best bets and likely losers Marshall Breeding Director for Innovative Technology and Research Vanderbilt University Library Nashville, TN USA

 a deep look at how university libraries should be responding to the possibilities and pitfalls of the developing technologies, predicting some winners;  the demise of the LMS?  Scope: Higher Education

  Repository for library automation data  Expanding to include more international scope  Announcements and developments made by companies and organizations involved in library automation technologies

 Started building database in 1995  Most comprehensive resource for tracking ILS and other library automation products  Serves as a directory for general public  Specialized tool for tracking LMS and other automation products  39,530 Total libraries listed  4,745 UK Libraries listed

Annual 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

 Industry Consolidation  Abrupt transitions for major library automation products  Frustration with ILS products and vendors  Increased ownership by external interests  Increased industry control by external financial investors  Demise of the traditional OPAC  New genre of discovery interfaces  Open Source products hit the mainstream  New wave of companies based on open source service and support Breeding, Marshall: Perceptions 2008 an international survey of library automation. January 2009.

 Traditional LMS companies ◦ Talis DS/Axiell, Innovative, SirsiDynix, Ex Libris  Library cooperatives ◦ OCLC  E-Content Tech / Content companies ◦ Serials Solutions – EBSCO  Open Source service companies ◦ LibLime, BibLibre, IBM?, Oracle?

 Prepared to make investments in new technology?  Strategy to maximize profits by reducing costs?  Technology Strategy ◦ Roadmap? ◦ New technology or new marketing? ◦ Can’t keep repackaging outdated

 Capacity for Research and Development  Understanding of higher education and library missions and culture  Track record of positive partnerships  Adequate resources for service and support  Forward looking technology components  Roadmap into the next generation  Solid business model  Focus on investment  High customer retention

 Aging technology without next-generation roadmap  Stagnant business model ◦ Revenue based on maintenance or new sales?  Focus on cost cutting  Diminishing customer base / personnel  High rates of customer defections  Low level of customer confidence

 Innovation below expectations  Conventional ILS less tenable  Proliferation of products related to e-content management  New genre of discovery-layer interfaces

 Is the OPAC module of the LMS a sure bet?  Is the time ripe for new discovery systems?

 Lots of non-library Web destinations deliver content to library patrons ◦ Google Scholar ◦ Amazon.com ◦ Wikipedia ◦ Ask.com  Do Library Web sites and catalogs meet the information needs of our users?  Do they attract their interest?

 Urgent need for libraries to offer interfaces their users will like to use  Move into the current millennium  Powerful search capabilities in tune with how the Web works today  Meet user expectations set by other Web destination

 Online Catalog modules provided with an ILS subject to broad criticism as failing to meet expectations of growing segments of library patrons.  Not great at delivering electronic content  Complex text-based interfaces  Relatively weak keyword search engines  Lack of good relevancy sorting  Narrow scope of content

 Silos Prevail ◦ Books: Library OPAC (ILS module) ◦ Articles: Aggregated content products, e- journal collections ◦ OpenURL linking services ◦ E-journal finding aids (Often managed by link resolver) ◦ Local digital collections  ETDs, photos, rich media collections ◦ Metasearch engines  All searched separately

 Discovery addresses a broader scope than any single automation system or repository  User interfaces require quicker replacement cycles  Back-end systems involve longer transitions

 Attempt to collapse silos or draw appropriately from each silo  Unified user experience  A single point of entry into all the content and services offered by the library  Print + Electronic  Local + Remote  Locally created Content  User contributed content

 New-generation interface  Harvested local content  Vendor-supplied indexes of library content ◦ E-journals, databases, e-books ◦ Book collections beyond local library collections

 Indexing the full corpus of information available globally  Or at least major portions  Google aims to address all the world’s information  Not quite comprehensive – partial harvesting of any given resource  Discovery Layer Products for libraries aim to address all content collected by libraries:  Print  Remotely access electronic content: e-journals, e-books, databases, licensed and open access.  Local special collections: digital and print.  Addresses the comprehensive body of content held within library collections  Comprehensive, unified

 Entering post-metadata search era  Increasing opportunities to search the full contents ◦ Google Library Print, Google Publisher, Open Content Alliance, etc. ◦ High-quality metadata will improve search precision  Commercial search providers already offer “search inside the book” and searching across the full text of large book collections  Not currently available through library search environments  Deep search highly improved by high-quality metadata See: Systems Librarian, May 2008 “Beyond the current generation of next-generation interfaces: deeper search”

 Fulfillment oriented  Search -> select -> view  Delivery/Fulfillment much harder than discovery  Back-end complexity should be as seamless as possible to the user  Offer services for digital and print content

 Initial products focused on technology ◦ AquaBrowser, Endeca, Primo, Encore, VUfind ◦ Mostly locally-installed software  Current phase focused on pre-populated indexes that aim to deliver Web-scale discovery ◦ Summon (Serials Solutions) ◦ WorldCat Local (OCLC) ◦ EBSCO Discovery Service (EBSCO) ◦ All hosted services

 Local discovery provides flexibility for libraries to create customized access to collections  Web-scale discovery emphasizes unified access and broad scope

 New Discovery Service  Consolidated index harvested from many sources ◦ ProQuest, Gale, etc ◦ 300,000,000 articles represented ◦ Full-text search + Citations  Local catalog data harvested, real-time link to holdings  Other local repositories harvested  Others available through metasearch

 Existing service in pilot stage for new discovery service  WorldCat.org data + ArticleFirst (30 million articles)  Agreement with EBSCO to load EBSCOhost citation data into WorldCat  Pursuing agreements with additional content providers

 No-cost option to FirstSearch subscribers  No reclamation to reconcile local ILS with WorldCat  One ILS supported; must be among supported products  Program to expose thousands of libraries to WorldCat Local as a discovery option

 Massive pre-harvested index of e-journal content  Worldcat.org  Locally harvested metadata

 Is the conventional library management system a safe bet moving forward?  Will Open Source LMS overtake propriety products  Evergreen, Koha, OLE?

 Favours print inventory  Electronic resources managed separately

 Traditional ILS ◦ Cataloging ◦ Circulation ◦ Online Catalog ◦ Acquisitions ◦ Serials control ◦ Reporting  Modern approach: ◦ SOA ◦ Business process modeling

 Service oriented Architecture  Openness ◦ Open APIs, Open Source  Web services  Cloud storage and services  Flexible XML data models  Web-based interfaces (Staff and patron)  Mobile apps and interfaces

 Monolithic hard-coded systems  MARC-based metadata model  Client/Server computing

 Sure thing, or risky proposition?

Circulation Acquisitions Cataloging Staff Interfaces: End User Interfaces: Data Stores: Functional modules: No programmable Access to the system. Captive to the user Interfaces supplied by the developer Programmer access:

Circulation Acquisitions Cataloging Staff Interfaces: End User Interfaces: Data Stores: Functional modules: Database administrators can access data stores involved with the system: Read-only? Read/write? Developer shares database schema Programmer access:

Circulation Acquisitions Cataloging Staff Interfaces: End User Interfaces: Data Stores: Functional modules: All aspects of the system available to inspection and modification. Programmer access:

Circulation Acquisitions Cataloging Staff Interfaces: End User Interfaces: Data Stores: Functional modules: Core application closed. Third party developers code against the published APIs or RDBMS tables. Programmer access: Published APIs

Circulation Acquisitions Cataloging Staff Interfaces: End User Interfaces: Data Stores: Functional modules: Core application closed. Third party developers code against the published APIs or RDBMS tables. Programmer access: Published APIs

 Open APIs  Open Source  Open Data Models

 Currently implemented ad hoc  Many libraries putting up blogs, wikis, and fostering engagement in social networking sites  Proliferation of silos with no integration or interoperability with larger library Web presence  Next Gen: Build social and collaborative features into core automation components

 Fundamental assumption: Print + Digital = Hybrid libraries  Traditional ILS model not adequate for hybrid libraries  Libraries currently moving toward surrounding core ILS with additional modules to handle electronic content  New discovery layer interfaces replacing or supplementing ILS OPACS  Working toward a new model of library automation ◦ Monolithic legacy architectures replaced by fabric of SOA applications ◦ Comprehensive Resource Management “It's Time to Break the Mold of the Original ILS” Computers in Libraries Nov/Dec 2007

 Library Management system ◦ Cataloging, Circulation, Serials, Acquisitions, OPAC  Link resolver with e-journal knowledgebase  Electronic Resource management system  Digital collections  Institutional repositories  Discovery Environments

 Current LMS model replicates portions of business systems of colleges and universities ◦ Authentication and authorization ◦ Financial systems  Current LMS model does not integrate as well with HE infrastructure ◦ Virtual Learning Environments, Course Management Systems  Curating or Managing non-library content for the broader organization  Current automation systems provide little support for public services ◦ Customer relationship management

 OLE Project ◦ Funded by the Research in Information Technology program of the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation ◦ 1-year project to produce the requirements for a new approach to library automation ◦ Will embrace the service-oriented architecture ◦ Business process modeling based on library workflows unconstrained from existing legacy software ◦ Possible follow-on project to build and open source reference implementation  Ex Libris URM ◦ Mentioned publically but not formally announced ◦ Working toward new platform that better integrates print and electronic content  Probably will be based on some existing products

Federated Search Circulation Acquisitions Cataloging Serials OpenURL Linking Electronic Resource Mgmt System Staff Interfaces: End User Interfaces: Data Stores: Functional modules:

Data Stores: Reusable Business Services Composite Applications Granular tasks:

 Extend WorldCat Local to include ◦ Circulation ◦ Delivery ◦ Acquisitions ◦ License Management  Positioned as Web-scale, cloud computing model, cooperative library system  Pilot sites being finalized; general availability in 2010

 Amazon.com = federated groups of sellers sharing common infrastructure  Unified from end-user perspective  Web Services, cloud computing model  Modern user interfaces  High level of usability ◦ Discovery, Fulfillment  Web 2.0 features ◦ User-contributed ratings and reviews

 Cannot continue to throwing in chips on a losing hand  Current automation models reinforce the library as an independent silo of automation and information systems  Can we bet on new technologies that will place libraries more at the heart of higher education organizations?  Will current LMS products evolve to better serve modern Libraries?  Will new transformative products based on new automation products emerge?