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
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 ILL
Z39.50
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
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
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
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
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
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$$$
Funds
Cataloging Acquisitions Serials OnlineCatalog
Public Interfaces:
Interfaces
BusinessLogic
DataStores
LMS / ERM: Fragmented Model
Circulation
BIB
Staff Interfaces:
Holding / Items
CircTransact
User Vendor Policies$$$
Funds
CatalogingAcquisitionsSerials OnlineCatalog
Public Interfaces:
Application Programming Interfaces
`
LicenseManagement
LicenseTerms
E-resourceProcurement
VendorsE-Journal
Titles
Protocols: CORE
Common approach for ERM
Circulation
BIB
Staff Interfaces:
Holding / Items
CircTransact
User Vendor Policies$$$
Funds
CatalogingAcquisitionsSerials OnlineCatalog
Public Interfaces:
Application Programming Interfaces
Budget License Terms
Titles / Holdings
Vendors
Access Details
Con
solid
ate
d in
dex
Search Engine
Unified Presentation LayerSearch:
Digital Coll
ProQuest
EBSCO…
JSTOR
Other Resour
ces
New Library Management Model
`
API Layer
Library Services Platform
LearningManageme
nt
LearningManageme
nt
Enterprise ResourcePlanning
Enterprise ResourcePlanning
StockManageme
nt
StockManageme
nt
Self-Check /
Automated Return
Self-Check /
Automated Return
Authentication
Service
Authentication
Service
Smart Cad /
Payment systems
Smart Cad /
Payment systems
Discovery
Service
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
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 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
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
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/
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
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
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