libraries in the cloud marshall breeding independent consultant, author, founder and publisher,...
TRANSCRIPT
Libraries in the Cloud
Marshall BreedingIndependent Consultant, Author, Founder and Publisher, Library Technology Guideshttp://www.librarytechnology.org/http://twitter.com/mbreeding
February 19, 2015Future Tech Strategies for Libraries
Cloud Computing for Libraries
Volume 11 in The Tech Set
Published by Neal-Schuman / ALA TechSource
ISBN: 781555707859
http://www.neal-schuman.com/ccl
Book Image Publication Info:
Local Computing
Traditional model Locally owned and managed Shifting from departmental to enterprise Departmental servers co-located in
central IT data centers Increasingly virtualized
Fundamental technology shift Mainframe computing Client/Server Web-based and Cloud Computing
http://www.flickr.com/photos/carrick/61952845/
http://soacloudcomputing.blogspot.com/2008/10/cloud-computing.html
http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-10-2001/jw-1019-jxta.html
Cloud Computing
Major trend in Information Technology Term “in the cloud” has devolved into
marketing hype, but cloud computing in the form of multi-tenant software as a service offers libraries opportunities to break out of individual silos of automation and engage in widely shared cooperative systems
Opportunities for libraries to leverage their combined efforts into large-scale systems with more end-user impact and organizational efficiencies
Cloud computing – characteristics
Web-based Interfaces Externally hosted Pricing: subscription or utility Highly abstracted computing model Provisioned on demand Scaled according to variable needs Elastic – consumption of resources can
contract and expand according to demand
ASP / Server Hosting / Co-location Vendor hosting of server associated with
single-instance system Each instance separately installed and
configured Often deployed on virtualized servers Client/server systems may require
installation of client software on staff workstations
Multi-tenant SaaS
One Instance serves all users of the service (institutional or Individual)
Supports institutional or individual partitioning of functionality
Supports shared data access as needed Fixes and features deployed once for all
users Web-based interfaces, no workstation
clients
Benefits of Cloud Computing
Elimination of capital expenses for equipment
Lower annual costs
Redeployment of technical staff to more meaningful activities
Higher revenues relative to software-only arrangements
Provision of infrastructure at scale with lower unit costs
Longer-term relationships with customers
Libraries Providers / Vendors
Cost implications
Total cost of ownership Do all cost components result in increased or
decreased expense Personnel costs – need less technical administration Hardware – server hardware eliminated Software costs: subscription, license,
maintenance/support Indirect costs: energy costs associated with power and
cooling of servers in data center IaaS: balance elimination of hardware investments
for ongoing usage fees Especially attractive for development and prototyping
Budget Allocations
Server Purchase Server
Maintenance Application
software license Data Center
overhead Energy costs Facility costs
Annual Subscription Measured
Service? Fixed fees
Factors Hosting Software Licenses Optional modules
Local Computing Cloud Computing
Risks and concerns
Privacy of data Policies, regulations, jurisdictions
Ownership of data Avoid vendor lock-in
Integrity of Data Backups and disaster recovery
Caveats and concerns with SaaS Libraries must have adequate bandwidth
to support access to remote applications without latency
Quality of service agreements that guarantee performance and reliability factors
Configurability and customizability limitations
Access to API’s Ability to interoperate with 3rd party
applications Eg: Connect SaaS ILS with discovery
product from another vendor
Security issues
Most providers implement stronger safeguards beyond the capacity of local institutions
Virtual instances equally susceptible to poor security practices as local computing
Data as a service
SaaS provides opportunity for highly shared data models
Bibliographic knowledgebase: one globally shared copy that serves all libraries
Discovery indexes: article and object-level index for resource discovery
E-resource knowledge bases: shared authoritative repository of e-journal holdings
General opportunity to move away from library-by-library metadata management to globally shared workflows
More than a technical transition Transforming infrastructure
Transform resources Working toward shared infrastructure Identify areas where libraries can collaborate to share
resources Infrastructure transformation
Bandwidth Shared services Refocus development from stand-alone applications to
platforms Platform development APIs that allow individual libraries or campuses to consume
content or services according to local needs
Leveraging the Cloud
Moving legacy systems to hosted services provides some savings to individual institutions but does not result in dramatic transformation
Globally shared data and metadata models have the potential to achieve new levels of operational efficiencies and more powerful discovery and automation scenarios that improve the position of libraries overall.
Move up the technology stack Infrastructure General support Library-specific support Utility programming Application programming Strategic technology planning Creative innovation
SaaS: New financial model
A software-as-a-service (SaaS) economy model trades higher upfront costs, incurred by libraries for equipment and software licenses, for a comprehensive annual subscription fee.
SaaS: Efficient model of computing
Leveraging economies of scale, SaaS providers have the potential to enable savings for libraries over time compared with direct and indirect costs of maintaining local servers and related infrastructure.
Saas: Library Adoption
Newer products … come only via SaaS. Even for server-based integrated library systems, libraries increasingly opt for hosted options as they acquire new products, instead of replacing outdated equipment underlying existing installations.
Large-scale Implementations Scale of any given project is no longer
limited Multi-tenant systems are already
supporting very large numbers of sites Shared implementation does not
necessarily require more resources than separate ones
Benefits of shared infrastructure Increased cooperation and resource
sharing Collaborative collection management Lower costs per institution Greater universe of content readily
available to patrons Avoid add-on components for union
catalog and resource requests and routing
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
Northern Ireland
Recently consolidated from 4 regional networks into one
96 branch libraries 18 mobile libraries Collections managed through single
Axiell OpenGalaxy LMS
http://www.ni-libraries.net/
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)
WHELF
Wales Higher Education Libraries Forum
Institution Prior ILS Bib Records
Aberystwyth University Voyager 677,846Bangor & Glyndwr University Sierra 591,673
Cardiff University & Welsh National Health Service
Voyager 856,381
Cardiff Metropolitan University Alto 269,965
National Library of Wales Virtua 6,643,696
Royal Welsh College of Music and Drama
Voyager 53,544
Swansea University Voyager 738,399University of South Wales Symphon
y365,602
University of Wales Trinity St. David Horizon 637,326
Total 10,834,432
Orbis Cascade Alliance
Orbis Cascade Alliance
Campus Libraries 37
Aggregated Enrollment
258,000
Total Titles 9 million
Total Items 28 million
California State University Institution Titles Volumes Circulation Staff FTE
Bakersfield 473,134 637,606 15,714 25Channel Islands 100,433 255,594 24Chico 850,000 1,265,907 32,182 59Dominguez Hills 628,193 637,064 8,456 38East Bay 944,415 1,139,057 33,491 43Fresno 1,928,624 1,345,398 208,491 78Fullerton 1,153,714 1,256,867 61,486 74Humboldt 692,017 807,101 30,300 31Long Beach 1,198,788 3,073,252 147,461 68Los Angeles 926,498 983,229 35,665 48Maritime Academy 42,854 154,820 5,439 8Monterey Bay 277,228 333,982 27,768 16Northridge 1,575,695 2,170,589 130,322 138Pomona 776,251 1,058,236 43,514 48Sacramento 1,189,093 1,415,562 98,675 66San Bernardino 935,366 868,453 29,001 90San Diego 2,340,641 2,513,984 46,402 106San Francisco 1,524,464 1,677,437 89,161 89San Jose 1,505,676 1,441,279 94,745 88San Luis Obispo 805,508 724,531 38,895 62San Marcos 441,812 538,203 17,071 47Sonoma 506,040 585,082 191,187 34Stanislaus 344,311 513,565 31,611 27
Total 21,160,755 25,396,798 1,417,037 1,307
University of California
University of CaliforniaCampus Libraries
10
Aggregated Enrollment
238,686
Total Titles 38 millionTotal Items 45 million
The University of California system is in an earlier stage of consideration regarding the possibility of a shared resource management system. .