Transcript The Future of Integrated Library Systems

ILS Vendor Landscape
Companies and Products
Marshall Breeding
Director for Innovative Technologies and Research
Vanderbilt University
http://staffweb.library.vanderbilt.edu/breeding
http://www.librarytechnology.org/
Library and
Archives Canada
December 7, 2007
Business Trends
A look at the companies involved in library
automation and related technologies
Business Landscape
 Library Journal Automated System Marketplace:
 An Industry redefined (April 1, 2007)
 An increasingly consolidated industry
 VC and Private Equity playing a stronger role then ever
before
 Moving out of a previous phase of fragmentation where
many companies expend energies producing
decreasingly differentiated systems in a limited
marketplace
 Narrowing of product options
 Open Source opportunities rise to challenge
stranglehold of traditional commercial model
Other Business Factors
 Level of innovation falls below
expectations
 Companies struggle to keep up with ILS
enhancements and R&D for new
innovations.
 Pressure within companies to reduce
costs, increase revenue
 Pressure from libraries for more
innovative products
Library Automation M&A
History
Why worry about who owns the
Industry?
 Some of the most important decisions that
affect the options available to libraries are
made in the corporate board room.
 Increased control by financial interests of
private equity and venture capital firms
 Recent industry events driven by external
corporate decisions;
 Market success and technological advantages
don’t necessarily drive business decisions
Investor owned companies
 SirsiDynix -> Vista Equity Partners (Recently
bought out Seaport Capital + Hicks Muse/HM
Capital)
 Ex Libris -> Francisco Partners (recently
bought out VC’s)
 Endeavor -> Francisco Partners (recently
bought out Elsevier)
 Infor (was Extensity, was Geac) -> Golden
Gate
 Polaris -> Croydon Company
 formerly part of Gaylord Bros (acquired by Demco)
Public companies:
 Auto-Graphics
 De-listed from SEC reporting requirements
 Was OTC:AUGR now Pink Sheets:AUGR
Founder / Family owned
companies
 Innovative Interfaces
 100% ownership by Jerry Kline following
2001 buy-out of partner Steve Silberstien
 The Library Corporation
 Owned by Annette Murphy family
 VTLS – tech spin-off from Virginia Tech,
wholly owned by Vinod Chachra
 These companies not under the control
of external financial interests
Impact of Ownership
 Long term vs short tem interests
 Decision makers in tune with the needs of the
customer base?
 Ability to understand libraries as business
customers
 Serving non-profit organizations quite different
 It’s possible to operate a profitable company
and stay true to the interest of library as
customer
Revenue sources
 New ILS sales
 Maintenance support
 15% purchase cost annually with inflation
adjustments
 Non-ILS software
 Library Services
Diverse Business
Activities
 Many ways to expand business in ways that
leverage library automation expertise:
 Non-ILS software: link resolvers, federated search,
ERM, portal/alternative Web interfaces
 Retrospective conversion services
 RFID or AMH
 Network Consulting Services
 Content products
 Imaging services
Business Development
Strategy
 Essential to understand the strategic business
plans of the company





Long term growth?
Short term profits?
Growth through M&A
Organic growth by attracting new customer libraries
Positioning for sale?
 Get past press releases and spin and look
closely at the corporate behavior.
Libraries Demand choice
 Current market narrowing options
 Consolidation working toward monopoly?
 Many companies currently prosper in the
library automation industry
 Room for niche players
 Domination by a large monopoly unlikely to be
accepted by library community
 Monopoly would be subverted by Open Source
or other cooperative movement
The Chopping Block






Horizon 8.0 (Mar 2007)
Horizon 7.x (Mar 2007)
ENCompass (Jan 2006)
LinkFinderPlus (Jan 2006)
Taos (Dec 2001)
NOTIS Horizon (Jun 1994)
Legacy Phase out









DRA Classic
Dynix Classic
MultiLIS
INLEX/3000
Advance
PLUS
VTLS Classic
NOTIS
PC Systems: Winnebago Spectrum, Follett Circ
Plus, Athena, Concourse
Status of current ILS
Products
 Most ILS products from commercial
vendors mature
 None less than a decade old
 Approaching end of life cycle?
 Evolved systems
 No success in launching new systems
 Horizon 8.0
 Taos
Current Vintage




ALEPH 500
Unicorn
Millennium
Virtua
1996
1982
1982
1995






Voyager
Carl
Polaris
Koha
Library.Solution
Evergreen
1995
1982
1997
1999
1997
2004
ILS Migration Trends
 Few voluntary lateral migrations
 Forced Migrations




Vendor abandonment
Need to move from legacy systems
Exit from bad marriages with vendors
Exit from bad marriages with consortia
 It’s never been harder to justify
investments in ILS
Products surrounding the
ILS
 Need for products focused on electronic
content and user experience




Next-gen interfaces
Federated search
Linking
Electronic Resource Management
An age of less integrated
systems
 Core ILS supplemented by:




OpenURL Link Resolvers
Metasearch / Federated Search
Electronic Resource Management
Next Generation Library Interfaces
No longer an ILS-centric
industry
 Portion of revenues derived from core
ILS products diminishing relative to other
library tech products
 Many companies and organizations that
don’t offer an ILS are involved in library
automation:




OCLC
Cambridge / Bowker
WebFeat
Muse Global
Library Automation
Companies
SirsiDynix
 Highly consolidated company
 Sirsi Corp, Dynix, DRA, MultiLIS, INLEX/300, Docutec, OCLC
Local Systems, DataPhase, Electric Memory, NOTIS Systems
 Largest in the industry
 ~$125 revenue
 Owned by Vista Equity Partners
 Previously supported by VC: Seaport Capital, Hicks Muse)
 Consolidated company working toward consolidating
and integrating products and business units.
Corporate Strategy
 Single ILS strategy based on Unicorn (Feb
2007)
 Move toward Saas (Software as a Service)
 Abandoned development of Horizon 8.0 / 7x
 Reduction in Force
 Phase out higher earning staff
 Single HQ? Provo?
Unicorn / Symphony







Server component written in C
C-ISAM pre-relational database structure
Oracle version available
BRS fulltext search engine
Unicode implementation problematic
Robust API
Perl used for reports and system
administration
Workflows
 Latest version of staff client
 Recently translated from C to Java
 Few gains in functionality
 Slower performance
 Necessary to get to Unicode given choice
of C development environment
Rooms
 Launched as the company’s strategic
portal product in 2004
 Limited market interest in academic
libraries
 Some use by public libraries
 Strongest interest in K-12 School arena
 Does not fit within the current
expectations for next-gen interfaces
Challenges
 Poor reputation among library community
 Lack of trust due to abrupt abandonment of
Horizon
 8.0 and 7.x versions
 Expect some decrease in overall customer
base
 Stimulated Open Source movement
 Unicorn/Symphony perceived as old
technology
Product strategies
 Continually slow in creating new products
 No electronic resource management product
 Remarkets Serials Solutions
 Abandoned local development of ERM for both
Unicorn and Horizon
 No Linking product – OEM Serials Solution
 No Next Generation Interface
 Recent agreement with Brainware (another Vista
portfolio company)
Strengths
 Large company
 Customer support infrastructure
Ex Libris Profile
 Global provider of software to Academic
Libraries
 Largest in the academic market, Third largest
overall
 Owned by Francisco Partners
 Acquired Endeavor in Nov 2006
 Strong focus on non-ILS products:
 SFX – MetaLib – Verde – DigiTool – Primo
 Continues to support and develop ALEPH and
Voyager
Ex Libris Corporate
History
 Founded in 1980 to create automation software for the library of
Hebrew University in Jerusalem
 Automated Library Expandable Program – Aleph 100
 Aleph Yissum was a technology transfer spin-off of HUJ
 Acquired Dabis July 1997 (German ILS vendor)
 Ex Libris formed in 1986 to market ALEPH
 Aleph Yissum and Ex Libris merged in 1995
 1999 VC investments by Tamar Technologies and Walden Israel
 Azriel Morag exits Aug 2005
 Failed IPO in Sept 2005
 Acquisition by Francisco Partners in Jul 2006 for $62 million
 Acquisition of Endeavor in Nov 2006
Francisco Partners




Private Equity Firm
$5 Billion
Technology focused companies
Looks for synergies in portfolio
companies
Corporate Strategy
 Assemble company capable of
dominating academic market
 Internal software development – avoid
OEM approach for strategic products
 Investments in development
 Aggressive pricing (?)
 Lower development costs in Israel
ALEPH 500
 Current flagship ILS
 Designed for large complex libraries
 Rich functionality
 Reputation for being difficult to implement
 Evolved system – parts of the system still
in COBOL
 Large Academic
 British Library
Product Strategy
 Products for libraries in higher education
 Strength in products for managing
electronic content
 SFX, MetaLib, Verde
 Recent effort to develop Primo as a nextgeneration discovery and delivery
platform. Will serve as a front-end for all
products
Innovative Interfaces
 Founded by Jerry Kline and Steve Silberstein
 Kline bought out Silberstein in 2000
 Some bank debt to finance the transition which has
is paid off.
 Company wholly owned by Jerry Kline
 No involvement with VC or Private equity
 No recent involvement in M&A
 Acquired SLS in 1997
Product Strategy
 Evolutionary Product strategy
 Innopac -> Millennium beginning in 1995
 Millennium was one of the first library automation
systems to use Java. Employed only on the client side.
Server remains in C.
 Millennium as core technology
 Encore, RightResults, ResearchPro
 Early to market in new product areas:
 Electronic Resource Management
 Institutional Repository platform
 Next-generation interface
Corporate Strategy
 Strong revenues to support R&D
 Relies on internal software development
 Avoids OEM approach for strategic
products
 Defiant resistance to VC and Private
Equity investment/control
Company Strengths
 Large and growing customer base
 Continues to make new sales in a difficult
ILS market
 Ability to perform rapid software
development
 First to market in Electronic Resource
Management
 Remarkable response to Encore
Company Challenges
 Reputation for closed systems
 Aggressive pricing
 Perceived by many of its library
customers as rigid
 Ability to resist buyout offers
VTLS
 Wholly owned by Vinod Chachra. Virgina
Tech initially had equity that has been
sold to Chachra.
 VTLS developed Circulation System in
min 1970’s when Chachra was VP for IT
 Technology transfer spin-off from Virginia
Tech University in 1985
 Pioneer in library automation systems
Virtua
 Initially introduced in 1995
 Current technologies:
 RDBMS, Unicode, 3-tier client/server
architecture
 Early ILS implementation of FRBR
Virtua Success / failures
 Univ of Kansas – signed in 1996 > Voyager
1998
 State Library of Queensland – signed in 1998 >
Voyager 2002
 New York University signed June 2004 >
ALEPH Nov 2007
 University of Oxford signed June 2005.
Implementation problematic; go/no-go decision
planned for Dec 2007
Oxford University
 Selected Virtua in June 2005
 ILS for 100 libraries
 Contract included creation of custom
software for Oxford’s closed stack
retrieval process.
Lost opportunities
 Lost most of its North American customer
base
 In the 1980s VTLS was a major supplier of
automations software for public and
academic libraries in North America
 Failed to transition customers from VTLS
classic
 Slow adoption of Virtua
VERIFY Electronic
Resource Management
 Signed Tri-College Library Consortium of
Bryn Mawr, Haverford and Swarthmore
Colleges as development partner in 2005
 Following unsuccessful implementation
Tri-College has begun to implement Ex
Libris Verde
VITAL Institutional
Repository
 Built on open source Fedora platform
 Major contracts in Australia (Arrow
consortium)
VTLS Challenges
 Damaged reputation in the marketplace due to
failed system implementations
 Virtua is aging rapidly – resources to revitalize
development?
 Ripe for acquisition?
 Continues to announce new sales: most are
low-value international contracts
 Overextended resources on NYU & Oxford
VTLS Strengths
 Strong international presence
 Solid implementation of Unicode
 Strong re-sellers. Eg: iGroup
OCLC in the ILS arena?
 Increasingly overlapped with library automation
activities
 WorldCat Local recently announced
 Penetrating deeper into local libraries
 Library-owned cooperative on a buying binge of
automation companies:





Openly Informatics
Fretwell-Downing Informatics
Sisis Informationssysteme
PICA (now 100%)
DiMeMa (CONTENTdm)
 ILS companies concerned about competing with a nonprofit with enormous resources and the ability to shift
costs.
Cambridge Information
Group / Bowker
 Serials Solutions
 Syndetic Solutions
 Electronic Resource Management
 Federated Search
 E-Journals data
 AquaBrowser
 Next-gen Interface
Product and Technology
Trends
Current state of library
automation functionality
 The core ILS focused mostly on print resources
and traditional library workflow processes.
 Add-ons available for dealing with electronic
content:
 Link resolvers
 Metasearch environments
 Electronic Resource Management
 A loosely integrated environment
 Labor-intensive implementation and maintenance
 Most are “must have” products for academic
libraries with significant collections of e-content
Problems with current
slate of automation
components





Development cycle behind current needs
Very loosely coupled
Diverse interfaces
Not seamless to library users
Multiple points of management for library
staff
 Long and complex cycles of
implementation and integration
Why such fragmented
automation?
 Maintenance alone not adequate to fund
development of new products
 Libraries not willing to accept higher
maintenance and support payments
 Business requirement to spin off new
products
 Can be counter to the need for more
seamless, integrated, and
comprehensive automation
Common tools for access
to local collections




Library OPAC (ILS module)
Links to aggregators, publishers
Cross linking via OpenURL
Journal finding aids (Often managed by
link resolver)
 Metasearch engines
 All loosely coupled
Library OPAC
 Evolved from card catalogs and continues to
be bound by the constraints of that legacy.
 Complex and rich in features
 Interfaces often do not compare favorably with
alternatives available on the Web
 Print materials becoming a smaller component
of the library’s overall collections.
Redefinition of library
catalogs and interfaces
 Traditional notions of the library catalog are
being questioned
 It’s no longer enough to provide a catalog
limited to print resources
 Digital resources cannot be an afterthought
 Forcing users to use different interfaces
depending on type of content becoming less
tenable
 Libraries working toward consolidated search
environments that give equal footing to digital
and print resources
The best Library OPAC?
Troubling statistic
Where do you typically begin your
search for information on a
particular topic?
College Students Response:
 89% Search engines (Google 62%)
 2% Library Web Site (total respondents -> 1%)
 2% Online Database
 1% E-mail
 1% Online News
 1% Online bookstores
 0% Instant Messaging / Online Chat
OCLC. Perceptions of Libraries and Information Resources
(2005) p. 1-17.
Change underway
 Widespread dissatisfaction with most of the
current OPACs. Many efforts toward nextgeneration catalogs and interfaces.
 Movement among libraries to break out of the
current mold of library catalogs and offer new
interfaces better suited to the expectations of
library users.
 Decoupling of the front-end interface from the
back-end library automation system.
Toward compelling library
interfaces
 Urgent need for libraries to offer
interfaces their users will like to use
 Move out of the 1990’s
 Powerful search capabilities in tune with
how the Web works today
 User expectations set by other Web
destination
The holy grail
 A single point of entry into all the content
and services offered by the library
 Print + Electronic
 Local + Remote
 Locally metadata created Content
Comprehensive Search
Service
 More like OAI
 Open Archives Initiative
 Consolidated search services based on and
data gathered in advance
 Problems of scale diminished
 Problems of cooperation persist
Web 2.0 influence
 A more social and collaborative approach
 Web Tools and technology that foster
collaboration
 Blogs, wiki, blogs, tagging, social
bookmarking, user rating, user reviews
 Web services – important infrastructure
 XML APIs
 AJAX (asynchronous JavaScript and
XML)
Interface expectations
 Millennial gen library users are well acclimated
to the Web and like it.
 Used to relevancy ranking
 The “good stuff” should be listed first
 Users tend not to delve deep into a result list
 Good relevancy requires a sophisticated approach,
including objective matching criteria supplemented
by popularity and relatedness factors.
Interface expectations
(cont…)
 Very rapid response. Users have a low tolerance for
slow systems
 Rich visual information: book jacket images, rating
scores, etc.
 Let users drill down through the result set incrementally
narrowing the field
 Faceted Browsing
 Drill-down vs up-front Boolean or “Advanced Search”
 gives the users clues about the number of hits in each sub
topic.
 Navigational Bread crumbs
 Ratings and rankings
Appropriate organizational
structures




LCSH vs FAST
Full MARC vs Dublin Core or MODS
Discipline-specific thesauri or ontologies
“tags”
Current Next-Gen
catalog products
Common characteristics
 Decoupled interface
Mass export of catalog data
Alternative search engine
Alternative interface
Endeca Guided Navigation
 North Carolina State University
http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/catalog/
 McMaster University
http://libcat.mcmaster.ca/
 Phoenix Public Library
http://www.phoenixpubliclibrary.org/
 Florida Center for Library Automation
http://catalog.fcla.edu/ux.jsp
AquaBrowser Library
 Queens Borough Public Library
 http://aqua.queenslibrary.org/
Ex Libris Primo
 Vanderbilt University
http://alphasearch.library.vanderbilt.edu
 University of Minnesota
http://prime2.oit.umn.edu:1701/primo_library/li
bweb/action/search.do?vid=TWINCITIES
 University of Iowa
http://smartsearch.uiowa.edu/
Encore from Innovative
Interfaces
 Nashville Public Library
http://nplencore.library.nashville.org/iii/encore/app
 Scottsdale Public Library
http://encore.scottsdaleaz.gov/iii/encore/app
 Yale University Lillian Goldman Law Library
http://encore.law.yale.edu/iii/encore/app
VUFind – Villanova
University
Based on Apache Solr search toolkit
http://www.vufind.org/
OCLC Worldcat Local
 OCLC Worldcat customized for local
library catalog
 Relies on hooks into ILS for local
services
 University of Washington Libraries
http://uwashington.worldcat.org/
 University of California Melvyl Catalog
Questions and
Discussion