Proposta presentació Sistema Compartit al SELL

Report
Sharing your library
New ILS and discovery tools
are an opportunity for
consortia
Lluís Anglada, Ramon Ros, Marta Tort
CBUC (CSUC)
ICOLC Europe Meeting 2014
Lisboa, October 21th
Sharing your library
New ILS and discovery tools
are an opportunity for
consortia
Lluís Anglada, Ramon Ros, Marta Tort
CBUC (CSUC)
ICOLC Europe Meeting 2014
Lisboa, October 21th
Sharing your library
cooperation and new
software tools are an
opportunity to improve
library services
Lluís Anglada, Ramon Ros, Marta Tort
CBUC (CSUC)
ICOLC Europe Meeting 2014
Lisboa, October 21th
A short preamble
• “Cooperation between libraries has always been considered a Good Thing,
like belief in God and motherhood. However, belief in God is by no means
universal , and a great deal more effort is nowadays spent on trying to
avoid motherhood than on trying to achieve it. Similarly, library
cooperation is something to which much lip-service is paid but which is
practised relatively rarely, and when it is practised is rarely effective”.
– Maurice B. Line, "Is Cooperation a Good Thing?." 1979 IATUL Proceedings
http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/iatul/1979/papers/1
• When cooperation is effective?
– Usefulness: When is able to create useful service (a new one that we could not
create alone)
– Savings: When it allow us to save money (money that we can redirect to improve
services)
News ILS and discovery tools are an opportunity for
consortia
• How old tools has been an opportunity to increase library
cooperation
– The traditions union catalogues and their evolution
– The traditional ILL and their evolution
• Are the new tools really new and really tools?
• How new tools cold be an opportunity to increase library
cooperation
– Union catalogues and shared system
– Shared collections and maximize discoverability
The consortia predecessors: library networks
• They where born to share costs (= computer)
– OCLC (and ILLINET, MINITEX, NELINET)
– PICA
– Regional library systems in UK (as Scolcap in Scotland)
– Bibsys (Norway)
–…
• They created
– Union catalogues and
– ILL services
Union catalogues
• Good in Usefulness
– Bibliographic information improves
– More discovery to your collections
• Good in indirect savings
– Copy cataloging !!!
• To catalogue in Catalan university libraries could cost 3.310.281,00 € more without the union
catalogue CCUC.
• But, also, very complex and costly to create. Traditionally you needed:
• A dedicated machine
• To create the union DDBB additionally to the local ones
• To use the same system
CBUC scenario before 2005
Local database: VTLS
We used to have this… but
eleven times!
Local database: VTLS
Local database: VTLS
Local server
Local server
Local database: VTLS
Local IT staff
Local IT staff
Local database: VTLS
Local server
Local database: VTLS
Local IT staff
Local server
Local server
Local database: VTLS
Local database: VTLS
Local server
Local IT staff
Local database: VTLS
Local database: VTLS
Local IT staff
Local IT staff
Local server
Local server
Local IT staff
Local server
Local IT staff
Local server
Local IT staff
Local IT staff
CBUC scenario after 2005
Local databases: Millennium
We centralized local catalogs
but also offered new services
(Clúster, SFX, Metalib, PUC,
etc.)
Centralized server
Clúster
Central CBUC IT staff
We save 552.112 € anually, on
• IT staff
• Hardware purchasing and
maintenance
• Software licensing
SFX and Millennium
Centralized server
Central CBUC IT staff
Centralized server
Central CBUC IT staff
Interlibrary loan
(also called ‘resource sharing’)
• Good in Usefulness
– Users can get more books
– Library offer increases
• Good in indirect savings (?)
– You have not to buy all that the users ask for
• But, also, very complex and costly to create. Traditionally you
needed:
– Library agreements
– Mail delivery
– Another software, usually independent from ILS
– Library staff (because is a mediated service)
PUC, the consortial borrowing
(using an old tool)
•
•
•
•
PUC in Catalan means I can do that
It began in late 2011
It is patron initiated
It is a free service
• PUC allows students, faculty, and staff to easily search and request library
materials owned by member libraries
• Every member library agrees to follow the same procedures and policies
• It allows to make the request directly from the CCUC union catalog interface (no
ILL services intermediation)
PUC, the consortial borrowing
50,837
45,726
From 2010 to 2013:
37,542
30,436
32,761
67% increase!
ILL extend the access to the
library collection, and
ILL
ILL
Requests
2010
ILL+
PUC
start
Requests
2011
PUC
PUC
Requests
2012
PUC
PUC
Requests
2013
Requests
2014 (JanSep)
consortial borrowing
extend the access to
the library collection
even more!
News ILS and discovery tools are an opportunity for
consortia
• How old tools has been an opportunity to increase library
cooperation
– The traditions union catalogues and their evolution
– The traditional ILL and their evolution
• Are the new tools really new and really tools?
– From ILS to LSP
– From OPAC to DT
• How new tools cold be an opportunity to increase library
cooperation
– Union catalogues and shared system
– Shared collections and maximize discoverability
Are the new systems really new?
From ILS to LSP
• Marshall Breeding (Library Systems report 2014)
– Form ILS to Library services platforms (LSP)
– OCLC Worldshare Management System, ALMA (Ex-Libris), Sierra (Innovative), Spydus 9
(Civica), Kuali OLE, Open Skies (VTLS), Intota (Serials Solutions)
• Main features of the Next Generation ILS:
–
–
–
–
–
–
They manage the whole library, specially the electronic content
They work with different metadata formats at the same time: MARC, DC, DCQ, METS, etc.
Cloud based
Designed for a high cooperation and reuse
Multitenant
They are not closed systems, they are platforms where to build apps on top of
Multitenancy
• Multitenancy (Wikipedia)
– software architecture where a single instance of the software runs on a server,
serving multiple tenants.
– A tenant is a group of users sharing the same view on a software they use.
– … multitenant architecture … provide every tenant a dedicated share of the
instance...
– Multitenancy contrasts with multi-instance architectures where separate software
instances operate on behalf of different tenants.
• Multitenancy in Twitter
– You: @lluisanglada
– Your group: following
– A topic: #libraries
Are the new systems really new?
Form OPAC to DT
• OPACs appear in the late '70, and they changed the way how to discover library
books. But, OPACs has never served 100% of the discovery needs of library users
– For current awareness (usually better serve for DDBB)
– For special collections (usually catalogued in separate fields)
• Discovery Tools (DT)
– Federated searches has been the first attempt for a tool that allows to discover between all
articles of all the subscribed journals
– The first to use this name was AquaBrowser (an improved OPAC)
• “Provide a simple, intuitive search interface & Make catalog and local collections more discoverable”
– Now they combine DT = mega index & filtering facilities that allow a single search for all the
library resources (books, articles, and digital objects in digital repositories)
• Summon (2009)
Where discovery happens?
• ‘Discovery’ includes several functions or processes (*):
– Known-item search = one seeks to locate a specific information
resource already known through previous use, citation, or otherwise
• known-item searches, = accessibility
– Current awareness = stay up to date in their field
• current awareness, = discoverability
– Exploratory search = one seeks as-yet unknown information on some
topic
(*) Roger C. Schonfeld / Does discovery still happen In the library? : roles and strategies for a shifting
reality // Ithaka S + R, 2014
100%
library
current
awareness
80%
Percentatge
60%
CAT 2014
EUA 2012
40%
20%
0%
Una base de dades especialitzada
(PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science,
etc.)
Un motor de cerca a Internet (Bing,
Google, Yahoo, etc.)
El catàleg de la meva biblioteca
Els prestatges de la meva biblioteca
(col·leccions de llibres i revistes
impreses)
100%
library
knownitem
searches
80%
Percentatge
60%
CAT 2014
EUA 2012
UK 2012
40%
20%
0%
Al catàleg o pàgina web de la biblioteca A una base de dades especialitzada A un motor de cerca a Internet (Bing,
(PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, etc.)
Google, Yahoo, etc.)
Un altre
New needs (*)
• The evolving scholarly record: Libraries acquire, organize, and provide stewardship of the scholarly
record. Ongoing redefinition of the scholarly record will drive changes in library and publishing
practice.
– You need resources to create new services
• The inside-out collection: The dominant library model has been outside-in, where materials are
purchased or licensed from external sources and made available to a local audience. The inside-out
model, where institutional materials (digitized special collections, research and learning materials,
researcher expertise profiles, etc.) are shared with an external audience requires new ways of thinking.
– You need to push your data out
• Sourcing and scaling: Collections will be managed at several levels, above the institution as well as
within it. Choices about the optimum level (institutional, consortial/group, regional, global) for
management are becoming more common, as are decisions about how to source activities
(collaborative, buy from third party, etc.).
– You need resources from others
(*) Dempsey, Lorcan, Constance Malpas, and Brian Lavoie. 2014. "Collection Directions: The Evolution of Library
Collections and Collecting" portal: Libraries and the Academy 14,3 (July): 393-423.
The key question:
Are new tools (LSP & DT) aligned with new needs?
• Allow us to save resources?
– yes
• Allow us to improve the discovery of resources owned by the library?
– yes
• Improve the role of the library as starting point in a current awareness
search?
– Not clear (search has moved to the network level)
• Makes more visible library resources?
– No (not yet)
• Allow us to embed library resources in research workflows?
– No
News ILS and discovery tools are an opportunity for
consortia
• How old tools has been an opportunity to increase library
cooperation
– The traditions union catalogues and their evolution
– The traditional ILL and their evolution
• Are the new tools really new and really tools?
• How new tools cold be an opportunity to increase library
cooperation
– Union catalogues
– Shared system
– Shared collections
– Maximize discoverability
DT are a very cheap way to create union
cataloguess
BUCLE union catalogue
(OCLC World Cat)
Montana Academic
Libraries (Ex-Librs Primo)
CBUC scenario after 2005
Local databases: Millennium
We centralized local catalogs
but also offered new services
(Clúster, SFX, Metalib, PUC,
etc.)
Centralized server
Central CBUC IT staff
Clúster
We saved on:
• IT staff
• Hardware purchasing and
maintenance
• Software licensing
SFX and Millennium
Centralized server
Central CBUC IT staff
Centralized server
Central CBUC IT staff
CBUC future shared system
Shared database on a Next Generation ILS
SaaS based
Central CBUC IT staff
We do not expect to save much on:
• IT staff
• Hardware purchasing and maintenance
• Software licensing
Our goal: Increase productivity (= savings) a
lot based on:
• Simplifying duplicate tasks
• New & improved workflows
Shared collection
• Shared collections in digital world
• Big deals for e- journals
• Big deals for data bases
• Big deals also for e- books ?
• Shared collections in print world
• Union catalogue
• Consortial borrowing deals
• Mail service
• (storage facility)
Shared collection
= increase accessibility
27/17
Shared (print) collection
• Jacob Nadal, ReCAP (Columbia U, NYPL; Princeton U):
– “Our next major initiative is to turn ReCAP from a shared operation into a
shared collection, giving each partner full access to more than 3 million
additional items and providing a foundation for collaboration on major
collecting efforts in the years ahead.”
• Catherine Murray-Rust, Georgia Tech’s vice provost for learning
excellence and dean of libraries
– The collaboration between Georgia Tech and Emory University in Atlanta
“aims to develop a shared collection between our two institutions, both
retrospectively and prospectively,” Shared or collective collections
OCLC Collections Grid
L Dempsey
Outside, in
Then
In many
collections
Library as broker
Maximise efficiency
Licensed
Commodity
Purchased
A
Low Stewardship
High Stewardship
Distinctive
Library as provider
Maximise discoverability
Inside, out
In few collections
Now
Inside, out = maximize discoverability =
• In the transition from print world to digital world, the digital divide affects
not only people, also documents
–
–
–
–
some documents are rare and fragile
a lot have not commercially interest
quite a lot are the memory of very few
…
• Actions
– first, localize and conserve
– second, digitalize
– third, expose (= maximize discoverability)
• And to do this, cooperation is useful and save resources
• Maurice B. Line tells us that cooperation is sometimes like
second marriages, which represent "the triumph of hope over
experience”, and that “cooperation should not be undertaken
unless it is likely to produce better results than would be
achieved by other means” (3).
• (3) Maurice B. Line “Co-operation: the triumph of hope over
experience?”,
•
Interlending & document supply, 25 (1997) issue 2: 64-72.
A short afterword
• Maurice B. Line tells us that cooperation is sometimes like second
marriages, which represent "the triumph of hope over experience”,
• and that “cooperation should not be undertaken unless it is likely to
produce better results than would be achieved by other means”
– Maurice B. Line “Co-operation: the triumph of hope over experience?”,
Interlending & document supply, 25 (1997) issue 2: 64-72
• There are two measures for the effectiveness of the cooperation:
– if it is able to create useful service, and
– if it is able to save money
Many
thanks
[email protected]
@lluisanglada

similar documents