Sustainable Technology Strategies for International Libraries Marshall Breeding Independent Consultant, Author, and Founder and Publisher, Library Technology Guides https://librarytechnology.org/ https://twitter.com/mbreeding April 3, 2019 9th Meeting of the Arabic Union Catalog

Abstract Libraries depend on technology for almost all aspects of their work, ranging from the management of their collections, automating their operations, and especially in providing access to content and services for their communities or parent organizations.  This session will focus on  current trends in technology and how they can be applied in sustainable to libraries in the Arab World as well as other regions.   The development of technology strategies depends on many factors such as the cultural context, language expectations, and the levels of financial and human resources available, as well as a variety of technical and business factors.  Marshall Breeding is an expert in the library technology industry with a broad international perspective.

Library Technology Guides https://librarytechnology.org

Library Technology Industry Reports American Libraries Library Journal 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 2014: Strategic Competition and Cooperation 2015: Operationalizing Innovation 2016: Power Plays 2017: Competing visions for Technology, openness, workflows 2018: New Technologies enable an expended vision of library services 2019: Cycles of Innovation

Sustainable Tech Strategies Can move forward past the initial implementation phase Many projects are started, but languish due to lack of resources or ongoing commitment Are based on technologies that will not go out of date Adapt to changing needs of the organization over time Require appropriate levels of resources to implement and Deliver the highest impact Are associated with organizations able to provide governance, funding, and personnel resources though the expected lifetime of the project

Sustainable Technology Strategies Based on shared infrastructure Functional design to enable collaboration Leverage trends in cloud technologies Environmentally sustainable Strategically sustainable: able to continue the project beyond initial startup Digital or Physical: Collaborative digital projects Large-scale shared storage of physical materials

Deep Collaboration Institutions with overlapping interests partner to implement shared resources …instead of each institution implementing standalone systems Can provide organizational benefits Results in high-impact resources for library users and community members Usually means a shift from standalone computing to some type of shared infrastructure

Collaborative Project Examples Arabic Union Catalog OCLC Cataloging, Authorities, Interlibrary Loan Technology products for resource management and discovery Increasing number of large-scale consortia to share core resource management systems Shared facilities for storage of print collections https://librarytechnology.org/storagefacilities/

Computing models Gradient of collaborative capacity Standalone systems Distributed networks Shared infrastructure

Standalone Computing Single automation system dedicated to a single organization Usually supports multiple branches or departmental libraries Self-contained bibliographic database Records derived from external bibliographic services Reinforces self-sufficient workflows for: Collection Development Cataloging and Technical Processing Patron access

Sustainability Factors Single institution bears all costs for implementation and operation Highest risk for security and technical failures Enables local practice and customization Highest cost Least collaborative

Deployment Options Major trend underway away from local computing Local on-site deployment Hardware infrastructure housed in library or institutional data center Requires dedicated facilities and technical personnel Vendor Hosting Hardware dedicated to institution but hosted by vendor, distributor, or support provider Software-as-a-service System delivered through a multi-tenant web platform Highly distributed infrastructure

Collaborative infrastructure Multiple institutions share the same technology infrastructure Configuration options accommodate each institution’s business rules and branding Enables easier resource sharing for library patrons Aggregate collection available to patrons of participating institutions Enables new staff workflows Collaborative collection development Distributed technical processing Can institutions be geographically distant?

Collaboration options Collection development Each institution can focus on selected areas of strength Rely on other institutions for materials in other disciplines Difficult to accomplish with separate systems Technical processing / Cataloging Option to centralize or distribute processing Catalogers for languages or specialized disciplines can handle materials for multiple institutions

Barriers to Collaboration Customization of functionality Local cataloging practice Requirements for control Budget and business practices oriented to self- sufficient operations

Changing models of Resource Sharing

Integrated Library System Search: Bibliographic Database Library System Branch 1 Branch 2 Branch 3 Branch 4 Branch 5 Branch 6 Branch 7 Branch 8 Holdings Main Facility Patrons use Circulation features to request items from other branches Model: Multi-branch Independent Library System Floating Collections may reduce workload for Inter-branch transfers

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

Bibliographic Database Shared Consortial ILS Search: 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 Model: Multiple independent libraries in a Consortium Share an ILS ILS configured To support Direct consortial Borrowing through Circulation Module

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

Increased interest in shared infrastructure Single-institution ILS may not be the most efficient automation model 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 Alliance WHELF South Australia Ireland Public Libraries JULAC (all academic libraries in Hong Kong) Common Library System for all public and school libraries in Denmark California State University (24 campuses) University System of Georgia University of Wisconsin system

California State University Institution Titles Volumes Circulation Staff FTE Bakersfield 473,134 637,606 15,714 25 Channel Islands 100,433 255,594   24 Chico 850,000 1,265,907 32,182 59 Dominguez Hills 628,193 637,064 8,456 38 East Bay 944,415 1,139,057 33,491 43 Fresno 1,928,624 1,345,398 208,491 78 Fullerton 1,153,714 1,256,867 61,486 74 Humboldt 692,017 807,101 30,300 31 Long Beach 1,198,788 3,073,252 147,461 68 Los Angeles 926,498 983,229 35,665 48 Maritime Academy 42,854 154,820 5,439 8 Monterey Bay 277,228 333,982 27,768 16 Northridge 1,575,695 2,170,589 130,322 138 Pomona 776,251 1,058,236 43,514 Sacramento 1,189,093 1,415,562 98,675 66 San Bernardino 935,366 868,453 29,001 90 San Diego 2,340,641 2,513,984 46,402 106 San Francisco 1,524,464 1,677,437 89,161 89 San Jose 1,505,676 1,441,279 94,745 88 San Luis Obispo 805,508 724,531 38,895 62 San Marcos 441,812 538,203 17,071 47 Sonoma 506,040 585,082 191,187 34 Stanislaus 344,311 513,565 31,611 27 Total 21,160,755 25,396,798 1,417,037 1,307

2018 New Automation Projects Dominant strategy for academic libraries moving from ILS products (115 contracts spanning 448 libraries) Major projects in 2018: California Community Colleges University of Hawaii System Consortium of Academic and Research Libraries in Illinois (91 libraries migrating from Voyager) PASCAL consortium of all academic libraries in South Carolina Ontario Council of University Libraries The State University of New York (64 campuses) Icelandic Library Consortium

Shared Infrastructure Participating institutions share a single instance of a Library Services Platform or Integrated Library System Consolidated bibliographic database Each instance operates within a globally distributed platform with a common codebase and shared content resources

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 Web-native interfaces Scaleable, redundant, secure Web-native interfaces Multi-tenant: multiple institutional, single code base Globally shared resources Institutionally segregated resources

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

2018 Projects for Shared Systems California Community Colleges Consortium of Academic and Research Libraries in Illinois (91 libraries migrating from Voyager) PASCAL consortium of all academic libraries in South Carolina Ontario Council of University Libraries The State University of New York (64 campuses)

Collaborative Book Storage Example: Research Collections and Preservation Consortium (ReCAP)  Large-scale shared storage facility for: Princeton University Colombia University New York Public Library (Research Libraries) Harvard University Recent project to create technology to enable direct patron request from each university, regardless of which one originally owed the item

ReCAP facility

ReCAP Capacity for 20 million volumes Harvard Model facility 30 foot shelving Operator-driven Lifts for access to materials

Open Source vs Proprietary Software Library software available under both models Proprietary software tends to be adopted in libraries with more robust budgets …but many libraries in wealthy countries also use open source ILS products Open source software widely implemented in developing nations Commercial support of open source represents a growing portion of ILS implementations in the US

Open Source Software The source code to the software must be made available Can be modified and shared No fees can be charged for the software itself Fees can be charged for services for open source software products: Support Hosting Migration Customizations OSS licenses specify different terms for sharing, re-use, commercial use, etc. (GPL, Apache)

OSS Sustainablity Factors Both open source and proprietary software can support viable long-term initiatives Open source thrives through larger-scale support and development communities Niche applications can see higher risk for open source …and may not attract proprietary solutions either

Open Source Considered a routine part of the library technology industry 14 percent of ILS installations in US Public Libraries 6 percent of ILS installations of US Academic Libraries ByWater Solutions dominant provider of Koha services in the US 2018: 43 new contracts spanning 225 libraries Evergreen: Open Source ILS for public library consortia Equinox Open Software Initiative: services for Evergreen and Koha

General observations Wealthy regions primarily use proprietary products Sophisticated systems, but with substantial costs for libraries Proprietary products not affordable by most libraries in developing world Open source ILS products have comparable capabilities and can be implemented at lower costs Gaps in functionality between open source and proprietary ILS products continue to narrow Open source options for electronic resource management are available, but have less capabilities Lack of open access knowledgebase and discovery index

Trends in Open Source Open source now a routine segment of strategic library automation Implementation models: Commercial support Independent with community support Support through governmental organizations Development models Distributed community Mostly centralized within a commercial community (Example Kuali suite of applications for universities)

Open source Library Tech Products Integrated library systems: Koha Evergreen Invenio (commercial support from TIND) ABCD ILS based on CDS/ISIS components Library Services Platforms FOLIO Still in development phase Discovery interfaces VuFind (PHP + SOLR) Blacklight (Ruby + SOLR)

Open Source ILS in the United States Koha: small to mid-sized public libraries Schools Some small to mid-sized academics for print collections; reliance on Coral or other products for electronic resource management Evergreen Public library consortia Typical: large consortium comprised mostly of small and mid-sized public libraries Koha + Evergreen: about15% of overall ILS deployments

Koha Worldwide

Questions and discussion