"next generation" library catalogs and a jisc report

"Next generation" library catalogs were more or less the topic of the
recently published report by Sero Consulting called "JISC & SCONUL
Library Management Systems Study: An Evaluation and horizon scan of
the current library management systems and related systems landscape
for UK higher education". [1] I thought I would share a few of the
salient points here in order to spread the wealth and foster discussion.

First, the report is intended to recommend courses of action
regarding integrated library systems (ILS) considering the current
networked environment. To this end the consultants surveyed
librarians, conducted telephone interviews with vendors, did their
own environmental scan, and bounced ideas off sets of experts -- a
"reference group". In the end the report does not suggest purchasing
any new ILSs at this time. The environment is too turbulent. More
specifically, the report recommends, and I paraphrase:

   * investing in systems with caution but not complacency
     since the role of the "conventional" library may appear
     unclear,

   * seeking increased value in ways to improve services
     around the ILS,

   * focusing on breaking down barriers to resources such
     as implementing single sign-on, unifying workflows, and
     especially liberating metadatg for re-use,

   * emphasizing service oriented architectures for
     de-coupling ILS components,

   * re-exploring the role of consortia to exploit social
     networking effect, and

   * working more collaboratively in order to develop and
     enhance the potential of Library 2.0 functionality.

Second, the report echoes many of things that have been said here,
such as: the changing nature of user expectations, the need to make
library content more accessible, the use of Web Services computing
techniques, the non-integratedness of "integrated" library systems,
the mature library market and how it is dominated by a small number
of software providers in turn owned by private equity firms, the
viability or non-viability of open source software, challenges in the
process of change, and the need for Web standards in library systems
(not library standards). Nothing too new.

On the other hand there were two things in particular I found
interesting. First, while many people use Google to find information,
Google does not have enough context to be helpful/useful at the next
level. Yes, these search terms result in the following list of URLs,
but if Google knew more about you -- your context -- then it might be
able to create an even more relevant list of URLs. This, IMHO, is an
untapped concept in Library Land. Libraries always exist as a part of
a larger group. By knowing more about the constituents in the larger
group an information system -- be it a computer or a person -- can
provide better, more relevant service. It is not all about objective,
dry applications and systems. It is also about building relationships
that can only be done only at the smaller institutional level. This
represents an opportunity for librarianship. From the report:

   Google isn't presently solving the entire problem. It
   doesn't yet provide enough 'context', for example to
   students and researchers. What's the best stuff? What
   stuff should the institution licence? If we knew this
   it would result in an improved use of resources. It's
   about the user's context (e.g. university student).
   Your profile gives better results. The better the
   context is defined the better results will be. The
   context problem is not solved in HE, which has an
   opportunity here because its users are (relatively
   anyway) well defined—with a particular goal anyhow.
   --Dave Errington, CEO at Talis [page 70]

Second, in this changing environment it might be a good idea to
rethink the role of librarianship, at least a little bit, and I liked
the three complimentary information service models outlined in the
report:

   1. Aggregation - Collecting content as opposed to
      providing federated search against it. Amazon.com is
      good at this technique.

   2. Network Effect - Maximizing value and reducing unit
      costs by exploiting the knowledge of the masses, open
      data & platforms, and clickstreams. From a member of
      the reference group, "The changing nature of
      information and user behavior gives rise to some
      serious professional questions about the business we
      are, the nature of our expertise, and how much we are
      actually in a position to judge what is good for the
      user. All this prompts questions about how systems
      should develop." [page 84]

   3. Long Tail - Seen as an opportunity for subject
      specialists, this is about focusing library services
      against locally developed and unique content. Digitize
      that stuff in your "special collections". This is akin
      the ideas of Ray Bradbury's novel Fahrenheit 451 where
      individuals memorize a single book. [2]

Finally, I recently asked for greater input and perspectives from
vendors regarding "next generation" library catalogs but the response
was meager. Since much of the report was gleaned from telephone
interviews with library software vendors, the report includes almost
40 pages worth of vendor profiles where folks can learn a bit more
about vendor perspectives.


[1] http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/
resourcediscovery/lmsstudy.pdf

[2] This idea is far from new, and I was certainly not the first to
articulate it, but I did elaborate upon it in a column for Computer
In Libraries in 1997. See: http://infomotions.com/musings/unique-
collections/

--
Eric Lease Morgan
University Libraries of Notre Dame