GLOBAL LIBRARY AUTOMATION SCENE

Marshall BreedingDirector for Innovative Technology and ResearchVanderbilt University LibraryNashville, TN USA

Abstract

Breeding looks at the current automation scene from an international perspective. As a recent senior Fulbright Specialist in Argentina and visitor to many nations during the last few years, Breeding has expanded his research on library automation and shares leading examples set by libraries in North America and other geographic regions. Gain insights as you plan for the future of your library automation.

Library Technology Guides

http://www.librarytechnology.org Repository for library automation data Lib-web-cats tracks 38,000 libraries and the

automation systems used. Expanding to include more international scope

Announcements and developments made by companies and organizations involved in library automation technologies

LJ Automation System MarketplaceAnnual Industry report published in Library

Journal: 2009: Investing in the Future 2008: Opportunity out of turmoil 2007: An industry redefined 2006: Reshuffling the deck 2005: Gradual evolution 2004: Migration down, innovation up 2003: The competition heats up 2002: Capturing the migrating customer

2007 Trends: turmoil

Industry Consolidation Abrupt transitions for major library

automation products Increased industry control by external

financial investors Demise of the traditional OPAC Frustration with ILS products and

vendors Open Source alternatives hit the

mainstreamBreeding, Marshall: Perceptions 2007 an international survey of library automation. http://www.librarytechnology.org/perceptions2007.pl January 2008.

2008 Key trends

Pressing forward in an uncertain economy, many industry players are making investments to develop new products for the future or to increase support capacity

New procurements of ILS down for most companies Impact of difficult economic times Pent-up demand: deferred migrations persist

Strong interest in new discovery interfaces Open source ILS presents alternative to proprietary

offerings Down a bit in 2008 relative to 2007

Diversifying automation technologies

ILS remains the heart of the business Strategic interest in discovery

technologies Ongoing interest in tools to manage

electronic resource Yet market for ERM products not

overwhelming Link servers considered essential

infrastructure for academic libraries

Serving the underserved

Many libraries in the United States remain un-automated or under-automated

Challenge to offer appropriate automation products affordable to libraries with extremely limited resources

Many small libraries moving to automation products through SaaS Auto-Graphics, Biblionix

Trends in Automation Implementation Models

Increased interest in cooperative projects to reduce automation costs and to increase impact of collections

Movement toward Software as a Service Proprietary & Open Source

Consortial and other shared implementations Libraries joining existing shared systems

New state-wide initiatives Age of the stand-alone ILS has past

Key International Trends

International vendors dominant in US deriving a higher proportion of sales from regions outside the US

Most regions or countries served by a local vendor Technology cycles faster than development

capacity of local companies Vulnerable to international companies that offer

rich functionality and robust support for local languages (Unicode)

Challenge to offer support in local language and time zone

Open source ILS: International Scene

Strong Interest in US, Canada Weaker interest in Europe Developing world: open source ILS

growing as an alternative to ISIS-based products

Open source versions of ISIS products emerging ABCD (Automatisación de Bibliotécas y

Centros de Documentación) OpenBiblio

Other Business Observations Creative tension abounds Level of innovation falls below expectations,

despite deep resources and large development teams.

Companies strive to keep up with ILS enhancements and R&D for new innovations.

Pressure from investors/owners to reduce costs, increase revenue

Pressure from library customers for more innovative products

Some companies investing in technology; expanding markets

ILS Migration Trends

Few voluntary lateral migrations Forced Migrations

Vendor abandonment Need to move from legacy systems Exit from bad marriages with vendors Exit from bad marriages with consortia

Role of the ILS in Library Automation Strategies

The purchase of a new ILS may not be a library’s top strategic priority

Need for products focused on electronic content and user experience New generation discovery interfaces Federated search Link servers Electronic Resource Management

No longer an ILS-centric industry Portion of revenues derived from core ILS

products diminishing relative to other library tech products

Many companies and organizations that don’t offer an ILS are involved in library automation: Cambridge Information Group

ProQuest Serials Solutions WebFeat

Bowker Syndetic Solutions AquaBrowser LibraryThing for Libraries

A new direction in library automation A successful pitch for new automation

software is one that enables significant transformation toward a new vision of the library.

Can’t keep doing the same thing in the same way

Need to reengineer back-end systems to increase impact on customer service delivery

An age of less integrated systems Increasingly dis-integrated environment Core ILS supplemented by:

OpenURL Link Resolvers Metasearch / Federated Search Electronic Resource Management Next Generation Library Interfaces RFID / Self-Check / AMH

The cost of Non-integration

Acquisition costs of multiple systems Major implementation effort for each

product Staff training investments Complexity of end user environment

THE NEXT GENERATION OF LIBRARY AUTOMATION

Working toward a new ILS Vision The operations of libraries has changed

dramatically over the last 20 years. ILS built largely on workflows cast more

than 25 years ago Based on assumptions that have long

since changed Digital resources represent at least half of

most academic libraries collection budgets The automation needs of libraries today is

broader than that provided by the legacy ILS

Libraries ready for a new course Level of dissatisfaction with the current slate of

ILS products is very high. Large monolithic systems are unwieldy—very

complex to install, administer and maintain.

Address widening gaps in functionality

Public Services – Customer Relationship Management

Interlibrary loan Collection development Preservation: print / digital Book binding Remote storage operations

Less Proprietary / More Open

Libraries demand more openness Open source movement greatest

challenge to current slate of commercial ILS products

Demand for open access to data API’s essential Beyond proprietary APIs Ideal: Industry-standard set of API’s

implemented by all systems Current DLF initiative to define API for an ILS

for decoupled catalogs

Open but Commercial?

As library values evolve toward open solutions, commercial companies will see increasing advantages in adopting more open strategies

Open Data Well documented database schemas APIs for access to all system functionality

More customizability; better integration Open Source Software? Key differentiation lies in service and

support

Comprehensive automation

Need the ability to automation all aspects of library work

Suite of interoperable modules Single point of management for each

category of information Not necessarily through a single

monolithic system

More lightweight approach

More elegant and efficient Easier to install and administer Automation systems that can be operated

with fewer number of technical staff

Redefining the borders

Many artificial distinctions prevail in the legacy ILS model

Online catalog / library portal / institutional portal

Circulation / ILL / Direct consortial borrowing / remote storage

Collection Development / Acquisitions / budget administration

Library acquisitions / Institutional ERP Cataloging / Metadata document ingestion for

digital collections Digital / Print workflows

Separation of front-end from back-end ILS OPAC not necessarily best library

interface Many efforts already underway to offer

alternatives Too many of the resources that belong in

the interface are out of the ILS scope Technology cycles faster for front-end than

for back-end processes.

Service-oriented Architecture

Work toward a service-oriented business application

Suite of light-weight applications Flexibility to evolve in step with changes

in library services and practices

Enterprise interoperability

Interoperate with non-library applications

Course management Accounting, finance, ERP applications External authentication services Other portal implementations

Massively consolidated implementations State/Province-wide ILS implementations Increased reliance on consortia Increased Software as a Service / ASP

options hosted by vendors Radical simplification of library policies

affecting services offered to patrons

Fitting into the Global Enterprise Leverage capabilities of search engines:

Google, Google Scholar, Microsoft Live, Ask, etc

OCLC WorldCat Sort out the relationships between the

global enterprise and local systems Leverage the content in enterprise

discovery systems to drive users toward library resources

Revise assumptions regarding Metadata Reliance on MARC widely questioned XML widely deployed The next-gen ILS must natively support many

flavors of metadata: MARC, Dublin Core, Onix, METS, etc

Library of Congress Subject Headings vs FAST Approaching a post-metadata where discovery

systems operate on actual digital objects themselves, not metadata about them High-quality metadata will always improve discovery

Incorporate content from mass digitization efforts Increasing proportions of rich media content:

audio, video

New models of Software Development Role of commercial partners

Break out of marketing / consumer model Substantial dialog that shapes the direction

of product development Increased partnerships Accelerated development cycles Cost-effective / realistic cost

expectations

Evolution vs Revolution

What we have today is a result of 35 years of evolution

Is it possible to break free of the constraints of these evolved systems toward a new generation that will offer a fresh approach?

Are libraries now willing to let go of the of ILS legacy of times past and move forward with library automation cast in a new mould.

A Mandate for Progress

Intense interest by both libraries and vendors to catch up and move forward in delivering library interfaces that work better for today’s Web-savvy users

Web 2.0 has invigorated libraries toward more open and collaborative strategies

Service Oriented Architecture provides a platform for assembling library systems more in tune with the needs of today’s libraries

Questions and Discussion