Karen Schneider, Research and Development Consultant, College Center for Library Automation (Florida) presented ILS Issues for Trustees on Saturday.
Schneider says that it is necessary to have librarians in the selection of the ILS process, but there are positives and negatives in that. Librarians understand the back-end operations better than anyone. Season librarians have years of working with users and know functional aspects needed in the ILS. The newer librarians are often savvy about user trends and behaviors outside library land. Schneider, however, has some concerns, because librarians can have staff centered views, which focus on staff functions. Sometimes there is a belief that users can and should be taught complex functions, but this shows a lack of familiarity with user behavior. Some librarians may not be familiar with concepts such as: standards, interoperability, or web services.
Having trustees being a part of the selection process can bring perspectives from other industries. Trustees don’t have to be library software experts; they just need to understand that libraries are different than other industries. It is important for trustees to realize that some vendors are predatory. It is important to have a long range plan for technology, but if the plan is longer than 2 or 3 years (in great detail) then it’s a fairy tale. It is important to build in as much flexibility as possible. Trustees have to be thinking forward and don’t know what technologies will be available in the next 6 months. The must assume that there will be massive change in technology. It is important to serve today’s users as well as possible. It can be assumed that users’ expectations will rise faster than libraries can keep up. Existing technology prices will drop, but new stuff will come in to fill the gap. No matter how much you spend on technology, you’ve under spent by 50%. The library does not have enough technology staff and those staff members are paid far below market price, so it’s very important to treat them right.
Schneider suggests that trustees try to read some of the following resources in order to keep up with library technology trends:
Library Journal
Information Week
American Libraries Direct
Chronicle for Higher Ed.
Gartner
Pew Internet and American Life
OCLC Reports
Some of the above sources will give trustees information about the realities of ILS market. Currently, merger and buyouts dominate the ILS market. There has been no new commercial product in the last decade. Nobody likes their commercial ILS vendor. There have been several cases when vendors have promised upgrades and then left libraries at the alter.
Schneider talks about what she has learned about users’ research. Most people make typos some of the time, and typos constitute about 10% of failed searches. Most users are searching with 2, 3, or 4 words without using Boolean. No one reads help screens anymore, and libraries are the only people who are using the advance search features. For users, the search is a hesitant, random process of discovery, and most people start their searches elsewhere (like Google.) Most of the legacy software now have turned our OPACs into “walled gardens.” There is no interconnecting them. The thing to remember is that users want to connect to the software.
A good ILS should be robust and reliable. It needs to supports core staff function in a manner that doesn’t lead to expensive work-arounds. It should provide a user experience that satisfies customer expectations. It’s very important to have modules that can be mixed and matched with external products needed to keep up with technology change. All that the user really wants is: ease of use, personalization, doablility, and connection. Last gen OPACs are very poor at known item searches. They are very week at discovery research process. They don’t engage the user. When it comes to adding digital content, it ends up feeling like an artificial limb. These OPACs are very out of sync with user expectations. They are policy driven and have software limitations.
Some new enhancements in better OPACs that are happening now are ranking, spell check, search as a box, and improved digital content. Other options that people are adding to make the OPAC better are: faceting, editions, working lists, review/rate features, persistent links, unified search and best bets. This gives the OPAC a more personal feel and gives the user a more emotional attachment.
Schneider talks a little bit about open source options. She says one of the problems is that there is a lot of fluff talk to make you feel good and attached to the software, which isn’t necessarily what you want at first. Open source comes with a lot of fear, uncertainty and debt. There are many options out there and it’s hard to decide which one is the best for your library. Schneider suggests reading the Gartner reports. The option of commercial software often has many hidden costs. With commercial ILS software you can’t see, touch, discuss or change the software. Many of the problems get hidden behind the institution because of the model. The vendors tend to skimp the most when it comes to service and development and those are two important things with ILS. There is always the chance the vendor will go out of business or merge with another company, and this vendor abandonment can come at a very high cost. Open source software adds a lot of value. Open source causes better vendor competition and a healthier service orientation. It disrupts the ILS market in a way that benefits the consumer. There are actual fixes in open source software. Third party vendors can support open software, and it is a very wise model for libraries.