Are we ready to share one library management system in Scottish HE?

JISC Grant Funding 01/12, Pathfinder projects Appendix D2: Library Systems (Information and Library Infrastructure) – Pathfinder projects

JISC Grant Funding 01/12 Appendix D2: Library Systems (Information and Library Infrastructure) – Pathfinder projects

The Benefits of Sharing

Project timeline

Project staff Each work package will be led by a different member of the project team. WP1 – Looking ahead, Stuart Lewis, University of Edinburgh. WP2 – Users. Angela Laurins, University of Edinburgh. WP3 – Systems. Colin Watt, University of Edinburgh. WP4 – Content. Colin Sinclair, University of Stirling. A project board will oversee the project. The project board will be made up of members of SCURL, representatives nominated by the JISC, project staff, and other relevant staff. It will be chaired by a SCURL officer. Project also reports to the wider JISC Pathfinder project.

WP1: Looking ahead Perform a brief review of recently published analysis in this area, both in the UK and internationally. Gather together practitioners from across SCURL members and experts nominated by the JISC Programme Manager to take part in a facilitated session to start thinking about the potentials of a shared LMS for Scotland. The facilitator will ensure that the participants think across a broad spectrum of timescales, from practical steps that can be taken now, to forward thinking envisioning of possible systems in the future. LMS Day at Stirling on 5 th October - reps from HE, FE and the NLS, considered what we need from an LMS, what could be shared, what the impact might be and what it would look like to library staff and users. day/ day/

“The Vote” Do you want a shared LMS for Scotland? Do you think a shared LMS for Scotland would work? We asked everyone to answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to each question. Voting was anonymous. We got the following results: 29 people wanted a shared LMS for Scotland, 3 people didn’t, and one person didn’t vote on this question. 24 people thought a shared LMS for Scotland would work, 9 people didn’t think it would work.

WP2: Services for users The visions and perceived benefits will be explored with users through a variety of methods, including the use of facilitated focus groups and surveys, giving participants the opportunity to provide feedback and to contribute their own vision of an ideal LMS system. Surveys of student perceptions. Discussion with staff running other shared systems – Rowan, Sedar, US consortia. Impact of other cross-institutional initiatives – e.g. Glasgow Colleges.

WP 2 Findings Students don’t use terms like OPAC and LMS. Catalogue searches, quick and easy access to contents. They have made little use of discovery services and tools to search other libraries, though PGs more. Prepared to travel to use other libraries.

WP2 - Findings Examples of sharing in Scotland: SDLC Glasgow Colleges SEDAR Rowan Findabook SCURL - SCOPNet

WP3: The systems An overview of LMS products will be compiled with a focus on the offering on consortial services. This will be coupled with an investigation into the possibilities and issues related to the sharing and privacy of user information, local versus cloud hosting, general local content and data, and locally customised presentation. The final strand will look at possibilities beyond the basic LMS for including other related systems such as OpenURL resolvers and e-resource managements systems.

WP3 – Systems Analysis of who is using what across Scotland. How is the LMS regarded – a niche system. Likelihood of major change in near future? Other systems in use – an increasingly complex environment – VLE, Archives, Discovery, ILL, Reading Lists, Link resolvers and IRs.

WP3 – Sharing options A look at the Library Services platforms from commercial vendors. Kuali / OLE – a glimpse of the future, join a community rather than buy a system. Shared infrastructure and shared application instance – with consequences for library policy and requirement for compromise. Watching brief on a developing marketplace.

WP4: The content A shared LMS will need to be based on access to accurate descriptions of library content, in print and electronic forms. This work package will seek to build on work being done for SHEDL and the JISC KB+ project on common e-holdings of Scottish HEIs. An analysis, by survey, will be carried out to quantify the number of electronic records available for local, print, holdings and their format. A shared LMS need not necessarily mean a shared or union catalogue; attitudes to this will also be surveyed.

WP4 – Content findings Scale of the shared ecollection, though SHEDLand other consortial arrangements. Drawing on survey data already gathered on our holdings for SCURL and SHEDL. The potential size of a shared LMS in terms of records to be managed, patron and bibliographic data. Other metadata – outside of the LMS.

WP4 - Content Perceptions of the structure of a shared system A single bibliographic database. Cataloguing policy. Autonomy. E-resource records? Shared infrastructure – separate systems. Loss of some of the benefits of sharing?

WP5: Evaluation and dissemination Evaluation and dissemination activities will take place in two areas. Firstly activities will take place within and across all SCURL members, to ensure that thorough evaluation and dissemination of the findings are discussed at the regional level. Secondly further activities will be planned in liaison with the pathfinder synthesis project, to ensure that the reports are widely available and complimentary to the other projects’ outputs.

WP6: Project management Ensure that the project is managed suitably to ensure that the project is completed on time, on budget, and in accordance with relevant requirements. The Project Manager will be the main point of liaison with the JISC Programme team and the synthesis project.

Next …. STEPS

Next steps Further blogging and analysis. SCURL “task and finish” group in 2013 to look at the issues in more detail. Discussion at SDLC, SCURL Systems Community of Practice. Kuali/OLE event?

Photo credits “Sharing”: “Vote”: “LMS”: “Content”: website/ “Steps” No permission sought from any of the above! This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 UK: Scotland License.