As an OLE Project core member, I'll see if I can respond to some of the
concerns.
First off, it is correct that we are not focusing on the user-side of
the process. The DLF has a strong footprint on this issue with the
ILS-DI API process, and applications like VUFind, Blacklight, Primo,
Aquabrowser, etc, have been positioning themselves to present whatever
is exported to them. I think many would agree that a huge problem we
have with ILS is how restrictive it is and how we have to cram the
circular items, resources, and objects that don't fit into the square
holes of a traditional ILS.
Because of that, the major outcome of the BPM workshops that we hosted
are to find out the *processes* that libraries are doing regardless of
the system they are using. It was strongly suggested to participants to
talk about they processes they do and not the system workflows they have
to use inside their ILS. This way we (the OLE Project leaders) can map
all of the data we collect at these workshops and find the commonalities
of core processes that we can model into services and modules that are
separated from how something is done in Unicorn, Voyager, ALEPH, etc.
When we design the core processes into services and modules, then a
library can mix and match to meet their own needs and not be stuck with
a mammoth, integrated system. This is why you will never (or should
never) hear an OLE presentation refer to our project as a new or
next-gen ILS. It won't be integrated, it will be an environment of
module that interoperate with each other or with outside enterprse
systems. This will give libraries flexibility, but also raise the
library systems to an enterprise level as it has communication
integration with systems like ERPs, CRMs, registrar systems, identity
management systems, data mining systems, data analysis applications, etc.
The key in all of this, including in learning how people do things now,
is to design the open library environment in a way to enable libraries
to be successful THROUGH the technology, not restricted BY technology
thus requiring us to adapt our business processes to the only way the
system works.
The most important aspect of these workshops and, in fact, these types
of conversations, is that this is community sourced. All of the data we
are collecting will be compiled and presented back to the community for
comments and discussion. In the third week of January, we are hosting
the project leaders at Lehigh to work through all of the data to come up
with the core processes and design it through a BPM language and present
it back to the community for comment and discussion. In short, there
will be plenty of opportunities to continue participating in the design
of the open library environment.
Did I touch on all of the points? Questions, comments, remarks? I'm
happy to continue the conversation.
Cheers,
Tim
Tim McGeary
Senior Systems Specialist
Lehigh University
610-758-4998
tim.mcgeary_at_lehigh.edu
Google Talk: timmcgeary
Yahoo IM: timmcgeary
Stephens, Owen wrote:
> Although I hope the OLE will look at new ways of doing things, I also
> think using systems to help with existing processes is a useful exercise
>
> There is no doubt that many aspects of library work have not fully taken
> advantage of automation, and I've often found that local development is
> needed for the most basic of tasks. However, this is, I think, the
> problem - local practice can vary considerably
> , and designing systems to meet all needs is impossible (or more
> accurately too expensive I guess)
>
> In terms of user facing systems, I agree this is incredibly important,
> but there is already a lot of activity in this area on both the Open
> Source and Commercial sides. I very much support the OLE looking at
> 'back office' requirements as I believe these would benefit immensely
> from better systems, and there is the potential to make efficiency gains
> here.
>
> A key aspect of systems like VuFind, Primo, aquabrowser etc. is they
> separate the user interface from the 'office' systems, meaning the
> design of one doesn't rely so intimately on the design of the other -
> which I believe will allow us to design much better systems on both sides.
>
> Owen
>
> On 13 Dec 2008, at 14:36, "Eric Lease Morgan" <emorgan_at_ND.EDU> wrote:
>
>> I had the opportunity to participate in an OLE (Open Library
>> Environment) workshop the other day in Chicago, and in a sentence, it
>> was an opportunity to describe and flowchart back-end library
>> processes in an effort to help design an integrated library system.
>>
>> I'm glad I had the opportunity to attend. It gave me a chance to get a
>> better understanding of what OLE is all about, and I saw it as a
>> professional development session where I learned more about where
>> things are going. The day's events were well-structured,
>> well-organized, and manageable given the time restraints. I only
>> regret there was too little "blue skying" by attendees. Much of the
>> time was spent outlining how our work is done now. I hope any future
>> implementation explores new ways of doing things in order to take
>> better advantage of the changing environment as opposed to simply
>> automating existing processes.
>>
>> For more details, see:
>>
>> http://infomotions.com/blog/2008/12/a-day-with-ole/
>>
>> --
>> Eric Lease Morgan
>> University of Notre Dame
>
Received on Wed Dec 17 2008 - 12:51:58 EST