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

Library Technology Guides

www.librarytechnolog

y.org

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

Stand-alone Automation: Advantages

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

Stand-alone Automation: Disadvantages

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

Shared Infrastructure

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

Challenges of Shared Systems

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

Library Service Platforms

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

Real-world Examples of Shared Infrastructure

Iceland Libraries

South AustraliaSA Public Library Network

140 Public Libraries

Chile

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/

Illinois Heartland Library Consortium

LargestConsortiumin US by Number of Members

Projects in progress

Denmark

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

2CUL

Shared Services:Collection Development

Technical Services

Shared Infrastructure?:

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

Open Source Options

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

Questions and discussion