Library Automation Landscape: Transformation? Status Quo or Marshall Breeding Director for Innovative Technologies and Research Vanderbilt University http: //staffweb. library. vanderbilt. edu/breeding http: //www. librarytechnology. org/ October 19, 2007
Business Trends A look at the companies involved in library automation and related technologies
Business Landscape § Library Journal Automated System Marketplace: § An Industry redefined (April 1, 2007) § 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
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
Library Automation M&A History
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
Investor owned companies § Sirsi. Dynix -> Vista Equity Partners (Recently bought out Seaport Capital + Hicks Muse/HM Capital) § Ex Libris -> Francisco Partners (recently bought out VC’s) § Endeavor -> Francisco Partners (recently bought out Elsevier) § 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
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
Impact of Ownership § Long term vs short tem interests § Decision makers in tune with the needs of the customer base? § Ability to understand libraries as business customers § Serving non-profit organizations quite different § It’s possible to operate a profitable company and stay true to the interest of library as customer
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
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.
Libraries Demand choice § Current market narrowing options § Consolidation working toward monopoly? § Many 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
The Chopping Block § § § Horizon 8. 0 (Mar 2007) Horizon 7. x (Mar 2007) ENCompass (Jan 2006) Link. Finder. Plus (Jan 2006) Taos (Dec 2001) NOTIS Horizon (Jun 1994)
Legacy Phase out § § § § § DRA Classic Dynix Classic Multi. LIS INLEX/3000 Advance PLUS VTLS Classic NOTIS PC Systems: Winnebago Spectrum, Follett Circ Plus, Athena, Concourse
Status of current ILS Products § Most ILS products from commercial vendors mature § None less than a decade old § Approaching end of life cycle? § Evolved systems § No success in launching new systems § Horizon 8. 0 § Taos
Current Vintage § § § § § ALEPH 500 Voyager Millennium Carl Unicorn Polaris Virtua Koha Library. Solution Evergreen 1996 1995 1982 1997 1995 1999 1997 2004
ILS Migration Trends § Few voluntary lateral migrations § Forced Migrations § Vendor abandonment § Need to move from legacy systems § Exit from bad marriages with vendors § Exit from bad marriages with consortia § It’s never been harder to justify investments in ILS
Products surrounding the ILS § Need for products focused on electronic content and user experience § Next-gen interfaces § Federated search § Linking § Electronic Resource Management
An age of less integrated systems § Core ILS supplemented by: § Open. URL Link Resolvers § Metasearch / Federated Search § Electronic Resource Management § Next Generation Library Interfaces
No longer an ILS-centric industry § Portion of revenues derived from core ILS products diminishing relative to other library tech products § Many companies and organizations that don’t offer an ILS are involved in library automation: § OCLC § Cambridge / Bowker § Web. Feat § Muse Global
Library Automation Companies
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
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
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
Follett Software Company § Consolidated company focused on K-12 school library automation § FSC, Sagebrush Corporation, Winnebago Software, Nichols Advancd 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, Infocentre § 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
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
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 / Bowker § Serials Solutions § Syndetic Solutions § Electronic Resource Management § Federated Search § E-Journals data § Aqua. Browser § Next-gen Interface
Open Source 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 § Commercial systems also a risk
Koha: first Open Source ILS § § Koha + Index Data Zebra = Koha ZOOM ~300 (mostly small) libraries Horowhenua Library Trust Nelsonville Public Library § Athens County, OH § Crawford County Federated Library System § 10 Libraries in PA § § Howard County, MD Central Kansas Library System
Koha
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 § 260 libraries in Georgia § Does not include municipal systems: Atlanta-Fulton County, Cobb County § Province of British Columbia in Canada – Northern PINES § Experimental evaluation § King County Library System in WA state. § Under consideration by academic libraries in Canada
Evergreen
Learning Access ILS § § § Learning Access Institute Turnkey Open Source ILS Designed for underserved rural public libraries § http: //www. learningaccess. org
Learning. Access ILS
SCOOLS § South Central Organization of (School) Libraries § consortium of K-12 school libraries in NY § Koha derivative § Supported by Media Flex
SCOOLS
Lib. Lime § Small private company formed in early 2005 § Devoted to support of Koha and other open source software § Launched by individuals involved with the Koha implementation at the Nelsonville Public Library § Recently acquired the Koha activities of Katipo Communications (Feb 2007) § Total of 9 -10 FTE
Equinox Software § Small company § Devoted to facilitating libraries implement Evergreen the open source ILS developed for PINES § Launched by individuals related to the development and implementation of Evergreen at the Georgia Public Library System § Currently formed by mostly part-time employees
Care Affiliates § Recently formed company to provide support for Open Source library automation products. § Carl Grant – Former COO of VTLS, President of Ex Libris (USA), Innovative Interfaces, DRA, etc.
Product and Technology Trends
Current state of library automation functionality § The core ILS focused mostly on print resources and traditional library workflow processes. § Add-ons available for dealing with electronic content: § Link resolvers § Metasearch environments § Electronic Resource Management § A loosely integrated environment § Labor-intensive implementation and maintenance § Most are “must have” products for academic libraries with significant collections of e-content
Problems with current slate of automation components § § § Development cycle behind current needs Very loosely coupled Diverse interfaces Not seamless to library users Multiple points of management for library staff § Long and complex cycles of implementation and integration
Why such fragmented automation? § Maintenance alone not adequate to fund development of new products § Libraries not willing to accept higher maintenance and support payments § Business requirement to spin off new products § Can be counter to the need for more seamless, integrated, and comprehensive automation
Common tools for access to local collections § § Library OPAC (ILS module) Links to aggregators, publishers Cross linking via Open. URL Journal finding aids (Often managed by link resolver) § Metasearch engines § All loosely coupled
Library OPAC § Evolved from card catalogs and continues to be bound by the constraints of that legacy. § Complex and rich in features § Interfaces often do not compare favorably with alternatives available on the Web § Print materials becoming a smaller component of the library’s overall collections.
Redefinition of library catalogs and interfaces § Traditional notions of the library catalog are being questioned § It’s no longer enough to provide a catalog limited to print resources § Digital resources cannot be an afterthought § Forcing users to use different interfaces depending on type of content becoming less tenable § Libraries working toward consolidated search environments that give equal footing to digital and print resources
The best Library OPAC?
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.
Change underway § Widespread dissatisfaction with most of the current OPACs. Many efforts toward nextgeneration 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.
Toward compelling library interfaces § Urgent need for libraries to offer interfaces their users will like to use § Move out of the 1990’s § Powerful search capabilities in tune with how the Web works today § User expectations set by other Web destination
The holy grail § A single point of entry into all the content and services offered by the library § Print + Electronic § Local + Remote § Locally metadata created Content
Comprehensive Search Service § More like OAI § Open Archives Initiative § Consolidated search services based on and data gathered in advance § Problems of scale diminished § Problems of cooperation persist
Web 2. 0 influence § A more social and collaborative approach § Web Tools and technology that foster collaboration § Blogs, wiki, blogs, tagging, social bookmarking, user rating, user reviews § Web services – important infrastructure § XML APIs § AJAX (asynchronous Java. Script and XML)
Interface expectations § Millennial gen library users are well acclimated to the Web and like it. § Used to relevancy ranking § § § 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.
Interface expectations (cont…) § Very rapid response. Users have a low tolerance for slow systems § Rich visual information: book jacket images, rating scores, etc. § 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. § Navigational Bread crumbs § Ratings and rankings
Appropriate organizational structures § § LCSH vs FAST Full MARC vs Dublin Core or MODS Discipline-specific thesauri or ontologies “tags”
Current Next-Gen catalog products
Common characteristics § Decoupled interface Mass export of catalog data Alternative search engine Alternative interface
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/
Ex Libris Primo § Vanderbilt University http: //alphasearch. library. vanderbilt. edu § University of Minnesota http: //prime 2. oit. umn. edu: 1701/primo_library/li bweb/action/search. do? vid=TWINCITIES § University of Iowa http: //smartsearch. uiowa. edu/
Encore from Innovative Interfaces § 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
VUFind – Villanova University Based on Apache Solr search toolkit http: //www. vufind. org/
OCLC Worldcat Local § OCLC Worldcat customized for local library catalog § Relies on hooks into ILS for local services § University of Washington Libraries http: //uwashington. worldcat. org/ § University of California Melvyl Catalog
Library-developed solutions § e. Xtensible Catalog § University of Rochester – River Campus Libraries § Financial support from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation § http: //www. extensiblecatalog. info/
Questions and Discussion
Скачать презентацию Library Automation Landscape Transformation Status Quo or Marshall
05be93d818f1e9a6a06ac37548118cff.ppt