Presentation on theme: "Marshall Breeding Director for Innovative Technologies and Research"— Presentation transcript:
1Trends in Library Automation: Meeting the challenges of a new generation of library users Marshall Breeding Director for Innovative Technologies and ResearchVanderbilt UniversityNovember 29, 2006OCLC Office of ResearchDistinguished Seminar Series
2AbstractTill now, the library automation business and technology trends have evolved at a leisurely pace. Today libraries face incredible challenges as non-library entities encroach into traditional library territory. Library users are more Web savvy than ever and have high expectations for information providers. We are in a time of urgent need to make rapid advances in library automation.
3Working toward a New Phase of Innovation Business trendsTechnology and Product trends
4Business TrendsA look at the companies involved in library automation and related technologies
5Business Landscape Becoming less fragmented as companies consolidate Still, a large number of companies compete in a very limited economy with undifferentiated and overlapping productsMany companies expend energies producing decreasingly differentiated systems.Level of innovation falls below expectationsCompanies struggle to keep up with ILS enhancements and R&D for new innovations.Pressure to reduce costs, increase revenue
7Library automation consolidation More libraries banding together to share automation environmentReduce overhead for maintaining systems that have decreasing strategic importanceNeed to focus technical talent on activities that have more of an impact on the mission of the libraryPooled resources for technical processingSingle library ILS implementations becoming less defensible
8Who owns the Industry?Some of the most important decisions that affect the options available to libraries are made in the corporate board room.Increased control by financial interests of private equity and venture capital firms
9Business Cycle Founder start-up Venture capital support -> board level representationPrivate equity ownership -> strategic controlIPO == mature company
10Investor owned companies SirsiDynix -> Seaport Capital + Hicks MuseEx Libris -> Francisco Partners (recently bought out VC’s)Endeavor -> Francisco Partners (recently bought out Elsevier)Infor (was Extensity, was Geac) -> Golden GatePolaris -> Croydon Companyformerly part of Gaylord Bros (acquired by Demco)
11Founder / Family owned companies VTLS – tech spin-off from Virginia Tech, wholly owned by Vinod ChachraInnovative Interfaces100% ownership by Jerry Kline following 2001 buy-out of partner Steve SilberstienThe Library CorporationOwned by Annette Murphy family
12Public companies: Auto-Graphics OpenText De-listed from SEC reporting requirementsWas OTC:AUGR now Pink Sheets:AUGROpenTextSpin-off form BattelleInformation DimensionsAcquired by OCLC, run as for-profit business unitSold to Gores Technology GroupAcquired by OpenTextMove involved in enterprise information management than ILS
13Diverse Business Activities Many ways to expand business in ways that leverage library automation expertise:Non-ILS softwareRetrospective conversion servicesRFID or AMHNetwork Consulting ServicesContent productsImaging services
14Libraries Demand choice. Consolidation working toward monopoly?Many companies currently prosper in the library automation industryRoom for niche playersDomination by a large monopoly unlikely to be accepted by library communityMonopoly would be subverted by Open Source or other cooperative movement
15Partnership strategies ILS companies partner with other companies for technologies.Development resource are not abundant, even in the companies with massive capital supportNo library automation company can take on all aspects of developmentTough decisions on what to build vs buy
16PartnershipsIncreasing number of partnerships with specialist companies:Serials SolutionsTDNetMuseGlobalWebFeatOpenly InformaticsMedialab Solutions
17PartnershipsWhat is different now is that ILS companies have outsourced strategic products to outside firmsEndeavor: Dropped ENCompass and LinkFinderPlus for TDNetSirsiDynix: Dropped local development of ERM and other partnerships for linking and federated search for partnership with Serials SolutionSirsiDynix: outsourced relationship with StarSoft Development Labs in Russia for development of Horizon 8.0Outsourcing strategic development raises concern for long-term prospects of the companies. Short-term advantage.
19Move from Commercial ILS to Open Source Beginning to emerge as a practical optionKoha, supported by LibLimeEvergreen, developed for Georgia PINESStill a risky strategy for libraries
20OCLC in the ILS arena? Library community taking notice Library-owned cooperative on a buying binge of automation companies:Openly InformaticsFretwell-Downing InformaticsSisis InformationssystemePICADiMeMa (CONTENTdm)Acquired a broad range of technology componentsILS companies concerned about competing with a non-profit with enormous resources and the ability to shift costs.
21Key Business Perspective Given the relative parity of library automation systems, choosing the right automation partner is more important than splitting hairs over functionality.Understanding of library issuesVision and forward-looking developmentIt’s important to choose a company that will survive
23Current state of the Integrated Library System The core ILS focused mostly on print resources and traditional library workflow processes.Add-ons available for dealing with electronic content:Link resolversMetasearch environmentsElectronic Resource ManagementA loosely integrated environmentLabor-intensive implementation and maintenanceMost are “must have” products for academic libraries with significant collections of e-content
24Library OPACEvolved from card catalogs and continues to be bound by the constraints of that legacy.Complex and rich in featuresInterfaces often do not compare favorably with alternatives available on the WebPrint materials becoming a smaller component of the library’s overall collections.
26Rumors of its demise are greatly exaggerated The ILS is not deadRumors of its demise are greatly exaggeratedA well-functioning automation system is essential to the operation of the libraryLibraries have never needed automation more than today
27Comprehensive Automation The goal of the Integrated Library Systems involves the automation of all aspects of the library’s internal operations and to provide key services to library users.
28Traditional Library Search Model Provide a full featured OPACGive the user a screen full of search optionsAssume that researchers will begin with library resourcesReliance on Bibliographic Instruction
29Troubling statisticWhere do you typically begin your search for information on a particular topic?College Students Response:89% Search engines (Google 62%)2% Library Web Site (total respondents -> 1%)2% Online Database1%1% Online News1% Online bookstores0% Instant Messaging / Online ChatOCLC. Perceptions of Libraries and Information Resources(2005) p
30New Library Search Model Don’t count on users beginning their research with library catalogs or Web siteConsider the library’s Web site as a destinationMake it a compelling and attractive destination that uses will want to explore more.Web users have a low tolerance for ineffective and clunky interfaces
31Library Discovery Model A WebLibrary Web Site / CatalogLibrary as search Destination
32Library Discovery Model B Do not give up on library search technologies!Libraries must also build their own discovery, search, and access servicesEffective, elegant, powerfulOnce users discover your library, give them outstanding services:Catalog search, federated search, context-sensitive linking, etc.
33Library Discovery Model C Expose library content and services through non-library interfacesCampus portals, courseware systems, e-learning environmentsCounty and municipal portals and e-governmentOther external content aggregators: RSS, etcWeb services is the essential enabling technology for the delivery of library content and services to external applications.Library community lags years behind other IT industries in adoption of SOA and Web services.
34Working toward next generation library interfaces Redefinition of the library catalogMore comprehensive information discovery environmentsBetter information delivery toolsMore powerful search capabilitiesMore elegant presentation
35Comprehensive Search Service More like OAIWide-ranging set of local and remote information sourcesLocal print component will decrease over timeProblems of scale diminishedProblems of cooperation persist
36Web 2.0 a good start A more social and collaborative approach Web Tools and technology that foster collaborationBlogs, wiki, blogs, tagging, social bookmarking, user rating, user reviewsWeb 2.0 technologies at the “Peak of Inflated Expectations “ phase of the hype cycle.
39Replacement OPACs Endeca Guided Navigation AquaBrowser Library Common thread:Decoupled interfaceMass export of catalog dataAlternative search engineAlternative interface
40Expanded discovery and delivery tools Ex Libris Primo (in development)Encore from Innovative Interfaces (in development)Common threads:Decoupled interfaceComprehensive indexes that span multiple and diverse information resourcesAlternative interface
41Library-developed solutions eXtensible CatalogUniversity of Rochester – River Campus LibrariesFinancial support from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation
42Redefinition of library catalogs and interfaces Traditional notions of the library catalog are being questionedIt’s no longer enough to provide a catalog limited to print resourcesDigital resources cannot be an afterthoughtForcing users to use different interfaces depending on type of content becoming less tenableLibraries working toward consolidated search environments that give equal footing to digital and print resources
43Interface expectations Millennial gen library users are well acclimated to the Web and like it.Used to relevancy rankingThe “good stuff” should be listed firstUsers tend not to delve deep into a result listGood relevancy requires a sophisticated approach, including objective matching criteria supplemented by popularity and relatedness factors.
44Interface expectations (cont…) Very rapid response. Users have a low tolerance for slow systemsRich visual information: book jacket images, rating scores, etc.Let users drill down through the result set incrementally narrowing the fieldFaceted BrowsingDrill-down vs up-front Boolean or “Advanced Search”gives the users clues about the number of hits in each sub topic.Navigational Bread crumbsRatings and rankings
45Appropriate organizational structures LCSH vs FASTFRBRFull MARC vs Dublin Core or MODSDiscipline-specific thesauri or ontologies“tags”
46Global vs Local How do library collections relate to the global realm Will mass digitization replace local library collections?The global arena excels at discoveryThe local arena focuses on content deliveryAll the global content discovery tools point to locally managed content.
47Connecting Local Content with Global Discovery Inbound / OutboundMove or expose metadata as neededProvide mechanisms to link or deliver resources to usersOAI-PMHSRU/SRWZ39.50MicroformatsXML SiteMap ProtocolWeb ServicesUDDI, WDSL, SOAP,OpenUR and other deep-linking protocols
48Multi-layered information discovery Global : GoogleInstitutional / Regional : PrimoGranular: Individual catalogs and repositoriesBroad -> PreciseOffer both the ability to “find a few good things” and to “find exactly the right things (and all of them)”Appropriate avenues for both the undergraduate learner and the serious scholar.
49Content beyond the Catalog Local Digital CollectionsLibrary as PublisherNo longer just the role of a University PressMany e-journals published by librariesETDsInstitutional RepositoriesNon-MARC metadata: Dublin Core, MODS, METS, MPEG21Transportable Metadata: OAI-PMH
50Problems with current slate of automation components Very loosely coupledDiverse interfacesNot seamless to library usersMultiple points of management for library staffLong and complex cycles of implementation and integration
51Path to improvementNext generation systems: competing visions and models for what will best serve libraries in the next decade.More systematic approach toward hybrid print/electronic collectionsMore tightly coupled systemsAppropriate use of Open Source softwareGreater adoption of Web ServicesMore collaboration in development:Vendor-to-vendorLibrary / VendorShared vision of the library information environment
52Google vs libraries? Perceived as a future competitor to libraries Some areas that overlap with librariesGoogle bases its business on discovery toolsMost of its revenues come from addsLibraries specialize in deliveryLibraries can leverage global discovery tools to enhance local delivery of content and services
53Threats and challenges Library users expect more than they currently receive.Google and other modern Web destinations set high user expectationsUrgent need to develop library interfaces that will be compelling to a new generation of Web savvy usersFailure to innovate will result in a diminished role for libraries as the next phase of digital information evolves.