Libraries and Next Gen Mobiles…05.26.09

Here is an excerpt from our Aussie friends at Libraries Interact:

“…How do you think these may affect librarianship? How can library staff use them? How can we offer our services to our users with next gen mobiles? Do you have a favourite app that you use and would recommend to others?

Here are a few ideas to get you started.

• In February, Kenley Neufeld listed his Top 10 iPhone Apps for Librarians .
• Aaron Schmidt from the DC Public Libraries has released the code for an iPhone App that allows library users to search the catalogue, place holds and find opening hours ,DCPL iPhone application ready for download
• The University of Bath Library has added QR codes to records in the catalogue so that users can scan them using free software that will then show them the author, title and location of the item, QR Codes in the Library.
• The Abilene Christian University in Texas has produced a video showing a fictional account of what could happen if the entire campus of students and academics were connected using a next gen mobile, Connected

Z39.50 Client eZcat from Book Systems, Inc…04.14.09

from Book Systems, Inc. is the Z39.50 software I use in conjunction with our ILS software Atriuum which has adequately met my needs to date.

Online you can see a video tour of eZcat titled What is eZcat? (RT: 16:42).

“eZcat is a dynamic software package that makes cataloging and editing MARC records virtually effortless. It lets you download MARC records across the Internet from the Library of Congress, university libraries, and large public libraries that have Z39.50 servers. This video will assist you in configuring eZcat and loading your records into Atriuum.”

Ohio State University Libraries Labs Launched…04.10.09

Here is an interesting excerpt from The Medium is the Message blog post OSU Library Labs: Concept to Production in 90 Days bythe Eric Schnell of the Ohio State University Libraries about a growing trend in larger libraries:

“The number of libraries discussing the concepts of agile development, perpetual beta, and rapid prototyping is encouraging. The one thing that all of these approaches have in common is the idea of including customers as active participants in the development and/or testing of new products and services. To that end, many libraries have created library labs sites to distribute various experimental and half-baked tools and gadgets.
A library lab allows an academic library to introduce new services at any time, not just during the three week window between semesters or when the services are ‘perfected.’ It creates an environment for users to experiment with new services. It is a showcase for projects under development or consideration. There is really no limit to what can be put on a labs site, nor is it limited to just technology solutions. A labs site allows a library to invest just enough resources to see if the idea is worth investing in, or let go of prototypes in a dignified manner.

The idea of an OSU labs site has been kicked around internally for at least a year. The challenge was other projects and job responsibilities kept the project in concept mode. Well, today we soft-launched OSU Library Labs…”

Read the Latest Edition of The International Survey of Library Automation…04.05.09

(Image:  ihome.ust.hk/…/diploma/libauto/libauto.html)

Here is Marshall Breeding‘s 2009 summary of his latests “International Survey of Library Automation ”…regarding the perceptions of libraries toward their automation systems, the organizations that provide support, and the quality of support they receive. It also aims to gauge interest in open source library automation systems”…

 

Most Positive Perceptions

Polaris emerged this year as the ILS product with the highest positive ratings in the categories of product and company satisfaction. Libraries using AGent VERSO from Auto-Graphics gave the highest rankings for customer support and loyalty to the company for future business. Library.Solution from The Library Corporation received highly positive marks from its customer libraries in all categories. Libraries using Polaris, AGent VERSO, and Library.Solution showed the least interest in open source ILS products. These three companies received extremely high satisfaction ratings from their libraries, with average scores separated by very thin margins.

Negative Perceptions

The survey results reveal high levels of dissatisfaction by libraries running legacy ILS products. Athena and Winnebago Spectrum, both systems acquired by Follett Software Company that will not receive ongoing development, received the lowest ILS satisfaction scores and indicated the least likelihood that they would purchase an ILS in the future from this company. Libraries using Dynix gave low marks regarding their satisfaction with the product (5.14) and for SirsiDynix as a company (4.81), but rated support more moderately (5.76). Horizon libraries gave SirsiDynix very low marks as a company (4.32) but registered moderate satisfaction for the product itself (5.68).

The number of negative comments provided on the survey forms overwhelmingly exceeded positive ones.

ILS Satisfaction

Polaris ranked as the product that received the highest score in response to the question probing satisfaction with the library’s Integrated Library System with a median rating of 7.73. Fifty-one libraries using Polaris responded to this question. Last year a total of 59 responders rated Polaris 7.78, reflecting remarkable consistency across the two years. AGent VERSO earned second highest marks in this category (7.26), with Library.Solution from The Library Corporation only a fraction lower (7.20). Millennium from Innovative Interfaces, Inc. also attracted highly positive ratings (7.09).

Company Satisfaction

Polaris Library Systems also won the highest score for company satisfaction (7.76) with Auto-Graphics (7.68) and The Library Corporation (7.33) only slightly less favored. Libraries using Millennium gave Innovative Interfaces solidly positive ratings (6.44), though a notch below the top three companies. Libraries using legacy products not surprisingly noted their vendors as least satisfactory, including those using Athena (3.92), Horizon (4.32), Winnebago Spectrum (4.52), and Dynix (4.81). The middle tier of company satisfaction included those using Koha supported by LibLime (5.84), Virtua from VTLS (5.79), Voyager (5.59) and ALEPH 500 (5.20) from Ex Libris, and Unicorn from SirsiDynix (5.05).

Satisfaction with Customer Support

Libraries using AGent VERSO rated Auto-Graphics as the company providing the most satisfactory support (7.81). Polaris (7.41) and The Library Corporation (7.07) also earned highly positive ratings for customer support, just below that of Auto-Graphics. Innovative received strong marks in this category (6.46), though again just a notch below the top tier. Users of Athena (3.63) and Winnebago Spectrum (4.57) gave Follett low ratings for support.

Company Loyalty

In response to the question probing the likelihood that the library would purchase future ILS products from their current vendor, Auto-Graphics received the highest marks for customer loyalty (7.64) only slightly edging above The Library Corporation (7.50) and Polaris Library Systems (7.33). Libraries using Millennium gave mixed results, but overall indicated strong loyalty to Innovative Interfaces, Inc. (6.54). Libraries using Athena (4.32), Winnebago Spectrum (3.95), and Horizon (4.37) seem on average not inclined to purchase their next system from their incumbent vendors.

Open Source Perceptions

It’s not surprising that the libraries already using an open source ILS registered the strongest interest in future consideration of an open source ILS, with Koha as supported by LibLime toping the list (8.05). Other than these open source true believers, libraries running proprietary systems submitted responses reflecting much lower interest, with even those most dissatisfied with their current product such as Winnebago Spectrum (4.95) indicated relatively weak interest. We also observe that libraries most satisfied with their current situation, including Polaris (2.29), AGent VERSO (2.63), Library.Solution (3.00) showed little interest in open source alternatives…”

FREE Webcast April 9 – “Academic Library Administrators’ Perceptions of Critical Skills Needed by Librarians for the Instruction Process”…04.01.09

From Beyond the Job:

“…Academic Library Administrators’ Perceptions of Critical Skills Needed by Librarians for the Instruction Process…

Thursday, April 9, 2009 at 3 pm. EDT…

John Shank and Nancy Dewald have conducted a research study that explores the attitudes of today’s library leaders toward the skill sets needed to fulfill the library’s educational role. They will share preliminary results from their research and discuss possible implications, impact, and effects. This session will help you to become more aware of the skills and traits that could affect your future hiring needs. This research will include information that can enable academic public services librarians and future library school graduates to identify critical existing and newly emerging skills and traits in order to pursue strategic professional development. Additionally, Library school faculty can gain a deeper understanding of newly emerging trends in instructional positions and be more informed when modifying curricula.

Although this event is free, advance registration is required to reserve a virtual seat. If you are already a member of the Blended Librarians Online Learning Community here is a link into the Learning Times Network that will get you to our Community and the registration page:

http://home.learningtimes.net/library?go=2102816 …”

Steven J. Bell
Associate University Librarian for Research and Instructional Services
Temple University Libraries
Paley Library (017-00)
1210 West Berks Street
Philadelphia, PA 19122-6088
215-204-5023(v) 215-204-5201(f)
bells@temple.edu http://library.temple.edu

Coming April 1, 2009 Library Automation Systems Marketplace Report…03.23.09

Marshall Breeding posted the following on Library Technology Guides about the release of his latest automation report in Gathering library automation Data which is excerpted here:

“I’ve recently finished my eighth version of the ‘Automation Systems Marketplace‘ which will appear in the April 1 issue of Library Journal. This article provides a great opportunity for me to get detailed data from the companies involved in the library automation industry regarding their activities over the last year. Each year companies respond to a survey where they are asked to respond to specific questions regarding the numbers of systems sold, the personnel employed, and the like. In general, the companies involved cooperate very nicely in responding with information that seems accurate and complete.

In addition to the self-reported information provided by the companies involved in the industry, I aim to gather data from other perspectives. The “Perceptions 2008: An international Survey of Library Automation” aims to gather information from the libraries’ perspective. While the data from this survey isn’t comprehensive, it has been helpful in identifying or confirming broad trends…”

Image: “…the history of mergers and acquisitions in the library automation industry”

Marshall Breeding

Jean and Alexander Heard Library, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN

Copyright 2007

New OCLC Report Concludes the Need to Move All Research Services to an E-Research Platform…01.21.09

Here is the conclusion (duh!) of the just released OCLC publication “Scholarly Information Practices in the Online Environment Themes from the Literature and Implications for Library Service Development” [http://www.oclc.org/programs/publications/reports/2009-02.pdf] described by Merrilee Proffitt at OCLC as “a splendid report synthesizing decades of literature on scholarly information practices and highlighting implications for library service development“:

“…As indicated in the 2006 American Council of Learned Societies report, Our Cultural Commonwealth, providing the collections and tools needed for producing new scholarship is arguably the most important role for cyberinfrastructure and will require a digital resource base ‘that is developed for specific scholarly purposes‘ (p. 1). The literature presented here represents a wealth of research that as a whole builds a broad understanding of the scholarly information activities that this infrastructure needs to support across disciplines. More and more, scholars will be performing these activities online, and it follows that research library services will need to be an integral part of that digital work environment. In fact, academic and research libraries should expect that soon; in all but the most specialized cases, good service will be defined by scholars’ ability to find and use the digital information they need for all stages of research.

The question facing service developers, then, is not what services need to be offered digitally, but rather how do we proceed in the long term to move all services to an e-research platform. A productive first step in developing a comprehensive set of development aims is to assess each of the identified scholarly information activities and their associated primitives in regard to these three questions:

1. What resources and functions should be provided by research libraries?

2. What distinct disciplinary research practices need to be accommodated?

3. How should research, design, and development be prioritized within and across activities?…”

© 2008 OCLC (guess OCLC needs to update its copyright link-surprising!)

Survey Highlights Apparent Disconnect Between Academic Librarians and Faculty…08.29.08

Albert Albanese reports today in Library Journal [http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6591374.html?rssid=191]  :

“..In a report measuring faculty the perceptions of libraries and their value on campus, there is a ‘growing ambivalence about the campus library’ in the digital age, according to researchers at Ithaka, an independent not-for-profit organization that aims ‘to accelerate the productive uses of information technologies for the benefit of higher education worldwide.’

Further, the survey, Ithaka’s 2006 Studies of Key Stakeholders in the Digital Transformation in Higher Education, reveals an emerging disconnect between librarians’ perceptions of their roles and the expectations and habits of the faculty they serve. ‘Although the importance of the library’s role as a gateway to faculty is decreasing, rather dramatically in certain fields,’ the report notes, ‘over 90 percent of librarians list this role as very important, and almost as many expect it to remain very important in five years. Obviously there is a mismatch in perception here.’…”