Upload
others
View
4
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Strategic Cooperation in
Library Automation
Marshall Breeding
Independent Consult, Author,
Founder and Publisher, Library Technology Guides
http://www.librarytechnology.org/
http://twitter.com/mbreeding
21 February 2014 Library Association of Republic of China
Future library services and Technologies
Library Technology Guides
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
Bibliographic
Database
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 use
Circulation features
to request items
from other branches
Floating Collections
may reduce
workload for
Inter-branch
transfers
Model:
Multi-branch
Independent
Library
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)
Bibliographic
Database
Library System A
Branch 1
Branch 2
Branch 3
Branch 4
Branch 5
Branch 6
Branch 7
Branch 8
HoldingsMain Facility
Bibliographic
Database
Library System B
Branch 1
Branch 2
Branch 3
Branch 4
Branch 5
Branch 6
Branch 7
Branch 8
HoldingsMain Facility
Bibliographic
Database
Library System C
Branch 1
Branch 2
Branch 3
Branch 4
Branch 5
Branch 6
Branch 7
Branch 8
HoldingsMain Facility
Bibliographic
Database
Library System D
Branch 1
Branch 2
Branch 3
Branch 4
Branch 5
Branch 6
Branch 7
Branch 8
HoldingsMain Facility
Bibliographic
Database
Library System F
Branch 1
Branch 2
Branch 3
Branch 4
Branch 5
Branch 6
Branch 7
Branch 8
HoldingsMain Facility
Bibliographic
Database
Library System E
Branch 1
Branch 2
Branch 3
Branch 4
Branch 5
Branch 6
Branch 7
Branch 8
HoldingsMain Facility
Resource Sharing Application
Bibliographic
Database
Discovery and Request Management Routines
Staff Fulfillment Tools
Inter-System Communications
NCIP SIPISO
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
Bibliographic
Database
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:
Multiple
independent
libraries in a
Consortium
Share an ILS
ILS configured
To support
Direct consortial
Borrowing through
Circulation 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
Circ
TransactUser Vendor Policies
$$$
Funds
Cataloging Acquisitions Serials Online
Catalog
Public Interfaces:
Interfaces
Business
Logic
Data
Stores
LMS / ERM: Fragmented Model
Circulation
BIB
Staff Interfaces:
Holding
/ Items
Circ
TransactUser Vendor Policies
$$$
Funds
CatalogingAcquisitions Serials Online
Catalog
Public Interfaces:
Application Programming Interfaces
`
License
Management
License
Terms
E-resource
Procurement
VendorsE-Journal
Titles
Protocols: CORE
Common approach for ERM
Circulation
BIB
Staff Interfaces:
Holding
/ Items
Circ
TransactUser Vendor Policies
$$$
Funds
CatalogingAcquisitions Serials Online
Catalog
Public Interfaces:
Application Programming Interfaces
Budget License Terms
Titles / Holdings
Vendors
Access Details
Conso
lida
ted ind
ex
Search
Engine
Unified Presentation LayerSearch:
Digital
Coll
ProQuest
EBSCO
…
JSTOR
Other
Resources
New Library Management Model
`
API Layer
Library Services
Platform
Learning
Management
Enterprise
Resource
Planning
Stock
Management
Self-Check /
Automated
Return
Authentication
Service
Smart Cad /
Payment
systems
Library Services Platforms
Category WorldShare
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
Knowledgeba
se driven.
Pure multi-
tenant SaaS
Service-oriented
architecture
Technology
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 Platforms
Category WorldShare
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
Knowledgeba
se driven.
Pure multi-
tenant SaaS
Service-oriented
architecture
Technology
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
Largest
Consortium
in 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 Development
Technical 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%20consortium
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