How "Next Generation" Are We? A Snapshot of the Current State of OPACs in U.S. and Canadian Academic Libraries Melissa A. Hofmann and Sharon Yang, Moore Library, Rider University, NJ To measure the progress made in modeling current OPACs after the next generation catalog (NGC) in academic libraries in the United States and Canada. Design/Methodology/Approach  A random sample was selected of 260 colleges and universities (about 10% of the population).  The libraries’ OPACs—both legacy catalogs and discovery tools—were evaluated against a checklist of the 12 features of the next generation catalog (NGC) based on the literature.  Accounting for consortial catalogs, multiple interfaces used simultaneously, and missing data (n=40), a total of 233 unique OPACs were analyzed.  Data was collected from September 2009 through July  Findings can be extrapolated to the population at the 95% confidence level with a confidence interval of ±3. Institutions in the Sample Purpose 1.Single point of entry for all library resources. 2.State-of-the-art web interface. Modern, e-business-like. 3.Enriched content. Book covers, tag clouds, user input, etc. 4.Faceted navigation. Narrow search results by categories. 5.Simple keyword search box with a link to advanced search on every page. Search box looks like that of Google or Amazon. 6.Relevancy. Circulation statistics & multiple copies factor in. 7.Did you mean…? Spell-checking & suggestion of terms. 8.Recommendations/related materials. Based on transaction logs. 9.User contribution. Allow users to add data to records. 10.Persistent links. Stable URL is permanent link to a record. 11.RSS feeds. Brief users on new content. 12.Integration with social networking sites. Share links to items. 1.Single point of entry for all library resources. 2.State-of-the-art web interface. Modern, e-business-like. 3.Enriched content. Book covers, tag clouds, user input, etc. 4.Faceted navigation. Narrow search results by categories. 5.Simple keyword search box with a link to advanced search on every page. Search box looks like that of Google or Amazon. 6.Relevancy. Circulation statistics & multiple copies factor in. 7.Did you mean…? Spell-checking & suggestion of terms. 8.Recommendations/related materials. Based on transaction logs. 9.User contribution. Allow users to add data to records. 10.Persistent links. Stable URL is permanent link to a record. 11.RSS feeds. Brief users on new content. 12.Integration with social networking sites. Share links to items. Originality/Value This is the first and only study on a large scale conducted thus far that evaluates the progress towards the NGC. Number of NGC features Number of OPACs Percentage Cumulative Percentage 04416%16.0% 15420%36.0% 24818%54.0% 33513%67.0% 4155%72.0% 5145%77.0% 6155%82.0% 710.5%82.5% 831%83.5% 931%84.5% %85.0% 1100%85.0% 1200%85.0% Missing4015%100.0% Total273100%  No OPAC or discovery tool possessed all 12 features; none demonstrated criteria #6 and #8.  WorldCat Local and Summon were the top runners.  NGC features in legacy catalogs are cosmetic and minor.  Comprehensive federated search is still largely missing (only 4% of OPACs included articles).  Only 13% of OPACs offered faceted browsing, 83% of which were discovery tools.  16% of libraries used a discovery tool; 85% of these used them in conjunction with their legacy or “classic” catalog.  14% of libraries offered a choice of catalog interfaces (discovery tool and classic catalog) Summary Data: Distribution of NGC Features Yang, S.Q. & Hofmann, M.A. (2011). Next generation or current generation? A study of the OPACs of 260 academic libraries in the United States and Canada. Library Hi Tech (forthcoming) Further information: See our handout and article! The 12 NGC Features How NGC are we? Not very! Only 3% of OPACs demonstrated 7 or more NGC features—and these were all discovery tools. How NGC are we? Not very! Only 3% of OPACs demonstrated 7 or more NGC features—and these were all discovery tools.