Hi,
I'm concerned that we're getting a lot of 'outside' perspectives
here. Adrian's perspective seems to me to come from the CMS (Content
Management System) side, Jo from the IT systems integration side and Gerhard
from the OS side. They are all valid, but I'm surprised at the lack of
comment from library staff and library opinion-formers (I won't name any but
you know who you are!). People from outside libraries tend to be very
frustrated by the complexity of library systems (or maybe just libraries!),
which in turn limit integration with other systems, while possibly being
unaware of the fact that much of this complexity has been added to meet the
demands of library users.
An ILS is composed of more modules than the catalogue which seems to be the
focus of discussion, and these modules themselves cause further
complication, but if you disaggregate the catalogue from circulation,
acquisitions, etc. you necessitate a further level of integration. Hence the
more successful attempts to integrate with other IT systems, as Gerhard
says, are as part of a modular system perspective driven from the library
side, whether OS or commercial. LMS/ILS suppliers need to be supplying open
systems and libraries need to be pressurising them to do so, and the slow
pace of this is frustrating, but perhaps it is our attitudes to what is
already available and the silo-ed nature of the pressure groups involved
that need to change as much as the systems themselves?
Ian
Ian Haydock
Library Systems Manager
Keele University
(+44 1782 7)33241
> -----Original Message-----
> From: A general Library and Information Science list for news and
discussion.
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mr Gerhard Bissels
> Sent: 17 February 2012 00:28
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [LIS-LINK] What is the future of the Library Management
> System?
>
> Hi Jo, Adrian and All,
>
> The ILS is still librarian's only tool for managing collections, from
acquisitions
> to circulation. But increasingly libraries complement the ILS with a
Discovery
> Tool as the default search interface - because it integrates the OPAC with
> other bibliographic databases, thus giving a more comprehensive
> representation of a library's holdings in a single search transaction.
Many
> libraries also connect their ILS to the Virtual Learning Environment so
reading
> lists are presented there. And as more libraries have larger on-line
collections
> to manage, ERM systems and link resolvers are becoming standard.
> Academic libraries will also tie their e-repository in... All this adds up
to a
> modular approach to library software: a whole array of software is
required
> to run a library efficiently; and the ILS is here to stay, but only as
several
> packages.
>
> Vendors of proprietary library software have, for many years, sold some of
> these packages as a kind of 'add-ons' to their 'core' business, the ILS.
But
> Open Source Software has gained a lot of ground; on the one hand because
> it helps keep the overall cost down, on the other because Open Source
> packages tend to be totally standards based, so will talk to each other
easily -
> and can be integrated with the (Open Source) Content Management
> Systems that handles the institution's website.
>
> This new approach to systems is focused on functions rather than packages.
> You start with an analysis of the organisation's needs, then you pick the
right
> OSS applications, combine them, have some functionality coded where
> necessary. And while support for OSS library software is available
> commercially, I am hopeful that, as libraries spend less and less on
software
> licenses, they will invest this money in in-house systems teams.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Gerhard
>
> Gerhard Bissels
> Consulting Librarian
> Tel. +44 (0)20 3432 0614
> [log in to unmask]
> library.coop
>
>
>
> On 16 Feb 2012, at 11:51, Jo Richler wrote:
>
> > Hi
> >
> > I think that you have presented a fair portrait of the current status
and
> future concerns. The issues that I believe are located deeper in the
> catalogue construct are based on the one fit-fits all delivery model.
> Universities that can afford to think beyond the OPAC have the funding to
do
> so. Smaller and funding deprived FE colleges are limited in their
choice. If
> one was to think of the usual LMS procurement module for example, then
> you would see how this very old technology does not integrate easily with
a
> whole college approach to e-procurement. I think that the new horizon of
> resources collection methodology, collating resources into thematic
offerings
> will ensure that our systems will change, our staff will adapt and our
students
> will demand a different level of engagement with all relevant sources of
> information and knowledge.
> >
> > Bets wishes
> >
> > Jo
> >
> >
> > Jo Richler BA Hons MSc PGCert Ed FLPI
> > Lead Consultant
> > ciel associates
> > [log in to unmask]
> > +44 (0) 7967 268 084
> > www.ciel.org.uk <http://www.ciel.org.uk/>
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > From: A general Library and Information Science list for news and
> discussion. on behalf of Adrian Watkins
> > Sent: Thu 16/02/2012 09:00
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: What is the future of the Library Management System?
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I am doing some research into the future of the LMS in my position as a
> Market Analyst and would like your feedback.
> >
> > What do you think of this perspective ?
> >
> >
> > http://www.walternelson.com/dr/sites/default/files/ILS_future_0.pdf
> >
> > (this link goes to a power point presentation so takes a few seconds to
> load)
> >
> >
> > Do you think this is an overly pessimistic outlook ?
> >
> > Your thoughts, comments are appreciated!
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Adrian
> > Market Analyst
> > www.eosintl.com
|