GuidePosts: Perspective and commentary by Marshall Breeding
http://www.librarytechnology.org
As events in the field of library automation unfold, Marshall Breeding draws from his experience of the industry provide background information and context needed to see the big picture. GuidePosts aims to complement the press announcements made by the commercial companies and other organizations that produce software and technology related services for libraries. Breeding created the Library Technology Guides web site and writes for a number of print publications on the library automation industry and technology trends.en-usCopyright 2012 Marshall Breeding2012-02-3T21:59:41+06:00daily12007-07-20T12:00:00+06:00Perceptions 2011: An International Survey of Library Automation
http://www.librarytechnology.org/blog.pl?ThreadID=226
(2012-01-29 19:20:13).
I have posted the results the fifth annual survey of data collected on how libraries rate their current integrated library system, the company involved, and the quality of customer support. The survey also aims to gather data regarding attitudes regarding interest levels in open source ILS products.
Perceptions 2011: an international survey of library automation gives the general conclusions and presents all the statistical results derived from the survey. As usual, some of the most interesting and valuable information lies in the comments offered by responders.
Top survey findings
Apollo, developed by
Biblionix topped the rankings in ILS satisfaction, Company satisfaction,
Functionality Completeness, Customer Support, and Customer Loyality.
This product scored best last year in product and company satisfaction and topped all of the satisfaction catetories in the
2009 survey. Apollo finds use exclusively in small public libraries, reflected
by its leading the competition on ILS satisfaction when considering only libraries with collections under 25,000 items.
When lookinig at only public libraries, Apollo receives top ratings in ILS satisfaction.
Most libraries adopting Apollo and have migrated from abandoned products such as Winnebago Spectrum and Athena or
or are automating for the first time.
When considering large libraries with collections larger than one million items,
Polaris
received highest scores, followed by
Millennium.
EOS.Web ranked
second in the category of ILS support.
566 libraries indicated that they are considering migrating to a new ILS. Innovative Interfaces
Sierra was mentioned most frequently as a replacement candidate (88), followed by Evergreen (87).
Products that ranked highest in earlier years of the survey, including and
Polaris from
Polaris Library Systems,
Library.Solution from
The Library Corporation,
AGent VERSO from
Auto-Graphics,
continue to receive satisfaction scores just as high as before,
but fall below the
superlative marks given by libraries involved with Apollo, OPALS, or Koha as supported independently or by ByWater Solutions.
Companies and products serving large and complex library organizations and diverse library types receive a
broader range of responses, and fall into a middle tier of rankings. Yet where they fall within this middle
ground represents important differences.
Millennium from
Innovative Interfaces,
Library.Solution from
The Library Corporation, and
Evergreen from
Equinox Software, and
came out as very strong performers at the top of this middle tier.
Except for the libraries already using one, the survey reflected fairly low levels
of interest in
migrating to an open source ILS,
even when the company rates their satisfaction with their current proprietary ILS and its company as poor.
Other than libraries already running an open source ILS, and for Talis Alto (5),
the mode score from libraries using proprietary ILS products was 0. The mode score in this category
for all the open source products was 9.
Though the open source interest scores were low, a substantial portion of
libraries that registered some interest in moving to a new ILS named open source products among the replacement candidates.
Just as I did for the previous editions survey, I created an interactive tool for viewing the statistical summaries and comments. The main tables in the article show statistics only for those products that had more than 15 survey responses. You can use the ILS Product Report to view the statistics on any of the products mentioned in the survey and to read the comments about that system, even if the number of responses did not meet the threshold. The comments that display have been edited to remove any text that identifies the individual or institution, preserving the anonymity of the responders. The narrative data in the comments largely corroborate the statistical responses and makes for interesting reading.
Library Technology GuidesLITA Technology and Industry Interest Group
http://www.librarytechnology.org/blog.pl?ThreadID=224
(2012-01-03 19:27:19).
“Bringing service organizations, vendors, IT providers, librarians, and library technologists together to discuss industry and technology trends.”
The newly organized LITA Technology and Industry Interest will meet at the ALA Midwinter Meeting:
Date: Saturday, January 21
Time: 10:30 – 12 noon
Place: Dallas Convention Center A303
The LITA and Technology Interest Group has been constituted to bring together members from companies and other organizations that produce technology-oriented products and services with members from libraries that depend on them. This IG facilitates the partnerships inherent in the relationship between vendors, including both commercial companies and non-profit organizations and libraries. It spans those involved in proprietary and open source software. These partnerships include involvement in collaborative development of new technology products, beta testing arrangements, involvement with API toolkits or other development platform, and a variety of other activities.
Topics that might be addressed by the Interest Group might include:
Strategies for strengthening positive relationships between libraries and their technology partners
Working toward more coherent API frameworks across heterogeneous product environments
Facilitating library involvement at earlier stages of product development
Establishing reasonable expectations regarding vendor support and involvement at library conferences and encouraging libraries to engage with vendors at conferences in ways that increase the value of the investments made in exhibit rental, receptions, and sponsorships.
Plan a program for the Annual Conference that highlights these topics and stimulates a dialog between libraries and industry representatives.
Library Technology GuidesRespond to the International Library Automation Perceptions Survey
http://www.librarytechnology.org/blog.pl?ThreadID=222
(2011-12-12 12:14:00).
There is still time to respond to the International Library Automation Perceptions Survey conducted through Library Technology Guides. The survey will remain open for data collection through January 13, 2012. If your library has not yet responded, please take a few minutes to complete this brief survey. I also encourage you to write any comments that you might have that reflect your experiences and that you feel that other libraries should know when considering this product.
This survey collects what I hope will be useful information to help libraries become better informed about automation products available and the organizations involved with them. It's important to have as much information as possible when making strategic decisions regarding the automation products that might best serve the library in the future. This survey collects data measuring the degree of satisfaction that libraries experience with their current automation systems and the organizations that support them and probes at their interest in current trends such as open source automation systems or the implementation of discovery products.
While the survey responses in the past four years have been dominated by libraries in the United States, I hope to increase the numbers from other regions. Toward this goal, I've been able to have colleagues produce translations of the survey invitation in Spanish, Italian, and Chinese. Thanks to Nieves González, Giulio Bonanome, and Nie Hua for their work. A broader international response will help increase awareness of the many automation products used in libraries outside the United States and whether the feel well served by these products.
Note that only one response per library is allowed. I do allow responses from each branch or facility associated with a library, but not from the same individual, as defined by unique e-mail address. You should work directly in the library for which you respond. I encourage each response to be considered as much as possible as an institutional response, not necessarily just the impressions of a single individual.
These survey and the reports based on their response data make an impact. Not only does it provide information for libraries to use as one element of their investigation processes for technology products, but they provide a mechanism for feedback to the organizations that develop and support the systems.
For more information and instructions on how to participate:
