The Role of Discovery and its Relationship with the ILS
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
0 likes•190 views
The document discusses the changing roles of the integrated library system (ILS) and discovery services. It notes that library collections are increasingly digital and user needs and expectations have changed. As a result, the traditional ILS represents a smaller part of library workflows. The document advocates that libraries should have flexibility to choose best-of-breed systems for discovery and resource management that can interoperate, rather than relying on a single vendor suite. It also highlights examples of libraries integrating discovery services with their ILS to provide a unified user experience.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (8)
Similar to The Role of Discovery and its Relationship with the ILS
Similar to The Role of Discovery and its Relationship with the ILS (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
The Role of Discovery and its Relationship with the ILS
- 1. The Role of Discovery and its Relationship with the ILS Neil Block, MLIS Vice President of Discovery Innovation EBSCO Information Services
- 2. Agenda: ILS and Discovery Is it time to re-think the ILS? Importance of choice in the library ecosystem Discovery and the post next-gen ILS
- 3. Re-thinking the ILS: Changing Needs The academic library collection is evolving and the traditional ILS represents a smaller part of the overall library workflow
- 4. The Changing Library Collection 1.0 million volumes 15K print serials 250K circ OPAC and Databases Via native interface or federated search 12,000 FTE 1.0 million volumes 100K circ No growth. Increased offsite storage Declining in favor of full text article content eBooks 50,000 titles via subscription, DDA and purchase eJournals Largely replacing print serials Available via EBSCOnet Discovery 100s of millions of articles searched via discovery (EDS) Monographs No growth, Increasingly automated (e.g. OCLC, YBP) New collection means changes to the physical space, new workflows and increased focus on user success Then Now Impact
- 5. New Paradigm Diverse selection of content that is accessed on a myriad of devices “Digital native” users with modern expectations, different needs, across disciplines Unique technology mix within the library ecosystem
- 6. ILS and Discovery: Changing Needs Shouldn’t our automation strategy be focused more on user success and outcomes?
- 7. Re-thinking the ILS Should the ILS become the Discovery Services Platform? ?
- 8. The Importance of Choice
- 9. Every Library Has a Unique Mix of Services
- 10. DISCOVERY MARC Infrotrieve British Library Regional Providers ILL EBSCO Publishers Gale PQ JSTOR Books/ eBooks Springer Sage JSTOR Wiley OA EBSCO Subject Indexes Gale Lexis Nexis Cost Per Use Usage Consolidation Platform Use Analysis Tools Journals Databases Blackboard Moodle Canvas Sakai D2L LMS SFX/Serials Solutions GOKB Full Text Finder Holdings Management Dspace Content DM e-Prints Fedora IRs Innovative Sirsi Dynix Regional Providers ProQuest / Ex Libris Koha OCLC Kuali ILS
- 11. The Importance of Choice Libraries should pick the best available technology mix for their users, independent of their ILS decision Libraries must expect their Discovery platform to interoperate with ILS and other key technologies
- 12. Choice and the Post Next-Gen ILS
- 13. Choice and the Post Next-Gen ILS Post Next-Gen replaces the monolithic megasuite Monolithic Megasuite Single vendor technology stack Integration trumps flexibility and fit to requirement (can’t be the best at everything) Post Next-Gen ILS Characteristics User Centric Drivers: lower IT costs and increase flexibility Based on loosely coupled applications not a single product suite Driven by the nexus of forces (Analytics, Social, Mobile, Cloud)
- 14. Title Slide “Libraries need the ability to set Discovery and Resource Management strategies independently and expect these systems to have mutual interoperability.” Marshall Breeding February 2015 NISO White Paper, “The Future of Library Resource Discovery”, Feb 2015, Marshall Breeding http://www.niso.org/apps/group_public/download.php/14487/future_li brary_resource_discovery.pdf
- 15. The most active partnership program: • 40 ILS partners worldwide, • Others via library technical collaboration ILS-Discovery Partnerships
- 16. Discovery and the ILS We at EBSCO are very interested in the ILS We actively support open source (Koha and Kuali OLE) We actively support partnerships with ILS vendors We all need the ILS market to be robust and open EDS and YBP integrate across all platforms Thank You!
- 17. Email me at nblock@ebsco.com Thank You!
- 18. Kuali OLE Designing the Open Library Environment Tim McGeary AUL for Information Technology Services Duke University tim.mcgeary@duke.edu
- 19. What is OLE? • OLE is People. Built with a governance model, every partner has a seat at the table and a say in what OLE will offer. • OLE is Community. OLE delivers an enterprise-ready, community-source software package to manage and provide access not only to items in your collection but also to licensed and local digital content. • OLE is Collaboration. Large and small, consortia and single universities, in the US and overseas. OLE is comprised of over 10 unique partners working together and supporting each other to create enterprise level software.
- 20. Looking back to 2001
- 22. NC State implements Endeca
- 23. TRLN endorses “Search TRLN” project • Extends NC State’s Endeca implementation • The goal of Search TRLN to enable searching the combined TRLN collections from within a single software interface and to facilitate the request and delivery of library materials to faculty, students, and staff members of the TRLN Universities. • Licensed March 2007 • UNC-CH: III Millennium • NC State and NC Central: SirsiDynix Unicorn / Symphony • Duke: Ex Libris Aleph
- 30. INTEGRATING THE DISCOVERY LAYER AND THE ILS Elizabeth Leonard Seton Hall University
- 31. ILS IMPLEMENTATION 2013-2014 Chose OCLC’s cloud-based Worldshare Management Services (also with the Knowledgebase ERM). Happy with the integration of ERM and ILS but not as much with Discovery layers, Worldcat Local and (now) Worldcat Discovery.
- 32. WHAT TO DO? We decided we should keep EDS as a discovery layer and WCL as an OPAC
- 33. SOLUTION Combine the ILS and the Discovery Layer EBSCO’s goal since 2013 OCLC actively supported the integration
- 34. STAGE: PRINT CATALOG Data dump from our prior ILS Reconfigure to pull MARC records from WMS Data mapping- difficult Solution: FTP Single data dump file Daily updates Add Change Delete www.Bloomberg.co m
- 35. STAGE: RTAC OF PRINT MATERIALS RTAC (real time availability checking) Shelf Location/Lookup Tables Availability
- 36. STAGE: HOLD FUNCTION Communicate with WMS to put items on hold. Not just pull data but also push back/update WMS system
- 37. STAGE: EBOOKS Electronic resources v Print resource in WMS Different locations Ebooks have MARC records but not sourced through Connexion or other Cataloging tool. How to represent? Solution EBSCOhost ebooks loaded directly But format doesn’t work (kbart) Other collections (e.g. ebrary) loaded via separate FTP Metadata issue (industry wide) Tabled metadata issue to work on patron management
- 38. STAGE: PATRON FUNCTIONALITY Login via EDS search results page View Books/ebooks checked out View holds Fines Functionality Set holds Delete holds Renew materials
- 39. CHECKOUTS
- 40. HOLDS
- 41. FINES
- 42. STAGE: PATRON FUNCTIONALITY: TO DO Issues Temporary records (ILL items) Off campus login EZProxy/ WMS login systems Pay fines online (waiting for OCLC API) Cosmetic issues Change login verbiage Change two or three step links to single click Update ebook access
- 43. THANK YOU TO: EBSCO OCLC Marc Keepper Andrew Pace Ed Roche Tyler Ferguson Eric Frierson Sara Newell Susan Key Doug Lyons Julianne Driscoll Adam Buttrick Timothy Lull Jan Waterhouse Bailey McAllister Wayne Mackey Alex Chute
- 44. THANK YOU Neil Block nblock@ebsco.com Tim McGeary tim.mcgeary@duke.edu Elizabeth Leonard: elizabeth.leonard@shu.edu
Editor's Notes
- Changing needs of the academic library require that we rethink the automated systems we use to support research Our technology choices should align with the library mission – which generally supports the end user experience and outcomes Choice of all components in the automation ecosystem is vital for libraries to effectively serve their users The Discovery services platform is a sophisticated set of software and apis and it relates with what I call the “post-modern ILS” – the new system needed for the coming years
- Number of volumes added to collection has actually gone up over the last 8-10 years – but mostly due to e-books Ebooks in 2006 – 16M; ebooks in 2012 – 52M Circulation is dropping – 20% over last 5-6 years
- Changing needs of the academic library – means requirements must evolve also
- This shows a diverse mix of content and application software that differs library to library EDS and EBSCO must work with the unique mix of services that each library brings to us Standards and APIs for interoperability are most important to make this mix work seamlessly
- So, as the market and Marshall Breeding have articulated, they want interoperability of best in breed solutions. In Europe, we are faced with the increasing need to go through the tender process. Many institutions have been bullied into thinking that they must tender for an ILS and throw in the discovery decision as part of the ILS decision. Representatives from institutions who took a bundled discovery layer with an ILS have been very clear at conferences, tweets and discussion boards that having a compromised discovery experience is something that they regret and have since upgraded to EDS either as the discovery layer, or the index that sits behind a configurable discovery layer such as Blacklight, VuFind or the ILS provider’s catalog interface.
- We do not supply or sell ILS software but we need to integrate with all ILS platforms to be successful!
- Back in 2001, I was the lone systems staff for the library at Lehigh University. This is the system architecture at that time. A siloed ILS made a lot of sense because it was the financial and inventory control system for almost all of the collections. E-Journals were still just a small add-on to the collection, and Databases were so few that we could run a small database application.
- By 2009, my system architecture had become much more complex. The ILS was no longer the center of the systems universe, and discovery – whether we liked it or not – was coming through Google more than the OPAC. Just as important is the fact that demand for access points to collections increased by an order of magnitude. We were at a point that we had to choose our focus points very strategically. Do we focus on discovery or managing collections? Do we focus on staffing or workflows? Do we focus on seeking one big system or integrating a lot of smaller systems?
- In 2005, NC State licensed the Endeca ProFind platform, and began work on the first library implementation of this revolutionary discovery platform. NC State successfully launched the Endeca discovery interface for their catalog in January 2006.
- With a click from the front page of the TRLN website, you can begin the discovery of all collections within TRLN. You can also select your institution and library here, which sets parameters for request and other services you may need to access the items you are seeking.
- Each of the TRLN Libraries still has their own local discovery starting point. This page displays all of the various options for my search.
- And this page narrows it down to collections items typically found in the catalog. Notice here – I can expand the search to TRLN collections because this Duke skin is only showing the Duke index, but can be easily expanded to the entire TRLN index.
- At the very beginning of the Open Library Environment design phase back in 2008-2009, we decided that independent discovery interfaces had a lot of promise, thus OLE did not need to develop its own. When the development phase began, each of the initial partners already had in place, or were currently implementing, an discovery platform that was independent to their current ILS. The work that NC State and TRLN started back in 2005 helped the founding OLE Partners recognize that the end user experience had to be separated from the quickly-changing needs of our management workflows and operations. In fact, the entire Open Library Environment was designed to use the best of breed systems available – to create flexible workflows within OLE that could use as many, or as few, systems and modules outside of OLE that you wanted to use. We broke up the design of OLE into four major areas: Acquire, Manage, Describe, and Deliver, so that each library could choose for themselves how to implement OLE, in what order, and with which workflows that works best for them.
- Based on that decision to build OLE in a way that would encourage the use of any independent discovery layer. Thus first three implementers of OLE are able to continue their use of their discovery platforms after moving to OLE. This is the University of Chicago, followed by Lehigh University, and then SOAS University of London.
- While they are excellent tools, our teaching and reference faculty did not feel that they had as many features as EDS.
- (since our senior faculty at the University preferred to keep an OPAC). BUT: Library Account accessed only via WCL or WCD. Awkward.
- WMS is not “just” an OPAC so a simple feed was difficult. Also challenging: NCIP v Z39.50 communication standards.