1 / 73

Library Automation Landscape:

Library Automation Landscape:. Status Quo or Transformation?. Marshall Breeding Director for Innovative Technologies and Research Vanderbilt University http://staffweb.library.vanderbilt.edu/breeding http://www.librarytechnology.org/. October 19, 2007. Business Trends.

casta
Download Presentation

Library Automation Landscape:

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Library Automation Landscape: Status Quo or Transformation? Marshall BreedingDirector for Innovative Technologies and Research Vanderbilt University http://staffweb.library.vanderbilt.edu/breeding http://www.librarytechnology.org/ October 19, 2007

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

  3. Business Landscape • Library Journal Automated System Marketplace: • An Industry redefined (April 1, 2007) • An increasingly consolidated industry • VC and Private Equity playing a stronger role then ever before • Moving out of a previous phase of fragmentation where many companies expend energies producing decreasingly differentiated systems in a limited marketplace • Narrowing of product options • Open Source opportunities rise to challenge stranglehold of traditional commercial model

  4. Other Business Factors • Level of innovation falls below expectations • 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

  5. Library Automation M&A History

  6. Why worry about 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 • Recent industry events driven by external corporate decisions; • Market success and technological advantages don’t necessarily drive business decisions

  7. Investor owned companies • SirsiDynix -> Vista Equity Partners (Recently bought out Seaport Capital + Hicks Muse/HM Capital) • 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)

  8. Public companies: • Auto-Graphics • De-listed from SEC reporting requirements • Was OTC:AUGR now Pink Sheets:AUGR

  9. Founder / Family owned companies • Innovative Interfaces • 100% ownership by Jerry Kline following 2001 buy-out of partner Steve Silberstien • The Library Corporation • Owned by Annette Murphy family • VTLS – tech spin-off from Virginia Tech, wholly owned by Vinod Chachra • These companies not under the control of external financial interests

  10. Impact of Ownership • Long term vs short tem interests • Decision makers in tune with the needs of the customer base? • Ability to understand libraries as business customers • Serving non-profit organizations quite different • It’s possible to operate a profitable company and stay true to the interest of library as customer

  11. Revenue sources • New ILS sales • Maintenance support • 15% purchase cost annually with inflation adjustments • Non-ILS software • Library Services

  12. Diverse Business Activities • Many ways to expand business in ways that leverage library automation expertise: • Non-ILS software: link resolvers, federated search, ERM, portal/alternative Web interfaces • Retrospective conversion services • RFID or AMH • Network Consulting Services • Content products • Imaging services

  13. Business Development Strategy • Essential to understand the strategic business plans of the company • Long term growth? • Short term profits? • Growth through M&A • Organic growth by attracting new customer libraries • Positioning for sale? • Get past press releases and spin and look closely at the corporate behavior.

  14. Libraries Demand choice • Current market narrowing options • 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. The Chopping Block • Horizon 8.0 (Mar 2007) • Horizon 7.x (Mar 2007) • ENCompass (Jan 2006) • LinkFinderPlus (Jan 2006) • Taos (Dec 2001) • NOTIS Horizon (Jun 1994)

  16. Legacy Phase out • DRA Classic • Dynix Classic • MultiLIS • INLEX/3000 • Advance • PLUS • VTLS Classic • NOTIS • PC Systems: Winnebago Spectrum, Follett Circ Plus, Athena, Concourse

  17. Status of current ILS Products • Most ILS products from commercial vendors mature • None less than a decade old • Approaching end of life cycle? • Evolved systems • No success in launching new systems • Horizon 8.0 • Taos

  18. Current Vintage • ALEPH 500 1996 • Voyager 1995 • Millennium 1982 • Carl 1982 • Unicorn 1982 • Polaris 1997 • Virtua 1995 • Koha 1999 • Library.Solution 1997 • Evergreen 2004

  19. ILS Migration Trends • Few voluntary lateral migrations • Forced Migrations • Vendor abandonment • Need to move from legacy systems • Exit from bad marriages with vendors • Exit from bad marriages with consortia • It’s never been harder to justify investments in ILS

  20. Products surrounding the ILS • Need for products focused on electronic content and user experience • Next-gen interfaces • Federated search • Linking • Electronic Resource Management

  21. An age of less integrated systems • Core ILS supplemented by: • OpenURL Link Resolvers • Metasearch / Federated Search • Electronic Resource Management • Next Generation Library Interfaces

  22. No longer an ILS-centric industry • Portion of revenues derived from core ILS products diminishing relative to other library tech products • Many companies and organizations that don’t offer an ILS are involved in library automation: • OCLC • Cambridge / Bowker • WebFeat • Muse Global

  23. Library Automation Companies

  24. SirsiDynix • Highly consolidated company • Sirsi Corp, Dynix, DRA, MultiLIS, INLEX/300, Docutec, OCLC Local Systems, DataPhase, Electric Memory, NOTIS Systems • Largest in the industry • Owned by Vista Equity Partners • Previously supported by VC: Seaport Capital, Hicks Muse) • Consolidated company working toward consolidating and integrating products and business units. • Recent announcement for single Unicorn-based ILS

  25. Ex Libris • Global provider of software to Academic Libraries • Largest in the academic market • Owned by Francisco Partners • Acquired Endeavor in Nov 2006 • Strong focus on non-ILS products: • SFX – MetaLib – Verde – DigiTool – Primo • Continues to support and develop ALEPH and Voyager

  26. Innovative Interfaces • Privately owned by one of this founders • No involvement with VC or Private equity • No recent involvement in M&A • Acquired SLS in 1997 • Evolutionary Product strategy • Innopac -> Millennium beginning in 1995 • Millennium as core technology • Encore, RightResults, ResearchPro

  27. Follett Software Company • Consolidated company focused on K-12 school library automation • FSC, Sagebrush Corporation, Winnebago Software, Nichols Advancd Technologies, Card Catalog Company, Scribe • Privately owned; division of Follett Corporation • Destiny as flagship system for centralized automation of districts • Legacy: Winnebago Spectrum, Athena, Circ Plus, Infocentre • Accent – OEM of Unicorn offered by Sagebrush withdrawn

  28. The Library Corporation • Family owned and managed • Focused on public libraries • Acquired Carl in 2000 • Acquired Tech Logic in April 2005 • No involvement by VC or Private Equity

  29. Auto-Graphics • Founded 1950 • Evolved from traditional publishing services company to focus on library automation • Publicly owned company (Pink Sheets)

  30. Polaris • Privately owned and funded by Croyden, a small holding company • Martin Blackman • Morris Bergreen (deceased Jul 9, 2001) • Formerly part of Gaylord Bros • Gaylord Information Systems, GIS Information Systems (May 2003) > Polaris Library Systems • Focus on U.S. Public Libraries • Products based on Windows-based technologies

  31. OCLC in the ILS arena? • Increasingly overlapped with library automation activities • WorldCat Local recently announced • Penetrating deeper into local libraries • Library-owned cooperative on a buying binge of automation companies: • Openly Informatics • Fretwell-Downing Informatics • Sisis Informationssysteme • PICA (now 100%) • DiMeMa (CONTENTdm) • ILS companies concerned about competing with a non-profit with enormous resources and the ability to shift costs.

  32. Cambridge Information Group / Bowker • Serials Solutions • Syndetic Solutions • Electronic Resource Management • Federated Search • E-Journals data • AquaBrowser • Next-gen Interface

  33. Open Source ILS Arena

  34. Open Source Alternatives • Explosive interest in Open Source driven by disillusionment with current vendors • Beginning to emerge as a practical option • TOC (Total Cost of Ownership) still roughly equal to proprietary commercial model • Still a risky strategy for libraries • Commercial systems also a risk

  35. Koha: first Open Source ILS • Koha + Index Data Zebra = Koha ZOOM • ~300 (mostly small) libraries • Horowhenua Library Trust • Nelsonville Public Library • Athens County, OH • Crawford County Federated Library System • 10 Libraries in PA • Howard County, MD • Central Kansas Library System

  36. Koha

  37. Evergreen • Developed by the Georgia Public Library Service • Small development team • June 2004 – development begins • Sept 5, 2006 – live production • Streamlined environment: single shared implementation, all libraries follow the same policies, one library card

  38. Libraries using Evergreen • Georgia PINES • http://gapines.org • 260 libraries in Georgia • Does not include municipal systems: Atlanta-Fulton County, Cobb County • Province of British Columbia in Canada – Northern PINES • Experimental evaluation • King County Library System in WA state. • Under consideration by academic libraries in Canada

  39. Evergreen

  40. Learning Access ILS • Learning Access Institute • Turnkey Open Source ILS • Designed for underserved rural public libraries • http://www.learningaccess.org

  41. LearningAccess ILS

  42. SCOOLS • South Central Organization of (School) Libraries • consortium of K-12 school libraries in NY • Koha derivative • Supported by Media Flex

  43. SCOOLS

  44. LibLime • Small private company formed in early 2005 • Devoted to support of Koha and other open source software • Launched by individuals involved with the Koha implementation at the Nelsonville Public Library • Recently acquired the Koha activities of Katipo Communications (Feb 2007) • Total of 9-10 FTE

  45. Equinox Software • Small company • Devoted to facilitating libraries implement Evergreen the open source ILS developed for PINES • Launched by individuals related to the development and implementation of Evergreen at the Georgia Public Library System • Currently formed by mostly part-time employees

  46. Care Affiliates • Recently formed company to provide support for Open Source library automation products. • Carl Grant – Former COO of VTLS, President of Ex Libris (USA), Innovative Interfaces, DRA, etc.

  47. Product and Technology Trends

  48. Current state of library automation functionality • 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

  49. Problems with current slate of automation components • Development cycle behind current needs • 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

  50. Why such fragmented automation? • Maintenance alone not adequate to fund development of new products • Libraries not willing to accept higher maintenance and support payments • Business requirement to spin off new products • Can be counter to the need for more seamless, integrated, and comprehensive automation

More Related