The IUA Library system. 09/10/08 Introduction What and Why and When and How and Where and Who.
-
Upload
patricia-thompson -
Category
Documents
-
view
222 -
download
0
Transcript of The IUA Library system. 09/10/08 Introduction What and Why and When and How and Where and Who.
Who’s in the Task and Finish Group • UCC – Catherine Sanborne• UCD - Caleb Dervan• DCU – Miriam Corcoran• DIT - Ursula Gavin• NUIM - Linda Noonan• TCD – Arlene Healy• UL - Anne McMahon & Mary Dundon• NUIG – Peter Corrigan (chair)
Terms of reference
To identify possible shared delivery of functions currently delivered by Library Management Systems and Electronic Resource Management SystemsTo take into account the SCONUL Shared Services feasibility study into the LMS and related systems.To consider current and projected systems in terms of support for national shared services
To advise on the feasibility of a single shared system for Irish university libraries
To report to the IUA Librarians Group by 18 May 2011
The Report
• Taken together these are mission critical systems for the country.
• We think that together they exhibit synergy• But, primum non nocere
Significant difficulties
• Asymmetry with respect to benefits and obligations
• The potential for a Lowest Common Denominator
• The complexity of the array of products required to replace our systems
Delivery Models Examined
• In-house Library/In-house Datacentre
• Hosted External ASP
• Fully Managed Service
• SaaS
All these models work… but
• Systems are now more complex, architected for cloud deployment
• Want a single locus of responsibility• If you are in Constant Beta you better have
the developer running your system• Must guard against lock-in
The Survey
• To gather details of the full range of IT infrastructure, systems and services
• Capture the status quo w.r.t. annual expenditure and FTE
• Determine degree of embeddedness
Large variety
• The 8 Institutions are using 3 vendors for their LMS
• 6 Institutions have a metasearch product from 5 separate vendors
• All 8 have a link resolver (4 different products)
• 4 have ERM’s (all different)
Annual paymentsProduct n Annual payment
LMS 7
MetaSearch 5
Link Resolver 7
ERM 3
D2D Tool 4
Institutional Repository 8
TOTAL Eur
532,423
Personnel
Systems in use ApplicationSupport in FTE
Hardware Support in FTE Total FTE
LMS 8 9.05 4.06 13.11
MetaSearch 8 4.5 2.2 6.7
Resolver 8 4.85 1 5.85
ERM 4 1.42 0.7 2.12
D2D 5 2.5 0.65 3.15
IR 8 7 2.6 9.6
TOTAL 29.32 11.21 40.53
Binding to local infrastructure
• Nothing irreplaceable is contingent on the technological status-quo.
• The deepest integration is between products of the same vendor
• That said, significant effort will be needed to re-embed any new system.
Wins identified
• We can reduce the amount of infrastructure and consequent costs through shared operations and service aggregation around hardware and maintenance
• We can reduce overlaps and redundancies• A shared ERM for the consortium is feasible
Implementation recommendations
• We recommended a staged evolution• Libraries are in different stages of the
implementation cycle• We enumerated a series of bridgeheads, for
implementation of the three domains – For risk reduction– For implementation feasibility
Requirements document
• An evolving document and still open• Exclusively concerned with requirements over
the three domains.• No procedure as yet• Minimise TCO• Facilitate internal and inter-institutional
reengineering
Requirements document
• Deliver the benefits of increased cooperation and scale
• Better exploitation of our combined stock• Provide increased insight from internal and
combined management information• Boost International Competitiveness
Requirements document A system fit for purpose
• International competitiveness• Globalised education industry• Graduates for Ireland• An international revenue stream
Requirements document
• Shared Electronic Resource management• Resource discovery• Cataloguing• Resource Sharing, ILL and Document Delivery• Acquisitions• Interoperability• Circulation