Library Automation – where are we?

It is always worth reading Marshall Breeding’s analysis of the happenings in the Library automation business, and his recent offering Automation Marketplace 2011:The New Frontier is no exception. We’ve been hearing about some of the new offerings for some time, so it was useful to hear about who has decided to take a gamble on Ex Libris’s Alma and OCLC’s Web Scale Management Services, the first of the new generation of systems to be taken up.

At a meeting I attended today, there was some discussion about some Australian libraries signing up to be early adopters as well.

One thing puzzles me.

With the growth in open source, and in particular with Kuali OLE appearing on the horizon, why would a Library lock themselves into an agreement with any company to be an early adopter of one of these systems, when the potential of a completely new approach to library systems is just around the corner? I know that you shouldn’t wait for timing to be perfect in the technology market or you may never get anything, but is any Library so desparate for a new system right now that they can’t wait a couple of years to see if open source delivers?

We have seen some significant pronouncements about open source adoption in Australian. As long ago as 2007, NSLA (National and State Libraries of Australasia) produced The Big Bang which stated

NSLA Libraries will encourage collecting institutions in their state or territory to implement open source.

We saw NLA lead by example with the implementation of vufind.

More recently, in a policy approved in December 2010 and circulated  in January 2011, the Australian Government informed agencies of the requirement to consider open source software in all software procurements .

We’ve seen a number of Australian universities moving to Moodle as their Learning Management System, so all the groundwork has been done in terms of developing policies and risk assessments for moving to open source.

So why throw away the option of freeing your library from the constraints imposed by vendors that we have all complained about for decades, and of moving to an environment where we could make our systems client centred? This really smells like a vendor locking in customers before we all jump ship. All I can say is it must have been a really good deal.

 I’d rather put my faith in Brad Wheeler and co. 

10 ways public libraries help build social capital

1. Provide access to information and assistance in finding information to build a better informed community
2. Provide training  in seeking information to build a more self-cufficient community
3. Provide recreational material to build a happier engaged community
4. Provide equitable access to virtual communities to build a connected community
5. Provide training to build a community which has a voice using all communication channels
6. Provide opportunity to access electronic servicse to build a serviced community
7. Provide a safe and pleasant environment to visit to build a supportive community
8. Provide a safe venue to meet with others to build a connected community
9. Provide trusted advice to build an informed and trusting community
10. Provide training and access to training to build a community that is learning

New job title – new focus

One of the advantages I have found to getting old is the depth of experience that I have available to draw on when faced with new challenges and new environments. Since starting my new job, I’ve needed to shift my focus and reflect and question, and I have found it useful to think back across all those years of varied experiences and to draw on successes and failures from the past, reshaped for the present or the future. Sometimes I get odd comments about someone my age being involved with new technology, but as long as I keep an open mind, am willing to learn and question, experiment and listen, I don’t think my age should have anything to do with how effective I can be.

So what does innovation mean? Has the meaning changed over the last 20 years? I don’t even remember the term being used 20 years ago in the same way it is now, especially in libraries. I think we felt that our role was clear, that we knew what our customers expected of us and the technology (such as it was). The internet and more importantly, the interactive web, has changed all that.

Shifting IT directions – setting library free?

I had a very interesting discussion with a colleague today about where IT is heading. She indicated that following a period of centralisation and the move to shared services, we are seeing the beginnings of a shift to some decentralisation. She suggested that the motives of IT in this shift were not always honourable (libraries are too hard, too demanding, too informed, too expensive to support , a damned nuisance etc), but that nevertheless there are opportunities for libraries in this move.

All the good reasons for centralisation in a corporate environment (development of standard environments, reduction in costs, sharing of scarce and expensive expertise, economies of scale, single point of contact etc) can actively work against the ability of the library to provide the services it has a mandate to provide to its customers. It can certainly limit the ability of the library to experiment and ‘play’ with the emerging technologies to determine if and how they can be of benefit.

Death of a vision

When I wrote my last post I was hopeful and optimistic about the outcome of the review. My silence since then reflects my sadness and frustration at the result. I put so much into the process and was so burnt out that I am no longer working for that worthy library, and have moved on to greener pastures (literally, no red dirt around here!). Those feelings weren’t the only reasons for my moving on, but they did play some part.

Now that some time has gone by, I am again positive, optimistic and creative – and now feel strong enough and distant enough to reflect on the review process and the outcome, at least to the point at which I left.

IT services review

Our proposed plan for the review has now been submitted. In general it consists of the following plan.

 Stage 1. Vision

This stage involves getting all key stakeholders together with an external facilitator to brainstorm what we want from our ICT environment. This is much wider than a list of services, and at a much higher level than a Service Catalogue. When I think of this stage, I think of words like 

• flexible
• responsive
• agile
• standards-based
• customer focused
• consultative
• transparent
• accountable
• efficient
• well resourced

I’m sure I’ll think of many more. If possible, the group would also attempt to develop a vision and mission statement, or at least some alternatives. These will then be made available online for a defined short period of time for discussion by any member of staff. Once time’s up, the Project Team will incorporate that feedback and develop a final vision and mission statement for submission to the Steering Committee.

VALA – day 2

I have been extremely impressed with the keynote speakers from this conference. I commented previously about Andy Powell’s opening address, and Schubert Foo’s discussion of the initiatives taking place at the National Library of Singapore was truly inspirational. The award winning building shows what could be done with clever design. For me the most thought provoking idea was that their virtual reference services are including conversations with ‘experts’ such as academics and amateur enthusiasts from outside the Library – and the delivery of the answer to the requester includes the conversation used to establish the response. This also becomes part of the knowledge base which is then available for future querying.

I didn’t expect to enjoy Michael Geist’saddress on public policy and legislation which relates to the internet. But I was fascinated by his example of mustering public support to challenge copyright law by using Facebook, although a bit unsettled. While it is easy for a librarian like me to support this use of facebook and other social networking tools, the power of the people that this demonstrates has enormous implications for social change.

I have certainly experienced the power for connecting people, but I hadn’t seen such a clear demonstration of manipulation of public action before. I am a member of the Perth People Who HATE Daylight Savinggroup on facebook, but hasn’t generated the sort of impact that Michael’s has – maybe that is a reflection of our Australian laid back attitude to political issues. My family would say it is because daylight saving is just fine……but I digress.

IT services to support libraries

Today at the VALA 2008 conference, I have had conversations with vendors and librarians from every sector representing every state in Australia. The common thread I have heard is frustration with shared services models for ICT support, which block or restrict services that libraries need to function and provide services to their clients.

Twelve months ago I came to my current position with the belief that this frustration wasn’t necessary, that with enough good will and communication (and some plain old common sense), ICT and Library could co-exist in such a way as to enhance the ability to provide ICT based services to the clients. Ever the optimist, I still believe this should be possible. I’m just running out of ideas and energy to try and make it happen that way. And the conversations I have had today lead me to believe that I am not alone.

I am in the government sector, but I hear that many public libraries find the same problems in dealing with local council ICT departments. I also heard from a vendor who said that one corporate library couldn’t

VALA – day 1

Today I attended day 1 of the VALA conference in Melbourne. There were some very interesting papers, and in particular Andy Powellgave me a lot to think about, as we move to significantly upgrade our digital repository and the volume of material we preserve in a digital format. His arguments that we need to move to thinking about moving material to the web and optimising it for search engines, instead of focusing on how to lock it up in our repositories, really struck a cord. We now have at least 7 terrabytes of data in our repository that can’t be easily located via a search engine. Sure, we are in the preservation business, but what is the point of preserving something that can’t be located and accessed? This must now be our focus, as we move onto the next stage.

Also of interest to me was the presentation from Joann Ransom on Kete Horwhenua , which is described as “a knowledge basket of images, audio, video and documents which are collected and catalogued by the community”. I am so interested in this open source software which enables a truly community engagement with their own information, that I will be downloading and attempting to set up a sampler to show to the staff in my library when I get back – so I hope it is as easy as Joann says it is!

As usual it has been great to catch up with old friends, and make new ones, during the breaks and refreshment periods (and the food has been great I might add). Many of the conversations have revolved around the problems caused by IT services which simply don’t understand or recognise what libraries need from their IT environment. As a consequence I have decided that it is time to write up some of the work we have done to try and redress this situation in our own library. Some research is needed, and I will work out how to start when I get home.I wonder if this is only an Australian problem.  I will begin discussing what may be required in a new post.

ITIL and libraries

The worst thing about ITIL and libraries is trying to find what anyone has written about the topic, because ITIL has the word ‘library’ as part of its title. Any search results in thousands of hits about ITIL, and it is very difficult trying to find something relevant to libraries. So if anyone has any great references, I’d be delighted to know about them. This isn’t intended to be a defence of ITIL (not that it needs one), but rather my reflections about the value of the ITIL processes for libraries. I’m not going to try to explain what ITIL is about here either, because others have done it so well. If you want to know more, have a look at the wikipedia entry, which I think covers the topic well (today anyway)

When I first heard about ITIL and how it was the foundation for service management standards, I couldn’t help wondering how it might be relevant in library service management. As I found out more, I realised that many of the processes are completely relevant because ITIL isn’t specifically about IT, it is about service management. If you read or hear about ITIL with a librarian’s language filter on and translate on the fly, you will soon see why many of our quaint little practices need a serious overhaul.

The main principle of ITIL requires that the IT organisation must be aligned with the purpose/mission of the parent organisation it serves. Let’s think about that in the library context. Suppose the library in question is an academic library, serving a university community. Now let’s take a simplistic view of the university’s mission and say that it is teaching and research. Following the ITIL principle, it wouldn’t be too far a stretch to say that the mission of the university’s IT section should simply be to enable and support teaching and research (sometimes oversimplifying can be enlightening). How is that different to the library’s mission? We might make it all fancy with big words and adding in other bits to keep politicians and administrators happy, but isn’t it fundamentally to enable and support teaching and research?  I’m not trying to undervalue the librarians’ professional responsibilities in the area of preservation and cultural development,  but if the library loses sight of its core role in relation to its parent organisation, they might lose sight of the funding to keep its doors open. So the core ITIL principle applies to libraries as well, in most cases.