Probably a fair point. When we chose our current system we were looking at a
lifetime of 7-10 years (we are now in year 9), and to be honest, there is
nothing particularly that would make me propose a change of system at this
point, although I would like to see investment in an ERM to go alongside it,
and some better discovery tools but I donıt need to replace the ILS to do
this (I just need to spend money).
Of course the fact that libraries have limited resources is one of the
problems but isnıt this partly the point good systems cost money (even
open source ones).
Couldnıt agree with the last para more.
Owen
On 26/4/07 20:34, "Andrew Ashton" <aashton_at_SKIDMORE.EDU> wrote:
> 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 out-of-date.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 didnıt
> 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.
>
> Itıs 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 Œmarketı decides whatıs important here.
> The truth is that you canıt 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 itıs 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
>
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
Received on Thu Apr 26 2007 - 14:17:18 EDT