Analysis of Library Integrated Systems Marketplace 2008 Annual Meeting of University Librarians in Taiwan National Chung Hsing University Library, Taichung, Taiwan May 15, 2008
Three Major areas of interest § § § The state of the Commercial ILS industry Emerging Interest in Open Source Focus on Next-Generation Library Interfaces § [translate]
Business Trends A look at the companies involved in library automation and related technologies
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
Business Landscape: 2007 -2008 § An increasingly consolidated industry § VC and Private Equity playing a stronger role then ever before § Moving out of a previous phase of fragmentation where many companies expend energies producing decreasingly differentiated systems in a limited marketplace § Narrowing of product options § Open Source opportunities rise to challenge stranglehold of traditional commercial model § Asia: Country-specific companies seeing more competition from international vendors § [translate]
Other Business Factors § Level of innovation falls below expectations § Companies struggle to keep up with ILS enhancements and R&D for new innovations. § Pressure within companies to reduce costs, increase revenue § Pressure from libraries for more innovative products § Pressure from libraries not to increase costs § Many libraries lack top quality automation systems due to high cost § [translate]
Library Automation M&A History
Consolidation among Libraries for automation § More libraries banding together to share automation environment § Reduce overhead for maintaining systems that have decreasing strategic importance § Need to focus technical talent on activities that have more of an impact on the mission of the library § Pooled resources for technical processing § Single library ILS implementations becoming less defensible § Essential for libraries to gain increased leverage relative to large companies § Moving toward a smaller number of larger ILS installations
Why worry about who owns the Industry? § Some of the most important decisions that affect the options available to libraries are made in the corporate board room. § Increased control by financial interests of private equity and venture capital firms § Recent industry events driven by external corporate decisions; § Market success and technological advantages don’t necessarily drive business decisions § [translate]
Investor owned companies § Sirsi. Dynix -> Vista Equity Partners (bought out Seaport Capital + Hicks Muse/HM Capital in Dec 2006) § Ex Libris -> Francisco Partners (bought out VC’s in Jul 2006) § Endeavor -> Francisco Partners (bought out Elsevier Nov 2006) § Infor (was Extensity, was Geac) -> Golden Gate § Polaris -> Croydon Company – formerly part of Gaylord Bros (acquired by Demco)
Public companies: § Auto-Graphics – De-listed from SEC reporting requirements – Was OTC: AUGR now Pink Sheets: AUGR § Civica. Public company traded on AIM London exchange – In transition to ownership by 3 i Investors, a private equity firm
Founder / Family owned companies § Innovative Interfaces – 100% ownership by Jerry Kline following 2001 buy-out of partner Steve Silberstien § The Library Corporation – Owned by Annette Murphy family § VTLS – tech spin-off from Virginia Tech, wholly owned by Vinod Chachra § These companies not under the control of external financial interests
Revenue sources § New ILS sales § Maintenance support – 15% purchase cost annually with inflation adjustments § Non-ILS software § Library Services
Diverse Business Activities § Many ways to expand business in ways that leverage library automation expertise: – Non-ILS software: link resolvers, federated search, ERM, portal/alternative Web interfaces – Retrospective conversion services – RFID or AMH – Network Consulting Services – Content products – Imaging services
Libraries Demand choice § § § § Current market narrowing options Consolidation working toward monopoly? Many smaller companies currently prosper in the library automation industry Room for niche players Domination by a large monopoly unlikely to be accepted by library community Monopoly would be subverted by Open Source or other cooperative movement Many countries and regions continue to be served by local companies [translate]
OEM Partnership strategies § ILS companies partner with other companies for technologies. § Development resource are not abundant, even in the companies with massive capital support § No library automation company can take on all aspects of development § Tough decisions on what to build vs buy § OEM arrangements can increase cost, increase flexibility, and decrease control
Partnerships § Increasing number of partnerships with specialist companies: – Serials Solutions – TDNet – Muse. Global – Web. Feat – Openly Informatics – Medialab Solutions
Companies more self-reliant § Tend to develop products through their own development efforts relying less on technologies licensed from third parties § Examples: – Innovative – Ex Libris § Better integration, more control, now passthrough costs
Business Development Strategy § Essential to understand the strategic business plans of the company – – – Long term growth? Short term profits? Growth through M&A Organic growth by attracting new customer libraries Positioning for sale? § Get past press releases and spin and look closely at the corporate behavior. § [translate]
Library Automation Companies
Taiwan ILS sector
Global Companies in Taiwan § § § Innovative Interfaces (21%) Civica: Spydus (15%) Sirsi. Dynix: Horizon (14%) Ex Libris: Aleph 500 (5%) VTLS: Virtua (2%)
Innovative Interfaces § § § Privately owned by one of this founders No involvement with VC or Private equity No recent involvement in M&A – Acquired SLS in 1997 § Evolutionary Product strategy – Innopac -> Millennium beginning in 1995 § Millennium as core technology – Encore, Right. Results, Research. Pro
Ex Libris § § § Global provider of software to Academic Libraries Largest in the academic market Owned by Francisco Partners Acquired Endeavor in Nov 2006 Strong focus on non-ILS products: – SFX – Meta. Lib – Verde – Digi. Tool – Primo § Continues to support and develop ALEPH and Voyager
Sirsi. Dynix § Highly consolidated company – Sirsi Corp, Dynix, DRA, Multi. LIS, INLEX/300, Docutec, OCLC Local Systems, Data. Phase, Electric Memory, NOTIS Systems § Largest in the industry § Owned by Vista Equity Partners – Previously supported by VC: Seaport Capital, Hicks Muse) § Consolidated company working toward consolidating and integrating products and business units. § Recent announcement for single Unicorn-based ILS
Civica § UK Company; library automation unit based in Australia § Recently purchased by 3 i private equity firm § Large company with software products across several sectors, specializing in systems for public governmental authorities § Spydus library automation system one of many business units – Originated in Australia, deployed in many other geographic regions
Taiwan Companies § Transtech: – Totals II (Technically Opulent TRANSTECH Automation Library System) – 31% share of major academic libraries in Taiwan – Distributes federated search system based on technology licensed from Muse. Global – Distributes OCLC World. Cat Link Manager WCLM § Formerly 1 Cate link resolver from Openly Informatics
Top Information Technologies § Provider of library automation technologies to Taiwan for over two decades § Distributor for Ex Libris – ALEPH, SFX, Meta. Lib, etc § Distributor for Spydus (previously Urica) since 1985 § Torica
OCLC in the ILS arena? § Increasingly overlapped with library automation activities § World. Cat Local recently announced – Penetrating deeper into local libraries § Library-owned cooperative on a buying binge of automation companies: – – – Openly Informatics Fretwell-Downing Informatics Sisis Informationssysteme PICA (now 100%) Di. Me. Ma (CONTENTdm) § ILS companies concerned about competing with a nonprofit with enormous resources and the ability to shift costs.
Cambridge Information Group § Increasingly involved in library automation arena § Pro. Quest: – Serials Solutions – Web. Feat – Aqua. Browser (Academic, North America) § R. R. Bowker – Aqua. Browser (worldwide) – Syndetic Solutions
Major US Companies not present in Asia -
Follett Software Company § Consolidated company focused on K-12 school library automation – FSC, Sagebrush Corporation, Winnebago Software, Nichols Advanced Technologies, Card Catalog Company, Scribe § Privately owned; division of Follett Corporation § Destiny as flagship system for centralized automation of districts § Legacy: Winnebago Spectrum, Athena, Circ Plus, Info. Centre § Accent – OEM of Unicorn offered by Sagebrush withdrawn
The Library Corporation § § § Family owned and managed Focused on public libraries Acquired Carl in 2000 Acquired Tech Logic in April 2005 No involvement by VC or Private Equity Carl division slipping in market share – Presence in Singapore
Auto-Graphics § Founded 1950 § Evolved from traditional publishing services company to focus on library automation § Publicly owned company (Pink Sheets)
Polaris § Privately owned and funded by Croyden, a small holding company – Martin Blackman – Morris Bergreen (deceased Jul 9, 2001) § Formerly part of Gaylord Bros – Gaylord Information Systems, GIS Information Systems (May 2003) > Polaris Library Systems § Focus on U. S. Public Libraries § Products based on Windows-based technologies
Open Source Software An Emerging Trend in the Global ILS Arena
Open Source Alternatives § Explosive interest in Open Source driven by disillusionment with current vendors § 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 § [translate]
An industry in 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 § [translate]
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 § [translate]
Current Open Source ILS Product Options
Koha: first Open Source ILS § Koha + Index Data Zebra = Koha ZOOM § Components: – Perl – Apache – My. Sql – Zebra: search engine option for larger installations
Libraries committed to Koha § § § 300+ libraries Horowhenua Library Trust Nelsonville Public Library – Athens County, OH § Crawford County Federated Library System – 10 Libraries in PA § Howard County, MD – – – Service area population: 266300 4. 7 million circulation transactions in 2006 1 million volumes § Central Kansas Library System § Santa Cruz Public Library – Central, 9 branches – 2 million volumes § Near East University Library
Evergreen § Developed by the Georgia Public Library Service § Small development team § June 2004 – development begins § Sept 5, 2006 – live production § Streamlined environment: single shared implementation, all libraries follow the same policies, one library card
Libraries using Evergreen § Georgia PINES – http: //gapines. org § Georgia PINES: – 1 Installation – 54 Public Library Systems – 260+ library facilities – Does not include municipal systems: Atlanta-Fulton County, Cobb County § Province of British Columbia in Canada – Northern PINES § Kent County, MD § Under consideration by academic libraries in Canada
Evergreen
OPALS § Open source Automated Library System – http: //www. mediaflex. net/showcase. jsp? record_id=52 § Developed and Supported by Media Flex – – – Harry Chan Original developer of Mandarin Installation ($250) and Hosting services ($750) § South Central Organization of (School) Libraries § consortium of K-12 school libraries in NY
Next. Gen. Lib § § § ILS designed for the developing world Originally traditionally licensed, introduced 2003 Transition to Open Source in Jan 2008 122 Installations (India, Syria, Sudan, Cambodia) Collaborative project: – – – Kesavan Institute of Information and Knowledge Management Versus Solutions Versus IT Services Pvt. Ltd § http: //www. librarytechnology. org/ltgdisplaytext. pl? RC=13150
ILS Deployments Unicorn 1704 Koha (Total) Horizon 1612 Koha (Lib. Lime) Millennium 1289 Evergreen Voyager 1183 OPALS Aleph 500 1970 Library. Solution 700 200 -300 90 272 58 / 170
Commercial Involvement Companies formed to support open source library products
The Open Source Business Front § Index Data – Founded 1994; No ILS; A variety of other open source products to support libraries: search engines, federated search, Z 39. 50 toolkit, etc § Lib. Lime – Founded 2005. Provides development and support services for Koha ILS. Acquired original developers of Koha in Feb 2007. § Equinox. – Founded Feb 2007; staff formerly associated with GPLS Pines development team § Care Affiliates – Founded June 2007; headed by industry veteran Carl Grant. § Media. Flex. – Longstanding school library automation company. Latest generation ILS developed in open source model
Other Open Source Development efforts § Duke University leading effort to develop an open source or community source project to develop a new ILS for higher education § Sponsoring project to design/build an enterprise level automation system for libraries in higher education § Project currently in the grant development phase, with likely start date of Summer 2008 § [translate]
Open Source Issues § Explosive interest in Open Source driven by disillusionment with current vendors § Seen as a solution to: – Allow libraries to have more flexible systems – Lower costs – Not be vulnerable to disruptions that come with mergers and acquisitions § Beginning to emerge as a mainstream option § TOC (Total Cost of Ownership) still roughly
Cost issues § Costs shifted from traditional software licensing models – No initial purchase of license or annual license fees § § § Hardware costs (same as traditional) Vendor support costs (optional) Hosting services Conversion services Local technical support (may be higher) Development costs – vague models for nextgeneration development
Risk Factors § Open Source still a risky Alternative – Dependency on community organizations and commercial companies that provide development an support services § Commercial/Proprietary options also a risk – Opinions vary, but: “the traditional ILS market is no longer a haven for the risk adverse. ” (Northern PINES talking points http: //pines. bclibrary. ca/resources/talking-points)
Open source ILS Benchmarks § Most decisions to adopt Open Source ILS based on philosophical reasons § Open Source ILS will enter the main stream once its products begin to win through objective procurement processes – Hold open source ILS to the same standards as the commercial products – Hold the open source ILS companies to the same standards: § Adequate customer support ratios, financial stability, service level agreements, etc. § Well-document total cost of ownership statements that can be compared to other vendor price quotes § [translate]
Measuring Interest in Open Source ILS Source: Perceptions 2007: an international survey of Library Automation http: //www. librarytechnology. org/perceptions 2007. pl
Open Source Market share § Open Source ILS implementations still a small percentage of the total picture § Initial set of successful implementations will likely serve as a catalyst to pave the way for others § Successful implementations in wider range of libraries: – State-wide consortium (Evergreen) – Multi-site public library systems (Koha) – School district consortia (OPALS)
Next-Generation Library Interfaces
Troubling statistic Where do you typically begin your search for information on a particular topic? College Students Response: § 89% Search engines (Google 62%) § 2% Library Web Site (total respondents -> 1%) § 2% Online Database § 1% E-mail § 1% Online News § 1% Online bookstores § 0% Instant Messaging / Online Chat OCLC. Perceptions of Libraries and Information Resources (2005) p. 1 -17.
Usage + / - from 2005 to 2007 +5% +30% +14% +19% -10% “The unfortunate exception is the use of library Web sites; usage has dropped from 2005 to 2007. ” Source: Sharing, Privacy and Trust in our Networked World. OCLC 2007
Crowded Landscape of Information Providers on the Web § Lots of non-library Web destinations deliver content to library patrons – – Google Scholar Amazon. com Wikipedia Ask. com § Do Library Web sites and catalogs meet the information needs of our users? § Do they attract their interest?
The Competition
Typical ILS OPAC
Better?
Demand for compelling library interfaces § Urgent need for libraries to offer interfaces their users will like to use § Move into the current millennium § Powerful search capabilities in tune with how the Web works today § Meet user expectations set by other Web destination [translate]
Inadequacy of ILS OPACs § Online Catalog modules provided with an ILS subject to broad criticism as failing to meet expectations of growing segments of library patrons. § Not great at delivering electronic content § Complex text-based interfaces § Relatively weak keyword search engines § Lack of good relevancy sorting § Narrow scope of content
Disjointed approach to information and service delivery § Books: Library OPAC (ILS module) § Articles: Aggregated content products, e-journal collections § Open. URL linking services § E-journal finding aids (Often managed by link resolver) § Local digital collections – ETDs, photos, rich media collections § Metasearch engines § All searched separately
Change underway § Widespread dissatisfaction with most of the current OPACs. Many efforts toward next-generation catalogs and interfaces. § Movement among libraries to break out of the current mold of library catalogs and offer new interfaces better suited to the expectations of library users. § Decoupling of the front-end interface from the back-end library automation system. § Eventual redesign of the ILS to be better suited for current library collections of digital and print content § [translate]
Working toward a new generation of library interfaces § Redefinition of the “library catalog” § Traditional notions of the library catalog questioned § Better information delivery tools § More powerful search capabilities § More elegant presentation
Redefining the “catalog” § More comprehensive information discovery environments § It’s no longer enough to provide a catalog limited to print resources § Digital resources cannot be an afterthought § Systems designed for e-content only are also problematic § Forcing users to use different interfaces depending on type of content becoming less tenable § Libraries working toward consolidated user environments that give equal footing to digital and print resources § [translate]
Web 2. 0 Flavorings § § § Strategic infrastructure + Web 2. 0 A more social and collaborative approach Web Tools and technology that foster collaboration Integrated blogs, wiki, tagging, social bookmarking, user rating, user reviews Avoid Web 2. 0 information silos [translate]
The Ideal Scope for Next Gen Library Interfaces § Unified user experience § A single point of entry into all the content and services offered by the library § Print + Electronic § Local + Remote § Locally created Content § User contributed content? § [translate]
Interface Features / User Experience § Simple point of entry – Optional advanced search § § § § Relevancy ranked results Facets for narrowing and navigation Query enhancement – spell check, etc Suggested related results Navigational bread crumbs Enriched visual and textual content Single Sign-on [translate]
Relevancy Ranking § Based on advanced search engines specifically designed for relevancy – Endeca, Lucene, etc § Web users expect relevancy ordered results – – – The “good stuff” should be listed first Users tend not to delve deep into a result list Good relevancy requires a sophisticated approach, including objective matching criteria supplemented by popularity and relatedness factors. – [translate]
New Paradigm for search and navigation § Let users drill down through the result set incrementally narrowing the field § Faceted Browsing – Drill-down vs up-front Boolean or “Advanced Search” – gives the users clues about the number of hits in each sub topic – Ability to explore collections without a priori knowledge § Visual search tools § Navigational Bread crumbs – Select / deselect facets – [translate]
Query / Result Enhancement § “Did you mean? ” and other features to avoid “No results found” § Validated Spell check § Automatic inclusion of authorized and related terms § More like this – recommendation service § Make the query and the response to it better than the query provided § [translate]
Enriched content § Rich visual information: book jacket images, rating scores, etc. § § Syndetic Solutions ICE ($$$$) Amazon Web Service (AWS) – Recent changes in term of use seem to preclude use by libraries § Google Book Search API – Released March 13, 2008 – Liberal terms of use § No open content approach (yet)
Personalization / Single Sign-on § Customized content options based on personal preference and profile of user § Persistent sign-on – Seamless navigation in and out of appropriate subsystems § ILL / ILS patron requests, federated search, proxy services – Credentials follow as user navigates among Web site components – ILS / Interlibrary Loan / proxy services / shopping cart / etc § Ability to select and save content; initiate requests; customize preferences, etc.
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 § Not currently available through library search environments § Deep search highly improved by high-quality metadata See: Systems Librarian, May 2008 “Beyond the current generation of next-generation interfaces: deeper search” [translate]
Beyond Discovery § § § Fulfillment oriented Search -> select -> view Delivery/Fulfillment much harder than discovery Back-end complexity should be as seamless as possible to the user Offer services for digital and print content [translate]
New-Gen Library Interfaces Current Commercial and Open Source Products
Endeca Guided Navigation § North Carolina State University http: //www. lib. ncsu. edu/catalog/ § Mc. Master University http: //libcat. mcmaster. ca/ § Phoenix Public Library http: //www. phoenixpubliclibrary. org/ § Florida Center for Library Automation http: //catalog. fcla. edu/ux. jsp
Aqua. Browser Library § Queens Borough Public Library – http: //aqua. queenslibrary. org/ § Oklahoma State University – http: //boss. library. okstate. edu/ § University of Chicago – http: //lens. lib. uchicago. edu/
Ex Libris Primo § Discovery and Delivery platform for academic libraries § Vanderbilt University http: //alphasearch. library. vanderbilt. edu § University of Minnesota http: //prime 2. oit. umn. edu: 1701/primo_library/libwe b/action/search. do? vid=TWINCITIES § University of Iowa http: //smartsearch. uiowa. edu/
Encore from Innovative Interfaces § Designed for academic, public and special libraries § Nashville Public Library http: //nplencore. library. nashville. org/iii/encore/app § Scottsdale Public Library http: //encore. scottsdaleaz. gov/iii/encore/app § Yale University Lillian Goldman Law Library http: //encore. law. yale. edu/iii/encore/app
OCLC Worldcat Local § OCLC World. Cat customized for local library catalog – Relies on hooks into ILS for local services – Tied to library holdings set in World. Cat § University of Washington Libraries http: //uwashington. worldcat. org/ § University of California Melvyl Catalog
The Library Corporation § First ILS company involved in promoting new interface technologies § Initially based its strategy on Aqua. Browser and Endeca § Indigo – announced at ALA Midwinter Jan 2008 § “Library Positioning Software” § Based on Lucene / SOLR
Summary § ILS Industry going through major changes § Open Source ILS gaining ground in US sector – Likely to expand internationally § Current focus on improved interfaces § Future: A new model of library automation specifically designed for digital / print hybrid libraries § [translate]
Questions and Discussion
Скачать презентацию Analysis of Library Integrated Systems Marketplace 2008 Annual
55663e7fd1c27b0c68346a1d82683a5d.ppt