The IUA Library system

09/10/08

09/10/08

09/10/08

Introduction

• What and Why and When and How and Where and Who

Who

• Who are the IUA

09/10/08

Who’s in the Task and Finish Group • UCC – Catherine Sanborne• UCD - Caleb Dervan• DCU – Miriam Corcoran• DIT - Ursula Gavin• NUIM - Linda Noonan• TCD – Arlene Healy• UL - Anne McMahon & Mary Dundon• NUIG – Peter Corrigan (chair)

When

• April – May 2011 Initial Report on Status Quo • Sept – December 2011 Requirements

What

• Two deliverables – The Initial Report– Requirements document

Terms of reference

To identify possible shared delivery of functions currently delivered by Library Management Systems and Electronic Resource Management SystemsTo take into account the SCONUL Shared Services feasibility study into the LMS and related systems.To consider current and projected systems in terms of support for national shared services

To advise on the feasibility of a single shared system for Irish university libraries

To report to the IUA Librarians Group by 18 May 2011

The Report

• Taken together these are mission critical systems for the country.

• We think that together they exhibit synergy• But, primum non nocere

Significant difficulties

• Asymmetry with respect to benefits and obligations

• The potential for a Lowest Common Denominator

• The complexity of the array of products required to replace our systems

Delivery Models Examined

• In-house Library/In-house Datacentre

• Hosted External ASP

• Fully Managed Service

• SaaS

All these models work… but

• Systems are now more complex, architected for cloud deployment

• Want a single locus of responsibility• If you are in Constant Beta you better have

the developer running your system• Must guard against lock-in

The Survey

• To gather details of the full range of IT infrastructure, systems and services

• Capture the status quo w.r.t. annual expenditure and FTE

• Determine degree of embeddedness

Large variety

• The 8 Institutions are using 3 vendors for their LMS

• 6 Institutions have a metasearch product from 5 separate vendors

• All 8 have a link resolver (4 different products)

• 4 have ERM’s (all different)

Large variety

• 5 D2D Products from 3 vendors• 8 IR’s utilising 3 different products

Annual paymentsProduct n Annual payment

LMS 7

MetaSearch 5

Link Resolver 7

ERM 3

D2D Tool 4

Institutional Repository 8

TOTAL Eur

532,423

Personnel

Systems in use ApplicationSupport in FTE

Hardware Support in FTE Total FTE

LMS 8 9.05 4.06 13.11

MetaSearch 8 4.5 2.2 6.7

Resolver 8 4.85 1 5.85

ERM 4 1.42 0.7 2.12

D2D 5 2.5 0.65 3.15

IR 8 7 2.6 9.6

TOTAL 29.32 11.21 40.53

Binding to local infrastructure

• Nothing irreplaceable is contingent on the technological status-quo.

• The deepest integration is between products of the same vendor

• That said, significant effort will be needed to re-embed any new system.

Domains examined

• ERM• Discovery to Delivery tools• Local Library Management

Wins identified

• We can reduce the amount of infrastructure and consequent costs through shared operations and service aggregation around hardware and maintenance

• We can reduce overlaps and redundancies• A shared ERM for the consortium is feasible

Implementation recommendations

• We recommended a staged evolution• Libraries are in different stages of the

implementation cycle• We enumerated a series of bridgeheads, for

implementation of the three domains – For risk reduction– For implementation feasibility

Requirements document

• An evolving document and still open• Exclusively concerned with requirements over

the three domains.• No procedure as yet• Minimise TCO• Facilitate internal and inter-institutional

reengineering

Requirements document

• Deliver the benefits of increased cooperation and scale

• Better exploitation of our combined stock• Provide increased insight from internal and

combined management information• Boost International Competitiveness

Requirements document A system fit for purpose

• International competitiveness• Globalised education industry• Graduates for Ireland• An international revenue stream

International Competitiveness

Requirements document

• Shared Electronic Resource management• Resource discovery• Cataloguing• Resource Sharing, ILL and Document Delivery• Acquisitions• Interoperability• Circulation

Requirements document

• Digital Asset Management• Use Cases and vignettes

How will it be hosted?

• Cloud versus Dedicated Server?• SaaS versus ASP?