’s assumed the budget will stretch over 2.5 of the 3-year Technology Report mandate. At the end of that mandate, it is hoped that ACITS will be able to justify continued funding.

Infrastructure and equipment costs are not considered; it is assumed they can be provided via support from PLSB, TAL, or the library system, and are dependent on the location of ACITS.

Personnel may be contractors or staff.

100

Candidate Projects

For this recommendation, four candidate projects are organized as shown in Figure 44.

Project R4.1 is a catchall project that is meant to address the needs of other candidate projects in the Technology Report. As mentioned above, it is also the project that includes tasks related to the formation of ACITS. If not selected, those tasks should be moved to another project.

Project R4.2 addresses a common, but infrequent library need to update their ILSes. As discussed below, it may be expanded in scope to support other, infrequency IT needs.

The Cloud Computing Sandbox Project R4.3 is aimed at providing an easy, inexpensive means for libraries to experiment with new technologies and try out new services without the need to invest in additional computing and network resources.

The final project (R4.4) provides engagement outside the library system and a way to introduce innovative mobile technology, while addressing a need of the print-disabled.

Figure 44-Alberta Centre for Information Technology and Services candidate projects

101

Project R4.1: Technology Report Support

Description

The many candidate projects that support the Technology Report recommendations require project management and technical support. While this may be provided by a library (library system, consortium, etc.) executing the project, there are many benefits to having more centralized support.

The ACITS team should be able to support fully or partially a number of projects. For projects with provincial-level impact, like the primary Transparent Access To Public Library Holdings projects (R1.1-R1.3), the team should provide a lead role. For other projects that are more local in scope and likely best led by a library or library system, the team can provide secondary support, either in a technical capacity, in project management, or both.

Involvement by the ACITS team will provide a number of important benefits, namely:

• Filling in gaps in technical and project management expertise and experience;

• A conduit for the sharing of expertise and experience;

• Consistency of project execution and management;

• A central group that can provide feedback to the Technology Report owner(s), either through the ACITS Director, Steering Committee, or some other body;

• Continuity of expertise and experience that is available to the library community; and

• Supports ACITS as a centralized IT resource consistent with Centralized-Decentralized Information Technology Support, Recommendation R2.

We chose to use this project to include the activities involved in the formation of ACITS.

Approach

Form ACITS:

• Establish terms of reference and other needed documents and processes, establish a charter.

• Establish the Steering Committee.

• Select/hire a Director and Technical Personnel.

• Identify the Library Domain Expert(s).

Review the selected or desired candidate projects from the Technology Report.

Develop a master project plan including resource allocation that will support active Technology Report projects.

Identify which projects selected from the Technology Report can benefit from ACITS involvement, or indeed which projects ACITS should take on directly.

Define the scope of support and the technology expertise that is required.

102

Timeline



The development of a detailed budget is part of the “Technology Report projects review” task in Figure 45. The main costs will be labour, but these have been identified in Table 23 (page 99), the Recommendation R4 budget.

Other costs, such as project-specific technology costs should be accounted for in the relevant project. However, to allow for ACITS to maintain technology expertise, there is allowance in Table 24 for miscellaneous costs. These are estimated to span the entire project duration.


Other costs

Misc technology and other resources

TBD TBD $50,000

Table 24-Project R4.1 cost estimates

Expected Outcomes

• ACITS is established.

• Several projects have ACITS involvement that is beneficial to the project, and to the project executing organization (libraries or ACITS itself).

• Over time, ACITS is recognized and used by the library community as technical and project management resource.

Measures of Success

• ACITS is established and functional as per its charter.

• All (or at least most) projects with ACITS involvement are successful.

• Periodic project status updates by the Director are provided.

• New projects are created.

103

Risks

• ACITS is not formed.

• Unable to find Director or Technical Personnel with the needed experience and expertise.

• Personnel turn-over.

• Lack of clear direction from the Steering Committee, Library Domain Expert(s), etc.

• Lack of budget support.

104

Project R4.2: ILS Migration Support

Description

As demonstrated by The Regional Automation Consortium (TRAC) [52] and other consortia, moving to a single ILS offers many benefits, such as reduced capital and operational costs, reduced duplication of effort, and simplified access to catalogue and other electronic library management information. Libraries in a consortium have more influence with ILS vendors when it comes to making changes; it is more cost-effective for both sides.

However, as reported in the Technology and Needs Assessment [14] and mentioned above, not all libraries are ready to move towards a common (“one” [1][8]) ILS.

The purpose of this candidate project is to support the evolution of Alberta Public Libraries towards a single ILS. With the current success of TRAC, there is reason to believe that one or more of the remaining non-TRAC library regions will consider joining in the near future [14]. In addition, several libraries have indicated that they are currently considering ILS replacement for various reasons, including decisions by vendors to discontinue their current ILS. Discussions with stakeholders [59]-[102] supports the idea of “organic” evolution to a single ILS for regions and, perhaps, one for major library systems.

This project resembles several others in the Technology Report in that it provides a mechanism for libraries to apply for support for ILS migration via a proposal mechanism. While it should be strongly preferred that applicants consider using an ILS common to other library systems, it need not be mandatory.

This project is ideal for support by a central body like ACITS, providing that library specialists are involved alongside the technological specialists. ILS updates and migration are relatively rare events that can be planned ahead of time. This makes it attractive to develop one or two central expert support resources for this purpose and, thus, fits naturally with the ACITS mandate. It also matches well with the Centralized-Decentralized Information Technology Support, Recommendation R2 mandate.

Approach

Assume ACITS coordinates and supports this project.

The specific objective of this project makes it possible to consider an early decision gate regarding the feasibility of launching the project.

• Consult with libraries and identify those that will migrate or update in the near future. o If enough libraries are willing to commit to the project, continue; or o Otherwise, kill the project.

We suggest this initial step because if too few libraries will make use of ILS migration support, it may make more sense to let them provide their own support (either internally or using vendor support), and reallocate the ACITS resources elsewhere.

105

Assuming the project is feasible, proceed as follows.

Develop and publish framework for ILS migration proposals. This should include:



• A draft migration project plan, including: o Timeframe; o Expected duration; o Capital cost estimates; and o An ILS operational transition plan (how the library will continue to function during the

migration).

• It may be desirable to require a plan to demonstrate efficiency, cost, or other savings post-migration.


An interested library will need to prepare a proposal and submit it for review. A measure of consistency for migration plans is desirable in order to develop effective central expertise for ILS migration (and other ILS needs) support.


Solicit proposals from the library community. This should be open-ended since ILS lifecycles tend to be long.

Review proposal and help libraries revise.

Schedule ACITS ILS migration resources in cooperation with successful proposals. In other words, coordinate ILS migration support.

Timeline


106



The second task is to support ILS migration projects proposed by libraries that meet the criteria of the framework and pass review by the management body.

Assuming ACITS management of the project, project development, management and ILS migration support can be executed by one or two ACITS technical resources. They need to be familiar with basic project management practices since the bulk of the project management will fall to the library. They will be expected to become the ACITS resident ILS “experts”.

It’s assumed that ACITS personnel are managing and supporting the project and that their costs are covered above. The project costs are limited to a capital pool as shown in Table 25. That pool is to be used to offset migration costs.



Other costs


Expected Outcomes

• A project proposal framework (that may be similar to that used in other Technology Report projects).

• Several libraries develop and submit proposals. o Most or all proposals are reviewed and deemed supportable. o Most projects are executed.

• Development of expertise and experience with the main ILSes in Alberta Public Libraries.

Application of ILS expertise and experience in other ACITS supported projects, including those supporting, Recommendation R1, Transparent Access To Public Library Holdings.

107

Measures of Success


• Several libraries make successful proposals to access this pool.

• Evidence of the public library system moving to one or two ILSes. o Evidence to realize Recommendation R1, Transparent Access To Public Library Holdings

via Projects R1.1-R1.3 is minimized (parsimonious), data access APIs are few and simple, etc.

• Participating libraries are able to demonstrate long-term cost savings.

Risks

• Too few libraries are willing to commit to the project.

• ACITS is unable to supply the required expertise.

• Vendors hinder migration efforts (e.g. in a competitive bid process, an ILS is selected that is not one of the two main ILSes in use in Alberta Public Libraries).

108

Project R4.3: Cloud Computing Sandbox

Description

This candidate project aims to provide libraries with an inexpensive, low-risk way to try out new web-based technologies and develop innovative services. As mentioned in the Technology and Needs Assessment [14], libraries are often constrained by a lack of software and hardware resources when it comes to developing new services. Unlike a commercial development company, libraries do not maintain development, deployment, and production hardware. Developing a new service usually involves testing on their existing production servers, which induces risk that a commercial company would never take on.

By engaging and maintaining access to one or more cloud-based services [53][54] and providing libraries the means to access the services as needed19

In addition, many libraries are interested in migrating existing server-based services and software systems to either shared hardware (using virtualization

, this project will in effect remove that barrier.

[55]) or to the “cloud”). This project will provide them with the means to investigate the cloud-based option with the support of ACITS experts; this is consistent with one of the main intents in Recommendation R2, Centralized-Decentralized Information Technology Support.

This project also presents an opportunity for collaborative communications to be used to support and share expertise and experience. ACITS may consider developing a wiki or similar site in support of the Cloud Computing Sandbox.

There is the potential to employ cloud computing services in support of Technology Report projects. This should be considered as the projects are selected and developed.

Approach

Since this project is aimed squarely at libraries wishing to use cloud computing, the starting point should be to survey and assess potential needs. Follow up with a survey of current cloud computing vendor offerings and assess against the perceived needs of the interested libraries. Sign up to one or more services and train ACITS support personnel using test projects or some other way.

The ACITS personnel training phase may provide good initial material for the suggested wiki.

Once ACITS is comfortable with cloud computing services, develop a simple request process by which libraries can apply for access and support, and then solicit requests.

Since cloud computing services are metered (pay-as-you-go), it would be convenient to pass that cost directly to the libraries making use of the sandbox. The full cost or just part of it may be passed on

19 In software development jargon, this is called a “sandbox”.

109

Based on the success of projects using the sandbox, assist libraries in developing full cloud computing services.

Timeline



The personnel required for this project are drawn from ACITS. Their costs are covered above.

The main cost in the project involves initial cloud services set up and maintenance costs for the duration of the Technology Report. As mentioned above, metered costs will likely be borne by the libraries using the services.



Other costs

Cloud services initial set up and ongoing maintenance

TBD TBD $10,000

Table 26-Project R4.2 cost estimates

Expected Outcomes

• ACITS will offer a cloud computing sandbox for interested libraries, including: o Initial set up of metered services; o Support for services development; and o Training on cloud computing services.

• Several libraries submit requests to access and receive support.

• Expertise and experience with the selected cloud computing platforms is developed.

• Potentially, cloud computing services are used for Technology Report projects.

110

Measures of Success

• One or more libraries implement cloud computing based services based on use of the sandbox.

• One or more Technology Report projects make use of cloud computing services.

• ACITS personnel are consulted for library cloud computing projects.

Risks

• ACITS does not have the resources to support this project adequately.

• No libraries show interest in using the sandbox.

111

Project R4.4: OSS-based DAISY app for Android and iPhone

Description

DAISY-based books [56] and other resources for the print-disabled are a natural fit for electronic access. A brief survey of available smart phone applications that support DAISY-based books showed a dearth of good, free applications.

In this candidate project, it is proposed to develop and support a project for fourth year Computer Science and Computer Engineering students in Alberta Universities to develop an open source based free print-disabled reader application for popular mobile devices.

Approach

Consider sponsoring a contest for universities and colleges to develop the application. A possible prize might be to buy the wining student’s (or students’, if a team) books for their final term. Launch the contest in the Fall Term with submissions due in early January.

For iPhone/iPod/iPad apps, provide contestants with the $99 needed to register as iOS developers. Contestants may be assumed possess test and development hardware (computers and mobile devices). However, use of the Android or iOS emulators will suffice.

Apps will be judged on usability, “polish”, programming practices including source documentation, project management, etc. Innovative use of device features is expected.

Allow students one term (Fall) to develop the application and set a submission deadline in early January. Judge the entries and declare a winner. Provide the winning team with their prize and support deployment of the application to either the Android Market or iTunes App Store, as appropriate.

Timeline


112


Students and instructional staff will volunteer their time. Assume no more than 50 iOS entrants

Allocate $3000 for prizes, and $2000 for promotion and travel20

The budget may require adjustment in light of other Technology Report projects.

, and $US99 for individual developer licenses for iOS-based entrants.


Other costs

Prizes TBD TBD $3,000

Apple Developer licenses <=50 $US99 $5,000

Promotion and travel NA NA $2,000 Table 27-Project R4.4 cost estimates

Expected Outcomes

• The winning app will be submitted to the Apple App Store or Android Marketplace.

Measures of Success

• A winning app.

• The app is used by print-disabled persons.

Risks

• No student/team succeeds in creating an app – very low risk.

20 It may be necessary to travel to the winning team, or have them travel to collect their prize. Promotional materials (photos, etc.) should be created based on a successful contest.

113


A consistent topic of conversation in interviews with stakeholders was the impact eBook technologies are having on libraries. The most common comment was that it is very difficult to keep up with the demands of patrons for device and download support, especially with so many book formats and devices available. Libraries cannot afford to own even a small subset of popular devices, and do not have the time to invest in training on every device.

This is problem common to all libraries in the Province; if they independently try to address it, there will be large duplication of effort and training.

The other issue that was identified in the Framework for the Future [1] and echoed by TAL, PLSB, and stakeholders is the current state of eResource licensing. As discussed in the Technology and Needs Assessment [14], there is duplication of resources, inflexibility by vendors to accommodate regional needs, an erosion of means to support subscriptions, and other issues that impact the ability of libraries to provide access to eResources. Libraries are having to give up resources like language learning software due to licensing and cost issues.

From the perspective of the Technology Report, this is not a technology problem, but rather a licensing and coordination problem. It is being addressed by the libraries, TAL, and PLSB, and is outside the scope of this Report.

However, in light of candidate projects in this Technology Report aimed at the print-disabled, it’s recommended that when looking at access and licensing issues for eResources, consideration be given to consolidating media for the print-disabled and making it available under the Transparent Access mandate. Specifically, consider province-wide licensing for DAISY format books and centralizing the content.

Objectives

• Address eBook/eReader training issues.

• Ensure that resources for the print-disabled are included in the efforts to provide better access to eResources.

• Provide transparent access to eResources for all Albertans.

Seize the opportunity of eBooks by using technology to include them in the Seamless Access vision. Support the relevance of libraries by ensuring access to and familiarity with eBook technologies.

114

Issues

As mentioned above, the cost and licensing issues associated with eResources are outside the scope of this Technology Report.

1. Lack of eReader Support

The current eBook trend is overwhelming libraries with demand for downloadable content and technology support. Patrons expect librarians to “troubleshoot” eReaders. There are simply too many different eBook formats and too many eReaders for libraries to afford the time and cost to keep up.

2. No Transparent Access to eResources

As part of the mandate to provide seamless access to all publicly funded library holdings, the Framework for the Future [1] makes clear that eResources are to be included with the specific recommendation [1],

17. “…to give all Albertans access to all electronic databases, negotiate and purchase licenses for electronic databases and products on a provincial basis.”

Providing transparent access is part of Project R1.1

Candidate Projects

For this recommendation, three candidate projects are organized as shown in Figure 49.

Project R5.1 is very similar to Project R3.5: Mobile Digital Media Creation Lab in that it’s suggested to address the need for eBook/eReader support using a mobile training lab.

Project R5.2 is an investigatory project aimed at developing a plan that integrates eResources into the Transparent Access system proposed in Recommendation R1, Transparent Access To Public Library Holdings. It is to be coordinated with projects under the general project R1.1.

Similarly, Project R5.3 is aimed at investigating the necessary technologies and steps required to provide transparent access to print-disabled eResources.

Figure 49-Electronic Resources candidate projects

115

Project R5.1: Mobile eReader Training

Description

Stakeholders are frustrated by having to play “catch-up” with many technologies patrons bring into the library, but none more so than eReaders. The current state of the market coupled with high levels of interest has resulted in a plethora of eBook formats and readers. There are many use and compatibility issues and no one has the time to be conversant with everything.

In addition, libraries have neither the budget nor the time to acquire and maintain even a representative set of devices.

Much like Project R3.5, it’s proposed here to create a mobile eReader lab. One possibility is to use the existing APLEN mobile lab. The addition of eReaders and training materials might be easily coordinated easily with Project R3.5: Mobile Digital Media Creation Lab.

It may be an option to create a second, shippable version of the lab using hard-sided cases and shock-absorbent packing methods. Written and recorded (video) training materials would be included, and the cases shipped to requesting libraries. Of course, this would be the alternative to using APLEN’s mobile lab, but is missing the hands-on training aspect that goes with the APLEN lab.

Approach

Coordinate use of the mobile lab with APLEN.

Poll Alberta libraries to determine what e-book formats and eReaders are most used or requested.

Acquire a suitable number of systems to be able to conduct training sessions and workshops for anticipated numbers of clients. Develop training and workshop materials, configure systems, and identify suitable trainers and facilitators.

Conduct one or more pilot sessions with select libraries. Review the results, update materials, and make available the lab for general bookings.

Timeline


116


As shown in Figure 50, there are two phases. In the first phase of the project, needs are assessed and a system assembled judge to be appropriate for the majority of interested libraries. After some trials are conducted to iron out the wrinkles, the mobile lab is made available for general bookings.

Ideally, the principal lab manager/facilitator runs the project from start to finish. Planning the uses, assembling and testing the systems, and conducting the trials is akin to the preparation time needed for the effective delivery of any course.


Personnel

Lab manager 1 $5,000/month $55,000

IT support 3 $6,700/month $10,050

Other costs

eReaders, 5 models 50 $250 $12,500

1610 Pelican case 2 $250 $500 Table 28-Project R5.1 cost estimates

The acquisition task is loaded at 50% since it can be assumed that some time should be allocated for delivery of materials. We assume lab utilization will represent a 15% load on the lab manager. The other tasks are loaded at 100%. In total, there are 10.75 person-months of effort, which is rounded up to 11.

Since eReaders are the backbone of the lab, it’s assumed that IT support will be needed for 5% of the 30 months when the lab is serving libraries.

To generate a ballpark hardware estimate and assuming a need for backup units and consistent training sessions (i.e. multiple copies of a device are needed for group training), we assume a representative cost of $250 per eReader and that five popular models are needed. Ten trainees are assumed.

Where possible, educational pricing should be sought (commercial retail prices are used for estimating).

The project cost estimates are shown in Table 28. The estimate will likely need revision pending a review of the Technology Report recommendations and candidate projects.

Expected Outcomes

• An effective eReader mobile lab is configured.

• Libraries (line up to) request training sessions, workshops, and use of the lab.

117

Measures of Success


• Booking rates are high.

• User and staff feedback is positive.

Risks

• This is a relatively costly project that has limited reach in terms of number of patrons that can be served.

• May require outside support (e.g. libraries and municipalities) to support.

118

Project R5.2: eResources Transparent Access Investigation

Description

The Transparent Access project umbrella, Project R1.1: Revitalized TAL Online, is ambitious in scope and may be challenging in design and execution. An objective is to provide a union catalogue of all public library holdings in the Province, with electronic media (eResources).

In the case of print books and other physical media, Project R1.1 has a decent starting point in that TAL Online necessitated the development of a mechanism to access library catalogues. However, that mechanism does not completely address electronic resources. This is due to a number of reasons including licensing and distribution restrictions, but there are also technology issues such as:

• Which search interfaces or application programming interfaces (APIs) are required to search databases?

• How shall results be presented? o What technology is needed to filter results that are limited by licensing and

distribution/access restrictions imposed by database vendors?

• How should resources be acquired (downloaded) by the borrowing patron in a transparent access environment?

• Does transparent access to eResources require standardization of reader, storage, and other devices?

The last issue, we note that there is not the same kind of problem for physical media like books because the content and presentation/storage methods are unified. Electronic media are different in that the content can be stored separately from the presentation device.

These and other issues complicate the inclusion of eResources in the Transparent Access vision.

This project proposes to investigate the technology options for addressing the needs and issues identified here. That is, it aims to answer the question, “How can eResources be made transparently accessible to all Albertans?”

The result will be a report and project proposal that follows up on the work executed in Project R1.1.

Approach

In parallel with the projects under Project R1.1: Revitalized TAL Online, investigate the technologies and systems needed to provide Albertans transparent access to eResources.

119

Some aspects to consider include:

• Is it valid to assume that eResources can be made available on a Province-wide basis?

• Integration of public library electronic resource records into the union catalogue (Project R1.1.1: Union Catalogue).

o Is this desirable? o Will licensing and access restrictions thwart this idea? o Would an instantaneous search approach (like TAL Online) be more appropriate?

It may handle licensing and access restrictions better.

• Is there a federated search technology option that can be used? o Either as a standalone solution, or to augment the work in Project R1.1?

• How to best access certain online resources; is there a standard download and install process, for example?

o Is some kind of standardization needed or required for end use equipment? Is that desirable?

Develop recommendations and a candidate project plan.

Timeline



An intermediate systems architect is required to execute all the tasks. It may be possible to add this to a resource executing tasks under Project R1.1


Personnel

Intermediate Architect 4 $5,000/month $20,000

Other costs

None Table 29-Project R5.2 cost estimates

120

Expected Outcomes

• Report and candidate project plan that outlines options to provide transparent access to eResources.

Measures of Success

• The candidate project plan is accepted and a project launched. o The project may be coordinated with other projects like Project R1.1.

Risks

• It would be preferable to execute this project before Project R1.1 so that if successful, the work outlined in the project plan could be incorporated into Project R1.1.

121

Project R5.3: Print-disabled Online Resources Technology Investigation

Description

The recent announcement by the Internet Archive that it will host over 1 million books for the print-disabled (DAISY format) online [44] highlighted the fact that print-disabled persons are no different than any other patron in their desire to access online content and new media forms.

One of the main challenges in any jurisdiction is the relative distribution of the print-disabled community. While there are a significant number of print-disabled persons in Alberta, they are distributed across the Province. This means that libraries obliged to maintain a decent selection of books and other media for the print-disabled end up duplicating holdings for relatively few patrons per library.

The focus of this project is to investigate the technologies and approaches needed to centralize Alberta’s print-disabled media and make them accessible under the Transparent Access mandate.

Approach

In parallel with the projects under Project R1.1: Revitalized TAL Online, investigate the technologies needed to provide print-disabled Albertans transparent access to print-disabled-specific media.

Some aspects to consider include:

• Is it valid to assume that print-disabled eResources can be made available on a Province-wide basis? Will special efforts have to be made?

• Integration of public library print-disabled electronic resource records into the union catalogue.

• Inclusion of other print-disabled media collections in search method developed under Project R1.1, such as the Internet Archive’s collection [44].

• How to best access online resources for the print-disabled; is there a standard download and install process, for example?

Develop recommendations and a candidate project plan.

Timeline


122


An IT librarian or junior programmer can execute all the tasks (shown as IT analyst in Table 30). It may be possible to add this to a resource executing tasks under Project R1.1


Personnel

IT analyst 1 $5,000/month $20,000

Other costs

None Table 30-Project R5.3 cost estimates

Expected Outcomes

• Report and candidate project plan that outlines options to provide transparent access to print-disabled media.

Measures of Success

• The candidate project plan is accepted and a project launched. o The project may be coordinated with other projects like Project R1.1.

Risks

• It would be preferable to execute this project before Project R1.1 so that if successful, the work outlined in the project plan could be incorporated into it.

o Don’t want to delay Project R1.1 based on the results generated here.

• May not be possible for non-technical reasons to consolidate print-disabled resources in the Province.

123


All stakeholder discussions and survey results indicate that libraries rely heavily on the SuperNet to support library operations and services, and that staff and patrons expect high-quality, fast, and secure access to networks including the Internet.

Stakeholders were vocal concerning the lack of options for establishing or maintaining SuperNet connectivity; there remain a number of unconnected libraries in Alberta, either because they have never been connected or they have moved and the cost of reconnection is prohibitive.

Libraries are acutely aware of network-borne threats like viruses, spam, and information stealing schemes (malware, phishing, etc.), yet it is unclear whether they are employing all the tools available. Provisioning for some tools is part of Recommendation R2: Centralized-Decentralized Information Technology Support candidate projects.

The essence of this recommendation is to determine what gaps in SuperNet and Internet services may exist in addition to those already identified by stakeholders, close them, and then investigate ways to make better, more secure use of these infrastructure backbones.

A key consideration in this recommendation is the role that Axia NetMedia Corporation (Axia) [58] plays. As a key partner in the development and deployment of the SuperNet and provider of SuperNet services and support for public libraries (and other SuperNet customers in Alberta), Axia is viewed as a key element in the operation and delivery of public library services. Alberta Municipal Affairs has a current annual financial commitment of $2 million for public library SuperNet connectivity [12]. The Public Library Services Branch manages this commitment, working with Axia on issues of connectivity, bandwidth provisioning, and the like.

For the candidate projects of this recommendation, Axia will be a key vendor resource.

Objectives

• Close any SuperNet or Internet connectivity gaps;

• Investigate overall security and performance of SuperNet-based services; and

• Assess SuperNet and Internet resource requirements/needs for all public libraries.

Ensure that the SuperNet and Internet—the backbones of modern Library services—are utilized effectively and efficiently by all Public Libraries.

124

Issues

1. Connectivity

Several (at least 17, probably 18) libraries have never been connected to the SuperNet [12]. Likewise, TAL is not currently connected to the SuperNet. Libraries that physically change location find it prohibitively expensive to become reconnected to the SuperNet (quotes range from the high tens of thousands of dollars to over $100,000 according to stakeholder input [59]-[102]).

Some library outreach initiatives are hampered by poor connectivity to the internet and SuperNet. For example, a mobile library that visits rural locations often cannot access the home library’s network and, thus, cannot access the library’s ILS. Libraries have experimented with mobile services; everything from staff roaming the library using mobile devices to provide traditional “help desk” services to commissioning and supporting smart phone and other mobile device applications. These efforts are sometimes hampered by connectivity challenges.

2. Security

Even though there are strong security provisions in place for SuperNet users, it is only one part of the networks supported and used by libraries. Issues like the transmission of patron information across and between networks makes good security paramount. Stakeholders have identified a number of potential weak points in the public library network infrastructure.

One of the explicit (and implicit) goals of the Technology Report is to provide a technology-enabling environment for libraries. Many of the projects suggested here, and that are anticipated to be created in the future, will require information to flow across networks, between libraries, and out into the greater Internet. There needs to be proper consideration for securing information if and when needed. For example, in exchanging patron data in support of inter-library loan or other activities the participants must be sure the data is secure and kept private.

3. Capacity and Performance

The same as any organization dependent on networking, libraries must assess their need for bandwidth and other network performance parameters in order to properly meet both user expectations and the needs of network-based computer systems and services. In general, libraries know what they need to support existing services, but knowledge has usually been gained by trial and error.

In contemplating the projects suggested in this Technology Report, there is an opportunity to:

• Assess current needs; and

• Anticipate future needs through system review and design activities.

125

4. Long-term Sustainment

All infrastructure requires maintenance and, eventually, replacement. SuperNet and internet maintenance costs present a challenge to libraries. The cost to maintain bandwidth and connectivity can be significant. With increasing reliance on electronic services and a desire for more, sustaining SuperNet and internet access is absolutely necessary, but represents a growing budget element for libraries.

Smart, efficient, and prioritized use of existing capacity can help extend maintenance dollars. Good planning and pragmatic choices for electronic services can help to ensure money is spent only as needed; in other words, that bandwidth is fully and efficiently utilized.

Candidate Projects

For this recommendation, three candidate projects are organized as shown in Figure 53.

In Project R6.1 two options to conduct network audits for libraries are proposed. The objective is to assess the current utilization of critical networks and, in light of possible impacts from Technology Report projects, plan how best to meet future needs.

An investigation of options to close connectivity gaps is proposed in Project R6.2. It is the kind of project that a central body like ACITS can undertake and make the results available to all libraries.

In Project R6.3, the need for virtual private network (VPN) technologies is investigated. It, or a similar technology may be needed to ensure secure flow of library and patron information across heterogeneous networks.

Figure 53-Infrastructure candidate projects

126

Project R6.1: SuperNet and Internet Network Audit

Description

As part of the Technology Report development, it was requested to provide an estimate of what additional SuperNet bandwidth might be required for public libraries. In light of the requirements implied by many of the candidate projects in this Report and the fact that we do not yet know which will be selected and of those, which will be successful, it is not practical to try to estimate future bandwidth needs.

For example, if traffic management and shaping (Project R2.3: Network Traffic Management) is implemented, it’s assumed that better bandwidth management will result. We may then assume that either bandwidth requirements will stay static or that a decision to add more bandwidth can be deferred to a later date.

At the same time, there may be advantages doing an assessment (audit) of needs of all libraries at the same time, such as better use of auditing resources, lower costs, and an outcome that can be used (potentially) to realize lower implementation costs through things like vendor discounts, bulk licensing, etc.

Regardless of the approach, it is wise to periodically assess requirements for technologies that rely on the SuperNet and/or internet.

Some issues that may be considered in an audit include:

• Is there an IPv6 strategy?

• Are there network activities that can be scheduled to low-traffic periods (e.g. 2 am network backups)?

• Should traffic management and shaping be employed?

• Are there possibilities to restructure the network system to avoid bandwidth intensive activities?

Note: this project does not consider any upgrade or enhancement activities that might be recommended as in the results of an audit.

Approach

The project is organized into two options:

Option 1. Perform SuperNet and internet network audits for libraries executing or impacted by a relevant Technology Report project in parallel with project development and execution.

Option 2. Perform SuperNet and internet network audits for the entire Alberta public library system.

127

For both options, the process is essentially the same:

• Engage a vendor or consultant for the assessment. This may be an RFP-based process.

• Assess and consolidate audit results.

As noted above, it is left to mechanisms that may be outside this Technology Report to act on the audit results. That is, in the case of a Province-wide audit, there are no projects in the Report that can address upgrades or enhancements. In the case of a project-by-project approach (Option 1), project planning, technology needs, and the audit may show a need for an upgrade or enhancement that can be built into the project plan.

Timeline

Timelines for Option 1 and Option 2 are provided in Figure 54 and Figure 55, respectively.

Figure 54-Project R6.1 Option 1 timeline

Figure 55-Project R6.1 Option 2 timeline


Costs and effort are based on past network audit activities for public libraries in Alberta.

An audit consultant will typically spend about a week with the library (regional library system or library) assessing the state and requirements on their networks. Approximately one week is required to compile and write the audit report.

The cost on a per library basis is shown in Table 31 (page 128).

128


Personnel

Consultant 1 NA $7,500 Table 31-Project R6.1 audit costs per library

Should Option 2 be desired, there may be an opportunity to realize some cost savings depending on the vendor/consultant terms of engagement. However, to account for scheduling and other variables, an audit of the sixteen Library Nodes in Alberta will likely take a little longer than 16 weeks; hence the allocation of 20 weeks in the timeline shown in Figure 55.

Expected Outcomes

• Completed SuperNet and internet audit reports. o Recommendations regarding network enhancements and upgrades.

• Recommendations are tied to Technology Report projects as appropriate. o This may be an activity best handled by project managers (ACITS or a library).

Measures of Success

• A focused, informed enhancement and upgrade strategy and plan of execution results that can be shown to lower cost than a simple bulk upgrade of network bandwidth across the Alberta public library system.

Risks

• Lack of support for this project results in an ad hoc approach to SuperNet/internet bandwidth provisioning.

129

Project R6.2: Connectivity Options Investigation

Description

As mentioned above, establishing and maintaining connectivity to the SuperNet and internet are a top priority for stakeholders. There are still some libraries not connected, or with what can be considered “low-speed” connections.

Some stakeholders have been very creative in bridging these gaps, but the approach is ad hoc when considered from the perspective of Alberta Public Libraries.

This project proposes a review of connectivity options and approaches that libraries might use to:

• Connect those sites not already connected to the SuperNet;

• Facilitate reconnection to the SuperNet with library locations are changed or added; and

• Extend connectivity back to the library (library system) via public networks for internal (business) purposes.

and other purposes as determined.

Since this would be of interest to all library systems in Alberta, it is the kind of project that a central body like ACITS can support.

Approach

This is an investigation that needs to make recommendations for practical options. It is well suited to a body like ACITS, with APLEN being a good second choice.

Review the Technology Report and supporting documents and interview a representative set of libraries. Public Library Services Branch should be interviewed and may be able to provide specific high-priority examples of “gaps”.

Review vendor offerings and other solutions. Specifically, investigate alternatives available for reconnecting libraries that change locations and lost their SuperNet connection. Investigate wireless options like fixed link services, cellular data options, and systems that can be used in partnership with other users like municipal offices (e.g. WiMAX or similar).

Submit recommendations report to Public Library Services Branch, APLEN, TAL, and other stakeholders. It must include enough solution details (like quotes, firm estimates, timelines, and examples of existing solutions suitable for library use) to enable RFPs or directed contracts.

130

Timeline



An IT Librarian, IT Analyst, or equivalent should possess the necessary skills for this project. The task loading is 100% for 3 months as shown in Table 32.


Personnel

IT Librarian or equivalent 1 $5,000/month $15,000 Table 32-Project R6.2 cost estimate

Expected Outcomes

• Main connectivity problems are confirmed and elaborated in the report.

• Options and alternatives are recommended for each problem or problem area.

• Results are reviewed and used by library stakeholders.

Measures of Success

• Several connectivity gaps are closed.

• One or more innovative internet/network connection services are developed.

Risks

• There is insufficient budget or time to be able to follow up on the recommendations.

131

Project R6.3: Library Business VPN

Description

As mentioned, as libraries become more and more reliant on networks like the SuperNet and internet, and continue to expand network activities across networks, security becomes an increasing concern. A simple step that can be considered is the provisioning of a business-grade virtual private network (VPN) across the SuperNet.

This will be in support of Recommendation R1, Transparent Access To Public Library Holdings should Projects R1.1-R1.3 be executed. It will be needed by ACITS to support centralized ILS and other technologies support, and will likely be needed by other projects in the Technology Report.

Approach

This project is well suited to ACITS or a large library with available IT expertise and available personnel. We do not believe that a vendor-provided solution is the only option, or even a likely option. However, should the project find a suitable vendor solution, it should be considered.

Collaboration with AXIA or Bell may be required; this is to be determined as part of the initial task shown in Figure 57.

Investigate VPN options, including open source alternatives, assess, test, and select one or more candidates.

Develop online and other training materials including example services and publish the results.

Timeline



This project is primarily a technology assessment task that can be best managed by an IT technician with mid-level experience. The tasks total 2 months and are 100% loaded as shown in Table 33 (page 132).

132


Personnel

IT Technician 1 $5,000/month $10,000 Table 33-Project R6.3 cost estimate

Expected Outcomes

• One or more VPN solutions are identified. o At least one solution is used in the development of an example installation.

• Documentation and examples are developed that allow stakeholders to use the VPN solution. o Optionally, the information is placed online, perhaps via ACITS.

Measures of Success

• Existing or new services make use of the VPN technology.

• VPN-related issues identified in network technology audits are addressed.

Risks

• None.

133

Top Candidate Projects

Projects that are recommended for development and execution are organized below according to Technology Report recommendations. These are projects that are viewed as key to the success of the associated recommendation.

Please keep in mind that there are dependencies between the projects and recommendations, so that where two or more are listed for a particular recommendation, it is because they are either each necessary for the success of the other or some high-level goal (such as a Technology Report recommendation).

Recommendation R1: Transparent Access to Public Library Holdings

Project R1.1: Revitalized TAL Online

This project consists of four candidate projects, R1.1.1-R1.1.4. Only the first three are necessary to realize the main goal that supports Transparent Access.

Key Win

• Truly transparent access to Alberta Public Library holdings for all Albertans.

Main Impact

• Significant step to realizing Objective #1 – Seamless Access – All Holdings and Services Accessible by all Albertans; foundation upon which to include access to other publicly funded holdings.

Other Projects Affected

Project Impact

Project R1.2: Improved Ask A Question Similar technology may be applicable to the realization of this project.

Project R1.3: Extend the Revitalized TAL Online Project R1.1 required for this project. Technology reuse should be possible.

Project R3.4: Alberta Information Innovations Can use this project to inform Albertans of successful Project R1.1.

Project R4.1: Technology Report Support Required for Project R1.1 management and execution.

Project R4.2: ILS Migration Support Project R1.1.3: Integrated Inter-Library Loan (ILL) is impacted by and will directly impact Project R4.2.

134

Project Impact

Project R4.3: Cloud Computing Sandbox May be useful for development and hosting of Project R1.1.


If Project R1.1 is successful, should be considered as follow up activity.


If Project R1.1 is successful, should be considered as follow up activity.

Project R6.3: Library Business VPN May be required by Project R1.1.

Table 34-Projects affected/impacted by Project R1.1


Project R2:1: Cloud-based Data Backup

All candidate projects under Recommendation R2 are more or less equally supportive of the recommendation. However, Project R2.1 has several attractive factors:

• All libraries and library systems require backup plans and systems;

• The SuperNet can be used to advantage;

• Potential cost savings and other metrics (like better data backup and retrieval reliability) can be measured;

• Expertise and experience can be easily shared and adapted between libraries;

• The project is well-suited to centralized IT support (i.e., easily falls under a central body like ACITS); and

• It is a project with a high probability of success that will help support the idea of Centralized-Decentralized Information Technology Support and ACITS.

Key Win

• Less expensive, more reliable back up of library data.

Main Impact

• Cost and time savings for all participating libraries.

135


Project Impact

Project R1.1: Revitalized TAL Online All transparent access data requires backup.

Project R1.2: Improved Ask A Question All AAQ data requires backup.

All other Recommendation R2 projects These projects are generally tied to systems and will therefore need data backup.

Projects R3.1-R3.4 These are all collaborative systems based projects that will need data backup.


Project R4.3: Cloud Computing Sandbox May be useful for development of Project R2.1. Project R2.1 may help “pave the way” for Project R4.3. Shared knowledge between the two likely.

Project R6.3: Library Business VPN May be required by Project R2.1 Table 35-Projects affected/impacted by Project R2.1


Project R3.2: Videoconferencing Technologies Support

Both this project and Project R3.1 have broad appeal for libraries in terms of helping to support Recommendation R3. However, Project R3.2 has the main advantage that a significant number of libraries have videoconferencing capabilities (including all those in the RISE Network), which create a kind of critical mass for use and innovation.

It also may serve as a model for other projects that make use of a request/proposal process for participation and support. The proposal framework developed for this project can be a template for other projects.

Key Win

• Meets a key mandate of the Framework for the Future [1] by building on existing technology, experience, and expertise.

Main Impact • Sharing of live library services for both patrons and staff; positive impact on training and

operations; extension of services across the Province.

136


Project Impact

All projects utilizing a request proposal process. The request/response process(es) developed for Project R3.2 can serve as a template for other similar projects.

Project R2.7: Central Help Desk Might be useful in delivery of centralized IT or other help.

Project R2.8: Content Management Training May facilitate delivery of training programs.

Project R3.1: Collaborative and Creative Technologies Innovation Support (C4)

Can support and facilitate C4 projects; arguably essential for many potential projects.

Project R3.3: Community Connectors Can support and facilitate Community Connectors projects; arguably essential for many potential projects.

Project R3.4: Alberta Information Innovations Provide one method of presenting to the public Alberta Information Innovations.

Project R4.1: Technology Report Support Can support remote interaction with centralized project support personnel and sharing of information and training with other projects.

Project R4.2: ILS Migration Support Can support remote interaction with centralized support personnel.



Project R4.1: Technology Report Support

The main reasons to develop ACITS are to provide centralized expertise, experience, and support. In terms of the candidate projects suggested for all recommendations in the Technology Report, the selection of Project R4.1 is obvious.

Key Win

• Creation of a champion organization for the Technology Report and ongoing technology support and innovation.

Main Impact

• Consistent management and support for Technology Report projects.

137


Project Impact

All projects. Except for those projects in which a (potential) separate management body is suggested, projects can benefit from a single organization providing project management and support.




As discussed in Recommendation R5, one of the primary concerns for stakeholders is the issue of licensing and access to electronic resources. This is not a technology issue per se and is outside the mandate of the Report to address.

In that light, and given the priority placed on Project R1.1: Revitalized TAL Online and its impact on the Transparent Access vision/mandate, it makes most sense to recommend Project R5.2. It is a logical extension of a successful Project R1.1 and will be impacted beneficially by any progress on the licensing activities under way with TAL and other organizations.

Key Win

• Transparent access to provincially and library/region-specific electronic resources, especially eBooks.

Main Impact

• Significant enhancement to progress made by Project R1.1 in realizing Objective #1: Seamless Access – All Holdings and Services Accessible by all Albertans; foundation upon which to include access to other publicly funded electronic resource holdings.

138


Project Impact

Project R1.1: Revitalized TAL Online If Project R1.1 is successful, should be considered as follow on activity.

Project R1.3: Extend the Revitalized TAL Online May be adopted as part of this effort.

Project R3.4: Alberta Information Innovations Can use this project to inform Albertans of successful Project R5.2.


Project R4.3: Cloud Computing Sandbox May be useful for development and hosting of Project R5.2 (especially if this was true for Project R1.1).


May be considered as part of Project R5.2.

Project R6.3: Library Business VPN May be required by Project R5.2



Project R6.2: Connectivity Options Investigation

This project is selected because it is a key concern of library stakeholders. SuperNet and internet connectivity is essential to the operation of public libraries and for many, if not most of the candidate projects in this Technology Report.

Key Win

• Improve the current problems with SuperNet connectivity, namely, connect those libraries not ever connected to the SuperNet or that have lost connectivity.

Main Impact

• Ensure that all Libraries have comparable levels of network service and that they can participate in the Technology Report.

139


Project Impact

All projects. Any library not connected to the SuperNet will not be able to participate in any of the projects of this Technology Report.

Project R6.3: Library Business VPN This project is singled out because VPN provisioning may directly impact the kinds of alternative connectivity strategies considered for Project R6.2.


140

Conclusion

This Technology Report is the result of a larger initiative defined in the MLA Committee Report Framework for the Future: Positioning Alberta Libraries for the 21st Century [1].

Six main recommendations have been developed with supporting candidate projects. The purpose of the recommendations is to help to realize and support two main objectives, identified in the Framework for the Future, which are:

• Objective #1: Seamless Access – All Holdings and Services Accessible by all Albertans; and

• Objective #2: Support Technology and Enable Innovation.

The first objective is about providing access to all public library holdings in Alberta in a way that is consistent with the service delivery standards and aspirations of public libraries and supports the expectations of a public accustomed to our internet-based information culture.

The second objective is concerned with providing Alberta public libraries with the tools and means to continue to provide innovative services and information. It recognizes that the key is not technology per se, but providing libraries with the knowledge and tools to adapt to a rapidly changing technology environment and take advantage of those changes.

The recommendations and candidate projects are based on many input sources including work done by the Government of Alberta [1], PLSB, TAL, APLEN, and library stakeholders both prior to and during the course of the Technology Report project. They are consistent with information found in the Alberta Public Libraries Technology Report; Literature and Trends Review [13] and the Alberta Public Libraries Technology Report; Technology and Needs Assessment [14] and, thus, address technology needs and trends identified by the stakeholder community prior to and during the development of the Report.

The Technology Report is comprised of six recommendations that together support two main objectives. For each recommendation, a number of candidate projects are proposed and described that can be considered for execution. The candidate projects and recommendations are mutually-supportive in several ways; the objectives and results of individual projects may support other projects, a set of projects may be sufficient to realize a recommendation, and taken together, the selected projects and recommendations can effectively realize the two main objectives identified in the Framework for the Future [1].

The Report has been defined so that is it not proscriptive; that is, there are many combinations of candidate projects that can be selected for execution. A good plan needs flexibility so that decision makers and managers can respond to changing conditions and requirements.

141

The public library community is by nature collaborative and sharing. Recognizing their resource constraints and the diversity of needs, the recommendations and candidate projects have been developed to support a number of possible execution plans. While some candidate projects must necessarily be adopted as a group to be most effective, there are many possible combinations of projects and choices for implementation timeframes. An important factor will be to coordinate candidate projects with the library community to ensure that, among other considerations:

• Conflicting efforts are avoided;

• Substantial support is garnered so that concrete benefits are realized and measureable,;

• Experience and expertise is established and shared; and

• All libraries have the potential to realize benefits that match their local needs, and more.

Of course, most desirable is that the recommendations are realized, or if not fully realized, concrete, measurable progress is made.

As a tool, the Technology Report can be used to support and realize the goals of the public library community, the recommendations from the MLA Committee Report Framework for the Future: Positioning Alberta Libraries for the 21st Century [1], and aid in the ongoing strategic initiatives of organizations like TAL, APLEN, and PLSB. These activities and others supported by the Government of Alberta help ensure that the Province and its people will remain an effective, competitive, educated, and capable society.

142

Glossary

Term or Acronym Definition API Application Programming Interface. This is a set of software development

documentation that describes how to develop new software using existing software system, library, or source code collection.

APLEN Alberta Public Library Electronic Network DDoS Distributed Denial of Service attack. DiffServ A computer networking architecture that specifies a simple, scalable and

coarse-grained mechanism for classifying, managing network traffic and providing quality of service. Network packets are “marked” or associated with DiffServ information to help manage traffic.

HOWTO Internet slang for a document telling one “how to” do something. HTML HyperText Markup Language. Used to define web pages. IP Internet Protocol. Combined with ToS to give IPToS or IP type of service. LAN Local Area Network MySQL, PostgreSQL Open source software database applications. www.mysql.com

www.postgresql.org PLSB Public Library Services Branch RFID Radiofrequency Identification. The use of identification “tags” that are

readable using radio technology. Tags can contain digital information, and most often are used to uniquely identify something to which they are attached. Libraries use RFID tags to identify assets.

RSS Really Simple Syndication is a family of web feed formats used to publish frequently updated works.

SAS Software as a service. One form of cloud computing offering [31]. SMS Short Message System. SOLR An open source enterprise search platform from the Apache Lucene project.

www.lucene.apache.org/solr SSH Secure Shell. A secure remote access method utilizing a command line

interface. TAL The Alberta Library TCP Transmission Control Protocol TOS or ToS Type of Service. Combined with IP to give IPToS or IP type of service. VC Video-conferencing VLAN Virtual LAN VPN Virtual Private Network WAN Wide-Area Network. WLAN Wireless Local Area Network

http://www.mysql.com/�

http://www.postgresql.org/�

http://www.lucene.apache.org/solr�

143

References


[1] Alberta Municipal Affairs, “MLA Committee Report Framework for the Future: Positioning Alberta Libraries for the 21st Century,” Edmonton, Alberta, January 19, 2009 www.municipalaffairs.gov.ab.ca/documents/lcvss/Library_report_final--April_15.pdf — accessed October 1, 2010

[2] Alberta Municipal Affairs, “Request for Proposal: Public Library Technology Report,” RFP Number: PLSB0001, August 12, 2010.

[3] Alberta Municipal Affairs, “Requirements/Specifications re: Request for Proposal,” RFP Number reference: PLSB0001, August 12, 2010

[4] Alternetive Converged Solutions Inc., “REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL Public Library Technology Report RFP Number: PLSB001”, submitted to Alberta Municipal Affairs Public Library Services Branch August 10, 2010

[5] Alberta Municipal Affairs, “Alberta Public Library Technology Framework,” Public Library Services Branch, October 1, 2010

[6] Alberta Municipal Affairs, “Public Library Statistics 2008,” Public Library Services Branch, 2010

[7] Alberta Municipal Affairs, “Provincial Resource Sharing Network Policy for Alberta Public Library Boards”, Alberta Municipal Affairs Public Library Services Branch, April 2010

[8] Alberta Public Library Electronic Network (APLEN), “Public Library Technology Issues Paper”, private communication, February 2010.

[9] The Alberta Library (TAL), home page, www.thealbertalibrary.ab.ca — accessed October 1, 2010.

[10] The Alberta Library (TAL), Services, www.thealbertalibrary.ab.ca/services.html — accessed October 8, 2010.

[11] Alberta Municipal Affairs, Statistics page, Public Library Services Branch, www.albertalibraries.ca/statistics — accessed November 27, 2010

[12] Alberta Municipal Affairs, Alberta Public Library Technology Report-Consultant Background Information, Public Library Services Branch, private communications, October 6, 2010.

[13] Alberta Municipal Affairs, “Alberta Public Libraries Technology Report; Literature and Trends Review,” Public Library Services Branch, November 26, 2010.

http://www.municipalaffairs.gov.ab.ca/documents/lcvss/Library_report_final--April_15.pdf�

http://www.thealbertalibrary.ab.ca/�

http://www.thealbertalibrary.ab.ca/services.html�

http://www.albertalibraries.ca/statistics�

144

[14] Alberta Municipal Affairs, “Alberta Public Libraries Technology Report; Technology and Needs Assessment — Interim Report #2,” Public Library Services Branch, January 27, 2011

Other Sources

[15] Wikipedia contributors, "Grey literature," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gray_literature&oldid=390941258 — accessed November 20, 2010

[16] GreyNet International, Grey Literature Network Service, home page, www.greynet.org/ — accessed November 22, 2010

[17] OCLC, 2003 Environmental Scan: a report to the OCLC membership; Introduction, www.oclc.org/reports/escan/introduction/default.htm — accessed October 12, 2010

[18] Wikipedia contributors, "Capability Maturity Model Integration," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Capability_Maturity_Model_Integration&oldid=415784904 — accessed March 7, 2011

[19] Bibliocommons, home page, www.bibliocommons.com — accessed October 21, 2010

[20] Wikipedia contributors, "Z39.50," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Z39.50&oldid=387707721 — accessed October 20, 2010

[21] National Information Standards Organization, home page, www.niso.org/home/

[22] NISO Circulation Interchange Protocol (NCIP - Z39.83) Standing Committee, home page, www.ncip.info/home — accessed February 8, 2011

[23] OCLC, WorldCat Local, www.oclc.org/ca/en/worldcatlocal/default.htm — accessed November 17, 2010

[24] OCLC, WorldCat Home, www.oclc.org/worldcat/ — accessed October 16, 2010

[25] OCLC, EZProxy Home, www.oclc.org/ezproxy/ — accessed February 9, 2011

[26] Library and Information Technology Association, Midwinter 2004: Technology and library users, an ongoing discussion — the top trends: RFID, www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/lita/litaresources/toptechtrends/midwinter2004.cfm#RFID — accessed November 19, 2010

[27] Wikipedia contributors, "Radio-frequency identification," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radio-frequency_identification&oldid=413495896 — accessed November 2, 2010

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gray_literature&oldid=390941258�

http://www.greynet.org/�

http://www.oclc.org/reports/escan/introduction/default.htm�

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Capability_Maturity_Model_Integration&oldid=415784904�

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Capability_Maturity_Model_Integration&oldid=415784904�

http://www.bibliocommons.com/�

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Z39.50&oldid=387707721�

http://www.niso.org/home/�

http://www.ncip.info/home�

http://www.oclc.org/ca/en/worldcatlocal/default.htm�

http://www.oclc.org/worldcat/�

http://www.oclc.org/ezproxy/�

http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/lita/litaresources/toptechtrends/midwinter2004.cfm#RFID�

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radio-frequency_identification&oldid=413495896�

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radio-frequency_identification&oldid=413495896�

145

[28] Wikipedia contributors, "Anti-pattern," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-pattern&oldid=403766579 — accessed February 12, 2011

[29] Relais International Inc., ILL product page, www.relais-intl.com/relais/home/ill.htm — accessed February 12, 2011

[30] OCLC, VDX product page, www.oclc.org/vdx — accessed January 25, 2011

[31] IBM, InfoBoom – Cloud Computing in Plain English, blog entry, www.theinfoboom.com/articles/cloud-computing-in-plain-english/?utm_source=ibm&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=forwardview — accessed November 16, 2010

[32] Wikipedia contributors, "Cloud computing," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cloud_computing&oldid=397091144 — accessed November 16, 2010

[33] Wikipedia contributors, "Virtualization," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virtualization&oldid=396133877 — accessed November 16, 2010

[34] Chris Peters, TechSoup for Libraries: What is Cloud Computing and How will it Affect Libraries?, blog entry, www.techsoupforlibraries.org/blog/what-is-cloud-computing-and-how-will-it-affect-libraries — accessed November 16, 2010

[35] SearchDataBackup.com, “The pros and cons of cloud backup technologies,” March 23, 2009, searchdatabackup.techtarget.com/tip/The-pros-and-cons-of-cloud-backup-technologies — accessed February 14, 2011

[36] Wikipedia contributors, "Configuration management," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Configuration_management&oldid=409013176 — accessed February 14, 2011

[37] Drupal, Open Source CMS, home page, drupal.org/ — accessed February 14, 2011

[38] Wikipedia contributors, "Unified communications," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unified_communications&oldid=410043048 — accessed February 15, 2011

[39] Rick McCharles, “Definition of Unified Communications, Its Features and Benefits,” IP Communications and Technology blog, April 16, 2008 www.ric.ca/blog/2008/04/definition-of-unified-communic.html — accessed February 15, 2011

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-pattern&oldid=403766579�

http://www.relais-intl.com/relais/home/ill.htm�

http://www.oclc.org/vdx�

http://www.theinfoboom.com/articles/cloud-computing-in-plain-english/?utm_source=ibm&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=forwardview�


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cloud_computing&oldid=397091144�

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virtualization&oldid=396133877�

http://www.techsoupforlibraries.org/blog/what-is-cloud-computing-and-how-will-it-affect-libraries�

http://www.techsoupforlibraries.org/blog/what-is-cloud-computing-and-how-will-it-affect-libraries�

http://searchdatabackup.techtarget.com/tip/The-pros-and-cons-of-cloud-backup-technologies�

http://searchdatabackup.techtarget.com/tip/The-pros-and-cons-of-cloud-backup-technologies�

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Configuration_management&oldid=409013176�

http://drupal.org/�

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unified_communications&oldid=410043048�

http://www.ric.ca/blog/2008/04/definition-of-unified-communic.html�

146

[40] Blair Pleasant, “What UC is and isn't,” e-book review, searchunifiedcommunications.com, July 28, 2008 searchunifiedcommunications.techtarget.com/feature/What-UC-is-and-isnt — accessed February 15, 2011

[41] The RISE Network, home page, risenetwork.ca/ — accessed October 11, 2010

[42] DOK, de wereld te leen, home page (English), www.dok.info/index.php?cat=pagina&pagina_id=110 — accessed February 16, 2011

[43] Shanachietour.com, home page, www.shanachietour.com/ — accessed February 16, 2011

[44] Internet Archive, Internet Archive Forums: Over 1 Million Digital Books Now Available Free to the Print-Disabled, www.archive.org/post/305502/over-1-million-digital-books-now-available-free-to-the-print-disabled — accessed October 24, 2010

[45] Government of Alberta, Service Alberta, Technology Initiatives, home page, www.servicealberta.gov.ab.ca/830.cfm — accessed February 2, 2011

[46] Government of Alberta, Records and Information Management Web Site, www.im.gov.ab.ca/ — accessed February 2, 2011

[47] Wikipedia contributors, "Rural outsourcing," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rural_outsourcing&oldid=310509789 — accessed February 28, 2011

[48] Government of Alberta, Alberta Emergency Management Agency, home page, www.aema.alberta.ca/index.cfm — accessed February 28, 2011

[49] Government of Alberta, Youth Justice Committees - Becoming Involved, www.solgps.alberta.ca/programs_and_services/correctional_services/young_offenders/youth_justice_committees/Pages/default.aspx — accessed February 28, 2011

[50] Volunteer Alberta, Programs, www.volunteeralberta.ab.ca/programs/programs.asp — accessed February 28, 2011

[51] Government of Alberta, Government, alberta.ca/home/government.cfm — accessed February 28, 2011

[52] The Regional Automation Consortium, TRACpac, www.tracpac.ab.ca/ — accessed October 5, 2010

[53] IBM, InfoBoom – Cloud Computing in Plain English, blog entry, www.theinfoboom.com/articles/cloud-computing-in-plain-english/?utm_source=ibm&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=forwardview — accessed November 16, 2010

http://searchunifiedcommunications.techtarget.com/feature/What-UC-is-and-isnt�

http://risenetwork.ca/�

http://www.dok.info/index.php?cat=pagina&pagina_id=110�

http://www.shanachietour.com/�

http://www.archive.org/post/305502/over-1-million-digital-books-now-available-free-to-the-print-disabled�

http://www.archive.org/post/305502/over-1-million-digital-books-now-available-free-to-the-print-disabled�

http://www.servicealberta.gov.ab.ca/830.cfm�

http://www.im.gov.ab.ca/�

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rural_outsourcing&oldid=310509789�

http://www.aema.alberta.ca/index.cfm�

https://www.solgps.alberta.ca/programs_and_services/correctional_services/young_offenders/youth_justice_committees/Pages/default.aspx�

https://www.solgps.alberta.ca/programs_and_services/correctional_services/young_offenders/youth_justice_committees/Pages/default.aspx�

http://www.volunteeralberta.ab.ca/programs/programs.asp�

http://alberta.ca/home/government.cfm�

http://www.tracpac.ab.ca/�



147

[54] Wikipedia contributors, "Cloud computing," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cloud_computing&oldid=397091144 — accessed November 16, 2010

[55] Wikipedia contributors, "Virtualization," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virtualization&oldid=396133877 — accessed November 16, 2010

[56] Dennis Leas, Emilia Persoon, Neil Soiffer, Michael Zacherle, "Daisy 3: A Standard for Accessible Multimedia Books," IEEE Multimedia, pp. 28-37, October-December, 2008

[57] Alberta Public Library Electronic Network (APLEN), “2009-2010 Annual Report to Public Library Services Branch, Alberta Municipal Affairs,” May 1, 2010

[58] Axia NetMedia Corporation, Next Generation Network Solutions, home page, www.axia.com — accessed March 19, 2011

Appendix A — Interviews

[59] Scott Stanley, Manager, Information Technology, Calgary Public Library, personal communication, September 16, 2010

[60] Robert Zylstra, Music and Performing Arts Librarian, Centre for the Arts and Communications, Grant MacEwan University, private communication, September, 21, 2010

[61] Tanya Bruce-Gendre, Market Manager, SMART Technologies, Calgary, private communication, October 4, 2010

[62] Diana Davidson, Director, Public Library Service Branch, Alberta Municipal Affairs, project meeting, October 6, 2010

[63] Kerry Anderson, Library Consultant, Public Library Service Branch, Alberta Municipal Affairs, project meeting, October 6, 2010

[64] Robert Zylstra, Music and Performing Arts Librarian, Centre for the Arts and Communications, Grant MacEwan University, private communication, October 6, 2010

[65] Boris Oskin, Supervisor, District Technology, Edmonton Public Schools, private communication, October 6, 2010

[66] Marshall Breeding, Director for Innovative Technologies and Research, Jean and Alexander Heard Library, Vanderbilt University, private communication, October 14, 2010

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cloud_computing&oldid=397091144�

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virtualization&oldid=396133877�

http://www.axia.com/�

148

[67] Michelle Toombs, Director, Marigold Library System, private communication, October 20, 2010

[68] Joanne Griener, et al, Edmonton Public Library, private communication, October 20,2010

[69] Clive Maishment, CEO, The Alberta Library, private communication, October 20, 2010

[70] Julia Reinhart, APLEN Director, private communication, October 20, 2010

[71] Linda Duplessis, Director, Peace Library System, private communication, October 20, 2010

[72] Tim Spark, Network Administrator, Parkland Regional Library System, private communication, October 20, 2010

[73] Ron Sheppard, Director, Parkland Regional Library System, private communication, October 20, 2010

[74] Craig Shufelt , Fort McMurray Public Library, private communication, October 21, 2010

[75] Duncan Wu, Manager, Information Technology Services, First Nations Technical Services Advisory Group, private communication, October 21, 2010

[76] Bob Batchelder, Acting CEO, Shortgrass Library System, private communication, October 22, 2010

[77] Shana Dion, Manager of Aboriginal Student Services Centre, University of Alberta, private communication, October 23, 2010

[78] Anne Carr-Wiggin, NEOS Manager and Aboriginal Initiatives, University of Alberta Libraries, private communication, October 23, 2010

[79] Ben Hyman, Manager Policy and Technology, Public Library Services Branch, Government of British Columbia, private communication, November 3, 2010

[80] Gerry Meek, Director, Calgary Public Library, private communication, November 4, 2010

[81] Stephanie Thero, Client Services Manager, Yellowhead Regional Library System, private communication, November 8, 2010

[82] Laura Taylor, Assistant Director, Marigold Library System, private communication, November 8, 2010

[83] Tammy Svenningsen, Director of Library Services, Spruce Grove Public Library, private communication, November 9, 2010

[84] Linda Duplessis, Director, Peace Library System, private communication, November 9, 2010

149

[85] Mircea Panciuk, Director, Northern Lights Library System, private communication, November 9, 2010

[86] Jeff Barber, Director, Regina Public Library, private communication, November 25, 2010

[87] Maggie MacDonald, CEO, et al, Chinook Arch Regional Library System, private communication, November 26, 2010

[88] Michelle Toombs, Director, Marigold Library System, private communication, November 26, 2010

[89] Dean Frey, Director, Red Deer Public Library, private communication, December 2, 2010

[90] Sharon Siga, Director, et al, Strathcona County Library, January 6, 2011.

[91] Clive Maishment, CEO The Alberta Library, private communication, January 7, 2011

[92] Julia Reinhart, APLEN Director, private communication, January 7, 2011

[93] Pat Fader, St. Albert Public Library, private communication, January 10, 2011

[94] Linda Duplessis, Director, Peace Library System, private communication, January 11, 2011

[95] Bob Batchelder, Shortgrass Library System, private communication, January 13, 2011

[96] Shelley Ross, Director, Medicine Hat Public Library, private communications, January 13, 2011

[97] Maggie MacDonald, CEO, et al, Chinook Arch Regional Library System, private communication, January 19, 2011

[98] Todd Gnissios, Director, et al, Lethbridge Public Library, private communication, January 19, 2011

[99] Dean Frey, Director, Red Deer Public Library, private communication, February 10, 2011

[100] Ron Sheppard, Director, Parkland Regional Library System, private communications, February 10, 2011

[101] Michelle Toombs, Director, Marigold Library System, private communication, February 28, 2011

[102] Gerry Meek, Director, Calgary Public Library, private communication, March 1, 2011

alberta public libraries technology report and recommendations€¦ · this document is the alberta...

Documents