This document summarizes a project investigating the benefits of a shared library management system across institutions of higher education in Scotland. It discusses workshops and surveys that were conducted to understand user needs and gather opinions on sharing systems, content, and services. The project also analyzed current library management systems in use, options for sharing, and the potential size and challenges of shared bibliographic data and records. Next steps include further blogging, analysis by a task group, and discussions within library consortia to explore the issues in more detail.

1. Are we ready to share one library
management system in Scottish HE?

2. JISC Grant Funding 01/12,
Pathfinder projects
The aim of this work is to contribute to a new vision for library
systems……
“JISC invites projects to undertake work under one of the
following broad themes:
Shared library systems
Emerging tools and technologies
Emerging library systems opportunities”
Appendix D2: Library Systems (Information and Library Infrastructure) – Pathfinder projects

3. JISC Grant Funding 01/12
“Projects should see themselves as a stepping
stone toward a different future for library
systems.
While the project may be time limited and
contained, the opportunities and potential
vision for a future library system should not.”
Appendix D2: Library Systems (Information and Library Infrastructure) – Pathfinder projects

5. The Benefits of Sharing
This proposed project seeks to contribute towards a
new vision for library systems by investigating the
following question:
“How would a shared library management system
improve services in Scotland?”
This will be achieved by a project team backed by
the Scottish Confederation of University and
Research Libraries (SCURL), and led by the
University of Edinburgh Library.

6. The Benefits of Sharing
There are several aspects to this question that are being investigated:
Services – how do different groups of users benefit from shared content and
systems, and are there any complications introduced from such sharing?
Systems – how far can a shared system sensibly reach, do suitable solutions
exist that can be shared and that scale appropriately, and to what extent is a
local view of a shared system required or possible?
Content – how common are the current content holdings, licences and
cataloguing practises across the libraries in Scotland that would help or
hinder deeper sharing?

7. Project timeline

8. Project staff
Each work package will be led by a different member of the
project team.
WP1 – Looking ahead, Stuart Lewis, University of
Edinburgh.
WP2 – Users. Angela Laurins, University of Edinburgh.
WP3 – Systems. Colin Watt, University of Edinburgh.
WP4 – Content. Colin Sinclair, University of Stirling.
A project board will oversee the project. The project board
will be made up of members of SCURL, representatives
nominated by the JISC, project staff, and other relevant staff. It
will be chaired by a SCURL officer.
Project also reports to the wider JISC Pathfinder project.

9. WP1: Looking ahead
• Perform a brief review of recently published analysis in this area,
both in the UK and internationally.
• Gather together practitioners from across SCURL members and
experts nominated by the JISC Programme Manager to take part in
a facilitated session to start thinking about the potentials of a
shared LMS for Scotland. The facilitator will ensure that the
participants think across a broad spectrum of timescales, from
practical steps that can be taken now, to forward thinking
envisioning of possible systems in the future.
• LMS Day at Stirling on 5th October - reps from HE, FE and the NLS,
considered what we need from an LMS, what could be shared, what
the impact might be and what it would look like to library staff and
users. http://libraryblogs.is.ed.ac.uk/benefitsofsharing/the-lms-
day/

11. “The Vote”
• Do you want a shared LMS for Scotland?
• Do you think a shared LMS for Scotland would work?
• We asked everyone to answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to each
question. Voting was anonymous.
We got the following results:
• 29 people wanted a shared LMS for Scotland, 3
people didn’t, and one person didn’t vote on this
question.
• 24 people thought a shared LMS for Scotland would
work, 9 people didn’t think it would work.

12. WP2: Services for users
The visions and perceived benefits will be explored
with users through a variety of methods, including
the use of facilitated focus groups and surveys,
giving participants the opportunity to provide
feedback and to contribute their own vision of an
ideal LMS system.
• Surveys of student perceptions.
• Discussion with staff running other shared
systems – Rowan, Sedar, US consortia.
• Impact of other cross-institutional initiatives –
e.g. Glasgow Colleges.

13. WP 2 Findings
Students don’t use terms like OPAC and LMS.
Catalogue searches, quick and easy access to
contents.
They have made little use of discovery services
and tools to search other libraries, though PGs
more.
Prepared to travel to use other libraries.

14. WP2 - Findings
Examples of sharing in Scotland:
SDLC
Glasgow Colleges
SEDAR
Rowan
Findabook
SCURL - SCOPNet

15. WP3: The systems
An overview of LMS products will be compiled with
a focus on the offering on consortial services.
This will be coupled with an investigation into the
possibilities and issues related to the sharing and
privacy of user information, local versus cloud
hosting, general local content and data, and locally
customised presentation.
The final strand will look at possibilities beyond the
basic LMS for including other related systems such
as OpenURL resolvers and e-resource managements
systems.

17. WP3 – Systems
Analysis of who is using what across Scotland.
How is the LMS regarded – a niche system.
Likelihood of major change in near future?
Other systems in use – an increasingly complex
environment – VLE, Archives, Discovery, ILL,
Reading Lists, Link resolvers and IRs.

18. WP3 – Sharing options
A look at the Library Services platforms from
commercial vendors.
Kuali / OLE – a glimpse of the future, join a
community rather than buy a system.
Shared infrastructure and shared application
instance – with consequences for library policy
and requirement for compromise.
Watching brief on a developing marketplace.

19. WP4: The content
A shared LMS will need to be based on access to
accurate descriptions of library content, in print and
electronic forms. This work package will seek to
build on work being done for SHEDL and the JISC
KB+ project on common e-holdings of Scottish HEIs.
An analysis, by survey, will be carried out to
quantify the number of electronic records available
for local, print, holdings and their format.
A shared LMS need not necessarily mean a shared
or union catalogue; attitudes to this will also be
surveyed.

20. WP4 – Content findings
Scale of the shared ecollection, though
SHEDLand other consortial arrangements.
Drawing on survey data already gathered on our
holdings for SCURL and SHEDL.
The potential size of a shared LMS in terms of
records to be managed, patron and
bibliographic data.
Other metadata – outside of the LMS.

21. WP4 - Content
Perceptions of the structure of a shared system
A single bibliographic database.
Cataloguing policy.
Autonomy.
E-resource records?
Shared infrastructure – separate systems.
Loss of some of the benefits of
sharing?

22. WP5: Evaluation and dissemination
Evaluation and dissemination activities will take
place in two areas.
Firstly activities will take place within and across all
SCURL members, to ensure that thorough
evaluation and dissemination of the findings are
discussed at the regional level.
Secondly further activities will be planned in liaison
with the pathfinder synthesis project, to ensure
that the reports are widely available and
complimentary to the other projects’ outputs.

23. WP6: Project management
Ensure that the project is managed suitably to ensure
that the project is completed on time, on budget, and
in accordance with relevant requirements.
The Project Manager will be the main point of liaison
with the JISC Programme team and the synthesis
project.

24. Next …. STEPS

25. Next steps
Further blogging and analysis.
SCURL “task and finish” group in 2013 to look at
the issues in more detail.
Discussion at SDLC, SCURL Systems Community
of Practice.
Kuali/OLE event?

26. Photo credits
• “Sharing”: http://www.flickr.com/photos/micahtaylor/6036026737
• “Vote”:
http://anthonycowin.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/toast-and-vote.html
• “LMS”:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/foxfield/lms_van_117870.htm
• “Content”:
http://www.im3.co.uk/seo-tutorials/what-content-should-i-use-for-my-
website/
• “Steps”
http://www.pop-music.com/steps/index.html
No permission sought from any of the above!
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 UK: Scotland License.