Re: ?SPAM? Re: Death by enhancement: was WorldCat Local

I think the argument of "if you don't like it, stop using it" falls flat
in an extremely limited marketplace like that of commercial ILS
products.  It seems there are 3 factors at work that pretty much negate
the effect of market forces on ILS development: a customer base with
extremely limited resources, a very saturated market (i.e. not enough
customers to go around), and a very long product life cycle.  
 
Most ILS products seem to aim for a 8-12 year life cycle at this point.
Very, very few libraries can afford to switch mid-stream for a product
that isn't substantially better.  And without new customers to sign on,
ILS vendors don't have an incentive to really develop their products
into great systems.  
 
That said, it seems crazy that we librarians continue to devote so much
of our time and effort to frustrating and often futile enhancement
processes - which often result in little more than minor tweaks to minor
features - while the core functions of these products are either
completely broken or hideously out-of-date.  It's really heartening to
see some serious efforts at pooling that effort to produce something
truly good.
 
 
--
Andrew Ashton
Systems Librarian
Scribner Library, Skidmore College
(518)580-5505
 

________________________________

From: Next generation catalogs for libraries
[mailto:NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Stephens Owen
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 3:10 PM
To: NGC4LIB_at_listserv.nd.edu
Subject: [NGC4LIB] ?SPAM? Re: [NGC4LIB] Death by enhancement: was
WorldCat Local


I think there is some truth in this - however, if you chose to use the
system in the first place and have been using the same system for x
years, then there is obviously something right with the system. So - you
were willing, at some point, to put up with the problems because overall
you felt the system was worth it.

When we chose our current library system, there were some things that
didn't work as we wanted, and we asked for them to be corrected - some
of these made it to the enhancement procedure, and eventually came into
the system. However, by the time they get into the system (and although
timescales vary, I would say this would be true whether your talking
months or years), we had adjusted our working practices to work with the
system we had - rather than waiting for the enhancement to come through.

I would guess that in at least 50% of cases, we end up not using the
functionality we asked for, because it no longer seems relevant when it
appears.

It's not as if I expect these small incremental changes to go away
completely. As new customers consider the system, there are bound to be
new requirements that come in - and to some extent the 'market' decides
what's important here. The truth is that you can't make everyone happy
all the time, and if you try, you end up with over complicated systems,
and diverted development effort.

So the question is - if it's really that bad, why are you still playing
xxxx?

Owe

Owen Stephens
E-Strategy Co-ordinator
Royal Holloway, University of London
Egham
Surrey
TW20 0EX
Tel: 01784 443331
Email: owen.stephens_at_rhul.ac.uk