The Future of the Integrated Library System:

moving toward the next-generation of library automation

Marshall BreedingMarshall BreedingDirector for Innovative Technologies and ResearchDirector for Innovative Technologies and ResearchVanderbilt UniversityVanderbilt University

http://staffweb.library.vanderbilt.edu/breedinghttp://www.librarytechnology.org/

Wednesday January 14, 2009George E. Bello Center for Information and Technology Bryant University, Smithfield, Rhode Island

HELIN

Consortium of academic and hospital libraries Initially formed in 1984 to share CLSI circulation

system Implementation of INNOPAC system 1991 Migration to Millennium Brown Josiah catalog based on separate Millennium

implementation InRhode Library Catalog = HELIN + Brown Initial deployment of Encore

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

LJ Automation System Marketplace

Annual Industry report published in Library Journal: 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

Upheavals in the library automation arena

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.pl January 2008.

ILS Industry in Transition

Consolidation through mergers and acquisitions have resulted in a fewer number of players; larger companies

Uncomfortable level of product narrowing Increased ownership by external interests Yet: Some companies and products continue

on solid ground

Breeding, Marshall “Automation system marketplace 2008: Opportunity Out of Turmoil” Library Journal. April 1, 2008.

Library Automation M&A History

Product and Technology Trends

Innovation below expectations Conventional ILS less tenable Proliferation of products related to e-content

management New genre of discovery-layer interfaces

Web 2.0 / Collaborative Computing

Currently implemented ad hoc Many libraries putting up blogs, wikis, and fostering

engagement in social networking sites Proliferation of silos with no integration or

interoperability with larger library Web presence Next Gen: Build social and collaborative features into

core automation components

Part II. A Mandate for Openness

Opportunities for Openness

Open Source– Alternative to traditionally licensed software

Open Systems– Software that doesn’t hold data hostage

Open Source Alternatives

Explosive interest in Open Source driven by disillusionment with current vendors and near-evangelical promotion of this software licensing model

Beginning to emerge as a practical option TOC (Total Cost of Ownership) still roughly equal

to proprietary commercial model Still a risky strategy for libraries – traditional

licensing also risky

A result of industry turmoil

Disruptions and business decisions to narrow options have fueled the open source movement

Benefit to libraries in having additional options

Traditionally licensed and open source ILS alternatives will coexist in the ILS arena

Open Source ILS enters the mainstream

Earlier era of pioneering efforts to ILS shifting into one where open source alternatives fall in the mainstream

Off-the-shelf, commercially supported product available

Still a minority player, but gaining ground

Open Source ILS options

Koha– Commercial support from LibLime

Evergreen– Commercial support from Equinox Software

OPALS– Commercial support from Media Flex

Business case for Open Source ILS

Comparative total cost of ownership Evaluate features and functionality Evaluate technology platform and conceptual

models Are they next-generation systems or open

source version of legacy models?

“Making a Business Case for Open Source ILS.” Marshall Breeding, Computers in Libraries March 2008http://www.librarytechnology.org/ltg-displaytext.pl?RC=13134

Software Development Models

How do companies approach software development:– Ongoing maintenance work on existing products

(enhancement requests, bug fixes)– R&D toward future products (capital investment)– Sponsored Development: contracted custom

development paid for by individual sites, code shared with current and future implementers.

Observations on Open Source ILS

Current Open Source ILS products similar in modular organization and functionality to existing systems. Evolving to achieve the same level of features and capacity present in established commercial systems.

Initial wave of Open Source ILS commitments happened in the public library arena. Recent activity among academic libraries:

– WALDO Consortium (Voyager > Koha)– University of Prince Edward Island (Unicorn > Evergreen)

Do the current open source ILS products provide a new model of automation, or an open source version of what we already have?

Impact of Open Source ILS

Library automation industry cannot be complacent

Some libraries moving from traditionally licensed products to open source products with commercial support plans

Disruption of ILS industry– new pressures on incumbent vendors to deliver more

innovation and to satisfy concerns for openness

New competition / More options

More Open Systems

Pressure for traditionally licensed products to become more open

APIs (Application Programming Interfaces) let libraries access and manipulate their data outside of delivered software

A comprehensive set of APIs potentially give libraries more flexibility and control in accessing data and services and in extending functionality than having access to the source code.

Customer access to APIs does not involve as much risk to breaking core system functions, avoids issues of version management and code forking associated with open source models.

A Continuum of Openness

Closed Systems

Circulation AcquisitionsCataloging

Staff Interfaces:

End User Interfaces:

Data Stores:

Functionalmodules:

No programmable Access to the system.

Captive to the userInterfaces supplied by the developer

Programmer access:

Standard RDBM Systems

Circulation AcquisitionsCataloging

Staff Interfaces:

End User Interfaces:

Data Stores:

Functionalmodules:

Database administrators can access data stores involved with the system:

Read-only?Read/write?

Developer shares database schema

Programmer access:

Open Source Model

Circulation AcquisitionsCataloging

Staff Interfaces:

End User Interfaces:

Data Stores:

Functionalmodules:

All aspects of the system available to inspection and modification.

Programmer access:

Open API Model

Circulation AcquisitionsCataloging

Staff Interfaces:

End User Interfaces:

Data Stores:

Functionalmodules:

Core application closed.

Third party developers code against the published APIs or RDBMS tables.

Programmer access:

Published APIs

Open Source / Open API Model

Circulation AcquisitionsCataloging

Staff Interfaces:

End User Interfaces:

Data Stores:

Functionalmodules:

Core application closed.

Third party developers code against the published APIs or RDBMS tables.

Programmer access:

Published APIs

Depth of Openness

Evaluate level of access to a products data stores and functional elements:

– Open source vs Traditional licenses

Some traditional vendors have well established API implementations

– SirsiDynix Unicorn (API available to authorized customer sites that take training program)

– Ex Libris: consistent deployment of APIs in major products, recent strategic initiative: “Open Platform Program”

– Innovative Interfaces: Patron API; Encore Web services

Universal open APIs?

Some progress on API to support discovery layer interfaces, but no comprehensive framework yet.

Many industry protocols work like APIs: – Z39.50, SRU/W, NCIP, OAI-PMH, OpenURL, etd

It would be ideal if there were an open set of APIs that were implemented by all automation system products.

– Third party components and add-ons would then work across all products.

Opportunity out of the Upheavals

More options– Commercial + Open Source

More vendors– New open source support companies provide new

competition More library involvement

– Libraries re-energized to make significant contributions to the body of library automation software

Traditionally licensed and open source automation systems will co-exist. We have an interest in the success of both alternatives.

Part III. Moving toward new generation of library automation

Rethinking the ILS

Fundamental assumption: Print + Digital = Hybrid libraries Traditional ILS model not adequate for hybrid libraries Libraries currently moving toward surrounding core ILS with

additional modules to handle electronic content New discovery layer interfaces replacing or supplementing ILS

OPACS Working toward a new model of library automation

– Monolithic legacy architectures replaced by fabric of SOA applications

– Comprehensive Resource Management

“It's Time to Break the Mold of the Original ILS” Computers in Libraries Nov/Dec 2007

ILS: a legacy concept?

ILS = Integrated Library System (Cataloging + Circulation + OPAC + Serials + Acquisitions)

Focused on print and physical inventory Electronic content at the Journal Title or collection

level Emerged in the 1960’s – 1970’s Functionality has evolved and expanded, but basic

concepts and modules remain intact Note: Some companies work toward evolving the ILS to

competently handle both print and digital content (e.g. Innovative Interfaces)

ILS: ever diminishing role

Many libraries putting much less emphasis on ILS Just an inventory system for physical materials Investments in electronic content increasing Management of e-content handled outside of the ILS Yet: libraries need comprehensive business

automation more than ever. Mandate for more efficient operations. Do more with less.

Dis-integration of Library Automation Functionality

ILS -- Print and Physical inventory OpenURL Link resolver Federated Search Electronic Resource Management Module Discovery layer interface

Is non-integrated automation sustainable?

Major burden on library personnel Serial procurement / installation / configuration /

maintenance cycles take many years to result in a comprehensive environment

Inefficient data models Disjointed interfaces for library users Very long cycle to gain comprehensive automation

New genre of discovery layer interfaces

Traditional ILS OPAC inadequate for today’s Web-savvy library users

Scope too narrow Complex, non-intuitive interface Yet: Necessary for some types of research Working toward a single point of entry for all

the content and services offered by the library

Common Next-Gen Interface features

Decoupled interface Advanced search engines Relevancy ranked results Faceted Navigation Graphically enriched displays Real-time interaction with ILS Advanced user services and information

delivery features

Current Products

Encore (Innovative Interfaces) Primo (Ex Libris) Aquabrowser (Bowker / Serials Solutions) WorldCat Local (OCLC) BiblioCommons Visualizer (VTLS) eXtensive Catalog (University of Rochester) VUFind (open source / Villanova University) Scriblio (open source)

http://www.librarytechnology.org/discovery.pl

Deep search

Entering post-metadata search era Increasing opportunities to search the full contents

– Google Library Print, Google Publisher, Open Content Alliance, Microsoft Live Book Search, etc.

– High-quality metadata will improve search precision Commercial search providers already offer “search inside the

book” No comprehensive full text search for books quite yet Beginning to appear in library search environments

– U of Mich (http://mblog.lib.umich.edu/blt/archives/2008/05/search_full-tex.html ) Deep search highly improved by high-quality metadataSee: Systems Librarian, May 2008 “Beyond the current generation of next-generation interfaces: deeper search”

Architecture and Standards

Need to have an standard approach for connecting new generation interfaces with ILS and other repositories

Proprietary and ad hoc methods currently prevail Digital Library Federation

– ILS-Discovery Interface Grouphttp://www.librarytechnology.org/blog.pl?ThreadID=43

Initial foray into a broader set of protocols that open up other aspects of the ILS

Moving toward a new Generation of Library Automation

Are Legacy ILS concepts sustainable? New automation environment based on

current library realities and modern technology platforms

Equal footing for digital and print Service oriented architecture

Breaking down the modules

Traditional ILS– Cataloging– Circulation– Online Catalog– Acquisitions– Serials control– Reporting

Modern approach: SOA

Service Oriented Architecture

http://www.sun.com/products/soa/benefits.jsp

Legacy ILS + e-content modules

FederatedSearch

FederatedSearch

Circulation Acquisitions

Cataloging Serials

OpenURLLinking

OpenURLLinking

Electronic Resource

MgmtSystem

Electronic Resource

MgmtSystem

Staff Interfaces:

End User Interfaces:

Data Stores:

Functionalmodules:

SOA model for business automation

Underlying data repositories– Local or Global

Reusable business services Composite business applications

SOA for library workflow processes

Data Stores:

ReusableBusiness Services

CompositeApplications

Granulartasks:

Comprehensive Resource Management

Broad conceptual approach that proposes a library automation environment that spans all types of content that comprise library collections.

Traditional ILS vendors: Under development but no public announcements

Open Source projects in early phases Projection: 2-3 years until we begin see library

automation systems that follow this approach. 5-7 years for wider adoption.

Open Library Environment (OLE) project

Andrew W. Mellon Foundation – Research in Information Technology program– Solicited proposal / Lead institution

Duke University selected to lead project Core Participants: Kansas University, Lehigh

University, National Library of Australia, Library and Archives Canada, University of Pennsylvania, Marshall Breeding

Advisory Participants: University of Chicago, Wittier College, University of Maryland, ORBIS Cascade Alliance, Rutgers University

http://www.mellon.org/grant_programs/programs/rit

OLE Project Status

Phase I to create requirements underway. Kick-off Meeting at Duke

– Project scope, SOA training Regular online meetings Meeting at Rutgers:

– Training in business process modeling – More SOA

Regional workshops– Business Process Modeling for library workflows

Jan meeting at Lehigh Feb meeting at University of Kansas Final report due end of July Organize Phase II – Build Project

– Open source reference implementation

Ex Libris Universal Resource Management

Next generation system Management of digital and print resources Forward path for both Voyager and ALEPH

OCLC

WorldCat local in pilot phase Additional WorldCat-based automation

services under development?

Innovative Interfaces

Evolutionary path to next-generation automation

Suite of products already offers comprehensive automation– Millennium – Electronic Resource Management– Research Pro – federated search– Encore– Encore Web services API

Is there a future for the ILS?

Yes – libraries need efficient business process automation more than ever

No – not if ILS means the current legacy model based on print Revolutionary and evolutionary approaches will compete, both

working to address major shifts in library missions. Urgent need to reinvent library automation Opportunities abound for existing commercial providers and

open source initiatives. Opportunities for libraries to take a more direct role in

reshaping the automation products they use

Questions and Discussion