Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

HARNESSING TECH TO SUPPORT LIBRARY STRATEGIES Marshall Breeding Independent Consult, Author, Founder and Publisher, Library Technology Guides

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "HARNESSING TECH TO SUPPORT LIBRARY STRATEGIES Marshall Breeding Independent Consult, Author, Founder and Publisher, Library Technology Guides"— Presentation transcript:

1 HARNESSING TECH TO SUPPORT LIBRARY STRATEGIES Marshall Breeding Independent Consult, Author, Founder and Publisher, Library Technology Guides 12 May 2013 HKU Library Leadership Institute 運用科技支援圖書館的策略任務和服務

2 Appropriate Automation Infrastructure  Current automation products out of step with current realities  Majority of library collection funds spent on electronic content  Majority of automation efforts support print activities  New discovery solutions help with access to e- content  Management of e-content continues with inadequate supporting infrastructure

3 The Legacy Library  Physical collections: Print, microfilm, manuscripts  Scholarly publishing dominated by commercial publishers, societies, etc. (No open access)  Library Services focus on access to physical items based on citations and bibliographic records  The Online Catalog dominates as the primary search tool for books  Print indexes for finding articles

4 Key Context: Technologies in transition  Client / Server > Web-based computing  Beyond Web 2.0 Integration of social computing into core infrastructure  Local computing shifting to cloud platforms Application Service Provider offerings standard New expectations for multi-tenant software-as-a-service  Full spectrum of devices full-scale / net book / tablet / mobile Mobile the current focus, but is only one example of device and interface cycles

5 Key Context: Libraries in Transition  Academic Shift from Print > Electronic  E-journal transition largely complete  Circulation of print collections slowing  E-books now in play (consultation > reading)  All libraries:  Need better tools for access to complex multi-format collections  Strong emphasis on digitizing local collections  Demands for enterprise integration and interoperability

6 Key Context: Each type of library faces unique challenges  Academic: Emphasis on subscribed electronic resources  Public: Engaged in the management of print collections  Dramatic increase in interest in E-books  School: Age-appropriate resources (print and Web), textbook and media management  Special: Enterprise knowledge management (Corporate, Law, Medical, etc.)

7 Key Text: Changed expectations in metadata management  Moving away from individual record-by-record creation  Life cycle of metadata  Metadata follows the supply chain, improved and enhanced along the way as needed  Manage metadata in bulk when possible  E-book collections  Highly shared metadata  E-journal knowledge bases, e.g.  Great interest in moving toward semantic web and open linked data  Very little progress in linked data for operational systems  AACR2 > RDA  MARC > Bibframe (http://bibframe.org/)

8 Reshaped collections  Journals now published and delivered electronically  Monographs: transition to e-books underway  Demand for e-book discovery and lending  Digital collections: local libraries and cultural organizations actively involved in digitizing unique materials  Media collections: LP, CD, DVD, Blu-Ray to streaming  Heritage print collections will remain indefinitely

9 Cumulative effect  Library collections more complex than ever  Library services move diverse  Managing electronic and digital content harder than managing print

10 Reassess expectations of Technology  Many previous assumptions no longer apply  Technology platforms scale infinitely  No technical limits on how libraries share technical infrastructure  Cloud technologies enable new ways of sharing metadata  Build flexible systems not hardwired to any given set of workflows

11 Reassess workflow and organizational options  ILS model shaped library organizations  New Library Services Platforms may enable new ways to organize how resource management and service delivery are performed  New technologies more able to support strategic priorities and initiatives

12 Social Computing  Web 2.0 as a separate activity largely a distraction  Important to have social orientation built directly into the software and services that comprise library infrastructure  Avoid jettisoning patrons out of the library’s Web presence  Find ways to effectively connect with users, connect users to each other, and especially to connect users to library content and services

13 Academic Library Issues  Greater concern with electronic scholarly articles  Management: Need for consolidated approach that balances print, digital, and electronic workflows  Access: discovery interfaces that maximize the value of investments in subscriptions to scholarly articles and research materials

14 Public Library Issues  Greater concern for e-books and general article databases  Management: Need for consolidated approach that balances print, digital, and electronic workflows  Emphasis on technologies that engage users with library programs and services

15  Traditional Proprietary Commercial ILS  Aleph, Voyager, Millennium, Symphony, Polaris  BOOK-IT, DDELibra, Libra.se, Open Galaxy  LIBERO, Amlib, Spydus, NCS  Traditional Open Source ILS  Evergreen, Koha  New generation Library Services Platforms  Ex Libris Alma  Kuali OLE (Enterprise, not cloud)  OCLC WorldShare Management Services,  Serials Solutions Intota  Innovative Interfaces Sierra (evolving) Competing Models of Library Automation

16 Convergence  Discovery and Management solutions will increasingly be implemented as matched sets  Ex Libris: Primo / Alma  Serials Solutions: Summon / Intota  OCLC: WorldCat Local / WorldShare Platform  Except: Kuali OLE, EBSCO Discovery Service  Both depend on an ecosystem of interrelated knowledge bases  API’s exposed to mix and match, but efficiencies and synergies are lost

17 Digital dominant libraries in sight  All new content acquired in electronic formats  E-Journals, E-books: all acquired and accessed electronically  Legacy collections fully digitized  Full digitization of local specialized collections

18 Reassess expectations of Technology  Many previous assumptions no longer apply  Technology platforms scale infinitely  No technical limits on how libraries share technical infrastructure  Cloud technologies enable new ways of sharing metadata  Build flexible systems not hardwired to any given set of workflows

19 Reassess workflow and organizational options  ILS model shaped library organizations  New Library Services Platforms may enable new ways to organize how resource management and service delivery are performed  New technologies more able to support strategic priorities and initiatives

20 Time to engage  Transition to new technology models just underway  More transformative development than in previous phases of library automation  Opportunities to partner and collaborate  Vendors want to create systems with long-term value  Question previously held assumptions regarding the shape of technology infrastructure and services  Provide leadership in defining expectations

21 Libraries as agents of content procurement and distribution  Content may be decreasingly accessed through traditional library channels  Content disseminated throughout the institutional enterprise information infrastructure  Learning Management Systems  Departmental or disciplinary research portals  Academic institutions continue to require specialists to procure content on behalf of teaching and research faculty

22 Digital Impact on content production  A given that new content will be done digitally from start to finish  More dimensions of research process exposed  Publishing models: pressure mounting toward open access  Selection: New dynamics in peer review and subsequently promotion and tenure

23 Research data  Research Data increasingly within scope  NSF data management plans  Need to organize and preserve  Re-use and repurpose

24 The evolution of academic information  Library collections should be built from the universe of academic and scholarly content that supports research an teaching  Transition from Print only > Print + electronic + digital + ??? (new media forms)  Cumulative. Additive

25 The Legacy Library  Physical collections: Print, microfilm, manuscripts  Scholarly publishing dominated by commercial publishers, societies, etc. (No open access)  Library Services focus on access to physical items based on citations and bibliographic records  The Online Catalog dominates as the primary search tool for books  Print indexes for finding articles

26 Strategic Cooperation  Shared infrastructure in support of strategic collaborative relationships  Opportunities to share infrastructure  Examples:  2CUL  Orbis Cascade Alliance  Opportunities to reconsider automation implementation strategies  One library = 1 ILS?  Ability to share infrastructure across organizational boundaries?

27 Time to Invest in Technology  Libraries in general lack the proper tools to manage and deliver access to their reshaped collections  Library and campus tools may seem stilted and primitive relative to what students experience outside the campus domain  Tradition of under-investment and deferred maintenance or replacements of technology infrastructure in the library  Dearth of transformative technology options?

28 UCSD Research Data Curation Services

29 Centers of Preservation  Increased involvement in production of digital content demands institutional commitment to long- term digital preservation  Digital Curation: create, organize, access, preservation  Libraries as a whole in the early stages of digital preservation

30 Resource Sharing Strategies

31 Strategic interest in Resource Sharing  Supplement local collections  Provide expanded universe of content to library users  Print – Digital – Electronic  Lower operational Costs  Step into more powerful automation environment

32 Resource Sharing issues  Local Control and Branding  Compromises to policies and practices  Impact on collection development  Targeted collections among partners  Opportunities for collaborative operations  Technical Services  Costs for delivery  Reduce traditional ILL costs

33 Impact on Library Users  Access to larger aggregate collections  Enhanced Discovery: able to gain access to larger universe of content  Convenient delivery of materials  Manage expectations on delivery times

34 Budget planning  Increased activity comes with cost implications  Buy less, borrow more  Factor in courier costs  Technology costs

35 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

36 Bibliographic Database Library System A Branch 1 Branch 2 Branch 3 Branch 4 Branch 5 Branch 6 Branch 7 Branch 8 Holdings Main Facility WorldCat WorldCat Resource Sharing User: Password: Needed by: Dec 30, :00pm ILLiad Patron has Citation for item not held by Library Interlibrary Loan Request Form Interlibrary Loan Personnel WorldCat Resource Sharing Request Submission Resource tracking and fulfillment ILS Synchronization

37 Bibliographic Database Library System A Branch 1 Branch 2 Branch 3 Branch 4 Branch 5 Branch 6 Branch 7 Branch 8 Holdings Main Facility Bibliographic Database Library System B Branch 1 Branch 2 Branch 3 Branch 4 Branch 5 Branch 6 Branch 7 Branch 8 Holdings Main Facility Bibliographic Database Library System C Branch 1 Branch 2 Branch 3 Branch 4 Branch 5 Branch 6 Branch 7 Branch 8 Holdings Main Facility Bibliographic Database Library System D Branch 1 Branch 2 Branch 3 Branch 4 Branch 5 Branch 6 Branch 7 Branch 8 Holdings Main Facility Bibliographic Database Library System F Branch 1 Branch 2 Branch 3 Branch 4 Branch 5 Branch 6 Branch 7 Branch 8 Holdings Main Facility Bibliographic Database Library System E Branch 1 Branch 2 Branch 3 Branch 4 Branch 5 Branch 6 Branch 7 Branch 8 Holdings Main Facility Resource Sharing Application Bibliographic Database Discovery and Request Management Routines Staff Fulfillment Tools Inter-System Communications NCIP SIP ISO ILL Z39.50 NCIP Search: Consortial Resource Sharing System

38 Bibliographic Database Shared Consortia System Library 2 Library 3 Library 4 Library 5 Library 7 Library 8 Library 9 Library 10 Holdings Library 1Library 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

39 Strategic Cooperation and Resource sharing  Efforts on many fronts to cooperate and consolidate  Many regional consortia merging (Example: Illinois Heartland Library System)  State-wide or national implementations  New Zealand: K ō tui, Te Puna  Software-as-a-service or “cloud” based implementations  Many libraries share computing infrastructure and data resources

40 Auckland City Libraries  7 separate library services merged in 2010

41 MyLibraryNYC

42 Auckland City Libraries  7 separate library services merged in 2010

43 OhioLink Innovative Interfaces INN-Reach

44 Iceland Libraries

45 South Australia SA Public Library Network 140 Public Libraries

46 Chile

47 Georgia PINES  275 Libraries  140 Counties  9.6 million books  Single Library Card  43% of population in Georgia

48 Northern Ireland  Recently consolidated from 4 regional networks into one  96 branch libraries  18 mobile libraries  Collections managed through single Axiell OpenGalaxy LMS

49 Illinois Heartland Library Consortium  Largest Consortium in US by Number of Members

50 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

51 Orbis-Cascade Alliance

52 Denmark

53 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

54 2CUL Shared Services : Collection Development Technical Services Shared Infrastructure? :

55 Illinois Heartland Library Consortium  Largest Consortium in US by Number of Members

56 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

57 Reviewing what’s behind your motive to change your software and assessing your needs based on your budget Strategic Planning

58 Reasons to consider Technology Changes  Obsolete or non-supported system  Lost confidence in current supplier  Library can no longer operate optimally with current tech environment  Need a environment which delivers better resource sharing or collaboration opportunities

59 Timing issues  Immediate need  Interested in alternative options once they become standard options  Early adopter  Defer tech investment  Waiting for the perfect solution will result in indefinite deferment

60 Can your library justify a Lateral Move?  Move from a product to a similar product from another supplier  Same generation / scope / workflows  Each of the major products offers both strengths and weaknesses  Will a lateral move result in fewer problems or different problems?  Key consideration is whether your system supports the strategic business needs of your library

61 Open Source vs Proprietary  Open source may provide more opportunity for local control of strategic development  Open Source ILS available as a complete turnkey solution  Open source software have fewer mature modules and features than well-established proprietary systems  Cost mostly equivalent. Highly dependent on specific scenario. Both options document examples of lower cost.  Decision should be based on business requirements and tangible benefits  Both open source and proprietary ILS involve relationships with vendors

62 Planning and preparing for new tech project Organizational planning

63 Library Services Platform = large- scale change  Requires broad-based decision-making process  Committees / Teams  Leverage expertise from all areas of the library  Prepare for change processes  Review and revise operational workflows  Operationalize new system into the fabric of the library

64 New Discovery product = moderate change  Operations remain largely unchanged  New interface for public access  Some changes needed to optimize support for discovery product  Metadata issues  Cataloging practices  May cover up, but not cure misalignment of automation software with library strategies

65 Evaluating and selecting Technology

66 Deployment options  Software-as-a-service  Proprietary  Open Source  Participate in a shared ILS – statewide, regional, or consortial  Locally-installed server  Proprietary  Open Source

67 Cost Spectrum  Standalone Implementation  Highest cost / Least resource sharing  Consortium participant  Lower cost / Higher resource sharing  SaaS  Constant annual cost  Licensed software  High start-up cost / Lower ongoing cost  Open source  Many cost variables

68 Cost Issues  Consider the total cost of ownership  Direct costs  Vendor payments: software licensing, support, training, conversion  Hardware purchase and maintenance  Hosting costs: in-house or outsourced  SaaS Subscriptions  Indirect costs  Procurement overhead: personnel time devoted to selection process, including committee meetings, prep, vendor demos, etc.  Increased workload for systems and technical services personnel  Decreased productivity during transition

69 Procurement options:  sole source  Purchase additional software from existing supplier  Internal justification often required  competitive procurement  Submit procurement documents to qualified suppliers  Incumbent often one of the competitors

70 Procurement processes  Request for Information  Method to gain in-depth understanding of competitive offerings  Often a preliminary process to RFP  Request for Proposals  Solicits responses to detailed specifications  Specific / binding cost proposal  Product / support / company viability  Many boilerplate documents available – be wary  Core specifications can be licensed

71 Progressive Procurement Strategy  Do not reinforce legacy concepts and practices  Do not over-specify detailed functionality  Define a process that will result in a forward- looking result  Assume that rates of change will increase  Articulate your organizational strategy and vision for technology  Give respondents leeway to express how they can fulfill your vision

72 Time to engage  Transition to new technology models just underway  More transformative development than in previous phases of library automation  Opportunities to partner and collaborate  Vendors want to create systems with long-term value  Question previously held assumptions regarding the shape of technology infrastructure and services  Provide leadership in defining expectations

73 Concluding thoughts  Urgency to align technology with library missions  Innovate locally  Collaborate aggressively collectively  Drive strategic development

74 Questions and discussion


Download ppt "HARNESSING TECH TO SUPPORT LIBRARY STRATEGIES Marshall Breeding Independent Consult, Author, Founder and Publisher, Library Technology Guides"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google