|
www.LYPonline.com
|
||||
|
Sharing an Integrated
Library System By Bob Bocher Considering that most
libraries implemented their first integrated library system (ILS) years ago,
the question of sharing an ILS with other libraries may seem passé. Yet this
question can still be relevant for a variety of reasons. For example, libraries go through periodic system
upgrades or migrations and these processes can result in discussion about
sharing. Related to this, there is considerable churning in the ILS market
place, including interest in open source systems. Other factors that can also
make sharing a viable option include changes in library personnel or
funding. Whatever the reasons, if
sharing an ILS is a possible option for your library, it is beneficial to
review some of the basic advantages and disadvantages of a shared ILS. As one might expect, there
are different interpretations of what constitutes a shared integrated library
system. From the author’s perspective,
a shared system means having at least two libraries—linked via a
telecommunications network—using the same hardware platform and library
application software and accessing common data files. Historically the
hardware and application software resided at a single location, but in
today’s more distributed environment, this is not always true. Myriad questions must be
addressed in sharing an integrated library system that do not arise when a
library has its own, stand-alone system. For example, to what extent will the
participating libraries seek commonality in loan policies, cataloging
practices, and in developing coordinated acquisitions? What factors will be used to determine how
much of the system’s initial and ongoing costs will be supported by each
library? How will the shared system be
governed to resolve disputes, address needed upgrades and deal with other
issues? A commitment to a shared ILS
should be made on the assumption that it will be a long-term commitment.
Libraries sharing a system do occasionally decide to withdraw or to disband
the entire cooperative venture, and language allowing this is usually part of
any shared system governance agreement. However, the withdrawal process is seldom
technically or procedurally simple. And it can easily become acrimonious when
done in an atmosphere of discord, distrust and paranoia. Advantages: Below are some of the
basic advantages of shared integrated systems. Many of the advantages will be
of particular interest to smaller libraries. Not listed as an advantage is a
common assumption that a shared ILS will be less expensive for each member
vs. each library having its own integrated system. The validity of this assumption depends on
too many variables to presume, a priori, that this is always the case.
This is a major benefit
for joining or creating a shared integrated system, especially for smaller
libraries. Treating the participating libraries' collections as one union
catalog significantly increases the resources available to patrons. Requests
for titles not held in the library can easily be made by staff or directly by
patrons searching the union OPAC, and then electronically placing a “hold” on
that item(s). Many shared systems also
make other electronic information resources, like full-text databases,
available to participating libraries. In almost all instances the consortium license
for these databases will be less costly than if each library purchased them
individually.
This advantage is most
evident if members of the consortium are smaller libraries that as an
alternative to a shared ILS have or would be implementing stand-alone,
PC-based systems. While the PC systems
have evolved substantially over the past decade, in general the larger ILS systems
still have more functions, features and flexibility than do the smaller
PC-based systems.
Even when using MARC
records from reliable sources, smaller libraries in particular seldom have
adequate staff time to maintain consistently high quality cataloging. In a shared
system the largest library in the consortium will often assume the
responsibility of cataloging acquisitions for the other members. (Costs for this are part of any membership
agreement.) The larger library has more
highly qualified staff who are more likely to invest the needed time to
maintain high cataloging standards, which are then reflected in a better
online catalog.
In a shared integrated system,
library staff must know how to use the system but they are not burdened with
the additional major responsibility of actually managing it on a day-to-day
basis. System management is the responsibility of staff hired specifically
for this purpose. It is the system
manager who resolves technical problems and manages all the other
"behind-the-scenes" details that must be done on a routine basis. Alleviating
smaller libraries of this responsibility can be especially beneficial.
By definition, any shared ILS
will foster cooperation among the participating libraries. Although it is
certainly helpful to have some history of cooperation, implementing a shared
system can serve as a catalyst to bring together libraries and staff that may
have had little previous contact. Such contact can lead to other cooperative
projects and programs. Disadvantages: There are understandable
reasons why shared integrated systems are not always the right option for all
libraries. Some of these reasons are noted below.
This can be a major
impediment to getting a shared ILS operational. Simply stated, librarians are
not always willing to concede some of their local autonomy to make the
compromises that are necessary as part of any group process. For a shared integrated
system to be successful, some local control must be relinquished for the
common good of the group. For example,
hours of meeting time are consumed as consortium members tried to agree on a common
loan period for DVDs.
It is easier to get a
shared integrated system operational when all participants are from the same
type of library. Different types of libraries can share a system, but a
higher level of cooperation is often required. For example, there may be
little commonality in circulation policies between a community college
library, a K-12 school and the local public library. In some systems that
serve different types of libraries, the hardware and software are shared but
the member libraries maintain separate databases with separate circulation and
other policies.
In shared systems, data
are communicated among the participants over telecommunication circuits
usually leased from one or several telephone or cable companies. Paying the cost
for these circuits can be a major expense, especially in rural areas. Fortunately public and K-12 school
libraries can use the federal E-rate discounts to help reduce
telecommunication costs. And some
states, like
The mechanism or formula
used by a consortium to determine who pays what can be subject to endless and
divisive debate. Most cost formulas take into consideration a library's
collection size and circulation. This works reasonably well for libraries of
the same type but is less viable when different types of libraries are
sharing a system, because of wide variances in these factors. What may be
viewed as a fair cost sharing formula by one library may be viewed as
extortion by another.
What one librarian defines
as a critical feature essential to his/her library may be of little
importance to another. If a Request for Proposal (RFP) process is still used
this often results in an RFP that labels 99% of its listed features as
"mandatory" because at least one librarian insists that the feature
be labeled as such. This is an impossible standard for vendors to meet. Even when there is agreement on the basic
features, the actual moment of vendor selection can be the point at which congeniality
break downs. Libraries may withdraw from the process, necessitating another
price quote from vendors, or the withdrawals may cause the whole consortium to
collapse.
Many shared integrated systems
that were formed up to the mid-1990s had member libraries which had never
automated. Since the mid-1990s, this
situation has become increasingly rare to the point where it is likely almost
non-existent today. Thus a group of
libraries looking at forming a shared ILS needs to address issues like contract
expiration and upgrade timeframes of the libraries’ current ILSs. Conclusion: Shared integrated systems
offer many advantages to the participating libraries and the patrons they
serve. This option should always be explored as a library embarks on a major
review of their current ILS. As with any successful group process,
implementing a shared integrated system is dependent on maintaining a high
degree of cooperation among the partners and willingness to compromise. Author Background Bob Bocher is the Library
Technology Consultant for the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction’s Division
for Libraries, Technology, and Community Learning (the State Library
Agency). Bob Bocher, Technology Consultant |
||||
|
|
||||
|
Would you like to write for INFOcus? Let
us know! |
||||
|
Find Products & Services
Online |
||||
|
|
