1. Indiana Library Federation Annual Conference
‘Make it more like Google!’: Next Generation Tools for Library Collections
Indiana Library Federation Annual Conference
November 19, 2008
Pascal Calarco
Mark Dehmlow

2. Overview A [really] Short History Lesson The Internet & the Library
Our Users and the OPAC
The Big Picture on the Future of the OPAC
Next Generation Search
Notre Dame Process for Selecting NextGen Search System
How Other Institutions Can Make Similar Decisions

3. Not so long ago, in a galaxy not so far away . . .
. . . was born the catalog and it was good.
Libraries had need for automated inventory control
Bibliographic description via MARC record
Acquisitions for business processes, serials control
Circulation system for lending, returning

4. Oh, yeah, and those patrons . . .
Let's give them an “Online Public Access Catalog”!
… but it’s mostly going to be publicly accessible version of the same search functionality in the back end system.
Designed for librarians initially, patrons later
Focused on managing, providing access to physical items
Web interface added next
adding lipstick on a pig

5. Early Information Science Research
Christine L. Borgman (1986) “Why are online catalogs hard to use? Lessons learned from information retrieval studies” Journal of the American Society for Information Science
Ray R. Larsen (1991) “The decline of subject searching: Long- term trends and patterns of index use in an online catalog” Journal of the American Society for Information Science
Ray R. Larsen (1992) “Evaluation of advanced retrieval techniques in an experimental online catalog” Journal of the American Society for Information Science
Ray R. Larsen (1996) “Cheshire II: designing a next-generation online catalog” Journal of the American Society for Information Science
Christine L. Borgman (1996) “Why are online catalogs still hard to use?” Journal of the American Society for Information Science

6. The Internet is Shaping Expectations
Simple searching - Google, Yahoo, Ask.com
Patrons are used to doing it themselves
Want fast access to results, ranked by relevance
Commercial spaces are:
interactive/collaborative
content creation (flickr, blogs, facebook, etc.)
tagging (flickr, del.icio.us, etc.)
content re-use (RefWorks/RefShare, etc.)
Syndicated
Blogs
News sites like cnn.com
Google mash-ups
It’s not just changing them, it is creating expectations.

7. Where We Are Right Now
OPAC: search interface on inventory system, made for librarians, not patrons – designed around the card catalog which limits its effectiveness
Catalogs are usually best for known-item searching, not topic searching
Improvements have typically been window dressing, don’t deal with many fundamental limitations of the catalog
Users demand interfaces that they are used to (Google, Amazon, etc.)
Don't have to ask Amazon how to search for items, why expect libraries?
… and even then, the finding time video

8. Silo-ization at Every Turn
Content Silos
Science-Direct
Web of Science
JSTOR
ETDs
EEBO
Catalog
ILL
Website
Meta-search
eReserve
System Silos

9. How Users Search Most people make typos at least some of the time
Most searches are 2, 3, 4 words with no Boolean operators
Most searches use keyword
Search is hesitant, iterative, often random process of discovery
Most people start elsewhere
Few read help screens
Few use advanced search – this is true even in Google

10. Where Users Search OCLC study
84% users start in search engines vs. 2% at library websites/portals

11. Destination vs. Syndication Models
The Internet
Library
Web
Site

12. The OPAC “Sucks” The OPAC lacks common features of most search engines
Relevance ranking vs. last in, first out
Spell checking (related - did you mean?)
Popular query operators like + and –
Refine search
Sort flexibility
Faceting
Citation indexing vs full text
Developed for print materials, limitations with electronic materials or atomized items (like articles)
Difficult for certain known item search
Karen Schneider, Andrew Pace, Roy Tennant

13. Industry Trends
Decouple the front end (search and discovery) from the back end (inventory and cataloging)
Service Oriented Architecture – many programs loosely coupled
The 5th generation of ILS upon us
Existing systems will probably be superseded within the next 2 – 10 years

14. Dis-integrating the ILS
The future of the ILS could be
ND Central
Accounting
ILS
Acquisitions
Cataloging
eResource
Mangement
Serials
Circulation
Authority

15. De-coupling – What Does This Mean?
Keep the business software – the ILS, change the interface
Most Next Gen features require different infrastructure, some don’t
index vs. database
Speed
Relevance
Faceted browse
Did you mean
FRBR
Decoupling the interface is really the first step in disintegrating the integrated library system, which is going to happen anyway.

16. “Grand Challenge” for LIS
A single interface that searches the world of knowledge and brings back all of the most relevant and authoritative resources that match a user’s query
It’s our “Holy Grail” - we've been working on this one for about 30 years :)
Next Generation Interfaces open the possibility to get us closer

17. Characteristics of Next Generation Search
Enhanced Search Functionality
Faceted browse
Relevance ranking
Did you mean / Spell Checking
auto-correction, resubmit search
De-silo-ization
Integrating search for books, articles, etc.
Single, Simple Search Box
FRBR – functional requirements for bibliographic record, grouping editions

18. Characteristics of Next Generation Search
Enhanced Experience
Sometimes fun and engaging
Interactive/Collaborative
User centered design
Enhanced Services
Find it / Get it for me
Book Covers / Synopsis
Full text
Availability on same page as results

19. Characteristics of Next Generation Search
Enhanced Content
Article Searching
Commercial Data
Merging Special Collections
Harvesting Online Collections
Grey Literature
Free Content
Enhanced Access
Syndication - Getting into users tools
Course Management Systems
Browser and Desktop Tool Bars
Portals

20. Next Generation Search Interfaces
Next Generation Catalog
Next Generation “Unified Search” Aid
Vendor
Data
Vendor
Data
Full
Text
OAI
User Interface
ILS
OPAC
Indexing
System
MetaSearch
MARC
Circ Data

21. Why Should We Consider This?
Next Generation Systems are an evolutionary step, it is the first step toward the next generation ILS – at some point we will have to do something
They are designed to:
meet our user’s search/retrieval expectations
reduce the amount of work and expertise needed to get from query to research material
improve service

22. Resource Discovery Assessment Workgroup
Ten individuals, representative of Libraries and one consortia rep (Kitty!) outside Notre Dame
Group Makeup
Public Services, Cataloging, Collections, Systems
Seven weeks to:
Identify and assess commercial and open-source offerings in 'next generation' catalogs
Educate ourselves on pros and cons of each
Make recommendations to library administration on which 2-4 to consider as finalists, with comparative analysis
Probably worth mentioning here that we didn’t do RFP and why that was beneficial – we did homework instead and why that was the best way. After experience, it would have been useful to have more time, but not much. Attended meeting last year about downsides of RFPs.

23. Problems Needing Solutions
Limitations with existing catalog
Coarse relevancy functionality
Non-intuitive to users used to Google
Hard to expand searches beyond local holdings
Content that didn’t fit into catalog
Encoded Archival Description (manuscripts)
Image collections
Dublin Core-based descriptive collections
Add examples 23

24. Problems Needing Solutions
Wanted a platform to build new services on, not just a new UI
Social networking capabilities: review items, tag items
Add examples 24

25. Desired functionality
Ability to add plurality of metadata types: MARC, DC, XML-encoded data
Extensible and modular; platform for innovation
Provide clear improvements to identified problems/shortcomings with current catalog
Offer a high-degree of customization options
Informed by DLF recommendations on ILS & Discovery Systems

26. Background & Environmental Scan
OCLC Environmental Scan (2003)
Calhoun Report (2006)
Rochester undergrad research project (2007)
OCUL Scholar's Portal 2 discussion paper (2007)
LoC Future of Bibliographic Control Report (2008)
JISC & SCONUL LMS Survey (2008)

27. Candidate Systems MediaLab Villanova Univ. Innovative Interfaces Inc.
Endeca Technologies Inc.
Ex Libris Group
OCLC
Aarhus Univ.
Index Data
Univ. of Rochester
LibLime

28. Analysis Details 44 questions in twelve areas
To what extent does each solution meet/exceed our desired functionality requirements?
Answered questions by:
Using the solutions at other sites
Referring to product literature
Ask on support websites
Detailed inquiries to sales people

29. Comparative Analysis Categories
Search functionality
Relevance ranking, FRBR, Facted Browse, Visualization, etc.
Spelling correction & suggestion
Did you mean?, Alternate Terms, etc.
User experience
Usable Interface, Pleasing Aesthetics, Customizable, etc.
Index capability
Metasearch Integration, API Integration, etc.
Record enrichment
Book Covers, TOCs, Reveiws, etc.

30. Comparative Analysis Categories
Supported data formats & sources
MARC, Dublin Core, EAD, TEI, I&A Data, Fulltext, etc.
ILS integration
Circulation Availablility
Social computing
Reviews, Ratings, Tagging, etc.
Enhanced services
RSS, Notification, Bibliographic Management Export, etc.
System and personnel requirements
Hardware, Support, Ease of Management, Statistics, etc.

31. Comparative Analysis Categories
APIs
Web services, SDKs, etc.
Support Options
Vendor, Community, etc.

32. What did we find?
A spectrum of features, functionality and integratability
I bet you thought we were going to give you all the answers

33. Methodology Observed Courseware Group
Simplified process
No weighting, aggregate numbers, yes – no – maybe
Condensed timeframe
Made Evaluation Variables Explicit
Spent the first half of process getting consensus on categories
Helped handle disagreement
Asked to provide recommendations
Gave comparative analysis of top 3 candidates

34. Evaluating the Options
Challengers
Leaders
Aquabrowser
Primo
VUFind
Encore
Evergreen ILS
WorldCat Local
Ability to Execute
Endeca
Koha
Summa
Zebra
Extensible Catalog (XC)
Open Library
Niches
Visionaries
Completeness of Vision

35. How Do You Decide? Needs to be in the context of your institution
How much money can you spend?
What is your timeline for implementation?
How much technical expertise do you have?
How much technical time do you have?
Is open source part of your institutional culture?
What companies do you do business with?

36. Thank You
Questions?