Trends in Library Automation: Meeting the challenges of a new generation of library users

1. Trends in Library Automation:Meeting the challenges of a new generation of library users Marshall BreedingDirector for Innovative Technologies and Research Vanderbilt University http://staffweb.library.vanderbilt.edu/breeding http://www.librarytechnology.org/ November 29, 2006 OCLC Office of Research Distinguished Seminar Series

2. Abstract Till now, the library automation business and technology trends have evolved at a leisurely pace. Today libraries face incredible challenges as non-library entities encroach into traditional library territory. Library users are more Web savvy than ever and have high expectations for information providers. We are in a time of urgent need to make rapid advances in library automation.

3. Working toward a New Phase of Innovation Business trends Technology and Product trends

4. Business Trends A look at the companies involved in library automation and related technologies

5. Business Landscape • Becoming less fragmented as companies consolidate • Still, a large number of companies compete in a very limited economy with undifferentiated and overlapping products • Many companies expend energies producing decreasingly differentiated systems. • Level of innovation falls below expectations • Companies struggle to keep up with ILS enhancements and R&D for new innovations. • Pressure to reduce costs, increase revenue

6. Library Automation M&A History

7. Library automation consolidation • More libraries banding together to share automation environment • Reduce overhead for maintaining systems that have decreasing strategic importance • Need to focus technical talent on activities that have more of an impact on the mission of the library • Pooled resources for technical processing • Single library ILS implementations becoming less defensible

8. Who owns the Industry? • Some of the most important decisions that affect the options available to libraries are made in the corporate board room. • Increased control by financial interests of private equity and venture capital firms

9. Business Cycle • Founder start-up • Venture capital support -> board level representation • Private equity ownership -> strategic control • IPO == mature company

10. Investor owned companies • SirsiDynix -> Seaport Capital + Hicks Muse • Ex Libris -> Francisco Partners (recently bought out VC’s) • Endeavor -> Francisco Partners (recently bought out Elsevier) • Infor (was Extensity, was Geac) -> Golden Gate • Polaris -> Croydon Company • formerly part of Gaylord Bros (acquired by Demco)

11. Founder / Family owned companies • VTLS – tech spin-off from Virginia Tech, wholly owned by Vinod Chachra • Innovative Interfaces • 100% ownership by Jerry Kline following 2001 buy-out of partner Steve Silberstien • The Library Corporation • Owned by Annette Murphy family

12. Public companies: • Auto-Graphics • De-listed from SEC reporting requirements • Was OTC:AUGR now Pink Sheets:AUGR • OpenText • Spin-off form Battelle • Information Dimensions • Acquired by OCLC, run as for-profit business unit • Sold to Gores Technology Group • Acquired by OpenText • Move involved in enterprise information management than ILS

13. Diverse Business Activities • Many ways to expand business in ways that leverage library automation expertise: • Non-ILS software • Retrospective conversion services • RFID or AMH • Network Consulting Services • Content products • Imaging services

14. Libraries Demand choice. • Consolidation working toward monopoly? • Many companies currently prosper in the library automation industry • Room for niche players • Domination by a large monopoly unlikely to be accepted by library community • Monopoly would be subverted by Open Source or other cooperative movement

15. Partnership strategies • ILS companies partner with other companies for technologies. • Development resource are not abundant, even in the companies with massive capital support • No library automation company can take on all aspects of development • Tough decisions on what to build vs buy

16. Partnerships • Increasing number of partnerships with specialist companies: • Serials Solutions • TDNet • MuseGlobal • WebFeat • Openly Informatics • Medialab Solutions

17. Partnerships • What is different now is that ILS companies have outsourced strategic products to outside firms • Endeavor: Dropped ENCompass and LinkFinderPlus for TDNet • SirsiDynix: Dropped local development of ERM and other partnerships for linking and federated search for partnership with Serials Solution • SirsiDynix: outsourced relationship with StarSoft Development Labs in Russia for development of Horizon 8.0 • Outsourcing strategic development raises concern for long-term prospects of the companies. Short-term advantage.

18. Companies more self-reliant • Innovative • Ex Libris

19. Move from Commercial ILS to Open Source • Beginning to emerge as a practical option • Koha, supported by LibLime • Evergreen, developed for Georgia PINES • Still a risky strategy for libraries

20. OCLC in the ILS arena? • Library community taking notice • Library-owned cooperative on a buying binge of automation companies: • Openly Informatics • Fretwell-Downing Informatics • Sisis Informationssysteme • PICA • DiMeMa (CONTENTdm) • Acquired a broad range of technology components • ILS companies concerned about competing with a non-profit with enormous resources and the ability to shift costs.

21. Key Business Perspective • Given the relative parity of library automation systems, choosing the right automation partner is more important than splitting hairs over functionality. • Understanding of library issues • Vision and forward-looking development • It’s important to choose a company that will survive

22. Product and Technology Trends

23. Current state of the Integrated Library System • The core ILS focused mostly on print resources and traditional library workflow processes. • Add-ons available for dealing with electronic content: • Link resolvers • Metasearch environments • Electronic Resource Management • A loosely integrated environment • Labor-intensive implementation and maintenance • Most are “must have” products for academic libraries with significant collections of e-content

24. Library OPAC • Evolved from card catalogs and continues to be bound by the constraints of that legacy. • Complex and rich in features • Interfaces often do not compare favorably with alternatives available on the Web • Print materials becoming a smaller component of the library’s overall collections.

25. State of the Library OPAC?

26. The ILS is not dead • Rumors of its demise are greatly exaggerated • A well-functioning automation system is essential to the operation of the library • Libraries have never needed automationmore than today

27. Comprehensive Automation • The goal of the Integrated Library Systems involves the automation of all aspects of the library’s internal operations and to provide key services to library users.

28. Traditional Library Search Model • Provide a full featured OPAC • Give the user a screen full of search options • Assume that researchers will begin with library resources • Reliance on Bibliographic Instruction

29. Troubling statistic Where do you typically begin your search for information on a particular topic? College Students Response: • 89% Search engines (Google 62%) • 2% Library Web Site (total respondents -> 1%) • 2% Online Database • 1% E-mail • 1% Online News • 1% Online bookstores • 0% Instant Messaging / Online Chat OCLC. Perceptions of Libraries and Information Resources (2005) p. 1-17.

30. New Library Search Model • Don’t count on users beginning their research with library catalogs or Web site • Consider the library’s Web site as a destination • Make it a compelling and attractive destination that uses will want to explore more. • Web users have a low tolerance for ineffective and clunky interfaces

31. Library Discovery Model A Web Library Web Site / Catalog Library as search Destination

32. Library Discovery Model B • Do not give up on library search technologies! • Libraries must also build their own discovery, search, and access services • Effective, elegant, powerful • Once users discover your library, give them outstanding services: • Catalog search, federated search, context-sensitive linking, etc.

33. Library Discovery Model C • Expose library content and services through non-library interfaces • Campus portals, courseware systems, e-learning environments • County and municipal portals and e-government • Other external content aggregators: RSS, etc • Web services is the essential enabling technology for the delivery of library content and services to external applications. • Library community lags years behind other IT industries in adoption of SOA and Web services.

34. Working toward next generation library interfaces • Redefinition of the library catalog • More comprehensive information discovery environments • Better information delivery tools • More powerful search capabilities • More elegant presentation

35. Comprehensive Search Service • More like OAI • Wide-ranging set of local and remote information sources • Local print component will decrease over time • Problems of scale diminished • Problems of cooperation persist

36. Web 2.0 a good start • A more social and collaborative approach • Web Tools and technology that foster collaboration • Blogs, wiki, blogs, tagging, social bookmarking, user rating, user reviews • Web 2.0 technologies at the “Peak of Inflated Expectations “ phase of the hype cycle.

37. Web 2.0 supporting technologies • Web services • XML APIs • AJAX (asynchronous JavaScript and XML) • Microformats • OpenSearch vs SRU/SRW

38. Replacement Search Interfaces: • Endeca Guided Search • AquaBrowser Library Are library users satisfied with native ILS interfaces?

39. Replacement OPACs • Endeca Guided Navigation • AquaBrowser Library • Common thread: • Decoupled interface • Mass export of catalog data • Alternative search engine • Alternative interface

40. Expanded discovery and delivery tools • Ex Libris Primo (in development) • Encore from Innovative Interfaces (in development) • Common threads: • Decoupled interface • Comprehensive indexes that span multiple and diverse information resources • Alternative interface

41. Library-developed solutions • eXtensible Catalog • University of Rochester – River Campus Libraries • Financial support from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation • http://www.extensiblecatalog.info/

42. Redefinition of library catalogs and interfaces • Traditional notions of the library catalog are being questioned • It’s no longer enough to provide a catalog limited to print resources • Digital resources cannot be an afterthought • Forcing users to use different interfaces depending on type of content becoming less tenable • Libraries working toward consolidated search environments that give equal footing to digital and print resources

43. Interface expectations • Millennial gen library users are well acclimated to the Web and like it. • Used to relevancy ranking • The “good stuff” should be listed first • Users tend not to delve deep into a result list • Good relevancy requires a sophisticated approach, including objective matching criteria supplemented by popularity and relatedness factors.

44. Interface expectations (cont…) • Very rapid response. Users have a low tolerance for slow systems • Rich visual information: book jacket images, rating scores, etc. • Let users drill down through the result set incrementally narrowing the field • Faceted Browsing • Drill-down vs up-front Boolean or “Advanced Search” • gives the users clues about the number of hits in each sub topic. • Navigational Bread crumbs • Ratings and rankings

45. Appropriate organizational structures • LCSH vs FAST • FRBR • Full MARC vs Dublin Core or MODS • Discipline-specific thesauri or ontologies • “tags”

46. Global vs Local • How do library collections relate to the global realm • Will mass digitization replace local library collections? • The global arena excels at discovery • The local arena focuses on content delivery • All the global content discovery tools point to locally managed content.

47. Connecting Local Content with Global Discovery • Inbound / Outbound • Move or expose metadata as needed • Provide mechanisms to link or deliver resources to users • OAI-PMH • SRU/SRW • Z39.50 • Microformats • XML SiteMap Protocol • Web Services • UDDI, WDSL, SOAP, • OpenUR and other deep-linking protocols

48. Multi-layered information discovery • Global : Google • Institutional / Regional : Primo • Granular: Individual catalogs and repositories • Broad -> Precise • Offer both the ability to “find a few good things” and to “find exactly the right things (and all of them)” • Appropriate avenues for both the undergraduate learner and the serious scholar.

49. Content beyond the Catalog • Local Digital Collections • Library as Publisher • No longer just the role of a University Press • Many e-journals published by libraries • ETDs • Institutional Repositories • Non-MARC metadata: Dublin Core, MODS, METS, MPEG21 • Transportable Metadata: OAI-PMH

50. Problems with current slate of automation components • Very loosely coupled • Diverse interfaces • Not seamless to library users • Multiple points of management for library staff • Long and complex cycles of implementation and integration