Strategic Cooperation in

Library Automation

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

Future library services and Technologies

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

Bibliographic

Database

Library System

Branch 1

Branch 2

Branch 3

Branch 4

Branch 5

Branch 6

Branch 7

Branch 8

Holdings

Main Facility

Search:

Integrated Library System

Patrons use

Circulation features

to request items

from other branches

Floating Collections

may reduce

workload for

Inter-branch

transfers

Model:

Multi-branch

Independent

Library

System

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)

Bibliographic

Database

Library System A

Branch 1

Branch 2

Branch 3

Branch 4

Branch 5

Branch 6

Branch 7

Branch 8

HoldingsMain Facility

Bibliographic

Database

Library System B

Branch 1

Branch 2

Branch 3

Branch 4

Branch 5

Branch 6

Branch 7

Branch 8

HoldingsMain Facility

Bibliographic

Database

Library System C

Branch 1

Branch 2

Branch 3

Branch 4

Branch 5

Branch 6

Branch 7

Branch 8

HoldingsMain Facility

Bibliographic

Database

Library System D

Branch 1

Branch 2

Branch 3

Branch 4

Branch 5

Branch 6

Branch 7

Branch 8

HoldingsMain Facility

Bibliographic

Database

Library System F

Branch 1

Branch 2

Branch 3

Branch 4

Branch 5

Branch 6

Branch 7

Branch 8

HoldingsMain Facility

Bibliographic

Database

Library System E

Branch 1

Branch 2

Branch 3

Branch 4

Branch 5

Branch 6

Branch 7

Branch 8

HoldingsMain Facility

Resource Sharing Application

Bibliographic

Database

Discovery and Request Management Routines

Staff Fulfillment Tools

Inter-System Communications

NCIP SIPISO

ILLZ39.50

NCIP

NCIP

NCIP NCIP

NCIP

NCIP

Search:

Consortial Resource Sharing System

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

Bibliographic

Database

Shared Consortia System

Library 2

Library 3

Library 4

Library 5

Library 7

Library 8

Library 9

Library 10

Holdings

Library 1 Library 6

Shared Consortial ILS

Search:

Model:

Multiple

independent

libraries in a

Consortium

Share an ILS

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

Knowledgebase architecture

Some may take hybrid approach to accommodate local data stores

Delivered through software as a service

Multi-tenant

Unified workflows across formats and media

Flexible metadata management

MARC – Dublin Core – VRA – MODS – ONIX

Bibframe

New structures not yet invented

Open APIs for extensibility and interoperability

Integrated (for print) Library System

Circulation

BIB

Staff Interfaces:

Holding

/ Items

Circ

TransactUser Vendor Policies

$$$

Funds

Cataloging Acquisitions Serials Online

Catalog

Public Interfaces:

Interfaces

Business

Logic

Data

Stores

LMS / ERM: Fragmented Model

Circulation

BIB

Staff Interfaces:

Holding

/ Items

Circ

TransactUser Vendor Policies

$$$

Funds

CatalogingAcquisitions Serials Online

Catalog

Public Interfaces:

Application Programming Interfaces

`

License

Management

License

Terms

E-resource

Procurement

VendorsE-Journal

Titles

Protocols: CORE

Common approach for ERM

Circulation

BIB

Staff Interfaces:

Holding

/ Items

Circ

TransactUser Vendor Policies

$$$

Funds

CatalogingAcquisitions Serials Online

Catalog

Public Interfaces:

Application Programming Interfaces

Budget License Terms

Titles / Holdings

Vendors

Access Details

Conso

lida

ted ind

ex

Search

Engine

Unified Presentation LayerSearch:

Digital

Coll

ProQuest

EBSCO

…

JSTOR

Other

Resources

New Library Management Model

`

API Layer

Library Services

Platform

Learning

Management

Enterprise

Resource

Planning

Stock

Management

Self-Check /

Automated

Return

Authentication

Service

Smart Cad /

Payment

systems

Library Services Platforms

Category WorldShare

Management

Services

Alma Intota Sierra

Services

Platform

Kuali OLE

Responsible

Organization

OCLC. Ex Libris Serials

Solutions

Innovative

Interfaces, Inc

Kuali Foundation

Key precepts Global

network-level

approach to

management

and discovery.

Consolidate

workflows,

unified

management:

print,

electronic,

digital;

Hybrid data

model

Knowledgeba

se driven.

Pure multi-

tenant SaaS

Service-oriented

architecture

Technology

uplift for

Millennium ILS.

More open

source

components,

consolidated

modules and

workflows

Manage library

resources in a format

agnostic approach.

Integration into the

broader academic

enterprise

infrastructure

Software model Proprietary Proprietary Proprietary Proprietary Open Source

Library Services Platforms

Category WorldShare

Management

Services

Alma Intota Sierra

Services

Platform

Kuali OLE

Responsible

Organization

OCLC. Ex Libris Serials

Solutions

Innovative

Interfaces, Inc

Kuali Foundation

Key precepts Global

network-level

approach to

management

and discovery.

Consolidate

workflows,

unified

management:

print,

electronic,

digital;

Hybrid data

model

Knowledgeba

se driven.

Pure multi-

tenant SaaS

Service-oriented

architecture

Technology

uplift for

Millennium ILS.

More open

source

components,

consolidated

modules and

workflows

Manage library

resources in a format

agnostic approach.

Integration into the

broader academic

enterprise

infrastructure

Software model Proprietary Proprietary Proprietary Proprietary Open Source

Real-world Examples of Shared

Infrastructure

Iceland Libraries

South AustraliaSA Public Library Network

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

18 mobile libraries

Collections managed through single Axiell SirsiDynix

Symphony LMS

http://www.ni-libraries.net/

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 2013

88 municipalities: 90 percent of Danish population

Public + 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

Shared Services:

Collection Development

Technical 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%20consortium

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 large-

scale 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