Workshop on Library Resource Management and Discovery Marshall Breeding Independent Consultant, Author, and Founder and Publisher, Library Technology Guides September 2015 Course for Librarians in Andalusia

Description  Conclusions of your annual report on the ILS  An analysis of the position of Sierra, Encore and Innovative in that report  Difference between the ILS concept and library services platform  An analysis of trends in the field of information technology,with special emphasis on the future of Library Services Platforms and Discovery Services  An analysis of the future of the companies which offer ILS, what are the trends.

Library Technology Guides

Perceptions 2014   Annual survey for Libraries  Satisfaction levels for  Company  Current ILS  Service  Loyalty  Migration Plans  3,141 Responses  80 Countries

Perceptions Survey 2014  Sample: Large Academic Libraries

Libraries Considering Switching Systems

Satisfaction levels: Large Academic

Library Technology Industry Reports  2014: Strategic Competition and Cooperation  2015: Operationalizing Innovation  2013: Rush to Innovate  2012: Agents of Change  2011: New Frontier  2010: New Models, Core Systems  2009: Investing in the Future  2008: Opportunity out of turmoil  2007: An industry redefined  2006: Reshuffling the deck  2005: Gradual evolution  2004: Migration down, innovation up  2003: The competition heats up  2002: Capturing the migrating customer American LibrariesLibrary Journal

Library Systems Report 2015 “Operationalizing innovation”

Informe sobre sistemas bibliotecarios: Hacer operativa la innovación El profesional de la información, v. 24, n. 4, pp Translated by Tomàs Baiget

Industry Revenues  $1.8 billion global industry  $ 805 million from companies involved in the US  $495 million from US Libraries

Personnel Resources 2014

Personnel Growth / Loss

Industry and Business Trends

Mergers and Acquisitions

Consolidation  Industry dominated by a small number of large organizations  EBSCO Information Services  ProQuest  OCLC  Ex Libris  Innovative Interfaces  SirsiDynix  Axiell

Mid-sized and Small Companies  Limited geographic scope  Sector-specific products  Maintain profitable niche  Acquisition targets

Overlap between Content and Technology  Content companies ever more deeply extended into resource management and discovery technologies  Technology companies involved in content creation and integration  E-resource Knowledgebases (Journal level)  Discovery indexes (Article level)

EBSCO Information Services  Subject Indexing: EBSCO databases  Content aggregation: EBSCOhost platform  Discovery Technology: EBSCO Discovery Service  Print acquisition pipeline: YBP, GOBI3  Serials Acquisition pipeline EBSCO Subscription Services  E-books (academic)

ProQuest  Database creation and aggregation  ProQuest Platform  Print acquisition pipeline: Couts, MyiLibrary  Discovery Technology: Summon  Resource management  360 Resource Manager  360 Link  Intota (Print + electronic)

Library sector involvement  Ex Libris: Higher Education  oMbiel campusM platform  ProQuest: Colleges and University  Follett: PreK-12 schools and districts  SirsiDynix: Public, academic, special  Innovative: Public, Academic, special  OCLC: current emphasis on academic  Axiell: Public Libraries, archives, and museums

Industry Growth  Organic: capture new accounts  Technology: Shift to hosted services  Geographic: expand into new international regions

Ownership models  Private Equity  Ex Libris (Golden Gate)  Innovative (HCCG, JMI)  SirsiDynix (ICV)  Family owned  Follett  EBSCO  ProQuest (Snyder / Goldman Sachs)  Membership owned  OCLC

Innovative Interfaces  Continuity of history and product development  Sierra: New Library Services Platform + mature functionality  Encore: Discovery interface  Synergy: Federated search approach to article content  EDS Integration: upcoming index-based discovery

Sierra implementations by Type

Sierra implementations by Size

Sierra selections by Year

Sierra migration Patterns

OCLC  Non-profit corporation based in Dublin Ohio  $203.5 million revenue 2011/12 fiscal year  Owned and Governed by membership: Board of Trustees, Global and Regional Councils  Pending lawsuit between SkyRiver / Innovative vs OCLC (in limbo since April 2011)  Annual Reports available:  /2012.pdf

OCLC Product Strategy  Leverage WorldCat to power both discovery and management  Leverage values of broad-based resource sharing  Leverage concept of global library community

WorldShare Platform  Basis of new suite of management tools for libraries  WorldShare Management Services: displaces basic ILS  WorldShare License Manager: Displaces ERM  WorldShare Metadata Management:  Initial offering involves e-book sets  WorldShare Interlibrary Loan

WorldShare implementations by Size

WorldShare Management Services by Type

WorldShare development chronology Dec 19, 2014 OCLC reports that 270 libraries are live on WorldShare Management Services and a total of 340 have signed contracts. Jun 12, 2014 University of Delaware is first ARL and 200th library to go live with OCLC WorldShare Management Services. Jan 21, 2014 LIBROS consortium of 16 academic libraries in New Mexico selects WorldShare Management Services. Jan 9, 2014 Private Academic Library Network of Indiana of 23 institutions selected OCLC WorldShare Management Services as its cloud-based library management system.. Dec 31, 2013 OCLC reports 177 total installations of Sierra for the Library Systems Report. Jul 1, 2011 General release of WorldShare Management Services. Nov 18, 2010 Craven-Pamlico-Carteret Regional Library System places WorldShare Management Services into Production. Apr 22, 2009 OCLC announces new Web-scale Management Services (later branded as WorldShare Platform).

Ex Libris  Positioned to be the largest company in the industry  Formidable competition for Academic Libraries  Global marketing strength  Europe, Asia, North America  Latin American distributor  Longstanding business strategy based on research and development  170 personnel in development out of 512

Ex Libris Product Strategy  Legacy ILS remain viable and profitable  Aleph – Many national and large research library installations  Voyager – Many national and academic research Customer base seeing some erosion to competing systems  Alma developed as replacement for Aleph, Voyager and to attract new academic clients  Academic libraries running non-specialized ILS targets for Alma

Alma  Developed specifically for Academic Libraries  Replaces all other strategic infrastructure systems  ILS + Link Resolver + Digital Asset Management + ERM  Paired with Primo and Primo Central  Over 120 institutions signed so far

Community Catalog / knowledgebases  Ex Libris has invested in the content resources needed to drive technology products  SFX Global Knowledgebase: Developed and maintained by Ex Libris See: Knowledge Base and Link Resolver Study dy.pdf  A core component of Alma  Bibliographic database component: MARC records available from LC, Harvard, national libraries, Alma implementers.

Eventual product consolidation  Alma for resource management  Eventual transition of Voyager and Aleph  Immediate transition of Verde  SFX  DigiTool for digital collections  Primo / Primo Central for Discovery  Rosetta for Preservation  Possible integration into Alma?

Alma – Implementations by Type

Alma – Implementations by Size

Alma Development Chronology Jan 9, members of the Orbis Cascade Alliance complete implementation of Ex Libris Alma and Primo. Dec 19, 2014 Ex Libris reports 370 total institutions with signed contracts for Alma and 150 libraries in production. Dec 18, 2014 Welsh Consortium chooses Ex Libris Alma and Primo for shared resource management environment. Aug 3, 2014 LIBISnet Library Network in Belgium places Alma into production. Apr 29, 2014 Ex Libris launches the Ex Libris Developer Network. Jan 27, 2014 University of Minnesota places Ex Libris Alma into production. Dec 31, 2013 Ex Libris reports 329 total contracts for Alma for Library Systems Report. Dec 4, 2013 BIBSYS Consortium in Norway selects Ex Libris Alma. Oct 9, 2012 Orbis Cascade Alliance selects Ex Libris Alma and Primo. Jul 2, 2012 Boston College becomes the first library to put Alma in production. Jan 6, 2011 Ex Libris announces that its unified resource management system will be called Alma. Dec 1, 2010 Ex Libris delivers the second partner release of Alma to development partners. Jul 6, 2009 Ex Libris announces development initiative for Unified Resource Management -- later branded as Alma.

Primo / Primo Central  Very specialized discovery tool for academic libraries  Local installation or hosted  Libraries load and index local content through customizable pipes  Customized display and indexing policies

Primo Central Index  Hosted index of library content resources  Articles, book chapters, e-book collections, specialized research products  Ex Libris established strong publisher relations going back to OpenURL

Koha

 Traditional ILS developed in Open Source model  Perl / MySQL / Linux  Problems with scaleability  Apache SOLR, Plack added recently  New US contracts going mostly to small to mid-sized public and academics

Koha  Traditional ILS developed in Open Source model  Perl / MySQL / Linux  Problems with scaleability  Apache SOLR, Plack added recently  New US contracts going mostly to small to mid-sized public and academics

Koha Libraries Worldwide

Kuali OLE  Enterprise level library services platform  Financial and in-kind contributions from investing institutions  Matched by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation  Major academic libraries in the US involved as original investing partners  UK: Senate House Library + Bloomsbury Colleges now committed in principal

Kuali OLE Development Timeline Sep 11, 2014 The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation awards $333,000 to NCSU for Phase II of Global Open KnowledgeBase Aug 22, 2014 KualiCo formed as a Professional Open Source company. Aug 20, 2014 University of Chicago Library placed the Kuali OLE software into production. Aug 14, 2014 HTC Global Services, Inc has joined the Kuali OLE partnership as a Tier 1 investment partner. Aug 4, 2014 Lehigh University places Kuali OLE into production. Dec 5, 2013 Kuali OLE System Partners receive $882,000 grant from Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. Jun 25, 2013 EBSCO Information Services joins Kuali Foundation as a commercial affiliate. Dec 6, 2012 Kuali OLE project awarded $750,000 from Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. Jul 9, 2012 Patty Mescher named OLE Project Manager. May 22, 2012 Kuali OLE announces Milestone Release 0.6. Mar 15, 2012 The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation awards $499,000 to NCSU for the Global Open Knowledgebase (GOKb). Jan 24, 2011 HTC Global Services as the development partner for the Kuali OLE. Dec 10, 2009 Indiana University awarded $2.38 million grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation to develop library software. Jun 13, 2008 Mellon foundation provides $475,700 for Reconceptualizing Technology for Modern Library Workflows - OLE.

ProQuest  Focus on Academic Libraries  Summon: first Web-scale Discovery Service  Intota: Planned Library Services Platform

Intota Development Timeline Jun 24, 2014 ProQuest releases foundation version of Intota, providing management of electronic resources. Nov 21, 2013 Initial version of Intota Assessment launched by ProQuest. Jun 22, 2011 Serials Solutions announces strategy to build Web-Scale management solution, later branded as Intota.

Intota Components  Summon (no patron account)  Intota Analytics  360 Link  360 Resource Manager > Intota ERM  ProQuest Flow: provides user account capability  Intota v2 – includes print resource management

ProQuest Strategies  Focus on multi-tenant software as a service  Knowledge-base driven products  KnowledgeWorks: drives 360 Core, 360 Resource Manger, 360 Link  Expanded KB will drive Intota  Summon+ 360 Products will drive Intota sales to displace legacy ILS  Intota functionality: less complex approach than ILS model

Technology Trends

Deployment strategies  In previous phase, libraries preferred local hosting and were skeptical of hosted offerings  Libraries now favor hosted services  Lack local IT staff and facilities  Prefer to use technical personnel for tasks other than infrastructure upkeep  Expect leverage for resource sharing and other benefits  Ongoing concern for data ownership, privacy, local control  Varying requirements for in-country data hosting

Software as a Service  Globally deployed platform  Scaleable, redundant, secure  Web-native interfaces  Multi-tenant: multiple institutional, single code base  Globally shared resources  Institutionally segregated resources

Hosted services  Hosted instances of client/server systems  Locally installed staff clients  Institutional or consortial instance  Very difficult to reengineer client/server products to multi-tenant platforms  Common to move to hosted service even when not changing systems

Open source ILS  Software model favored by libraries  Current products oriented to small to mid-sized libraries  Koha -- institutional  Evergreen – consortial  Academic and research libraries  Kuali OLE

API Ecosystem  Applications Programming Interface  Programmatically extract or load data, consume functionality  Real-time interoperability with external systems and services  Supplements or replaces standard protocols  Community platforms: documentation, sharable code, sandbox environment

Metadata models  MARC21 dominates ILS products  Some national or regional variants (danMARC)  Library Services Platforms assume multiple metadata formats  Full support expected for RDA  Open Linked Data gaining traction as new metadata framework  Shift away from library-specific encoding practices  Expectation to support BIBFAME in near future

Linked Data  Major trend toward information systems based on linked data  Many projects now based on linked data  Area of peak interest for Library of Congress, OCLC, etc  BIBFRAME  Potential to transform how libraries approach description and discovery  Current opportunities in making library content more discoverable

Linked data  Not yet a fully operational method for library- oriented content  Increasing representation of bibliographic resources  BIBFRAME stands to make great impact  Universe of scholarly resources not well represented  Will current expectations for content providers to make metadata or full text available for discovery expand to exposure as open linked data?

Hybrid models  Likely interim hybrid discovery models: central indexes + Linked Data  Can index-based search tools be improved through Linked Data  Browse to related resources  Add additional hierarchies of structure to search results

Trends in Library Resource Management

Academic Libraries:  Collection spending dominated by subscriptions to electronic content  Remnant spending for monographs  Firm orders for print  Demand-driven acquisitions for e-books

Transition to Electronic Publishing  Academic libraries devote majority of collections budgets to electronic materials  Open access represents a growing proportion of scholarly resources, though still a small minority  Public libraries increasingly offer e-book lending services  Academic libraries: primarily electronic collections  Public Libraries: Primarily physical collections

Implications of e-publishing  Resource management systems for academic libraries must be optimized for electronic resources  License management  Open access outside of paid subscriptions  Portfolio-based management – use knowledge base to delineate individual titles and date coverage of aggregated content packages  Efficiently manage e-books  Demand-driven acquisitions

Public Libraries:  Vigorous lending of print materials  Rising interest in e-book lending  Marginal investment in e-resource databases

E-book lending  High demand for integration technologies  E-book lending fully blended within the library’s own online catalog or discovery interface  Simple selection, download, and reading of e- books  Librarians demand fair pricing models  Publishers continue to fear impact on sales  Impose policies that create more friction

Integrate e-book platforms  Overdrive  3M Cloud Library  Axis 360

Manage local e-book collections  “Douglas County” model  Owned, locally hosted titles  Odilo as example of new type of e-book service provider

School Libraries:  Access to appropriate resources  Age  Reading level  Oriented to district-wide resource management and discovery  Low per-school costs for technology  Technologies that penetrate beyond the library into the school or district  Different assumptions for privacy and security

Functionality Trends

Fragmented Resource Management  Integrated Library System for management of (mostly) print  Duplicative financial systems between library and university  Electronic Resource Management  E-Resource knowledge base and Link Resolver  A-Z e-journal lists and other finding aids  Interlibrary loan (borrowing and lending)  Digital Collections Management platforms (CONTENTdm, DigiTool, etc.)  Separate systems for archival materials and special collections  Discovery-layer services for broader access to library collections  No effective integration services / interoperability among disconnected systems, non-aligned metadata schemes

Cycles of fragmentation > unification  Early Phase: Modular automation  Integrated Library Systems  Proliferation of systems to manage electronic resources and digital collections  Current unification phase: library services platforms bring together print and electronic resource management  Next phase? Bring archival and digital assets under common management platform

Comprehensive Resource Management  Simplify resource management through platform consolidation  Separate components: ILS + ERM + OpenURL Resolver + Digital Asset management, etc. very inefficient model  Consolidation requires a flexible platform capable of managing multiple type of library materials, multiple metadata formats, with appropriate workflows

Library Services Platform  Library-specific software. Technical infrastructure to help libraries automate their internal operations, manage collections, fulfillment requests, and deliver services  Services  Services-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 Platforms – Functional  Manages electronic and print formats of materials  Replaces multiple incumbent products  Extensive Metadata Management  Multiple procurement workflows  Knowledgebases  Built-in collection analytics  Decision support for collection development

Knowledge bases  Electronic Resource Management based on collective database of the body of e-content rather than library- by-library management  LSP extends knowledge base model to all resources  Make links or associations from local holdings to common bibliographic records  WorldShare Management Services – based on WorldCat Bibliographic records  Ex Libris Alma – includes Community Zone of shared records and resources  Intota: expanded knowledge base that includes MARC and other resources

Actionable analytics  Previous generation of ILS offered reports  Libraries now expect sophisticated analytics  Make data-driven collection decisions  Anticipate interest and use levels  Cost per use

Support for BIBFRAME  New bibliographic framework based on mapping MARC concepts and data into linked data model  No direct support for BIBFRAME in either integrated library systems or library services platforms  Developers are involved in BIBFRAME initiative  Operational implementations will come once the model has stabilized  Current phase of experimental projects and prototypes  Applies differently to discovery versus resource management

Library Services Platforms – Technical  Beyond Client/Server Computing  Multi-tenant platforms  Web-based interfaces  Services-oriented architecture  Exposes APIs for extensibility and interoperability  Interoperable

Consolidated index Unified Presentation Layer Search: 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 Discovery Service

Resource Management Models Category Integrated Library System Progressive integrated library System Library Services Platform Resources managedPhysicalPrint, electronicElectronic, Physical Technology platformServer-based Multi-tenant SaaS KnowledgebasesNone e-holdings, bibliographic Patron interfacesBrowser-based Staff interfaces Graphical Desktop (Java Swing, Windows, Mac OS) Browser-based Procurement modelsPurchasePurchase, licenselicense Hosting optionLocal install, ASP Saas Only Interoperability Batch transfer, proprietary API Batch transfer, RESTful APIs, APIs (mostly RESTful) Products SirsiDynix Symphony, Millennium, Polaris Sierra, SirsiDynix Symphony/BLUEcloud, Polaris, Apollo WorldShare Management Services, Alma, ProQuest Intota, Sierra, Kuali OLE Development strategyBrownfield Greenfield (mixed)

Development Timeline for Library Services Platforms

Library Services Platform Installations Production installations as of December 2014 ProductInstallations 2014 Sales Sierra Alma40643 WorldShare Management Services30379 Kuali OLE210 Intota021

Cycle of adoption and deployment  Beginning of a new cycle of transition that will last a decade  Development and beta phase complete  Now in mass deployment phase  Over the course of the next decade, academic libraries will replace their current legacy products with new platforms  Not just a change of technology but a substantial change in the ways that libraries manage their resources and deliver their services

Trends in library resource discovery

Web-scale Index-based Discovery Search: Digital Collections Web Site Content Institutional Repositories … E-Journals Reference Sources Search Results Pre-built harvesting and indexing Consolidated Index ILS Data Aggregated Content packages (2009- present) Usage- generated Data Customer Profile

Comprehensive Library Portal Integrated Library System Library Web site Subject Guides Article, Databases, E-Book collections Public Interfaces : Presentation Layer

Discovery Service Statistics Discovery Product Installed EBSCO Discovery Service Primo Encore Summon WorldCat Discovery2085

Multi-Role Stakeholders  Content provider / Discovery Service  EBSCO Information Service  ProQuest  Resource Management / Discovery Provider  OCLC  Ex Libris

Demise of the local catalog  Many library services platforms do not include the concept of an online catalog dedicated to local physical inventory  Designed for discovery services as public-facing interface  Implication: Discovery service must incorporate detailed functionality for local materials and related services

Fully Integrated Strategy  Library services Platform  Index-based discovery service  Integrated link resolution  Shared e-resource knowledgebase  Analytics available from back-end and discovery perspective

Split Management / Discovery Strategy  Library Services Platform for management of print and electronic resources  Separate index-based discovery  Knowledge base probably provided through Library Services Platform  Link Resolution separate from Discovery: how to perform smart linking?  Export and sync resource records from management to discovery service  API look-ups for resource availability and status  Patron profile and services request split between discovery and resource management components

Discovery happens elsewhere Beyond Library Discovery

Discovery Beyond Library-provided Interfaces  Reality that most discovery happens external to library  Improve discoverability of library resources  Locally: through incorporation of SEO and semantic encoding Especially schema.org  Globally: OCLC, Google Scholar and other services

Discovery beyond Library Interfaces  Improved performance of library content through Google Scholar  Same expectations for transparency?  Better exposure of library-oriented content  Schema.org or other microdata formats  Better exposure of scholarly resources  Open access & Proprietary  Embedded tools in other campus interfaces

Changing models of Resource Sharing

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)

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

Bibliographic Database Library System A Branch 1 Branch 2 Branch 3 Branch 4 Branch 5 Branch 6 Branch 7 Branch 8 Holdings Main Facility Bibliographic Database Library System B Branch 1 Branch 2 Branch 3 Branch 4 Branch 5 Branch 6 Branch 7 Branch 8 Holdings Main Facility Bibliographic Database Library System C Branch 1 Branch 2 Branch 3 Branch 4 Branch 5 Branch 6 Branch 7 Branch 8 Holdings Main Facility Bibliographic Database Library System D Branch 1 Branch 2 Branch 3 Branch 4 Branch 5 Branch 6 Branch 7 Branch 8 Holdings Main Facility Bibliographic Database Library System F Branch 1 Branch 2 Branch 3 Branch 4 Branch 5 Branch 6 Branch 7 Branch 8 Holdings Main Facility Bibliographic Database Library System E Branch 1 Branch 2 Branch 3 Branch 4 Branch 5 Branch 6 Branch 7 Branch 8 Holdings Main Facility Resource Sharing Application Bibliographic Database Discovery and Request Management Routines Staff Fulfillment Tools Inter-System Communications NCIP SIP ISO ILL Z39.50 NCIP Search: Consortial Resource Sharing System

Bibliographic Database Shared Consortia System Library 2 Library 3 Library 4 Library 5 Library 7 Library 8 Library 9 Library 10 Holdings Library 1Library 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

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

Benefits of shared infrastructure  Increased cooperation and resource sharing  Collaborative collection management  Lower costs per institution  Greater universe of content readily available to patrons  Avoid add-on components for union catalog and resource requests and routing

Shared infrastructure Projects  Orbis Cascade  WHELF  South Australia  Ireland Public Libraries  JULAC  California State University  University System of Georgia  Complete Florida Plus Program  University of Wisconsin system

Orbis Cascade Alliance Campus Libraries37 Aggregated Enrollment258,000 Total Titles9 million Total Items28 million

WHELF Wales Higher Education Libraries Forum Institution Prior ILSBib Records Aberystwyth UniversityVoyager677,846 Bangor & Glyndwr UniversitySierra 591,673 Cardiff University & Welsh National Health ServiceVoyager856,381 Cardiff Metropolitan UniversityAlto269,965 National Library of WalesVirtua6,643,696 Royal Welsh College of Music and DramaVoyager 53,544 Swansea UniversityVoyager 738,399 University of South WalesSymphony365,602 University of Wales Trinity St. DavidHorizon637,326 Total 10,834,432

California State University Institution TitlesVolumes CirculationStaff FTE Bakersfield 473,134637,60615,71425 Channel Islands 100,433255, Chico 850,0001,265,90732,18259 Dominguez Hills 628,193637,0648,45638 East Bay 944,4151,139,05733,49143 Fresno 1,928,6241,345,398208,49178 Fullerton 1,153,7141,256,86761,48674 Humboldt 692,017807,10130,30031 Long Beach 1,198,7883,073,252147,46168 Los Angeles 926,498983,22935,66548 Maritime Academy 42,854154,8205,4398 Monterey Bay 277,228333,98227,76816 Northridge 1,575,6952,170,589130, Pomona 776,2511,058,23643,51448 Sacramento 1,189,0931,415,56298,67566 San Bernardino 935,366868,45329,00190 San Diego 2,340,6412,513,98446, San Francisco 1,524,4641,677,43789,16189 San Jose 1,505,6761,441,27994,74588 San Luis Obispo 805,508724,53138,89562 San Marcos 441,812538,20317,07147 Sonoma 506,040585,082191,18734 Stanislaus 344,311513,56531,61127 Total 21,160,75525,396,7981,417,0371,307

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)

Comparison of Projects InstitutionVolumesLibraries Harvard University18,900,00079 Orbis Cascade Alliance28,000,00066 WHELF10,834,43232 California State University25,396,79825 University of California45,000,000100

Large-scale Implementations  Scale of any given project is no longer limited  Multi-tenant systems are already supporting very large numbers of sites  Shared implementation does not necessarily require more resources than separate ones  Industry Impact:  Winner-take-all dynamic can disrupt sales trends  Favors products and companies oriented toward consortia and large systems

Questions and discussion