and its implications for resource sharing Marshall Breeding Director for Innovative Technology and Research Vanderbilt University Library Nashville, TN USA

Many efforts are underway to re-conceptualize library automation in ways that take into consideration the major shifts that have transformed libraries. The library automation systems in use today emerged during a time when libraries primarily dealt with print collections. But today we need automation systems that collapse the distinction between print and electronic formats, for example, and help libraries to efficiently manage their diverse collections. It may also be time to reconsider the automation systems that support resource sharing. Does the current arrangement of the circulation module from the ILS, interlibrary loan management systems, direct consortial borrowing systems, in conjunction with local, regional and global interlibrary loan brokering systems provide the most efficient means for resource sharing? In an era where Amazon.com can offer one-click buying, it’s time for libraries to offer more efficient and user- friendly fulfillment systems for their resources.

  Repository for library automation data  Lib-web-cats tracks 39,000 libraries and the automation systems used. ◦ Expanding to include more international scope  Announcements and developments made by companies and organizations involved in library automation technologies

 Started building database in 1995  Most comprehensive resource for tracking ILS and other library automation products  Many state library agencies do not keep accurate records of library automation data  Problem: how to resolve remaining “Unknown” libraries. ◦ No Web site, no reliable contact

Annual Industry report published in Library Journal:  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

Evidence that a new phase of library automation is unfolding

 New Discovery Service  Consolidated index harvested from many sources ◦ ProQuest, Gale, etc ◦ 300,000,000 articles represented ◦ Full-text search + Citations  Local catalog data harvested, real-time link to holdings  Other local repositories harvested  Others available through metasearch

 Existing service in pilot stage for new discovery service  WorldCat.org data + ArticleFirst (30 million articles)  Agreement with EBSCO to load EBSCOhost citation data into WorldCat  Pursuing agreements with additional content providers

 No-cost option to FirstSearch subscribers  No reclamation to reconcile local ILS with WorldCat  One ILS supported; must be among supported products  Program to expose thousands of libraries to WorldCat Local as a discovery option

 Extend WorldCat Local to include ◦ Circulation ◦ Delivery ◦ Acquisitions ◦ License Management  Positioned as Web-scale, cloud computing model, cooperative library system  Pilot sites being finalized; general availability in 2010

 Separation of discovery layer from library automation tools  Discovery systems ◦ Shift in emphasis from Technology to Content  Open Source Challenging Proprietary ILS  Proprietary Automation systems respond with more openness  Development of new library automation framework ◦ OLE – open source project for new automation platform ◦ URM – Ex Libris – commercial project for new automation platform  Library Automation in the Cloud ◦ OCLC WorldCat Local library system

 Integrated Library Systems ◦ Koha, Evergreen, OPALS, NewGenLib  Repositories ◦ Dspace, Fedora  Discovery Interfaces ◦ Vufind ◦ Blacklight ◦ SOPAC (Social OPAC)  ILL ◦ Relais (?)

 Non-open source systems still represent the vast majority of ILS implementations  Open source ILS a mainstream choice for new ILS procurements  Some libraries moving from traditionally licensed products to open source products with commercial support plans  Disruption of ILS industry ◦ new pressures on incumbent vendors to deliver more innovation and to satisfy concerns for openness  New competition / More options

 Pressure for traditionally licensed products to become more open  APIs (Application Programming Interfaces) let libraries access and manipulate their data outside of delivered software  A comprehensive set of APIs potentially give libraries more flexibility and control in accessing data and services and in extending functionality than having access to the source code.  Customer access to APIs does not involve as much risk to breaking core system functions, avoids issues of version management and code forking associated with open source models.

 Explosive interest in Open Source driven by disillusionment with current vendors  Seen as a solution to: ◦ Allow libraries to have more flexible systems ◦ Lower costs ◦ Not be vulnerable to disruptions that come with mergers and acquisitions  Considered as a mainstream option  Total cost of ownership ◦ Many claim genuine financial savings in OSS support vs licensed software  New business model based on services rather than software licensing

 Initial products focused on technology ◦ AquaBrowser, Endeca, Primo, Encore, VUfind ◦ Mostly locally-installed software  Current phase focused on content indexes ◦ Summon (Serials Solutions) ◦ WorldCat Local (OCLC) ◦ EBSCO Discovery Service (EBSCO) ◦ All hosted services

 Redefinition of the “library catalog”  Traditional notions of the library catalog are being questioned  Better information delivery tools  More powerful search capabilities  More elegant presentation

 More comprehensive information discovery environments  It’s no longer enough to provide a catalog limited to the traditional library inventory  Digital resources cannot be an afterthought  Forcing users to use different interfaces depending on type of content becoming less tenable  Libraries working toward consolidated search environments that give equal footing to digital and print resources

 More like OAI ◦ Open Archives Initiative ◦ Consolidated search services based on metadata and data gathered in advance  Problems of scale diminished  Problems of cooperation persist  Products emerging with vast content components built-in: ◦ Summon, WorldCat Local, EBSCO Discovery Service

 A single point of entry into all the content and services offered by the library  Print + Electronic  Local + Remote  Locally created Content

 Relevancy ranked results ◦ The “good stuff” should be listed first ◦ Users tend not to delve deep into a result list ◦ Good relevancy requires a sophisticated approach, including objective matching criteria supplemented by popularity and relatedness factors.  Faceted Browsing ◦ Drill-down vs up-front Boolean or “Advanced Search” ◦ gives the users clues about the number of hits in each sub topic ◦ Ability to explore collections without a priori knowledge  “Did you mean?” and other features to avoid “No results found”  Rich visual information: book jacket images, rating scores, etc.  More like this / related content

 Increasing opportunities to search the full contents ◦ Google Library Print, Google Publisher, Open Content Alliance, Microsoft Live Book Search, etc. ◦ High-quality metadata will improve search precision  Commercial search providers already offer “search inside the book”  No comprehensive full text search for books quite yet  Not currently available through library search environments

 Fulfillment oriented  Search -> select -> view  Delivery/Fulfillment much harder than discovery  Back-end complexity should be as seamless as possible to the user

 Fundamental assumption: Print + Digital = Hybrid libraries  Traditional ILS model not adequate for hybrid libraries  Libraries currently moving toward surrounding core ILS with additional modules to handle electronic content  New discovery layer interfaces replacing or supplementing ILS OPACS  Working toward a new model of library automation ◦ Monolithic legacy architectures replaced by fabric of SOA applications ◦ Comprehensive Resource Management “It's Time to Break the Mold of the Original ILS” Computers in Libraries Nov/Dec 2007

 OLE Project ◦ Funded by the Research in Information Technology program of the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation ◦ 1-year project to produce the requirements for a new approach to library automation ◦ Will embrace the service-oriented architecture ◦ Business process modeling based on library workflows unconstrained from existing legacy software ◦ Possible follow-on project to build and open source reference implementation  Ex Libris URM ◦ Mentioned publically but not formally announced ◦ Working toward new platform that better integrates print and electronic content  Probably will be based on some existing products

 Traditional ILS ◦ Cataloging ◦ Circulation ◦ Online Catalog ◦ Acquisitions ◦ Serials control ◦ Reporting  Modern approach: SOA

 Broad conceptual approach that proposes a library automation environment that spans all types of content that comprise library collections.  Traditional ILS vendors: Under development but no public announcements  Open Source projects in early phases  Projection: 2-3 years until we begin see library automation systems that follow this approach. 5-7 years for wider adoption.

 Underlying data repositories ◦ Local or Global  Reusable business services  Composite business applications

Open Library Environment: Working toward a next generation library automation framework

 SOA = Service Oriented Architecture  Design approach ◦ Independent software pieces ◦ Pieces can be interchanged or repurposed more easily ◦ Pieces can be combined to create new services or systems ◦ Business experts and IT experts work together  SOA Process ◦ Create high-level map of how the business should work ◦ Deconstruct workflows ◦ Define reusable services ◦ Recombine services into a system that meets our requirements What Is SOA What Is SOA

Federated Search Circulation Acquisitions Cataloging Serials OpenURL Linking Electronic Resource Mgmt System Staff Interfaces: End User Interfaces: Data Stores: Functional modules:

Data Stores: Reusable Business Services Composite Applications Granular tasks:

 Planning and Design Phase  Develop Vision + Blueprint  Work with consultants with expertise in SOA and BPM  Instill community ownership of OLE  Recruit partners for Phase II

 Conduct business process modeling (BPM) exercises  Define library workflows which must be supported in OLE  Small group work to develop descriptions of library workflows  Workshop output will shape project design

 Build project  Community source reference implementation  Create software based on OLE blueprint from current project  Build partners will have a high level of investment in OLE and will commit to implementation

 Library Driven  Not vendor-driven  Interest in joining Kuali  Existing organization for non-profit status, legal support, user community

 Recruit partners for Build Phase  Write Build Proposal  Complete OLE Blueprint components ◦ Scope Document ◦ Reference Model ◦ Inventory of workflows / processes

 Traditional Proprietary Commercial ILS ◦ Millennium, Symphony, Polaris  Traditional Open Source ILS ◦ Evergreen, Koha  Clean slate automation framework (SOA, enterprise-ready) ◦ Ex Libris URM, OLE Project  Cloud-based automation system ◦ WorldCat Local (+circ, acq, license management)

In the Context of Next- generation Automation Systems

 Layered on top of ILS  Millennium ILS ◦ INN-Reach  SirsiDynix URSA  ALEPH ILL  Fretwell-Downing VDX

 Very complex genre of software  Connect diverse systems  Difficult to address all needed functionality through standard protocols  Challenge to design systems to reduce cost of fulfilling a request

 Libraries under tremendous financial pressure  Most resource sharing programs expanding  Make up for diminished collection growth through increased resource sharing  Increased volume of requests  Improving percentages of fulfilled requests ◦ Returnables and non-returnables

 Better tools with next-generation automation  Beyond what’s been possible to do accomplish with library protocols ◦ Z39.50, NCIP, ISO ILL  OCLC WorldCat ◦ Record sharing policy will make a difference  Peer-oriented resource sharing

 Better discovery environments that span print and electronic resources  SOA will allow better tools for resource fulfillment  More options for supporting partnerships, consortia, and regional resource sharing  Cloud computing model ◦ OCLC’s private cloud

 Next-generation discovery and automation systems should be oriented toward more unified fulfillment processes  Search > Request > Fulfillment ◦ Similar to worlflows in e-commerce environments  Content silos -> syndicated content providers  Fulfillment = Circulation + ILL + Consortial borrowing + Request management

 Current legacy systems make it too hard  Force users and staff to shift in and out of multiple systems ◦ Discovery / OPAC ◦ Local Catalog / Union Catalog ◦ Link Resolvers ◦ Interlibrary Loan request system ◦ Circulation ◦ Direct consortial borrowing ◦ Remote storage request

 An inherent component of next-generation library automation framework  Opportunities to reassess workflows ◦ Print vs Digital  Fewer isolated systems  Better interoperability ◦ Less reliant on quirky library-specific standards ◦ More use of services that span beyond the library arena

 Current automation models make cost higher?  Many libraries lack basic automation infrastructure  Current library standards not well-developed or universally deployed  Need automation framework designed from the ground up for partnerships and resource sharing  Cross-institutional Identity management

 Amazon.com = federated groups of sellers sharing common infrastructure  Unified from end-user perspective  Web Services, cloud computing model  Modern user interfaces  High level of usability ◦ Discovery, Fulfillment  Web 2.0 features ◦ User-contributed ratings and reviews

 Digitization of book content will lead to increased discovery by end-users  Some opportunities for electronic delivery  Increased commercial competition for fulfillment of content

 Many US public libraries still without basic library automation  Small libraries most isolated ◦ PC-based automation systems ◦ Most in need of participating in larger-scale information environment  Many libraries Not automated / Under automated  It’s hard to provide access to resource sharing services when the local library lacks automation basics  Large portions of public libraries in the United States operate with no automation system, outdated systems, or products not suited for their type of library  Small rural libraries  Many public libraries run PC-based systems built for schools because the cannot afford more full-featured systems  Current automation options priced well above what libraries with limited resources can afford.  Cost of consortial participation can also exceed financial thresholds

 Legacy automation products constrained to deliver efficient resource sharing  Resource sharing a major consideration in the design of most next-generation automation or discovery projects  SOA and enterprise integration will support more efficient resource sharing services