Am I alone in feeling a little uneasy about the 'summary for list response' to the request for information about Library Management Systems?
Choosing a new system is a major project with potentially significant implications, financially and organisationally. This applies equally to purchaser and supplier. It is perfectly reasonable for potential customers to evaluate systems thoroughly including canvassing opinions of existing users. Indeed many suppliers will offer reference sites (clearly they will recommend those customers who they perceive to be 'friendly').
What worries me about the recent postings to the list is the phrase
"OLIB: three people explicitly warned me against buying OLIB, citing
technical problems and lack of navigability."
Is this fair?? Are the 3 people existing customers? Did anyone else recommend OLIB positively?
I have worked with 3 library management systems (URICA, OLIB, TALIS) I am not currently involved with the OLIB system (nor likely to be in the forseeable future!) but when I was I found it to be no different to other systems in that it had strengths and weaknesses, user satisfaction varied with the product cycle, the specific installation and even the personalities involved.
I think I could find 3 people who would say technical difficulties and lack of navigability were a 'feature' of any of the above systems (and probably any other system).
Summarising for the list is fine but I do think care should be exercised to ensure that opinion does not override information.
David Singleton
University of Central Lancashire
|