Strategic Cooperation in Library Automation
description
Transcript of Strategic Cooperation in Library Automation
Strategic Cooperation in Library Automation
Marshall BreedingIndependent Consult, Author, Founder and Publisher, Library Technology Guideshttp://www.librarytechnology.org/http://twitter.com/mbreeding
21 February 2014Library Association of Republic of China
Future library services and Technologies
Library Technology Guides
www.librarytechnolog
y.org
Progressive consolidation of library services
Centralization of technical infrastructure of multiple libraries within a campus
Resource sharing support Direct borrowing among partner institutions
Shared infrastructure between institutions Examples: 2CUL (Columbia University /
Cornell University) Orbis Cascade Alliance (37 independent
colleges and universities to merge into shared LSP)
Traditional model of Automation Single Library System
Includes branches or divisional facilities Automation strategies often set when
capabilities of automation systems were limited
Institutional solo of collection management
BibliographicDatabase
Library System
Branch 1
Branch 2
Branch 3
Branch 4
Branch 5
Branch 6
Branch 7
Branch 8
Holdings
Main Facility
Search:
Integrated Library System
Patrons useCirculation featuresto request itemsfrom other branches
Floating Collectionsmay reduce workload forInter-branchtransfers
Model:Multi-branchIndependentLibrary System
Library Consortia Groups of libraries want to work together
to share an automation system Number of participants limited by the
perceived capacities of the automation system
Consortial Borrowing Systems Each library system operates its own
automation environment Relies on manual and automated
processes to allow patrons to discovery and request materials among participants INN-Reach (Innovative Interfaces) ShareIT (Auto-Graphics) Relais ILL URSA (SirsiDynix, now defunct)
BibliographicDatabase
Library System A
Branch 1
Branch 2
Branch 3
Branch 4
Branch 5
Branch 6
Branch 7
Branch 8
HoldingsMain Facility
BibliographicDatabase
Library System B
Branch 1
Branch 2
Branch 3
Branch 4
Branch 5
Branch 6
Branch 7
Branch 8
HoldingsMain Facility
BibliographicDatabase
Library System C
Branch 1
Branch 2
Branch 3
Branch 4
Branch 5
Branch 6
Branch 7
Branch 8
HoldingsMain Facility
BibliographicDatabase
Library System D
Branch 1
Branch 2
Branch 3
Branch 4
Branch 5
Branch 6
Branch 7
Branch 8
HoldingsMain Facility
BibliographicDatabase
Library System F
Branch 1
Branch 2
Branch 3
Branch 4
Branch 5
Branch 6
Branch 7
Branch 8
HoldingsMain Facility
BibliographicDatabase
Library System E
Branch 1
Branch 2
Branch 3
Branch 4
Branch 5
Branch 6
Branch 7
Branch 8
HoldingsMain Facility
Resource Sharing Application
BibliographicDatabase
Discovery and Request Management Routines
Staff Fulfillment Tools
Inter-System Communications
NCIP SIP ISO
ILLZ39.50
NCIP
NCIP
NCIP
NCIP
NCIP
NCIP
Search:
Consortial Resource Sharing System
Shared Infrastructure Common discovery
Retention of local automation systems Technical complex with moderate
operational benefits Common discovery + Resource
Management Systems Shared Resource management with local
discovery options
BibliographicDatabase
Shared Consortia System
Library 2
Library 3
Library 4
Library 5
Library 7
Library 8
Library 9
Library 10
Holdings
Library 1 Library 6
Shared Consortial ILS
Search:
Model:Multipleindependentlibraries in aConsortiumShare an ILS
ILS configuredTo supportDirect consortialBorrowing throughCirculation Module
Stand-alone Automation: Advantages
Locally responsive Accountable only to the local institution Automation policies set according to the
needs of the local institution. Compromises not necessary to
accommodate external institutions
Policies set according to local preferences and strategies
Circulation loan rules Local cataloging practices Indexing (MARC fields, including local) Online Catalog display policies
Self-reliant for support and training Local systems staff plays a dominant
role System administration (local or hosted) Management of data loads
Well defined integration and interoperability
Patron records from student management system
Business transactions to or from ERP (Enterprise resource planning, such as PeopleSoft)
One-to-one data exchange
Direct funding model Easily understood by funding authorities
(university, government agency, etc) Decision processes take place within the
institution Procurement decisions Operational policy decisions Collection management
Operational decisions Processes defined within the institution Library committees Administrative mandates Streamlined Decision making process
Collection Management Ability (requirement) to collect materials
that directly correspond to the curriculum and research agenda of the institution
Stand-alone Automation: Disadvantages
Costs The library or its parent institution bears
the full cost of the automation system Software Licenses Server and other hardware Inefficacy: unused capacity
Resource Allocation Technical personnel dedicated to system
administration Server security, software updates, policy
table maintenance Unit managers and other key personnel
involved in committees related to ILS policies and operation
Time subtracted from higher-value activities
Collections Self-reliant collections large
unachievable Limited universe of content offered to
library users Inefficient mechanisms for resource
sharing
Strategic Priorities Resources allocated to automation
system need to be proportional to new priorities and strategies
How much attention to spend on managing print collections of decreasing priority
Technical personnel may need to be directed toward: Digital collection management and
preservation Research data involvement Web site user experience enhancement
Shared Infrastructure
Governance All stakeholders represented Decision making processes that achieve
the strategic goals of partnership within the tolerance of each member
Administrative mandates Some movements to shared systems have
not been voluntary Higher-level authorities assert requirement
to share resources and save costs Even these forced partnerships can
produce benefits Sometimes the only way to overcome local
politics and inwardly facing decision making processes
Technical deployment options Larger scale local deployment managed
by lead institution National or state library Large academic library
Agency managed Consortial office
Participation in cloud-based service (multi-tenant software as a service) Vendor hosted
Strategic cooperation Members of the partnership have
commitment to strategic cooperation Balance of priorities Compromise local preferences for higher-
level advantages
Collection management Cooperative Collection Development Stronger technical support for collection
decisions Immediate awareness of holdings of
partner institutions Use statistics and metrics to assess need
and impact Many new-generation systems have built-in
collection analytics tools Increased ability to fulfill requests
among institutions Informal collection development
partnerships often lack technical and organizational support
Advantages for Patrons Larger universe of materials available Simple mechanism for placing requests
for materials Expedited delivery of physical materials
Aligned with legacy system replacement
Many libraries operating legacy systems oriented to print collections
Lack electronic resource management despite fundamental shift in collection proportions
Selection of a library services platform will require fundamental reconsideration of resource management workflows
Opportunity to also shift from local to shared resource management model
Lateral shift vs transformative change
Centralization or Distributed Operations
Centralized infrastructure does not require centralized services
Opportunities for partial or complete centralization of specific activities Technical services: Acquisitions, cataloging,
etc. Leverage specialists across multiple
institutions
Remote Storage Facilities Many libraries must convert selected
collections areas to user-oriented spaces Cost of off-site storage facilities
disproportionate for single institutions Shared physical facilities Shared infrastructure enables more
efficient management and shared access to off-site materials
Challenges of Shared Systems
Compromises Must moderate local preferences Distinguish high-value local policies from
preferences Traditional loan rule periods Meaningful requirements for local
stakeholders Need to rely on partner institutions for
agreed upon subject specializations
System suitability The platform implemented must be able
to accommodate the needs of all member libraries Type, size and complexity
Select a system that has the ability to meet the needs of the largest and most complex members without overwhelming small institutions
Systems with simplified functionality may not be suitable for large academic and municipal libraries
Objective and Measurable Benefits Must deliver on promised objectives Increased patron satisfaction Fulfillment of strategic priorities Decreased costs Failure to meet goals can result in exit of
members
Operational Complications Decisions made among multiple
institutions Accommodate applicable policies or
business rules among multiple campuses or agencies
Legal and Policy Complications Data policies:
Mandates for institutional data to be housed locally, in state, or in country
Contract issues: requirements for local legal verbiage
Funding models Prevailing business policies factor into
participation options Funding as an external service rather
than direct costs of local system Easier to justify if savings are
documented Contract issues Allocation of public funds may be
restricted
Technical Complications Many-to-one data exchange
relationships Patron records from multiple campus
systems Financial records with multiple financial
systems Cross-institutional authentication Record loading for multiple institutions
Complex Collection management Ability to negotiate content procurement
for multiple institutions (lower per institution pricing?)
Manage shared and local licensed materials
Accommodation of local Concerns Options to preserve branding of local
institution Some degree of local policy support Adequate representation of local
stakeholders in collective decision-making processes
Flexibility in operational and technical issues
Library Service Platforms
Academic Libraries need a new model of library management
Not an Integrated Library System or Library Management System
The ILS/LMS was designed to help libraries manage print collections
Generally did not evolve to manage electronic collections
Other library automation products evolved: Electronic Resource Management Systems –
OpenURL Link Resolvers – Digital Library Management Systems -- Institutional Repositories
Comprehensive Resource Management No longer sensible to use different software
platforms for managing different types of library materials
ILS + ERM + OpenURL Resolver + Digital Asset management, etc. very inefficient model
Flexible platform capable of managing multiple type of library materials, multiple metadata formats, with appropriate workflows
Support for management of metadata in bulk Continuous lifecycle chain initiated before
publication
Library Services Platform Library-specific software. Designed to help libraries
automate their internal operations, manage collections, fulfillment requests, and deliver services
Services Service oriented architecture Exposes Web services and other API’s Facilitates the services libraries offer to their users
Platform General infrastructure for library automation Consistent with the concept of Platform as a Service Library programmers address the APIs of the platform to
extend functionality, create connections with other systems, dynamically interact with data
Library Services Platform Characteristics
Highly Shared data models Knowledgebase architecture Some may take hybrid approach to accommodate local
data stores Delivered through software as a service
Multi-tenant Unified workflows across formats and media Flexible metadata management
MARC – Dublin Core – VRA – MODS – ONIX Bibframe New structures not yet invented
Open APIs for extensibility and interoperability
Integrated (for print) Library System
Circulation
BIB
Staff Interfaces:
Holding / Items
CircTransact User Vendor Policies$$$
Funds
Cataloging Acquisitions Serials OnlineCatalog
Public Interfaces:
Interfaces
BusinessLogic
DataStores
LMS / ERM: Fragmented Model
Circulation
BIB
Staff Interfaces:
Holding / Items
CircTransactUserVendor Policies$$$
Funds
CatalogingAcquisitionsSerials OnlineCatalog
Public Interfaces:
Application Programming Interfaces`
LicenseManagement
LicenseTerms
E-resourceProcurement
VendorsE-JournalTitles
Protocols: CORE
Common approach for ERM
Circulation
BIB
Staff Interfaces:
Holding / Items
CircTransactUserVendor Policies$$$
Funds
CatalogingAcquisitionsSerials OnlineCatalog
Public Interfaces:
Application Programming Interfaces
Budget License Terms
Titles / Holdings
Vendors
Access Details
Consolidated index
Search Engine
Unified Presentation LayerSearch:
Digital Coll
ProQuest
EBSCO…
JSTOR
Other Resour
ces
New Library Management Model
`API Layer
Library Services Platform
LearningManageme
nt
Enterprise ResourcePlanning
StockManageme
nt
Self-Check /
Automated Return
Authentication
Service
Smart Cad /
Payment systems
Discovery
Service
Library Services PlatformsCategory WorldSha
re Management Services
Alma Intota Sierra Services Platform
Kuali OLE
Responsible Organization
OCLC. Ex Libris Serials Solutions
Innovative Interfaces, Inc
Kuali Foundation
Key precepts Global network-level approach to management and discovery.
Consolidate workflows, unified management: print, electronic, digital; Hybrid data model
Knowledgebase driven. Pure multi-tenant SaaS
Service-oriented architectureTechnology uplift for Millennium ILS. More open source components, consolidated modules and workflows
Manage library resources in a format agnostic approach. Integration into the broader academic enterprise infrastructure
Software model
Proprietary Proprietary
Proprietary Proprietary Open Source
Library Services PlatformsCategory WorldSha
re Management Services
Alma Intota Sierra Services Platform
Kuali OLE
Responsible Organization
OCLC. Ex Libris Serials Solutions
Innovative Interfaces, Inc
Kuali Foundation
Key precepts Global network-level approach to management and discovery.
Consolidate workflows, unified management: print, electronic, digital; Hybrid data model
Knowledgebase driven. Pure multi-tenant SaaS
Service-oriented architectureTechnology uplift for Millennium ILS. More open source components, consolidated modules and workflows
Manage library resources in a format agnostic approach. Integration into the broader academic enterprise infrastructure
Software model
Proprietary Proprietary
Proprietary Proprietary Open Source
Real-world Examples of Shared Infrastructure
Iceland Libraries
South AustraliaSA Public Library Network
140 Public Libraries
Chile
Georgia PINES 275 Libraries 140 Counties 9.6 million books Single Library
Card
43% of population in Georgia
Northern Ireland Recently consolidated from 4 regional
networks into one 96 branch libraries 18 mobile libraries Collections managed through single
Axiell SirsiDynix Symphony LMS
http://www.ni-libraries.net/
Illinois Heartland Library Consortium
LargestConsortiumin US by Number of Members
Projects in progress
Denmark
Denmark Shared LMS Common Tender for joint library system
February 2013 88 municipalities: 90 percent of Danish
population Public + School libraries
Process managed by Kombit: non-profit organization owned by Danish Local Authorities
Contract awarded to Dantek A/S
Orbis Cascade Alliance 37 Academic Libraries Combined enrollment of 258,000 9 million titles 1997: implemented dual INN-Reach systems Orbis and Cascade consortia merged in 2003 Moved from INN-Reach to OCLC Navigator /
VDX in 2008 Current strategy to move to shared LMS
based on Ex Libris Alma
2CUL
Shared Services:Collection DevelopmentTechnical Services
Shared Infrastructure?:
Netherlands: National + major Academics
UBC Consortium http://www.librarytechnology.org/ltg-displaytext.pl?RC=18941 http://www.librarytechnology.org/libraries.pl?Consortium=UKB%20consort
ium
Norway: BIBSYS Provides automation services for:
National Library of Norway 105 Academic and Special Libraries
History of local system development Originally selected WorldShare Platform for
new generation system development (Nov 2010) and later withdrew (Oct 2012)
Primo implemented for Discovery (May 2013) Alma selected for new shared infrastructure
(Jan 2014)
Recent announcements LIBROS: Academic libraries in New
Mexico OCLC WorldShare
Ireland: National Tender for Public Libraries Tender Underway
PALNI: Private Academic Libraries in Ohio: OCLC WorldShare
Wales: possible shared system for Academic libraries
Welsh Higher Education Libraries Shared LMS Services
Shared LMS Study: http://blogs.cardiff.ac.uk/sharedlms/ Tender posted Jan 24, 2014
Open Source Options
Large project based on Koha Tend to be based on a multiplicity of virtual
instances Koha technology components may not scale to
large-scale multi-institutional implementations Argentina: Most small public libraries in the
country, one virtualized machine instance each Philippines: all public libraries (national library
provides servers loaded with software for each library)
Turkey: Ministry of culture recently reported automation of over 1000 public libraries
Evergreen Designed to support large consortia
Comprised of mostly small libraries Not preferred by large municipal libraries
Georgia PINES Three major consortia in Massachusetts
Kuali OLE Open Source project for large Academic
and research libraries Designed for institutional deployment
Including very large multi-campus university systems
Support from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation
HTC contracted for software development
Significant contributions by development partners
Questions and discussion