Library Automation Systems:Breaking from the Past into a New FutureMarshall BreedingDirector for Innovative Technology and ResearchVanderbilt Universityhttp://www.librarytechnology.org/Northwestern University LibraryNovember 27, 2007

SummaryBreeding will provide an overview of where we have been and where we are going in the ILS (Integrated Library System) environment. ILSs have been around for 35 years and technology has changed exponentially during this timeframe. This session will provide a review of the evolutionary path that the ILS has taken to date, give a look at some of the next-generation library interfaces, and offer some suggestions for a more transformational approach possible for the future.

Automation TrendsBusiness environment where commercial companies prevail, offering proprietary systemsILS developers struggle to adapt to changing technology expectations.OCLC acquiring library automation companies no one is really sure of OCLCs intentions and motivationsLibraries hard at work creating library automation software, willing to share with peer institutionsA major new ILS product created by a publicly funded library agencyDevelopers from that agency form a new company to promote and support that software in other libraries

When?

1982!

The Ghost of ILS Past

Library automation 25 years ago

Technology EnvironmentAge of turnkey systemsLarge-scale mainframes, transition to:MinicomputersSuper-microsVery high hardware costsLimited telecommunications bandwidthProprietary operating systemsProprietary programming languagesOpen systems beginning to emergeUnixVMS

Top commercial vendors:CL Systems Inc / CLSICincinnati ElectronicsData Phase -- ALISGeac GLIS 7000Biblio-Techniques -- BLISUniversal Library Systems -- UTLASVTLSElectric Memory EMILS/3000Card Datalog DTI Data TrekCarlyle Systems TOMUS (The Online Multiple User System)

Major products LaunchedSirsi begins offering Unicorn beyond original GA Tech siteInnovative launches INNOVAQData Research Associates begins to market ATLASFollett enters ILS market (1983)

Libraries developing ILS productsNorthwestern launches NOTIS (1983)Internal development and use since the late 1960sPenn State launches LIAS (1983)Georgetown LIS (1983)Washington University School of Medicine Library (St. Louis) BAGS (Bibliographic Access and Control System)Tacoma Public Library Alice-B

Companies Supporting Public Domain ILSILS Developed by NLM Lister Hills Laboratories for Biomedical Communications; owned by U.S. Government; essentially in the public domain.Avatar Provides Support for Lister Hills ILS company created by ILS developers from NLMOnline Computer Systems Marketed Lister Hills ILS

OCLC makes its foray into the ILSOCLC develops LLS (Local Library System) internallyOCLC acquires Total Library System from Claremont Colleges OCLC adopts public domain Lister Hill ILSdrops LLS development; Joint development agreement with Online Computer SystemsAcquires Avatar in 1983launched as LS 2000 in 1983 based on ILSOCLC acquires ALIS I and ALIS II from failing DataPhase (1987)Withdrew from the ILS arena in 1990

Library Automation M&A History

The Ghost of ILS Present

Technology LandscapeMost ILS products from commercial vendors matureNone less than a decade oldApproaching end of life cycle?Evolved systemsNo success in launching new systemsHorizon 8.0Taos

Current VintageALEPH 5001996Voyager 1995Unicorn1982Polaris1997Virtua1995Koha1999Library.Solution1997Evergreen2004

Business LandscapeLibrary Journal Automated System Marketplace:An Industry redefined (April 1, 2007)An increasingly consolidated industryMoving out of a previous phase of fragmentation where many companies expend energies producing decreasingly differentiated systems in a limited marketplaceVenture Capital firms have cashed outPrivate Equity playing a stronger role then ever beforeNarrowing of product options Open Source opportunities rise to challenge the grip of traditional commercial model

Other Business ObservationsLevel of innovation falls below expectations, despite deep resources and large development teams.Companies struggle to keep up with ILS enhancements and R&D for new innovations.Pressure within companies to reduce costs, increase revenue Pressure from libraries for more innovative products

Companies owned by private equityGolden Gate CapitalInfor Extensity Geac (formerly a public company)Francisco PartnersEx Libris (acquired from Tamar Tech, Walden, Hebrew U.)Endeavor Information Systems (acquired from Elsevier)Vista Equity PartnersSirsiDynix (acquired from Seaport)

Private Holding CompanyCroydenPolaris Library Systems (Formerly part of Gaylord Bros)

Public companies: Auto-GraphicsDe-listed from SEC reporting requirementsWas OTC:AUGR now Pink Sheets:AUGR OpenText Spin-off form Battelle Information Dimensions Acquired by OCLC, run as for-profit business unitSold to Gores Technology GroupAcquired by OpenTextMove involved in enterprise information management than ILS

Founder / Family owned companiesInnovative Interfaces100% ownership by Jerry Kline following 2001 buy-out of partner Steve SilbersteinThe Library Corporation Owned by Annette Murphy familyVTLS tech spin-off from Virginia Tech, wholly owned by Vinod ChachraThese companies not under the control of external financial interests

Cambridge Information Group / BowkerEmerging as a major library technology company:Serials SolutionsSyndetic SolutionsElectronic Resource ManagementFederated SearchE-Journals dataAquaBrowserNext-gen Interface

OCLC in the ILS arena?Increasingly overlapped with library automation activitiesWorldCat Local recently announcedPilot in University of Washington LibrariesUC System will migrate Melvyl to WorldCat LocalPenetrating deeper into local librariesLibrary-owned cooperative on a buying binge of automation companies:Openly InformaticsFretwell-Downing InformaticsSisis InformationssystemePICA (now 100%)DiMeMa (CONTENTdm)ILS companies concerned about competing with a non-profit with enormous resources and the ability to shift costs.

Open Source AlternativesExplosive interest in Open Source driven by disillusionment with current vendorsBeginning to emerge as a practical optionTOC (Total Cost of Ownership) still roughly equal to proprietary commercial modelOpen Source still a risky AlternativeCommercial/Proprietary options also a risk

The Open Source FrontIndex DataFounded 1994; No ILS; A variety of other open source products to support libraries: search engines, federated search, Z39.50 toolkit, etcLibLimeFounded 2005. Provides development and support services for Koha ILS. Acquired original developers of Koha in Feb 2007.Equinox. Founded Feb 2007; staff formerly associated with GPLS Pines development teamCare AffiliatesFounded June 2007; headed by industry veteran Carl Grant.

Open source ILS BenchmarksMost decisions to adopt Open Source ILS based on philosophical reasonsOpen Source ILS will enter the main stream once its products begin to win through objective procurement processesHold open source ILS to the same standards as the commercial productsHold the open source ILS companies to the same standards:Adequate customer support ratios, financial stability, service level agreements, etc.Well-document total cost of ownership statements that can be compared to other vendor price quotes

Open Source Market share / PerspectiveOpen Source ILS implementations still a very small percentage of the total pictureInitial set of successful implementations will likely serve as a catalyst to pave the way for othersSuccessful implementations in wider range of libraries:State-wide consortium (Evergreen)Multi-site public library systems (Koha)School district consortia (OPALS-NA)

ILS Migration TrendsFew voluntary lateral migrationsForced MigrationsVendor abandonmentNeed to move from legacy systemsExit from bad marriages with vendorsExit from bad marriages with consortia

Products surrounding the ILSIts never been harder to justify investments in ILSNothing transformational about a lateral migrationNeed for products focused on electronic content and user experienceNext-gen interfacesFederated searchLinkingElectronic Resource Management

An age of less integrated systemsCore ILS supplemented by:OpenURL Link ResolversMetasearch / Federated SearchElectronic Resource ManagementNext Generation Library Interfaces

No longer an ILS-centric industryPortion of revenues derived from core ILS products diminishing relative to other library tech productsMany companies and organizations that dont offer an ILS are involved in library automation:OCLCCambridge / BowkerWebFeatMuse Global

Working toward next generation library interfacesRedefinition of the library catalogMore comprehensive information discovery environmentsBetter information delivery toolsMore powerful search capabilitiesMore elegant presentation

Comprehensive Search ServiceMore like OAIProblems of scale diminishedProblems of cooperation persist

Incorporate Web 2.0 conceptsA more social and collaborative approachWeb Tools and technology that foster collaborationUser supplied ratings, rankings, and reviewsBlogs, wiki, blogs, tagging, social bookmarkingExample: LibraryThing for Libraries

Web 2.0 supporting technologiesWeb servicesXML Application Programming Interfaces (APIs)AJAX (asynchronous JavaScript and XML)RSSOpenSearch vs SRU/SRW

Redefinition of library catalogsTraditional notions of the library catalog are being questionedIts 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

Interface expectationsMillennial generation 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.Very rapid response. Users have a low tolerance for slow systemsRich visual information: book jacket images, rating scores, etc.

Faceted NavigationWell established discovery method in e-commerce arenaLet users drill down through the result set incrementally narrowing the fieldFaceted BrowsingDrill-down vs up-front Boolean or Advanced Searchgives the users clues about the number of hits in each sub topic.Navigational Bread crumbs

Current Next-Gen catalog products

Common characteristicsDecoupled interface Mass export of catalog data Alternative search engine Alternative interface

Endeca Guided NavigationNorth Carolina State Universityhttp://www.lib.ncsu.edu/catalog/McMaster Universityhttp://libcat.mcmaster.ca/Phoenix Public Libraryhttp://www.phoenixpubliclibrary.org/Florida Center for Library Automationhttp://catalog.fcla.edu/ux.jsp

AquaBrowser LibraryQueens Borough Public Libraryhttp://aqua.queenslibrary.org/

Ex Libris PrimoVanderbilt Universityhttp://alphasearch.library.vanderbilt.eduUniversity of Minnesota http://prime2.oit.umn.edu:1701/primo_library/libweb/action/search.do?vid=TWINCITIESUniversity of Iowahttp://smartsearch.uiowa.edu/

Encore from Innovative InterfacesNashville Public Libraryhttp://nplencore.library.nashville.org/iii/encore/appScottsdale Public Libraryhttp://encore.scottsdaleaz.gov/iii/encore/appYale University Lillian Goldman Law Libraryhttp://encore.law.yale.edu/iii/encore/app

VUFind Villanova UniversityBased on Apache Solr search toolkithttp://www.vufind.org/

OCLC Worldcat LocalOCLC Worldcat customized for local library catalogRelies on hooks into ILS for local servicesWashington University Librarieshttp://uwashington.worldcat.org/University of California Melvyl Catalog

Library-developed solutionseXtensible CatalogUniversity of Rochester River Campus LibrariesFinancial support from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundationhttp://www.extensiblecatalog.info/Just received a second round of funding from MellonWider institutional participation

The Ghost of ILS Yet to Come

Working toward a new ILS VisionHow libraries work has changed dramatically over the last 20 years.ILS built largely on workflows cast more than 25 years agoBased on assumptions that have long since changedDigital resources represent at least half of most libraries collection budgets

Change demandedLevel of dissatisfaction with the current slate of ILS products is very high.Large monolithic systems are unwieldyvery complex to install, administer and maintain.Continue to be large gaps in functionalityInterlibrary loanCollection developmentPreservation: print / digitalBook bindingRemote storage operations

Less Proprietary / More OpenLibraries demand more opennessOpen source movement greatest challenge to current slate of ILS productsDemand for open access to dataAPIs essentialBeyond proprietary APIsIdeal: Industry-standard set of APIs implemented by all systemsCurrent NISO effort to define API for an ILS for decoupled catalogs

Comprehensive automationNeed the ability to automation all aspects of library workSuite of interoperable modulesSingle point of management for each category of informationNot necessarily through a single monolithic system

More lightweight approachMore elegant and efficientEasier to install and administerAutomation systems that can be operated with fewer number of technical staff

Redefining the bordersMany artificial distinctions prevail in todays ILS modelOnline catalog / library portal / institutional portalCirculation / ILL / Direct consortial borrowing / remote storageCollection Development / Acquisitions / budget administrationLibrary acquisitions / Institutional ERPCataloging / Metadata document ingestion for digital collectionsDigital / Print workflows

Separation of front-end from back-end ILS OPAC not necessarily best library interfaceMany efforts already underway to offer alternativesToo many of the resources that belong in the interface are out of the ILS scopeTechnology cycles faster for front-end than for back-end processes.

Service-oriented ArchitectureWork toward a service-oriented business applicationSuite of light-weight applicationsFlexibility to evolve in step with changes in library services and practices

Massively consolidated implementationsLarge scale Software as a ServiceHosted in industrial strength distributed data centersManaged by vendor or library organizationState/Province-wide ILS implementationsIncreased reliance on consortiaRadical simplification of library policies affecting services offered to patrons

Interoperability with the Local EnterpriseInteroperate with non-library applicationsCourse managementAccounting, finance, ERM applicationsExternal authentication servicesOther portal implementations

Fitting into the Global EnterpriseLeverage capabilities of search engines: Google, Google Scholar, Microsoft Live, Ask, etcOCLC WorldCatSort out the relationships between the global enterprise and local systemsLeverage the content in enterprise discovery systems to drive users toward library resources

Revise assumptions regarding MetadataThe next-gen ILS must natively support many flavors of metadata: MARC, Dublin Core, Onix, METS, etcReliance on MARC widely questionedXML widely deployedLibrary of Congress Subject Headings vs FASTApproaching a post-metadata where discovery systems operate on actual digital objects themselves, not metadata about themHigh-quality metadata will always improve discoveryIncorporate content from mass digitization effortsIncreasing proportions of rich media content: audio, video

New models of Software DevelopmentRole of commercial partners Break out of marketing / consumer modelSubstantial dialog that shapes the direction of product developmentIncreased partnershipsAccelerated development cyclesCost-effective / realistic cost expectations

Evolution vs RevolutionWhat we have today is a result of 35 years of evolutionIs it possible to break free of the constraints of these evolved systems toward a new generation that will offer a fresh approach?How much are we willing to let the ghosts of ILS past and present constrain the ILS of Times Yet to Come?

Questions / Discussion