1 / 31

The IUA Library system

The IUA Library system. Introduction. What and Why and When and How and Where and Who. Who. Who are the IUA. 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

dtrevino
Download Presentation

The IUA Library system

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. The IUA Library system

  2. Introduction • What and Why and When and How and Where and Who

  3. Who • Who are the IUA

  4. 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)

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

  6. What • Two deliverables • The Initial Report • Requirements document

  7. Terms of reference To identify possible shared delivery of functions currently delivered by Library Management Systems and Electronic Resource Management Systems To 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 servicesTo advise on the feasibility of a single shared system for Irish university librariesTo report to the IUA Librarians Group by 18 May 2011

  8. The Report • Taken together these are mission critical systems for the country. • We think that together they exhibit synergy • But, primum non nocere

  9. 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

  10. Delivery Models Examined • In-house Library/In-house Datacentre • Hosted External ASP • Fully Managed Service • SaaS

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. 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)

  14. Large variety • 5 D2D Products from 3 vendors • 8 IR’s utilising 3 different products

  15. Annual payments

  16. Personnel

  17. 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.

  18. Domains examined • ERM • Discovery to Delivery tools • Local Library Management

  19. 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

  20. 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

  21. 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

  22. 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

  23. Requirements document A system fit for purpose • International competitiveness • Globalised education industry • Graduates for Ireland • An international revenue stream

  24. International Competitiveness

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

  26. Requirements document • Digital Asset Management • Use Cases and vignettes

  27. How will it be hosted? • Cloud versus Dedicated Server? • SaaS versus ASP?

More Related