Search results

Finnish libraries are using different integrated library systems. Higher education libraries funded by the Ministry of Education and Culture are using the same ILS in three different installations on the same hardware. Special and public libraries are using several different systems. Many of these library systems are reaching their end-of-life phase. During the spring and summer of 2011 all the Finnish library sectors together with the National Library of Finland formed a joint committee in order to assess the feasibility of a library system entirety, possibly an open source solution that would suit the needs of all the different types of libraries. The purpose of this paper is to describe and analyse the planning for the acquisition of a new library system initiated in year 2012; the concept is to try to establish a joint system with common databases for all the libraries in all sectors willing to collaborate in this effort.

The paper describes the evolution of the Finnish library systems and evaluates the methods used in the planning of the new library automation system.

The broad model of group working was useful in policy making and committing the libraries to the joint project. Using social web-technologies were efficient in project communication and marketing. This type of semi-professional planning was not able to produce accurate specification for programming thus a need for follow-up project became evident.

The paper is based on Finnish experiences.

The paper presents a case about the usage of group working in the planning of a library automation system with an evaluation of the possibilities and restraints on this type of approach.

The paper provides an analysis on the usability of broad group working type of approach to the policy making and planning of library automation systems.

The purpose of this article is to present a subsection circulatory management (SCM) model of Library 2.0. The design idea of Library 2.0 system architecture is to be illustrated and a five‐tier model of service‐oriented architecture (SOA) is to be put forward and analyzed.

The SOA model conforms to the desires of Library 2.0. Libraries require integration of literature resources, knowledge services and operations management and together all these integrations must be based on the user service. The realization of the concept and technology of Library 2.0 is similar with the SOA model.

Current library management systems (LMS) remain at the era of Library 1.0, which focused on literature management. The new design principles are aiming to manage library resources much better. Library 2.0 must break through the current framework, and adopt a multilayer structure, user‐centered and service‐oriented system architecture to integrate the resources, the services and managements. Amongst other things, Library 2.0 should utilize the multilayer architecture based on the module mode, improve the flexibility and adaptability of modern management systems, both in system configuration and operational management.

The SOA model is applied in Library 2.0 for the first time and is divided into five tiers – hardware tier, system tier, data tier, operation management tier and knowledge service tier. According to the architecture, three application systems – LMS based on librarians, knowledge service system based on patrons, and knowledge search engine, are designed.

With the aim of discovering the important factors in training staff to use newly installed automated circulation systems, libraries in New Zealand with such systems were sent a questionnaire in 1988. This asked questions about how libraries had trained staff to use the system, and the outcome of this training in terms of satisfaction with their decisions regarding training, and of sparseness of mistakes made by staff after implementation of the system. Three facets of the administration of training were vitally important: (1) The vendor of the system must be heavily involved in the training; (2) As many staff as possible must be given a detailed training in the whole system; (3) As much of the training as possible must be given before system implementation.

The purpose of this paper is to address the issues associated with electronic resources management (ERM) system implementation in a consortium environment.

The paper outlines the implementation process along with the problems encountered and their solutions and impacts on the use of the system in the implementation of Verde ERM system at University of Windsor Leddy Library, which implemented the system as one of the early adopters within a consortium. The issues and challenges the library experienced in the project are analyzed and discussed.

The ERM system is still in its early stages. There are both benefits and challenges of the consortia approach in ERM system implementation. Should a library adopt the system within a consortium or just as a single library? When would be the right time to implement an ERM system? Answers depend on the library's local needs, resources and environment. The strategy of ERM system selection, evaluation and implementation is crucial for libraries to make a suitable decision.

The issues related to the ERM system implementation in a consortium environment discussed in the paper will have implications for libraries to select a proper approach and time on the adoption of emerging library systems.

The paper addresses issues related to a large library system, especially ERM system implementation in a consortium environment. The experience and findings obtained from the project can provide practical information to libraries that are considering implementing ERM or other large library systems.

This article will review the role of system librarians in the administration of a university library management system. It will focus library systems projects, which have been instigated as a result of library or university strategy and discuss the role that systems staff play. In addition to their technical skills, systems librarians bring possess many other skills, and must often play the role of mediator. Systems librarians must be able to work and compromise within the framework of a university, but also continue to achieve technological improvements to services.

The application of computer technology to routine procedures in libraries has been evolving for more than twenty years. As technology has made new applications possible and as library and vendor expertise has developed, some libraries today are working with a second or even a third system vendor. This paper reports on a survey of libraries in the United States which have changed vendors and it identifies commonality and variation in factors associated with automation system change by these libraries.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the recent history of library systems with a view to illustrating the impact of federated search systems on reinvigorating the role of the library system.

A narrative account of the impact of digital library technologies on the function of library systems, together with an outline of how larger principles such as “openness” and “proprietorialness” determine the success or failure of digital information products.

It was found that the present role of the library system is significantly different from its earlier purpose, and that innovative and visionary responses to the challenges of networked information services have helped reinvent its function.

Some of the ideas in this paper may be worthy of consideration as evidence of the broader research principles underlying the success or failure of digital information products.

The insights in this piece may clarify for the practitioner the present and future role of the systems division within the larger framework of the academic library.

This paper attempts to create a coherent narrative for a number of otherwise unrelated library developments.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze technology-related librarian advertisements to examine the changing role of the systems librarian in today’s modern, technology-filled libraries.

The authors examined 70 advertisements for technology-focused librarians posted on ALA’s JobList in 2014. The ads were examined for area of focus and required knowledge and experiences.

The ads revealed three main areas of focus: traditional systems, digital initiatives, and web services. In addition to traditional computer and library systems skills, employers were seeking candidates with project management, digital collection, customer service, technology implementation, and problem solving skills and experience.

This study highlights how the adoption and expansion of library technology has altered the roles and responsibilities of systems librarians. Instead of solely focusing on maintaining library databases and ILSs, technology librarians have branched out and become more integrated within the library.

This study has implications for those entering the library field and LIS programs, as well as gaining insight into the expanding role of technology librarians today’s library.

Interlibrary loan (ILL) management systems are an important component in the document supply process. They manage, at a local level, the various processes associated with requesting and obtaining documents. There may be links with other component systems, such as location/messaging systems, facilitated by various telecommunications networks, and integrated library housekeeping systems, for ongoing local control. ILL management systems can run as stand‐alone systems or as part of integrated housekeeping systems. Integration can offer, via the circulation module, ongoing control of interlibrary loans, in addition to loans from the library′s own stock, using the same borrower file. It may also be possible to request ILL items via the on‐line catalogue if the user has failed to find an item in stock. Functions which can be automated include: input and transmission of requests; receipt and loan; returns; overdues and recalls; renewals; reports and reapplications; chasers; and cancellations. Systems can also provide management information and control the loan of items to other libraries. In the UK, the links to networks are used, in the main, for transmission of requests, to BLDSC via ARTTel, or via e‐mail to other libraries. BLDSC is the major source for inter‐lending in the UK, and the volume of requests to other libraries is small; however, as network links increase, ILL will become less centralized and there will be greater traffic between libraries for the purposes of ILL.

In an article published in the May 1997 issue of College and Research Libraries Merri Beth Lavagnino traced the history of the systems librarian and systems department in academic libraries. She identified four evolutionary stages, where Stage One was no automation and Stage Four was characterized by the effects of networking and distributed computing. Lavagnino ended her article by predicting the emergence of a fifth stage. However, she pointed out it was too early to describe that stage. This paper examines the growth of automation at two university libraries, with particular attention to the four stages described by Lavagnino. The authors then attempt to provide a more complete description of Stage Five. It seems to be an outgrowth of the distributed computing and networking components of Stage Four. New factors include a growth in digitized resources, integration of systems, and developments in client/server technology, especially as they relate to the World Wide Web. Finally, Stage Five libraries seem to have made changes in the organizational structure, reflecting a need for a technical person at the upper management level.