1. Sustainable Technology Strategies for International Libraries
Marshall Breeding
Independent Consultant, Author, and
Founder and Publisher, Library Technology Guides
April 3, 2019
9th Meeting of the Arabic Union Catalog

2. 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.

3. Library Technology Guides

4. 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

5. 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Are based on technologies that will not go out of date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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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?

14. 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

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

16. Changing models of Resource Sharing

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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

27. 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

28. 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

29. 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

30. 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)

31. 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

32. ReCAP facility

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

35. 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

36. 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)

37. 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

38. 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

39. 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

40. 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)

41. 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)

42. 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

43. Koha Worldwide

44. Questions and discussion