The document summarizes a study that evaluated 260 academic library OPAC interfaces against 12 characteristics of a next generation catalog. Key findings include: - No OPAC or discovery tool possessed all 12 next generation features. Only 3% had 7 or more features. - Faceted browsing was only present in 13% of interfaces, most of which were discovery tools. - Use of discovery tools has doubled since the initial study, with Summon and WorldCat Local being most popular. However, most libraries still provide the legacy catalog alongside the discovery tool. - The majority of interfaces displaying the most next generation features are discovery tools rather than traditional OPACs.

1. The Next Generation of Catalogs
for Academic Libraries
Ex Libris Northeast User Group Annual Conference
Oct 27, 2011
Sharon Yang & Melissa A. Hofmann
Rider University Libraries

2. Purpose:
• To measure the progress made in modeling
current OPACs after the next generation
catalog (NGC) in academic libraries in the
United States and Canada.
Hofmann & Yang: "Next
Generation?”
2

3. Design/Methodology/Approach
• A random sample of 260 colleges and
universities was selected (about 10% of the
population).
• The libraries’ OPAC interfaces—both ILS-
integrated and discovery tools—were
evaluated against a checklist of the 12
features of the next generation catalog (NGC).
Hofmann & Yang: "Next
Generation?”
3

4. Design/Methodology/Approach
• There were 273 potential OPAC interfaces
• 40 institutions had no OPACs available for analysis
(“missing”)
• Data was collected from September 2009
through July 2010.
• Findings can be extrapolated to the
population at the 95% confidence level with a
confidence interval of ±3.
Hofmann & Yang: "Next
Generation?”
4

5. 12 NGC Characteristics
1. Single point of entry for all library resources
2. State-of-the-art web interface
3. Enriched content
4. Faceted navigation
5. Simple keyword search box with a link to advanced search on
every page
6. Relevancy
7. Did you mean…?
8. Recommendations/related materials
9. User contribution
10. RSS feeds
11. Integration with social networking sites
12. Persistent links
Hofmann & Yang: "Next
Generation?”
5

6. Institutions in the Sample
Hofmann & Yang: "Next
Generation?”
6

7. 1. Single point of entry
Yes No Missing Total
Journal
articles
10 (4%) 223 (81%) 40 (15%) 273 (100%)
Full-text
journals
133 (48%) 100 (37%) 40 (15%) 273 (100%)
Ebooks 185 (67%) 48 (18%) 40 (15%) 273 (100%)
All three 9 (3%) 224 (82%) 40 (15%) 273 (100%)
Hofmann & Yang: "Next
Generation?”
7

8. 2. State-of-the-art web interface
Poor: 10 OPACs (3%) OK: 89 OPACs (32%)
Hofmann & Yang: "Next
Generation?”
8

9. 2. State-of-the-art web interface
Good: 83 OPACs (31 %) Excellent: 51 OPACs (19%)
Hofmann & Yang: "Next
Generation?”
9
Missing: 40 OPACs (15%)

10. 3. Enriched content
Hofmann & Yang: "Next
Generation?”
10
Yes No Missing Total
Cover Images 126 (46%) 107 (39%) 40 (15%) 273 (100%)
Reviews 93 (34%) 140 (51%) 40 (15%) 273 (100%)
Summary/
Annotation
82 (30%) 151 (55%) 40 (15%) 273 (100%)
TOC 82 (30%) 151 (55%) 40 (15%) 273 (100%)
Excerpts 82 (30%) 151 (55%) 40 (15%) 273 (100%)
Tags 34 (12%) 199 (73%) 40 (15%) 273 (100%)
Rating /ranking 27 (10%) 206 (75%) 40 (15%) 273 (100%)
Descriptions 8 (3%) 225 (82%) 40 (15%) 273 (100%)
Comments 6 (2%) 227 (83%) 40 (15%) 273 (100%)

11. 4. Faceted navigation
Hofmann & Yang: "Next
Generation?”
11

12. 5. Simple keyword search box
with link to advanced search on every page
0
50
100
150
200
250
Simple search box w/
link to advanced
Other options Missing
• Only 26 OPAC interfaces (9%) started with a Google-like
search box and maintained it throughout.
• “Other options”: interfaces starting with a basic or advanced
search, dropping the search box on later screens, and/or
providing other choices next to the search box.
Hofmann & Yang: "Next
Generation?”
12

13. 6. Relevancy
• No OPACs or discovery tools incorporated
these into the search results.
Hofmann & Yang: "Next
Generation?”
13
Circulation statistics and multiple copies should join the relevancy
results criteria

14. 7. Did you mean?
Hofmann & Yang: "Next
Generation?”
14
Spell-checking and suggestion of terms.
*Other” used language to explain dropping a user into list of
headings or titles to browse, such as: “Item not found—perhaps the
following list will help” / “Keyword not found. The closest subject match
appears below”/ “No matches found; nearby titles are…” /

15. 8. Recommended/related materials.
• No OPAC interfaces were found to have this
feature.
• However, 34% use patron-friendly language with
existing functionalities, such as hyperlinked
name and subject headings in records (searches
and browses) and call number browses:
– “Browse similar items” / “Find more about this author
or topic”/ “Show similar items” / “Nearby items on
shelf” / “More like this”
Hofmann & Yang: "Next
Generation?”
15
Recommend items for readers based on transaction logs.

16. 9. User contribution
Hofmann & Yang: "Next
Generation?”
16
Allow users to add data to records.
Yes No Missing Total
Tags 30 (11%) 203 (74%) 40 (15%) 273 (100%)
Reviews 18 (7%) 215 (78%) 40 (15%) 273 (100%)
Rating/ranking 11 (4%) 222 (81%) 40 (15%) 273 (100%)
Comments 3 (1%) 230 (84%) 40 (15%) 273 (100%)
Descriptions 0 (0%) 233 (85%) 40 (15%) 273 (100%)
Summary/
annotation
0 (0%) 233 (85%) 40 (15%) 273 (100%)

17. 10. Persistent links / 11. RSS feeds / 12.
Integration with social networking sites
Hofmann & Yang: "Next
Generation?”
17
Yes No Missing Total
Persistent
links
63 (23%) 170 (62%) 40 (15%) 273 (100%)
Integration
with social
networking
sites
21 (8%) 212 (77%) 40 (15%) 273 (100%)
RSS feeds 9 (3%) 224 (82%) 40 (15%) 273 (100%)

18. Distribution of NGC Features
Hofmann & Yang: "Next
Generation?”
18

19. Summary of Findings
• No OPAC or discovery tool possessed all 12 features.
• Only 3% of the OPAC interfaces in the sample had 7 or
more features of the NGC—and these were all
discovery tools.
• WorldCat Local and Summon were the top runners.
• Comprehensive federated search is still largely missing
(only 4% of OPAC interfaces included articles).
Hofmann & Yang: "Next
Generation?”
19

20. Summary of Findings
• Only 13% of OPAC interfaces offered faceted browsing,
83% of which were discovery tools.
• ILS-integrated OPACs that offered faceted browsing
were Koha, Auto-Graphics, and Polaris.
• 16% of institutions used a discovery tool; 85% of these
used them in conjunction with their legacy or “classic”
catalog.
• 14% of institutions offered a choice of catalog
interfaces (discovery tools and classic catalog)
Hofmann & Yang: "Next
Generation?”
20

21. Latest Study
• 260 institutions in sample checked for changes
in October 2011
• Use of discovery tools has doubled
– 81 libraries out of 260, or 31%
• (includes libraries sharing consortial catalogs)
– (Was 41 out of 260, or 16%)
Hofmann & Yang: "Next
Generation?”
21

22. Latest Study
• New-to-our-sample products
– Ebsco Discovery Service (EDS)
– LS2 PAC (Library.Corporation, part of ILS)
• Changes in
– ILS
• 3 switched (2 to LS2 PAC w/NGC features)
– Discovery Tools
• 1 from WorldCat Local to EDS
• 1 from Encore to WorldCat Local
Hofmann & Yang: "Next
Generation?”
22

23. Summary of New Findings
• What discovery tool did institutions choose most
since our initial data collection?
Hofmann & Yang: "Next
Generation?”
23
Summon 13 33%
WorldCat 9 23%
EDS 5 13%
Primo 5 13%
VuFind 4 10%
AquaBrowser 2 5%
Encore 2 5%
40 100%

24. Institutions in the Sample (260)
October 2011
Hofmann & Yang: "Next
Generation?”
4%
49%
16%
28%
3% ILS OPACs (faceted)
(11)
"Classic" Catalogs Only
(non-faceted) (127)
Missing (41)
Discovery tools +
classic catalogs (72)
Discovery tools only
(9)

25. Latest Study
Hofmann & Yang: "Next
Generation?”
25
*1 more than # of institutions (81) because GVSU has
links to both Summon and Encore
Discovery Tool # of Instances
AquaBrowser 7 8.5%
EDS 5 6.1%
Encore 11 13.4%
Endeca 5 6.1%
Primo 10 12.2%
Summon 15 18.3%
VuFind 14 17.1%
WorldCat Local 15 18.3%
Total: 82* 100.0%

26. Latest Study
Hofmann & Yang: "Next
Generation?”
26
*Now has true faceted navigation.
ILS-integrated faceted
OPACs # of Instances
Autographics 1 9%
Evergreen* 2 18%
Koha 4 36%
LS2 PAC (TLC) 2 18%
Polaris 2 18%
Total: 11 100%

27. Summary of New Findings
• 31% (was 16%) of academic libraries use a discovery
tool
• 90% (was 85%) of these use them in conjunction
with their legacy or “classic” catalog.
• 28% (was 14%) offer a choice of catalog interfaces
(discovery tools and classic catalog)
• If you combine discovery tools and faceted ILS
OPACs, at least 35% of academic libraries are using
a faceted interface.
Hofmann & Yang: "Next
Generation?”
27

28. Overall Conclusions
• NGC features in legacy catalogs are cosmetic and
minor.
• The majority of catalog interfaces displaying the
most NGC features are discovery tools.
• Many proprietary vendors seem to be
abandoning their ILS-integrated OPACs in favor of
discovery tools.
• Most libraries using a discovery tool still provide
access to their “classic” catalog.
• For some discovery tools, the legacy OPAC is
necessary to perform advanced searches or to
browse indexesHofmann & Yang: "Next
Generation?”
28

29. References
Antelman, K., Lynema, E., and Pace, A.K. (2006), “Toward a twenty-first century library catalog”, Information Technology & Libraries, Vol. 25
No. 3, pp. 128-39.
Breeding, M. (2007), “Introduction”, Library Technology Reports, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 5-14.
Creative Research Systems (2010), “Sample size calculator”, available at: http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm (accessed 20 April 2010).
Funer, J. (2008), “User tagging of library resources: toward a framework for system evaluation”, International Cataloging & Bibliographic
Control, Vol. 37 No. 3, 47-51.
Haahr, M. (2010), “Random.org: random integer generation”, available at http://www.random.org/integers/ (accessed 12 October 2009).
Kudo, E. and Kataoka, S. (2008), “A big wave of next generation catalog-its features and implementing into Japanese library systems”, Joho
Kanri, Vol. 51 No. 7, pp. 480-98.
Luong, T.D. and Liew, C.L. (2009), “The evaluation of New Zealand academic library OPACs: a checklist approach”, Electronic Library, Vol. 27
No. 3, pp. 376-93.
McCormack, N. (2008), “User comments and reviews: decline or democratization of the online public access catalogue?” Feliciter, Vol. 54 No.
3, pp. 129-31.
Mendez, L.H., Quiñonez-Skinner, J., and Skaggs, D. (2009), “Subjecting the catalog to tagging”, Library Hi Tech, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 30-41.
Hofmann & Yang: "Next
Generation?”
29

30. References
Merčun, T. and Žumer, M. (2008), “New generation of catalogues for the new generation of users: a comparison of six library
catalogues”, Program: Electronic Library and Information Systems, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 243-61.
Murray, P. (2008), “Discovery tools and the OPAC”, PowerPoint presentation at NISO forum on next generation discovery tools:
new tools, aging standards, available at: http://dltj.org/article/discovery-layer-video-tour/ (accessed 27 January 2010).
Peterson’s Four-Year Colleges (2009), Peterson’s, Lawrenceville, NJ.
Spiteri, L.F. (2007), “The structure and form of folksonomy tags: the road to the public library catalog”, Information Technology
and Libraries, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 13-25.
Tennant, R. (2005), “Digital libraries: ‘lipstick on a pig’”, Library Journal, Vol. 130 No. 7, p. 34.
Tennant, R. (2007), “Digital libraries: ‘lipstick on a pig 2.0’”, available at
http://blog.libraryjournal.com/tennantdigitallibraries/2007/05/04/lipstick-on-a-pig-2-0/ (accessed 3 June 2010).
Trommer, D. (1997), “Open market goes live with next-generation catalog solution”, Electronic Buyers’ News, No. 1075, p. 90.
Yang, S. Q., and Wagner, K. (2010), Evaluating and comparing discovery tools: how close are we towards the next generation
catalog? Library Hi Tech. Vol. 28 No.4, pp. 690-709.
Yang, S. Q. and Hofmann, M.A. (2010), “The next generation library catalog: a comparative study of the OPACs of Koha, Evergreen,
and Voyager”, Information Technology and Libraries, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 141-50.
Hofmann & Yang: "Next
Generation?”
30

31. Questions?
• Thank you!
• To learn more, read our article, Published in
Library Hi Tech, 29.2 (2011).
Hofmann & Yang: "Next
Generation?”
31