Making a Business Case for Open Source ILS is a column by Marshall Breeding that appeared in the March 2008 issue of Computers in Libraries.

You may remember Marshall from his annual survey of Integrated Library Systems (the words behind the ILS acronym). If you think the idea of using an open source ILS is interesting, then you should read this column.

His comments highlight one of the interesting aspects of how libraries approach technology : we tend to hang on to technology, even if it causes us added work and grief, until there is a critical mass of other libraries that switch. Part of this is human nature and a healthy dose of conservatism. Part of this, however, is a symptom of what has been holding us back.

On a small scale (i.e. within our own libraries and/or systems), we need to be inventive and creative. We need to be constantly trying new technology and ways to improve our services. This can be as simple as trying a different web browser, or altering our work flow. It can be as complex as trying out a new OPAC or ILS to see how they compare and contrast to the current offerings.

With Open Source, the primary cost in all of this is time. What you gain, both individually and as an institution, is the broader understanding of what exists and what is possible. You better appreciate what you currently have, and you discover the possible improvements (and/or trade-offs) that come with the new.

Am I saying that your library needs to download and install the latest version of Evergreen or Koha, or set up an alternate OPAC like Scriblio or vufind? Nope. You should learn what they can do, play with their OPACs, and then decide if you want to experiment a bit. This will cost time, and you have to decide what amount of time you can afford. You also have to decide what amount of time you can afford not to learn and experiment, and what that will cost your library in the long run.

found via GuidePosts

Perceptions 2007: An International Survey of Library Automation contains the results of a survey conducted by Marshall Breeding.  He explored the relationship between libraries and their Integrated Library Systems (ILS).

The results are interesting.  Without going into my own views of the two systems I have worked with, I feel that some libraries just don’t know how they have it – both good and bad.  I would like to see statistics from those who have worked with more than one ILS within the past five years, because I suspect that some of the rankings might change dramatically.

That said, it is very good to see a snapshot of people’s satisfaction levels of their software and the companies that support it.  This may well reflect how well companies (and ILSs) will do in the next 5 years or so.

One surprise, sort of, is the low level of interest in Open Source ILS.  Part of this is due to fact that Open Source ILS is just really beginning to be used in the United States – as more libraries use the systems over time, we will have a better understanding of the satisfaction they have (or won’t have) with them.

The other part goes back to not knowing what we are missing.  For instance, I have worked with database reporting with both Voyager and Millennium, and Voyager is by far the most powerful and useful, as you are able to extract data from the Oracle DB directly into Microsoft Access and manipulate it with any SQL you can create.  Millennium has a built in extracter, and I have discovered that it saves a great deal of time and headaches to simply export large chunks of data into a text file, then import it into Access and work on it there.

(note: Millennium has a pricey add-on that adds an Oracle database to their system to enable this; I don’t have it at my current place of work, and cannot judge how well it handles the type of queries and reporting I am discussing)

found via GuidePosts

Issue 1 of the Code4Lib Journal is now available!

The journal is an open-access journal dealing with, well, the more techie aspects of libraries. Even if you aren’t into systems and web coding, you should still look this over. The articles give a snapshot of creative technical solutions for libraries, and include:

• Beyond OPAC 2.0, an overview of CatalogWS, an application programming interface (API) for library catalogs. The idea behind the software is to create a universal way to access library catalog information across different Integrated Library Systems (ILS).
• Book Review : The Success of Open Source, by Steven Weber, which is actually a fantastic brief overview of what Open Source is, from a library perspective.
• 700 Dollars and a Dream, which is a column about a small library that installed and implemented Koha, an open-source Integrated Library System (ILS).

Even if you aren’t into the tech aspects of libraries, check out this journal. It never hurts to look into the leading edge of the profession, and you might encounter a new solution for your own library!

found nearly simultaneously via Catalogablog and a Web4Lib list posting by Tom Keays

Marshall Breeding has posted a chart detailing the various brands of Integrated Library Systems (ILS) software used by the Association of Research Libraries (ARL).

Most interesting, from my own perspective, is that Voyager and Millennium are the top two systems. I used Voyager for many years, and feel very comfortable with it; I have been working with Millennium for about 9 months, and am still getting used to it.

Note his brief comment about Open Source ILS use within the ARL. I personally think the shift is coming.

ILS Assessment : A Background Document (Pdf) is an excellent overview of the Integrated Library System issues facing libraries today. Created by the Leddy Library at the University of Windsor (Canada), it is their first step towards “evaluating the current environment with respect to Integrated Library Systems (ILS).”

Drawing from blogs, journals and presentations, this paper should be read by anyone recognizing that the current state of the ILS is lacking, and that libraries are in danger of falling further behind if we don’t educate ourselves and take action.

Of additional interest to me was that this paper is written from an academic library perspective, and that they are currently using Voyager, the system I worked with until last October. Neither of these perspectives diminishes the usefulness of this document for those who work in non-academic libraries and/or with non-Voyager ILSs, however.

found in American Libraries, August 2007, p. 36.

The New York Public Library is changing classification systems for their reference collection.  Over the years they have used a unique system developed by their first library director, Dr. John Shaw Billings, appropriately named the Billings System.  It hasn’t been updated since the 1950’s, however, and many books have been shelved according to size.

They are switching to the Library of Congress system, which ought to be quite a task, depending on the size of the collection.

This has me thinking about classification systems again, which I seem to delve into every few years.  I have this not-so-secret desire to create a new classification system, but haven’t been able to come up with one that is a clear improvement over existing systems without creating new problems.

In one sense, classification systems are becoming less critical.  With Integrated Library Systems and Online Public Access Catalogs becoming nearly ubiquitous, all one truly needs is a shelving order that allows one to locate a book quickly once you have the locator information.

This opens the possibility for organizing a library based on size, or color (as the Adobe Bookshop did a couple of years ago), which is an ongoing thought among library staff when patrons recall a book only for its size and color.  Color wouldn’t be a very efficient (or accessible) system, however.

Size could work very well, though.  If you created a system based on a library’s shelving units, and had the largest books on the lower shelves, and mass-market paperbacks on the top shelves, you could assign shelving locations based solely on the height and thickness of the item.  You could very efficiently use all of your shelf space, replacing discarded items with items of a like size.  All one would need was software that would track the available space and place books accordingly (sort of like defragmenting a hard drive).  It would impede shelf browsing; and a mis-shelved item is lost until the next inventory (unless it is is visually out of place).  Perhaps this would work well for closed stacks libraries.

Currently, the two dominant systems, at least in the U.S., are the Library of Congress System (LC), and the Dewey Decimal System (DDC).  Each has, in my opinion, significant shortcomings, but have been continually updated.

There are many other library classification systems in existence; I wonder if we are approaching the time when an open source, collaborative classification system will make sense?  There are a lot of pie-in-the-sky issues surrounding this, the largest being the fact that is is a massive undertaking for even a smaller library to completely change their classification.  This would involve updating each electronic record, as well as re-labeling and re-locating every item covered by the classification change.  I would have to be strongly convinced of the long-term benefits before starting down that road.

As a theoretical project, however, it is an interesting idea.  The system could be created and worked on without involving any physical libraries, perhaps as simply as creating a Wiki and recruiting volunteers.  Now all I need is the basic idea of what the classification will be built upon….

thought process started by BiblioTech Web