1. GLOBAL LIBRARY AUTOMATION SCENE Marshall Breeding Director for Innovative Technology and Research Vanderbilt University Library Nashville, TN USA

2. Abstract  Breeding looks at the current automation scene from an international perspective. As a recent senior Fulbright Specialist in Argentina and visitor to many nations during the last few years, Breeding has expanded his research on library automation and shares leading examples set by libraries in North America and other geographic regions. Gain insights as you plan for the future of your library automation.

3. Library Technology Guides  http://www.librarytechnology.org  Repository for library automation data  Lib-web-cats tracks 38,000 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

4. LJ Automation System Marketplace 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

5. 2007 Trends: turmoil  Industry Consolidation  Abrupt transitions for major library automation products  Increased industry control by external financial investors  Demise of the traditional OPAC  Frustration with ILS products and vendors  Open Source alternatives hit the mainstream Breeding, Marshall: Perceptions 2007 an international survey of library automation. http://www.librarytechnology.org/perceptions2007.plhttp://www.librarytechnology.org/perceptions2007.pl January 2008.

6. 2008 Key trends  Pressing forward in an uncertain economy, many industry players are making investments to develop new products for the future or to increase support capacity  New procurements of ILS down for most companies  Impact of difficult economic times  Pent-up demand: deferred migrations persist  Strong interest in new discovery interfaces  Open source ILS presents alternative to proprietary offerings  Down a bit in 2008 relative to 2007

7. Diversifying automation technologies  ILS remains the heart of the business  Strategic interest in discovery technologies  Ongoing interest in tools to manage electronic resource  Yet market for ERM products not overwhelming  Link servers considered essential infrastructure for academic libraries

8. Serving the underserved  Many libraries in the United States remain un- automated or under-automated  Challenge to offer appropriate automation products affordable to libraries with extremely limited resources  Many small libraries moving to automation products through SaaS  Auto-Graphics, Biblionix

9. Trends in Automation Implementation Models  Increased interest in cooperative projects to reduce automation costs and to increase impact of collections  Movement toward Software as a Service  Proprietary & Open Source  Consortial and other shared implementations  Libraries joining existing shared systems  New state-wide initiatives  Age of the stand-alone ILS has past

10. Key International Trends  International vendors dominant in US deriving a higher proportion of sales from regions outside the US  Most regions or countries served by a local vendor  Technology cycles faster than development capacity of local companies  Vulnerable to international companies that offer rich functionality and robust support for local languages (Unicode)  Challenge to offer support in local language and time zone

11. Open source ILS: International Scene  Strong Interest in US, Canada  Weaker interest in Europe  Developing world: open source ILS growing as an alternative to ISIS-based products  Open source versions of ISIS products emerging  ABCD ( Automatisación de Bibliotécas y Centros de Documentación)  OpenBiblio

12. Other Business Observations  Creative tension abounds  Level of innovation falls below expectations, despite deep resources and large development teams.  Companies strive to keep up with ILS enhancements and R&D for new innovations.  Pressure from investors/owners to reduce costs, increase revenue  Pressure from library customers for more innovative products  Some companies investing in technology; expanding markets

13. ILS Migration Trends  Few voluntary lateral migrations  Forced Migrations  Vendor abandonment  Need to move from legacy systems  Exit from bad marriages with vendors  Exit from bad marriages with consortia

14. Role of the ILS in Library Automation Strategies  The purchase of a new ILS may not be a library’s top strategic priority  Need for products focused on electronic content and user experience  New generation discovery interfaces  Federated search  Link servers  Electronic Resource Management

15. No longer an ILS-centric industry  Portion of revenues derived from core ILS products diminishing relative to other library tech products  Many companies and organizations that don’t offer an ILS are involved in library automation :  Cambridge Information Group ProQuest Serials Solutions WebFeat Bowker Syndetic Solutions AquaBrowser LibraryThing for Libraries

16. A new direction in library automation  A successful pitch for new automation software is one that enables significant transformation toward a new vision of the library.  Can’t keep doing the same thing in the same way  Need to reengineer back-end systems to increase impact on customer service delivery

17. An age of less integrated systems  Increasingly dis-integrated environment  Core ILS supplemented by:  OpenURL Link Resolvers  Metasearch / Federated Search  Electronic Resource Management  Next Generation Library Interfaces  RFID / Self-Check / AMH

18. The cost of Non-integration  Acquisition costs of multiple systems  Major implementation effort for each product  Staff training investments  Complexity of end user environment

19. THE NEXT GENERATION OF LIBRARY AUTOMATION

20. Working toward a new ILS Vision  The operations of libraries has changed dramatically over the last 20 years.  ILS built largely on workflows cast more than 25 years ago  Based on assumptions that have long since changed  Digital resources represent at least half of most academic libraries collection budgets  The automation needs of libraries today is broader than that provided by the legacy ILS

21. Libraries ready for a new course  Level of dissatisfaction with the current slate of ILS products is very high.  Large monolithic systems are unwieldy—very complex to install, administer and maintain.

22. Address widening gaps in functionality  Public Services – Customer Relationship Management  Interlibrary loan  Collection development  Preservation: print / digital  Book binding  Remote storage operations

23. Less Proprietary / More Open  Libraries demand more openness  Open source movement greatest challenge to current slate of commercial ILS products  Demand for open access to data  API’s essential  Beyond proprietary APIs  Ideal: Industry-standard set of API’s implemented by all systems  Current DLF initiative to define API for an ILS for decoupled catalogs

24. Open but Commercial?  As library values evolve toward open solutions, commercial companies will see increasing advantages in adopting more open strategies  Open Data  Well documented database schemas  APIs for access to all system functionality  More customizability; better integration  Open Source Software?  Key differentiation lies in service and support

25. Comprehensive automation  Need the ability to automation all aspects of library work  Suite of interoperable modules  Single point of management for each category of information  Not necessarily through a single monolithic system

26. More lightweight approach  More elegant and efficient  Easier to install and administer  Automation systems that can be operated with fewer number of technical staff

27. Redefining the borders  Many artificial distinctions prevail in the legacy ILS model  Online catalog / library portal / institutional portal  Circulation / ILL / Direct consortial borrowing / remote storage  Collection Development / Acquisitions / budget administration  Library acquisitions / Institutional ERP  Cataloging / Metadata document ingestion for digital collections  Digital / Print workflows

28. Separation of front-end from back-end  ILS OPAC not necessarily best library interface  Many efforts already underway to offer alternatives  Too many of the resources that belong in the interface are out of the ILS scope  Technology cycles faster for front-end than for back- end processes.

29. Service-oriented Architecture  Work toward a service-oriented business application  Suite of light-weight applications  Flexibility to evolve in step with changes in library services and practices

30. Enterprise interoperability  Interoperate with non-library applications  Course management  Accounting, finance, ERP applications  External authentication services  Other portal implementations

31. Massively consolidated implementations  State/Province-wide ILS implementations  Increased reliance on consortia  Increased Software as a Service / ASP options hosted by vendors  Radical simplification of library policies affecting services offered to patrons

32. Fitting into the Global Enterprise  Leverage capabilities of search engines:  Google, Google Scholar, Microsoft Live, Ask, etc  OCLC WorldCat  Sort out the relationships between the global enterprise and local systems  Leverage the content in enterprise discovery systems to drive users toward library resources

33. Revise assumptions regarding Metadata  Reliance on MARC widely questioned  XML widely deployed  The next-gen ILS must natively support many flavors of metadata: MARC, Dublin Core, Onix, METS, etc  Library of Congress Subject Headings vs FAST  Approaching a post-metadata where discovery systems operate on actual digital objects themselves, not metadata about them  High-quality metadata will always improve discovery  Incorporate content from mass digitization efforts  Increasing proportions of rich media content: audio, video

34. New models of Software Development  Role of commercial partners  Break out of marketing / consumer model  Substantial dialog that shapes the direction of product development  Increased partnerships  Accelerated development cycles  Cost-effective / realistic cost expectations

35. Evolution vs Revolution  What we have today is a result of 35 years of evolution  Is it possible to break free of the constraints of these evolved systems toward a new generation that will offer a fresh approach?  Are libraries now willing to let go of the of ILS legacy of times past and move forward with library automation cast in a new mould.

36. A Mandate for Progress  Intense interest by both libraries and vendors to catch up and move forward in delivering library interfaces that work better for today’s Web-savvy users  Web 2.0 has invigorated libraries toward more open and collaborative strategies  Service Oriented Architecture provides a platform for assembling library systems more in tune with the needs of today’s libraries

37. Questions and Discussion