Strategic Cooperation in
Library Automation
Future library services and Technologies
Marshall Breeding
Independent Consult, Author,
Founder and Publisher, Library Technology Guides
http://www.librarytechnology.org/
http://twitter.com/mbreeding
21 February 2014
Library Association of Republic of China
Library Technology Guides
Progressive consolidation of library
services


Centralization of technical infrastructure of multiple
libraries within a campus
Resource sharing support
 Direct

borrowing among partner institutions
Shared infrastructure between institutions
 Examples:
2CUL (Columbia University / Cornell
University)
 Orbis Cascade Alliance (37 independent colleges and
universities to merge into shared LSP)
Traditional model of Automation

Single Library System
 Includes


branches or divisional facilities
Automation strategies often set when capabilities of
automation systems were limited
Institutional solo of collection management
Integrated Library System
Search:
Holdings
Model:
Multi-branch
Independent
Library
System
Main Facility
Bibliographic
Database
Branch 1
Branch 5
Branch 2
Branch 6
Branch 3
Branch 7
Branch 4
Branch 8
Library System
Patrons use
Circulation features
to request items
from other branches
Floating Collections
may reduce
workload for
Inter-branch
transfers
Library Consortia


Groups of libraries want to work together to share
an automation system
Number of participants limited by the perceived
capacities of the automation system
Consortial Borrowing Systems


Each library system operates its own automation
environment
Relies on manual and automated processes to allow
patrons to discovery and request materials among
participants
 INN-Reach
(Innovative Interfaces)
 ShareIT (Auto-Graphics)
 Relais ILL
 URSA (SirsiDynix, now defunct)
Consortial Resource Sharing System
Search:
Bibliographic
Database
Holdings
Holdings
Main Facility
Main Facility
Branch 1
Branch 5
Branch 2
Branch 6
Branch 3
Branch 7
Branch 4
Branch 8
NCIP
NCIP
Discovery and Request Management Routines
Library System A
Bibliographic
Database
Branch 1
Branch 5
Branch 2
Branch 6
Branch 3
Branch 7
Branch 4
Branch 8
Library System D
Bibliographic
Database
Bibliographic
Database
Holdings
Holdings
Main Facility
Main Facility
Branch 1
Branch 5
Branch 2
Branch 6
Branch 3
Branch 7
Branch 4
Branch 8
NCIP
ISO
Z39.50
NCIP SIP
ILL
Inter-System Communications
Library System B
NCIP
Bibliographic
Database
Branch 1
Branch 5
Branch 2
Branch 6
Branch 3
Branch 7
Branch 4
Branch 8
Library System E
Staff Fulfillment Tools
Bibliographic
Database
Holdings
Holdings
Main Facility
Main Facility
Branch 1
Branch 5
Branch 2
Branch 6
Branch 3
Branch 4
Resource Sharing Application
Branch 1
Branch 5
Branch 2
Branch 6
Branch 7
Branch 3
Branch 7
Branch 8
Branch 4
Branch 8
Library System C
NCIP
NCIP
Bibliographic
Database
Library System F
Shared Infrastructure

Common discovery
 Retention
of local automation systems
 Technical complex with moderate operational benefits


Common discovery + Resource Management
Systems
Shared Resource management with local discovery
options
Shared Consortial ILS
Search:
Holdings
Model:
Multiple
independent
libraries in a
Consortium
Share an ILS
Bibliographic
Database
Library 1
Library 6
Library 2
Library 7
Library 3
Library 8
Library 4
Library 9
Library 5
Library 10
Shared Consortia System
ILS configured
To support
Direct consortial
Borrowing through
Circulation Module
Stand-alone Automation:
Advantages
Locally responsive



Accountable only to the local institution
Automation policies set according to the needs of
the local institution.
Compromises not necessary to accommodate
external institutions
Policies set according to local
preferences and strategies




Circulation loan rules
Local cataloging practices
Indexing (MARC fields, including local)
Online Catalog display policies
Self-reliant for support and training



Local systems staff plays a dominant role
System administration (local or hosted)
Management of data loads
Well defined integration and
interoperability



Patron records from student management system
Business transactions to or from ERP (Enterprise
resource planning, such as PeopleSoft)
One-to-one data exchange
Direct funding model


Easily understood by funding authorities (university,
government agency, etc)
Decision processes take place within the institution
 Procurement
decisions
 Operational policy decisions
 Collection management
Operational decisions




Processes defined within the institution
Library committees
Administrative mandates
Streamlined Decision making process
Collection Management

Ability (requirement) to collect materials that
directly correspond to the curriculum and research
agenda of the institution
Stand-alone Automation:
Disadvantages
Costs




The library or its parent institution bears the full cost
of the automation system
Software Licenses
Server and other hardware
Inefficacy: unused capacity
Resource Allocation

Technical personnel dedicated to system
administration
 Server
security, software updates, policy table
maintenance


Unit managers and other key personnel involved in
committees related to ILS policies and operation
Time subtracted from higher-value activities
Collections



Self-reliant collections large unachievable
Limited universe of content offered to library users
Inefficient mechanisms for resource sharing
Strategic Priorities



Resources allocated to automation system need to
be proportional to new priorities and strategies
How much attention to spend on managing print
collections of decreasing priority
Technical personnel may need to be directed
toward:
 Digital
collection management and preservation
 Research data involvement
 Web site user experience enhancement
Shared Infrastructure
Governance


All stakeholders represented
Decision making processes that achieve the strategic
goals of partnership within the tolerance of each
member
Administrative mandates
 Some
movements to shared systems have not been
voluntary
 Higher-level authorities assert requirement to share
resources and save costs
 Even these forced partnerships can produce benefits
 Sometimes the only way to overcome local politics and
inwardly facing decision making processes
Technical deployment options

Larger scale local deployment managed by lead
institution
 National
or state library
 Large academic library

Agency managed
 Consortial

office
Participation in cloud-based service (multi-tenant
software as a service)
 Vendor
hosted
Strategic cooperation



Members of the partnership have commitment to
strategic cooperation
Balance of priorities
Compromise local preferences for higher-level
advantages
Collection management


Cooperative Collection Development
Stronger technical support for collection decisions
 Immediate
awareness of holdings of partner institutions
 Use statistics and metrics to assess need and impact
 Many new-generation systems have built-in collection
analytics tools


Increased ability to fulfill requests among institutions
Informal collection development partnerships often
lack technical and organizational support
Advantages for Patrons



Larger universe of materials available
Simple mechanism for placing requests for materials
Expedited delivery of physical materials
Aligned with legacy system
replacement





Many libraries operating legacy systems oriented to
print collections
Lack electronic resource management despite
fundamental shift in collection proportions
Selection of a library services platform will require
fundamental reconsideration of resource
management workflows
Opportunity to also shift from local to shared
resource management model
Lateral shift vs transformative change
Centralization or Distributed
Operations


Centralized infrastructure does not require
centralized services
Opportunities for partial or complete centralization
of specific activities
 Technical

services: Acquisitions, cataloging, etc.
Leverage specialists across multiple institutions
Remote Storage Facilities




Many libraries must convert selected collections
areas to user-oriented spaces
Cost of off-site storage facilities disproportionate
for single institutions
Shared physical facilities
Shared infrastructure enables more efficient
management and shared access to off-site materials
Challenges of Shared Systems
Compromises


Must moderate local preferences
Distinguish high-value local policies from
preferences
 Traditional
loan rule periods
 Meaningful requirements for local stakeholders

Need to rely on partner institutions for agreed upon
subject specializations
System suitability

The platform implemented must be able to
accommodate the needs of all member libraries
 Type,


size and complexity
Select a system that has the ability to meet the
needs of the largest and most complex members
without overwhelming small institutions
Systems with simplified functionality may not be
suitable for large academic and municipal libraries
Objective and Measurable Benefits





Must deliver on promised objectives
Increased patron satisfaction
Fulfillment of strategic priorities
Decreased costs
Failure to meet goals can result in exit of members
Operational Complications


Decisions made among multiple institutions
Accommodate applicable policies or business rules
among multiple campuses or agencies
Legal and Policy Complications

Data policies:
 Mandates
for institutional data to be housed locally, in
state, or in country

Contract issues: requirements for local legal
verbiage
Funding models





Prevailing business policies factor into participation
options
Funding as an external service rather than direct
costs of local system
Easier to justify if savings are documented
Contract issues
Allocation of public funds may be restricted
Technical Complications

Many-to-one data exchange relationships
 Patron
records from multiple campus systems
 Financial records with multiple financial systems


Cross-institutional authentication
Record loading for multiple institutions
Complex Collection management


Ability to negotiate content procurement for
multiple institutions (lower per institution pricing?)
Manage shared and local licensed materials
Accommodation of local Concerns




Options to preserve branding of local institution
Some degree of local policy support
Adequate representation of local stakeholders in
collective decision-making processes
Flexibility in operational and technical issues
Library Service Platforms
Academic Libraries need a new model
of library management




Not an Integrated Library System or Library
Management System
The ILS/LMS was designed to help libraries manage
print collections
Generally did not evolve to manage electronic
collections
Other library automation products evolved:
 Electronic
Resource Management Systems – OpenURL
Link Resolvers – Digital Library Management Systems -Institutional Repositories
Comprehensive Resource Management





No longer sensible to use different software platforms
for managing different types of library materials
ILS + ERM + OpenURL Resolver + Digital Asset
management, etc. very inefficient model
Flexible platform capable of managing multiple type
of library materials, multiple metadata formats, with
appropriate workflows
Support for management of metadata in bulk
Continuous lifecycle chain initiated before publication
Library Services Platform


Library-specific software. Designed to help libraries
automate their internal operations, manage collections,
fulfillment requests, and deliver services
Services




Service oriented architecture
Exposes Web services and other API’s
Facilitates the services libraries offer to their users
Platform



General infrastructure for library automation
Consistent with the concept of Platform as a Service
Library programmers address the APIs of the platform to extend
functionality, create connections with other systems, dynamically
interact with data
Library Services Platform
Characteristics

Highly Shared data models



Delivered through software as a service



Multi-tenant
Unified workflows across formats and media
Flexible metadata management




Knowledgebase architecture
Some may take hybrid approach to accommodate local data
stores
MARC – Dublin Core – VRA – MODS – ONIX
Bibframe
New structures not yet invented
Open APIs for extensibility and interoperability
Integrated (for print) Library System
Public Interfaces:
Staff Interfaces:
Interfaces
Business
Logic
Data
Stores
Circulation
BIB
Cataloging
Holding
/ Items
Circ
Transact
Acquisitions
User
Serials
Vendor
Online
Catalog
$$$
Funds
Policies
LMS / ERM: Fragmented Model
Staff Interfaces:
Public Interfaces:
Application Programming Interfaces
CirculationCatalogingAcquisitions Serials
BIB
Online
Catalog
Protocols: CORE
`
Holding Circ
$$$
User Vendor
Policies
/ ItemsTransact
Funds
E-resource
License
Procurement Management
E-Journal
Titles
Vendors
License
Terms
Common approach for ERM
Staff Interfaces:
Public Interfaces:
Budget
License Terms
Application Programming Interfaces
CirculationCatalogingAcquisitions Serials
Online
Catalog
Titles / Holdings
Vendors
BIB
Holding Circ
$$$
User Vendor
Policies
/ ItemsTransact
Funds
Access Details
New Library Management Model
Unified Presentation Layer
Search:
Library Services
Platform
Digital
Coll
Search
Engine
API Layer
`
Consolidated index
Self-Check /
Automated
Return
ProQuest
EBSCO
…
JSTOR
Stock
Management
Other
Resources
Enterprise
Resource
Planning
Learning
Management
Smart Cad /
Payment
systems
Authentication
Service
Library Services Platforms
Category
WorldShare
Alma
Management
Services
OCLC.
Ex Libris
Intota
Key precepts
Global
network-level
approach to
management
and discovery.
Consolidate
workflows,
unified
management:
print,
electronic,
digital;
Hybrid data
model
Knowledgeba
se driven.
Pure multitenant SaaS
Software model
Proprietary
Proprietary
Proprietary
Responsible
Organization
Serials
Solutions
Sierra
Services
Platform
Innovative
Interfaces, Inc
Kuali OLE
Service-oriented
architecture
Technology
uplift for
Millennium ILS.
More open
source
components,
consolidated
modules and
workflows
Proprietary
Manage library
resources in a format
agnostic approach.
Integration into the
broader academic
enterprise
infrastructure
Kuali Foundation
Open Source
Library Services Platforms
Category
WorldShare
Alma
Management
Services
OCLC.
Ex Libris
Intota
Key precepts
Global
network-level
approach to
management
and discovery.
Consolidate
workflows,
unified
management:
print,
electronic,
digital;
Hybrid data
model
Knowledgeba
se driven.
Pure multitenant SaaS
Software model
Proprietary
Proprietary
Proprietary
Responsible
Organization
Serials
Solutions
Sierra
Services
Platform
Innovative
Interfaces, Inc
Kuali OLE
Service-oriented
architecture
Technology
uplift for
Millennium ILS.
More open
source
components,
consolidated
modules and
workflows
Proprietary
Manage library
resources in a format
agnostic approach.
Integration into the
broader academic
enterprise
infrastructure
Kuali Foundation
Open Source
Real-world Examples of Shared
Infrastructure
Iceland Libraries
South Australia
SA Public Library Networ
140 Public Libraries
Chile
Georgia PINES





275 Libraries
140 Counties
9.6 million books
Single Library Card
43% of population in
Georgia
Northern Ireland




Recently consolidated from 4 regional networks into
one
96 branch libraries
http://www.ni-libraries.net/
18 mobile libraries
Collections managed through single Axiell SirsiDynix
Symphony LMS
Illinois Heartland Library Consortium

Largest
Consortium
in US by
Number of
Members
Projects in progress
Denmark
Denmark Shared LMS

Common Tender for joint library system
 February

88 municipalities: 90 percent of Danish population
 Public


2013
+ School libraries
Process managed by Kombit: non-profit
organization owned by Danish Local Authorities
Contract awarded to Dantek A/S
Orbis Cascade Alliance







37 Academic Libraries
Combined enrollment of 258,000
9 million titles
1997: implemented dual INN-Reach systems
Orbis and Cascade consortia merged in 2003
Moved from INN-Reach to OCLC Navigator / VDX
in 2008
Current strategy to move to shared LMS based on
Ex Libris Alma
2CUL
Collection Development
Shared ServicesTechnical
:
Services
Shared Infrastructure?:
Netherlands: National + major
Academics

UBC Consortium

http://www.librarytechnology.org/ltg-displaytext.pl?RC=18941

http://www.librarytechnology.org/libraries.pl?Consortium=UKB%20consort
ium
Norway: BIBSYS

Provides automation services for:
 National
Library of Norway
 105 Academic and Special Libraries




History of local system development
Originally selected WorldShare Platform for new
generation system development (Nov 2010) and
later withdrew (Oct 2012)
Primo implemented for Discovery (May 2013)
Alma selected for new shared infrastructure (Jan
2014)
Recent announcements

LIBROS: Academic libraries in New Mexico
 OCLC

WorldShare
Ireland: National Tender for Public Libraries
 Tender

Underway
PALNI: Private Academic Libraries in Ohio:
 OCLC
WorldShare
Wales: possible shared system for
Academic libraries




Welsh Higher Education Libraries Shared LMS
Services
Shared LMS Study:
http://blogs.cardiff.ac.uk/sharedlms/
Tender posted Jan 24, 2014
Open Source Options
Large project based on Koha





Tend to be based on a multiplicity of virtual instances
Koha technology components may not scale to largescale multi-institutional implementations
Argentina: Most small public libraries in the country, one
virtualized machine instance each
Philippines: all public libraries (national library provides
servers loaded with software for each library)
Turkey: Ministry of culture recently reported automation
of over 1000 public libraries
Evergreen

Designed to support large consortia
 Comprised
of mostly small libraries
 Not preferred by large municipal libraries


Georgia PINES
Three major consortia in Massachusetts
Kuali OLE


Open Source project for large Academic and
research libraries
Designed for institutional deployment
 Including



very large multi-campus university systems
Support from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation
HTC contracted for software development
Significant contributions by development partners
Questions and discussion