Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Sustainable Technology Strategies
for International Libraries
Marshall Breeding
Independent Consultant, Author, and
Founde...
Abstract
 Libraries depend on technology for almost all aspects of
their work, ranging from the management of their
colle...
Library Technology Guides
Library Technology Industry Reports
 2014: Strategic Competition and
Cooperation
 2015: Operationalizing Innovation
 20...
Sustainable Tech Strategies
 Can move forward past the initial implementation phase
 Many projects are started, but lang...
Sustainable Technology Strategies
 Based on shared infrastructure
 Functional design to enable collaboration
 Leverage ...
Deep Collaboration
 Institutions with overlapping interests partner to
implement shared resources
 …instead of each inst...
Collaborative Project Examples
 Arabic Union Catalog
 OCLC
 Cataloging, Authorities, Interlibrary Loan
 Technology pro...
Computing models
 Gradient of collaborative capacity
 Standalone systems
 Distributed networks
 Shared infrastructure
Standalone Computing
 Single automation system dedicated to a single
organization
 Usually supports multiple branches or...
Sustainability Factors
 Single institution bears all costs for implementation
and operation
 Highest risk for security a...
Deployment Options
 Major trend underway away from local computing
 Local on-site deployment
 Hardware infrastructure h...
Collaborative infrastructure
 Multiple institutions share the same technology
infrastructure
 Configuration options acco...
Collaboration options
 Collection development
 Each institution can focus on selected areas of strength
 Rely on other ...
Barriers to Collaboration
 Customization of functionality
 Local cataloging practice
 Requirements for control
 Budget...
Changing models of Resource
Sharing
Bibliographic
Database
Library System
Branch 1
Branch 2
Branch 3
Branch 4
Branch 5
Branch 6
Branch 7
Branch 8
Holdings
Mai...
Bibliographic
Database
Library System A
Branch 1
Branch 2
Branch 3
Branch 4
Branch 5
Branch 6
Branch 7
Branch 8
Holdings
M...
Bibliographic
Database
Shared Consortia System
Library 2
Library 3
Library 4
Library 5
Library 7
Library 8
Library 9
Libra...
Benefits of shared infrastructure
 Increased cooperation and resource sharing
 Collaborative collection management
 Low...
Increased interest in shared
infrastructure
 Single-institution ILS may not be the most efficient
automation model
 Incr...
Shared infrastructure Projects
 Orbis Cascade Alliance
 WHELF
 South Australia
 Ireland Public Libraries
 JULAC (all ...
California State University
Institution Titles Volumes
Circulation Staff FTE
Bakersfield 473,134 637,606 15,714 25
Channel...
2018 New Automation Projects
 Dominant strategy for academic libraries moving from
ILS products (115 contracts spanning 4...
Shared Infrastructure
 Participating institutions share a single instance of a
Library Services Platform or Integrated Li...
Deployment strategies
 In previous phase, libraries preferred local hosting
and were skeptical of hosted offerings
 Libr...
Software as a Service
 Globally deployed platform
 Scaleable, redundant, secure
 Web-native interfaces
 Multi-tenant: ...
Metadata models
 MARC21 dominates ILS products
 Some national or regional variants (danMARC)
 Library Services Platform...
Linked Data
 Major trend toward information systems based on
linked data
 Many projects now based on linked data
 Area ...
2018 Projects for Shared Systems
 California Community Colleges
 Consortium of Academic and Research Libraries in
Illino...
Collaborative Book Storage
 Example: Research Collections and Preservation
Consortium (ReCAP)
 Large-scale shared storag...
ReCAP facility
ReCAP
 Capacity for 20
million volumes
 Harvard Model
facility
 30 foot shelving
 Operator-driven
Lifts for access to
...
Open Source vs Proprietary Software
 Library software available under both models
 Proprietary software tends to be adop...
Open Source Software
 The source code to the software must be made available
 Can be modified and shared
 No fees can b...
OSS Sustainablity Factors
 Both open source and proprietary software can
support viable long-term initiatives
 Open sour...
Open Source
 Considered a routine part of the library technology
industry
 14 percent of ILS installations in US Public ...
General observations
 Wealthy regions primarily use proprietary products
 Sophisticated systems, but with substantial co...
Trends in Open Source
 Open source now a routine segment of strategic
library automation
 Implementation models:
 Comme...
Open source Library Tech Products
 Integrated library systems:
 Koha
 Evergreen
 Invenio (commercial support from TIND...
Open Source ILS in the United States
 Koha:
 small to mid-sized public libraries
 Schools
 Some small to mid-sized aca...
Koha Worldwide
Questions and discussion
الجلسة الأولى المداخلة الأولى استراتيجيات التكنولوجيا المستدامة للمكتبات العالمية
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

الجلسة الأولى المداخلة الأولى استراتيجيات التكنولوجيا المستدامة للمكتبات العالمية

75 views

Published on

الجلسة الأولى المداخلة الأولى استراتيجيات التكنولوجيا المستدامة للمكتبات العالمية

Published in: Career
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

الجلسة الأولى المداخلة الأولى استراتيجيات التكنولوجيا المستدامة للمكتبات العالمية

  1. 1. Sustainable Technology Strategies for International Libraries Marshall Breeding Independent Consultant, Author, and Founder and Publisher, Library Technology Guides https://librarytechnology.org/ https://twitter.com/mbreeding April 3, 2019 9th Meeting of the Arabic Union Catalog
  2. 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. 3. Library Technology Guides
  4. 4. Library Technology Industry Reports  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  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 American Libraries Library Journal
  5. 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. 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. 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. 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 https://librarytechnology.org/storagefacilities/
  9. 9. Computing models  Gradient of collaborative capacity  Standalone systems  Distributed networks  Shared infrastructure
  10. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 15. Barriers to Collaboration  Customization of functionality  Local cataloging practice  Requirements for control  Budget and business practices oriented to self- sufficient operations
  16. 16. Changing models of Resource Sharing
  17. 17. Bibliographic Database Library System Branch 1 Branch 2 Branch 3 Branch 4 Branch 5 Branch 6 Branch 7 Branch 8 Holdings Main Facility Search: Integrated Library System Patrons use Circulation features to request items from other branches Floating Collections may reduce workload for Inter-branch transfers Model: Multi-branch Independent Library System
  18. 18. 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 B Branch 1 Branch 2 Branch 3 Branch 4 Branch 5 Branch 6 Branch 7 Branch 8 Holdings Main Facility 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 D 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 Bibliographic Database Library System E Branch 1 Branch 2 Branch 3 Branch 4 Branch 5 Branch 6 Branch 7 Branch 8 Holdings Main Facility Resource Sharing Application Bibliographic Database Discovery and Request Management Routines Staff Fulfillment Tools Inter-System Communications NCIP SIP ISO ILL Z39.50 NCIP NCIP NCIP NCIP NCIP NCIP Search: Consortial Resource Sharing System
  19. 19. 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 Shared Consortial ILS Search: Model: Multiple independent libraries in a Consortium Share an ILS ILS configured To support Direct consortial Borrowing through Circulation Module
  20. 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. 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. 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. 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 48 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. 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. 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. 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. 27. Software as a Service  Globally deployed platform  Scaleable, redundant, secure  Web-native interfaces  Multi-tenant: multiple institutional, single code base  Globally shared resources  Institutionally segregated resources
  28. 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. 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. 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. 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. 32. ReCAP facility
  33. 33. ReCAP  Capacity for 20 million volumes  Harvard Model facility  30 foot shelving  Operator-driven Lifts for access to materials
  34. 34. 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
  35. 35. 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)
  36. 36. 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
  37. 37. 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
  38. 38. 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
  39. 39. 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)
  40. 40. 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)
  41. 41. 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
  42. 42. Koha Worldwide
  43. 43. Questions and discussion

×