Part of the problem is that "Integrated" in ILS has come to mean a
single system package from a single vendor. It's well known that the RFP
process (problematic in its own right, but unfortunately part of our
reality) always reveals that the acquisitions module from Vendor A
doesn't meet the library's needs, but the OPAC module from Vendor B
stinks, and the serials control module from Vendor C is under revision
and you don't trust that they'll get it right. So which do you choose?
When I was going through the RFP process to replace UC's MELVYL product,
we "borrowed" a bunch of RFPs from other libraries, including LoC. What
was interesting in all of those is that they had detailed requirements
for the management areas of the library, like acquisitions and
cataloging, and had just a few vague pages outline what they wanted in
an ILS ("flexible," "user sort options," etc.). Who makes the ILS
purchase decision? Library management. What's their primary goal? Manage
the library as efficiently as possible. And who can blame them? That's
their job.
So I think part of the unhappiness with ones ILS is precisely that it is
an ILS -- that you can't get the acquisitions system you need without
the stinky OPAC or disfunctional serials control. And the users always
get the short end of it because the system must primarily serve the
management of the library. This is why the move to separate the user
view from the management is positive.
In my view, the cataloging module should be considered the backend to
the user view. There isn't much "cataloging" needed to supply the
management functions, and if you've made it easy for the users to find
the items, then it should be easy for your collection management or
acquisitions folks to find the items. I'd like to see cataloging come
out of the dusty basement it is in and get closer to user services.
kc
"I may be dreamer...."
Stephens Owen wrote:
> 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 marketı 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?
>
> Owen
>
> On 26/4/07 19:49, "Hank Young" <WilYoun_at_UFLIB.UFL.EDU> wrote:
>
>
>> This may be totally off-base, but when I read this I could not help but
>> drawing an analogy to a popular MMOG I have played since before the first
>> expansion was introduced. Players have always complaining about quests that
>> did not work, NPCs (non-player characters) that had typos in their scripts and
>> used poor grammar, rings that could only be worn on the waist (!), treasure
>> that could not be used by the types of characters who obviously SHOULD be
>> using them, doors that opened the wrong direction, etc... however; the
>> company that produces the game has chosen to focus on the next expansion
>> (available at your local store or by digital download every 6 months!)
>>
>> When you look at the number one source of player complaints, there were too
>> many new expansions (which sounds like new product development on one specific
>> functional area) instead of fixing problems that already exist. I am often
>> asked ³OMG! Do you still play ____?² NOT because I am ## years old but because
>> these complaints have driven so many players to other fields. The mind
>> boggles at what libraries could do if they were able to change their ILS as
>> easily.
>>
>> Just food for thought. I will go back to lurking now.
>>
>> Hank Young
>> Cataloger
>> University of Florida
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Next generation catalogs for libraries [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU]
>> On Behalf Of Stephens Owen
>> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 2:03 PM
>> To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
>> Subject: [NGC4LIB] Death by enhancement: was WorldCat Local
>>
>> Interestingly the North American Aleph user group has recently moved away from
>> working with the supplier (Ex Libris) on individual enhancement requests, and
>> instead has an agreement to focus development on one specific functional area
>> at a time. However, even early into to trying this not all libraries are happy
>> they have lost the opportunity to vote for smaller enhancements.
>>
>> Having been involved in a process of incrementalı enhancements Iım convinced
>> that this type of improvementı does nothing for the overall development of
>> the product, detracts from strategic product development, and leads to much
>> wasted time and resource for both users and suppliers.
>>
>> Although I agree that libraries continue to have a need for acquisitionı and
>> handling multi-part items we end up getting very small changes to the way
>> systems handle these issues, when we should really be asking questions about
>> whether completely accurate prediction of when the next issue of x journal is
>> going to arrive is more or less important than redesigning the subscription
>> functionality to deal with electronic resources more effectively.
>>
>> Owen
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
--
-----------------------------------
Karen Coyle / Digital Library Consultant
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://www.kcoyle.net
ph.: 510-540-7596
fx.: 510-848-3913
mo.: 510-435-8234
------------------------------------
Received on Thu Apr 26 2007 - 18:51:20 EDT