User Tools

Site Tools


library_systems_market_overview

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Next revision
Previous revision
Next revision Both sides next revision
library_systems_market_overview [2018/09/02 07:52]
127.0.0.1 external edit
library_systems_market_overview [2020/05/03 12:11]
86.174.203.193
Line 1: Line 1:
-====== ​Recent analysis ​====== +====== ​Library System market overview ​====== 
-====== Table of Contents ====== + 
-[[#​recent_analysis|Recent analysis]][[#​recent_analysis--From tradition to change.|From tradition to change.]][[#​who_has_what_system|Who has what system]][[#​procurements:​_who_is_buying_what_library_systems|Procurements:​ Who is buying what library ​systems?​]][[#​procurements:​_who_is_buying_what_library_systems--See the Procurements page to see who is out to tender and who has bought a new system|See the Procurements page to see who is out to tender and who has bought a new system]][[#​market_shares|Market shares]][[#​market_analysis|Market Analysis]][[#​market_analysis--The new role of the library in teaching ​and learning outcomes (Published 20 June 2017)|The new role of the library ​in teaching ​and learning outcomes (Published 20 June 2017)]][[#​market_analysis--Rethinking the Library Services Platform.|Rethinking ​the Library Services Platform.]][[#​market_analysis--Library management system to library services platform.|Library management system to library services platform.]][[#​the_library_systems_market_place|The Library systems market place]][[#​the_library_systems_market_place--From tradition to change.|From tradition to change.]][[#​the_library_systems_market_place--Library Systems Report 2017|Library Systems Report 2017]][[#​the_library_systems_market_place--Library Systems Report 2016|Library Systems Report 2016]][[#​the_library_systems_market_place--EBSCO Supports New Open Source Project.|EBSCO Supports New Open Source Project.]][[#​the_library_systems_market_place--Library Technology Forecast ​for 2015 and Beyond|Library Technology Forecast for 2015 and Beyond]][[#​the_library_systems_market_place--Library Systems Report 2014:​|Library Systems Report 2014: ]][[#​the_library_systems_market_place--'​Automation Marketplace 2013:​|'​Automation Marketplace 2013: ]][[#​the_library_systems_market_place--'​Automation Marketplace 2012:​|'​Automation Marketplace 2012: ]] +===== 2020 Market review ​===== 
- ​[[https://​www.researchinformation.info/​feature/​tradition-change|From tradition to change.]] ​ + 
- Rebecca Pool. Research Information 29 September 2017\\ ​ "​Complex workflows and new services are driving developments in cloud-based library management systems"​ A summary of the market focussing on the cloud based [[next_generation|library services platforms]] Alma (ExLibris) Worldshare (OCLC) and Folio (open source)\\ \\ +[[https://​americanlibrariesmagazine.org/​2020/​05/​01/​2020-library-systems-report/|2020 Library Systems Report]] Fresh opportunities amid consolidation\\ 
 +By Marshall Breeding American Libraries 1st May 2020 
 + 
 +"The library ​technology industry took some significant turns in 2019. Ex Libris, a ProQuest company, acquired Innovative Interfaces ​and shifted ​the balance of power, strengthening Ex Libris’s position ​in technology for academic libraries ​and propelling it as a major player in public librariesThis move narrows ​the slate of competitors in an industry already offering few viable options ​for many libraries"​
 ====== Who has what system ====== ====== Who has what system ======
- See the [[he_systems_review|Systems Review]] page to see what a list of every UK HE Institution with their library related systems\\ \\ + 
 +See the **[[:he_systems_review|Systems Review]] ​**page to see a list of every UK HE Institution with their library related systems 
 + 
 +===== Market share (Changes 2008 - May 2020) ===== 
 + 
 +|<font 10pt/​Calibri,​sans-serif;;​black;;​inherit>​Library System Vendor</​font> ​  ​|<​font 10pt/​Calibri,​sans-serif;;​black;;​inherit>​Customers</​font> ​  ​|<​font 10pt/​Calibri,​sans-serif;;​black;;​inherit>​2020 % market share</​font> ​  ​|<​font 10pt/​Calibri,​sans-serif;;​black;;​inherit>​2019 % market share</​font> ​  ​|<​font 10pt/​Calibri,​sans-serif;;​black;;​inherit>​2016 Market share</​font> ​  ​|<​font 10pt/​Calibri,​sans-serif;;​black;;​inherit>​2008 Market share</​font> ​  | 
 +|<font 10pt/​Calibri,​sans-serif;;​black;;​inherit>​Ex Libris (a ProQuest Co)</​font> ​  ​|<​font 10pt/​Calibri,​sans-serif;;​black;;​inherit>​64</​font> ​  ​|<​font 10pt/​Calibri,​sans-serif;;​black;;​inherit>​37.4</​font> ​  ​|<​font 10pt/​Calibri,​sans-serif;;​black;;​inherit>​36.3</​font> ​  ​|<​font 11pt/​Calibri,​sans-serif;;​black;;​inherit>​31.3</​font> ​  ​|<​font 11pt/​Calibri,​sans-serif;;​black;;​inherit>​23.2</​font> ​  | 
 +|<font 10pt/​Calibri,​sans-serif;;​black;;​inherit>​Innovative Interfaces (a ProQuest Co)</​font> ​  ​|<​font 10pt/​Calibri,​sans-serif;;​black;;​inherit>​32</​font> ​  ​|<​font 10pt/​Calibri,​sans-serif;;​black;;​inherit>​18.7</​font> ​  ​|<​font 10pt/​Calibri,​sans-serif;;​black;;​inherit>​18.1</​font> ​  ​|<​font 11pt/​Calibri,​sans-serif;;​black;;​inherit>​18.4</​font> ​  ​|<​font 11pt/​Calibri,​sans-serif;;​black;;​inherit>​18.4</​font> ​  | 
 +|<font 10pt/​Calibri,​sans-serif;;​black;;​inherit>​SirsiDynix</​font> ​  ​|<​font 10pt/​Calibri,​sans-serif;;​black;;​inherit>​24</​font> ​  ​|<​font 10pt/​Calibri,​sans-serif;;​black;;​inherit>​14.0</​font> ​  ​|<​font 10pt/​Calibri,​sans-serif;;​black;;​inherit>​15.8</​font> ​  ​|<​font 11pt/​Calibri,​sans-serif;;​black;;​inherit>​19.6</​font> ​  ​|<​font 11pt/​Calibri,​sans-serif;;​black;;​inherit>​22.7</​font> ​  | 
 +|<font 10pt/​Calibri,​sans-serif;;​black;;​inherit>​Capita</​font> ​  ​|<​font 10pt/​Calibri,​sans-serif;;​black;;​inherit>​20</​font> ​  ​|<​font 10pt/​Calibri,​sans-serif;;​black;;​inherit>​11.7</​font> ​  ​|<​font 10pt/​Calibri,​sans-serif;;​black;;​inherit>​12.3</​font> ​  ​|<​font 11pt/​Calibri,​sans-serif;;​black;;​inherit>​16.8</​font> ​  ​|<​font 11pt/​Calibri,​sans-serif;;​black;;​inherit>​22.7</​font> ​  | 
 +|<font 10pt/​Calibri,​sans-serif;;​black;;​inherit>​PTFS-Europe</​font> ​  ​|<​font 10pt/​Calibri,​sans-serif;;​black;;​inherit>​9</​font> ​  ​|<​font 10pt/​Calibri,​sans-serif;;​black;;​inherit>​5.3</​font> ​  ​|<​font 10pt/​Calibri,​sans-serif;;​black;;​inherit>​5.3</​font> ​  ​|<​font 11pt/​Calibri,​sans-serif;;​black;;​inherit>​2.2</​font> ​  ​|<​font 11pt/​Calibri,​sans-serif;;​black;;​inherit>​0.0</​font> ​  | 
 +|<font 10pt/​Calibri,​sans-serif;;​black;;​inherit>​OCLC</​font> ​  ​|<​font 10pt/​Calibri,​sans-serif;;​black;;​inherit>​9</​font> ​  ​|<​font 10pt/​Calibri,​sans-serif;;​black;;​inherit>​5.3</​font> ​  ​|<​font 10pt/​Calibri,​sans-serif;;​black;;​inherit>​3.5</​font> ​  ​|<​font 11pt/​Calibri,​sans-serif;;​black;;​inherit>​1.7</​font> ​  ​|<​font 11pt/​Calibri,​sans-serif;;​black;;​inherit>​1.6</​font> ​  | 
 +|<font 10pt/​Calibri,​sans-serif;;​black;;​inherit>​ISOxford</​font> ​  ​|<​font 10pt/​Calibri,​sans-serif;;​black;;​inherit>​9</​font> ​  ​|<​font 10pt/​Calibri,​sans-serif;;​black;;​inherit>​5.3</​font> ​  ​|<​font 10pt/​Calibri,​sans-serif;;​black;;​inherit>​5.3</​font> ​  ​|<​font 11pt/​Calibri,​sans-serif;;​black;;​inherit>​3.4</​font> ​  ​|<​font 11pt/​Calibri,​sans-serif;;​black;;​inherit>​3.2</​font> ​  | 
 +|<font 10pt/​Calibri,​sans-serif;;​black;;​inherit>​Infor</​font> ​  ​|<​font 10pt/​Calibri,​sans-serif;;​black;;​inherit>​3</​font> ​  ​|<​font 10pt/​Calibri,​sans-serif;;​black;;​inherit>​1.8</​font> ​  ​|<​font 10pt/​Calibri,​sans-serif;;​black;;​inherit>​1.8</​font> ​  ​|<​font 11pt/​Calibri,​sans-serif;;​black;;​inherit>​1.7</​font> ​  ​|<​font 11pt/​Calibri,​sans-serif;;​black;;​inherit>​1.6</​font> ​  | 
 +|<font 10pt/​Calibri,​sans-serif;;​black;;​inherit>​Kuali</​font> ​  ​|<​font 10pt/​Calibri,​sans-serif;;​black;;​inherit>​1</​font> ​  ​|<​font 10pt/​Calibri,​sans-serif;;​black;;​inherit>​0.6</​font> ​  ​|<​font 10pt/​Calibri,​sans-serif;;​black;;​inherit>​0.6</​font> ​  ​|<​font 11pt/​Calibri,​sans-serif;;​black;;​inherit>​0.6</​font> ​  ​|<​font 11pt/​Calibri,​sans-serif;;​black;;​inherit>​0.0</​font> ​  | 
 +|<font 10pt/​Calibri,​sans-serif;;​black;;​inherit>​Softlink</​font> ​  ​|<​font 10pt/​Calibri,​sans-serif;;​black;;​inherit>​1</​font> ​  ​|<​font 10pt/​Calibri,​sans-serif;;​black;;​inherit>​0.6</​font> ​  ​|<​font 10pt/​Calibri,​sans-serif;;​black;;​inherit>​0.6</​font> ​  ​|<​font 10pt/​Calibri,​sans-serif;;​black;;​inherit>​0.6</​font> ​  ​| ​  | 
 +|<font 10pt/​Calibri,​sans-serif;;​black;;​inherit>​unknown</​font> ​  ​|<​font 10pt/​Calibri,​sans-serif;;​black;;​inherit>​1</​font> ​  ​| ​  ​|<​font 10pt/​Calibri,​sans-serif;;​black;;​inherit>​*</​font> ​  ​|<​font 10pt/​Calibri,​sans-serif;;​black;;​inherit>​*</​font> ​  ​|<​font 10pt/​Calibri,​sans-serif;;​black;;​inherit>​*</​font> ​  | 
 +|<font 10pt/​Calibri,​sans-serif;;​black;;​inherit>​Total</​font> ​  ​|<​font 10pt/​Calibri,​sans-serif;;​black;;​inherit>​171</​font> ​  ​| ​  ​| ​  ​| ​  ​| ​  | 
 + 
 +{{:​wiki:​library_systems_market_share_may_2020.jpg?​nolink&​800x451 ​ |library_systems_market_share_may_2020.jpg}} 
 ====== Procurements:​ Who is buying what library systems? ====== ====== Procurements:​ Who is buying what library systems? ======
- See the [[procurements|Procurements page]] to see who is out to tender and who has bought a new system ​ 
-\\  
-====== Market shares ====== 
-//Vendors of Library Management Systems (LMS/ILS) and Library Services platforms. Updated September 2017//\\ //(Derived from data on the "who uses what system"​ ([[he_systems_review|Systems review]]) page of HELibTech//​\\ \\  
  
-ILS/LMS/LSP Vendor\\ | No. Installs/​customers\\ | **2017 % market share (of 180 total)**\\ | 2016 Market share\\ | 2008 Market share\\ | +See the [[:​procurements|Procurements page]] to see who is out to tender and who has bought a new systems 
-| ExLibris\\ | 60\\ | **33**\\ | 31\\ | 23\\ | +
-| Innovative Interfaces\\ | 33\\ | **18**\\ | 18\\ | 18\\ | +
-| SirsiDynix\\ | 33\\ | **18**\\ | 20\\ | 23\\ | +
-| Capita\\ | 26\\ | **14**\\ | 17\\ | 23\\ | +
-| ISOxford\\ | 6\\ | **3**\\ | 3\\ | 3\\ | +
-| PTFS\\ | 7\\ | **4**\\ | 2\\ | 0\\ | +
-| OCLC\\ | 4\\ | **2**\\ | 2\\ | 2\\ | +
-| Infor\\ | 3\\ | **2**\\ | 2\\ | 2\\ | +
-| Kuali\\ | 1\\ | **1**\\ | 1\\ | 0\\ | +
-| Softlink\\ | 1\\ | **1**\\ | 1\\ | \\ | +
-| unknown\\ | 6\\ | *\\ | *\\ | *\\ | +
-\\ +
 ====== Market Analysis ====== ====== Market Analysis ======
- ​[[fileslibrary_and_teaching_learning_outcomes_june2017_2a.pdf|The new role of the library in teaching and learning outcomes]] (Published 20 June 2017)  
- T//he new role of the library in teaching and learning outcomes. By Ken Chad & Helen Anderson. Higher Education Library Technology (HELibTech) briefing paper (No. 3). June 2017.//​\\ ​ Students in many countries, especially the US and UK are concerned that the growing cost of higher education is not delivering good value. Excellence in teaching and a focus on measurement and assessment of learning outcomes have become entrenched in higher education policy and the strategies of academic institutions. In the UK this trend has crystallised in a new Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) introduced by government in 2017.\\ ​ As a result library leaders around the world will need to become more strategic in articulating value propositions based around a more holistic view of library/​learning resources.The value of data analytics will be a key driving force. Data from reading list systems and digital textbook platforms combined with information from other institutional systems will allow powerful insights to emerge. Such analytics will be invaluable to institutions,​ publishers and intermediaries as they look at new ways to deliver content.\\ ​ All this suggests a trend for library technology and educational technology to merge. There looks to be the beginning of shift away from a narrow conception of *library* systems, the *library* supply chain and *library data*. Conventional integrated library systems (ILS) and even the new generation of library services platforms (LSPs) remain wedded to an outdated view of library learning resources and will have to change significantly or be integrated or subsumed into a new generation of learning services platforms.\\ \\  
- ​[[filesrethinking_the_lsp_jan2016a.pdf|Rethinking the Library Services Platform.]] ​ 
- Ken Chad HELibTech Briefing Paper January 2016\\ ​ The second in the series of HELibTech briefing papers challenges the current definition of a library services platform (LSP) and suggests ways in which library systems might develop. While a new generation of library systems has emerged there remains a very significant lack of interoperability between the various components that make up the wider library technology ‘ecosystem’. So, although we talk of library services platforms, libraries and library system vendors have not yet fully realised a platform-based,​ interoperable library ecosystem. Cloud computing could help break this paradigm as it is doing with enterprise resource planning (ERP) solutions. Gartner, an information technology market research and advisory firm, suggests that the ERP suite is being deconstructed into what they characterise as a ‘postmodern ERP.’ Gartner suggests that the result will be a more loosely coupled environment with much of the functionality sourced as Cloud services or via business process outsourcers. Will we see the same trend in library technology?​\\ ​ A more open library technology ecosystem, possibly making better use of open source components, would eliminate the restrictions of a closed and monolithic suite of services from a single vendor. Solutions are moving to the Cloud but aren’t yet really platforms. It is possible that such a platform-based ecosystem model will be the “next generation” in library automation. The promise for libraries is a more flexible and cost effective solution and for users a much improved user experience.\\ \\  
- ​[[filesresource_management_briefing_helibtech_kenchad_aug2015.pdf|Library management system to library services platform]]. ​ 
- ​Resource management for libraries: a new perspective,​ Ken Chad HELibTech Briefing Paper August 2015\\ ​ This briefing paper contrasts the library resource management landscape now with the situation in 2008 when the [[http://​www.webarchive.org.uk/​wayback/​archive/​20140615073047/​http://​www.jisc.ac.uk/​media/​documents/​programmes/​resourcediscovery/​lmsstudy.pdf|Jisc/​Sconul LMS study]] recommended that the time was not right for libraries to purchase a new library system. In the intervening period a new generation of '​library services platforms'​ (LSPs) has emerged and the pace of procurement has quickened. Ken analyses the current landscape and looks at the strategic issues around the changing nature of library collections,​ shared services, workflows and analytics. The paper is made available under a CC-0 license to enable easy re-use.\\ \\  
-====== The Library systems market place ====== 
- ​[[https://​www.researchinformation.info/​feature/​tradition-change|From tradition to change.]] ​ 
- ​Rebecca Pool. Research Information 29 September 2017\\ ​ "​Complex workflows and new services are driving developments in cloud-based library management systems"​ A summary of the market focussing on the cloud based [[next_generation|library services platforms]] Alma (ExLibris) Worldshare (OCLC) and Folio (open source)\\ \\  
- ​[[https://​americanlibrariesmagazine.org/​2017/​05/​01/​library-systems-report-2017/​|Library Systems Report 2017]] ​ 
- ​Competing visions for technology, openness, and workflow. By Marshall Breeding. American Libraries | 1 May 2017\\ ​ "The library technology industry has entered a new phase: business consolidation and technology innovation. Development of products and services to support the increasingly complex work of libraries remains in an ever-decreasing number of hands. Not only have technology-focused companies consolidated themselves, they have become subsumed within higher-level organizations with broad portfolios of diverse business activities. The survivors of this transformed industry now bear responsibility to deliver innovation from their amassed capacity. Modern web-based systems delivering traditional library automation and discovery capabilities are now merely table stakes. Real progress depends on building out these platforms to support the new areas of service emerging within each type of library."​\\ \\  
- ​[[https://​americanlibrariesmagazine.org/​2016/​05/​02/​library-systems-report-2016/​|Library Systems Report 2016]] ​ 
- Power plays By Marshall Breeding American Libraries. May 2, 2016\\ ​ From the article\\ ​ "A new shape of the industry\\ ​ Some of the most significant shifts of strength in the history of the industry took place in 2015, and a new set of dynamics emerged with important implications. Consolidation among top players occurred in both the library software and RFID sectors. Each recently acquired smaller companies to expand into additional product areas synergistic with business strategies or new international regions.\\ ​ The transitions seen in 2015 were not lateral changes of ownership among investors but strategic acquisitions that concentrated power among a smaller number of much larger companies and reassembled product portfolios. Libraries may resist consolidation,​ but this could enable the development of technology products and services that are less fragmented and better able to support libraries as they provide access to increasingly complex collections.\\ ​ A number of major business transitions transpired this year, and each significantly affected a corner of the industry."​\\ \\  
- ​[[https://​americanlibrariesmagazine.org/​2016/​04/​22/​ebsco-kuali-open-source-project/​|EBSCO Supports New Open Source Project.]] ​ 
- ​Software for academic libraries will be developed collaboratively. By Marshall Breeding American Libraries. April 22, 2016\\ ​ "​Developers and librarians are working together to create a radically new, open source library services platform (LSP) aimed at transforming the technology academic libraries rely on. Backed by a multimillion-dollar contribution from EBSCO Information Services, the participants plan to fast-track production of the software, with early versions available by early 2018.If the yet-unnamed project sticks to its schedule and finds interest as lively as expected, it could open a new chapter in library technology at least as important as the advent of LSPs and the recent rounds of major company mergers and acquisitions."​\\ \\ [[https://​www.researchinformation.info/​feature/​brighter-outlook-tools-cloud|Brighter outlook for tools in the cloud]] By Sharon Davies. Research Information 2 October 2015\\ ​ From the article:​\\ ​ "the benefits of library tools in the cloud continue to be realised by research libraries, as the adoption of cloud-based systems continues to grow"​.\\ ​ "​Academic research libraries also understand the cloud-based systems better support management of the growing volume of electronic resources and can support researchers’ needs better"​.\\ ​ "​Cloud-based systems are lower cost for libraries, they are more easily and rapidly updated, and have a stronger support system across the world with multiple locations. Cloud-based systems also better meet the needs of modern researchers operating in an “anytime, anywhere and on any device” model.’"​\\ ​ "​Talking about the perception of cloud-based technologies,​ Pace added: ‘An early adopter of OCLC’s WorldShare Management Services said “one of the main challenges is to overcome the illusion of control around managing library management system locally [as opposed to in the cloud]”.’"​\\ \\  
- ​**[[http://​www.infotoday.com/​cilmag/​dec14/​Breeding--Library-Technology-Forecast-for-2015-and-Beyond.shtml|Library Technology Forecast for 2015 and Beyond]]** ​ 
- By Marshall Breeding. Computers & Libraries 2 January 2015\\ ​ Breeding discusses the following themes\\ //​Relentless Consolidatio//​n\\ ​ "​Looking into the next year or two, I anticipate that the consolidation of the industry will continue"​.\\ //Linked Data Opportunities//​\\ ​ "The next year will see considerable activity based on linked data"​\\ //​Mobile//​\\ ​ "It is no longer tenable to offer services that are not optimized for small devices. Mobile support should move into the realm of standard expectations and not as an additional add-on product"​.\\ //3D Printing and Makerspaces//​\\ ​ "It may become a standard library feature (in learning commons or innovation labs), enabling production and creation, but it may no longer be considered as a cutting-edge innovation"​.\\ //​Technology to Enhance the Physical Library Experience//​\\ ​ "A technology that I think will gain some traction in libraries in the next year or so is near field communication (NFC)"​\\ \\ **{{ :​lms_change_will_be_relentless_cilipupdate_sept2012.pdf|LMS_Change_will_be_relentless_CILIPUpdate_Sept2012.pdf}}\\ ​ 
  
-  ​ +[[https://​scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/​2020/​02/​24/​recenter-library-systems-interview-ohiolinks-gwen-evans/​|Recenter Library Systems on the User]] .An Interview with OhioLINK’s Gwen Evans. Scholarly Kitchen [blog]\\ 
-   +ROGER C. SCHONFELD 24 FEB, 2020 
-   + 
-\\ \\ **[[http://​americanlibrariesmagazine.org/​2015/​05/​01/​library-systems-report/​|Library Systems Report. ​2015 ]]**\\ **Operationalizing innovation**.By Marshall Breeding. American Libraries 1st 2015\\ ​ From the report:​\\ ​ "​Following a period of intensive development,​ a slate of new products that aims to align with current strategic priorities has entered a new phase of broader implementation. Index-based discovery services, available since 2009, have become vital components of academic library infrastructure and continue to see strong sales, including both first-time implementations and churn from competitors.\\ \\  Library services platforms, in production use since 2011, have passed into the realm of routine offerings, especially for academic libraries in desperate need of systems that can manage both electronic and print resources\\ \\  With broader acceptance of cloud technologies,​ more libraries are opting for software as a service (SaaS) deployments,​ especially when they have fewer technical resources to support local implementations.\\ \\  We estimate the 2014 library technology economy, including the total domestic and international revenues of all companies with a significant presence in the US or Canada, at around $805 million. This is an increase of nearly 2% relative to last year’s estimate of $790 million. US revenues of these companies total around $495 million, while aggregate global revenues total in the $1.85 billion range. These figures include RFID and other self-service products in addition to the technologies related to library management and resource discovery."​\\ \\  +From the blog post.. 
- **[[http://www.americanlibrariesmagazine.org/article/library-systems-report-2014|Library Systems Report 2014: ]]**  + 
-**Competition and strategic cooperation**. By Marshall Breeding. 15 April 2014\\ \\  From the article:**e will be relentless**.’By Ken Chad. CILIP Update September 2012\\ ​ If you are in the market for library systems, what should you be looking for? Needs vary acros\\ ​ s sectors: corporate, legal, public, school, college, and university – and circumstances differ between individual organisations. Nevertheless,​ there are enduring similarities between libraries and these are reflected in the market for library systems. The library management system – LMS (or, in US parlance, the integrated library system – ILS) remains the core system for many libraries. However, the weakness of the conventional LMS in terms of managing electronic resources means it is diminishing in importance.The article looks at the key technology themes influencing library system development.\\ ​ "The library technology industry saw sharp competition in 2013, with a wide range of products vying to fulfill ever-rising expectations. To better position themselves for this critical period during which many libraries are considering options for their next phase of technology, a significant number of major vendors worked to extend their global reach, streamline internal organizations,​ and complete ambitious product developments. Competition has intensified for the applications used by library personnel to manage the collections and automate their operations, including the new generation of library services platforms as well as enhanced integrated library systems. Discovery services continue as a major area of activity, seen by libraries as especially critical given their intimate connections with customers, serving as one of the main delivery vehicles for access to collections and services"​\\ **Value of the market in 2013**\\  From the article: "We estimate the 2013 library technology economy, including the total domestic and international revenues of all the companies with a significant presence in the US and Canada, at around $790 million, an increase of just more than 2% relative to last year’s estimate of $770 million. US revenues of these companies total around $485 million. We continue to estimate the global library technology industry aggregate revenues at around $1.8 billion, which would also include RFID and other self-service products in addition to the technologies related to library management and resource discovery. Within these broad industry figures, each experienced a varying range of increases or losses in revenue"​.\\ \\  +"​OhioLINK and its members have grown frustrated with current offerings as it becomes harder and more labor intensive to gather and analyze collection and usage data at the consortial level, ensure seamless access, deliver faster, more transparent delivery of print, and connect our resources to other systems on campuses"​. 
- [[http://​www.thedigitalshift.com/​2013/​04/​ils/​automation-marketplace-2013-the-rush-to-innovate/​|'​Automation Marketplace 2013: ]]  + 
-The Rush to Innovate.'​ By Marshall Breeding. Digital Shift (Library Journal) 2 April 2013\\ ​ Snippets from the article:\\ **Value of the market**\\ //'For the 2012 calendar year, we calculate the library technology economy, including the total domestic and international revenues of all the companies with a significant presence in the United States or Canada, at $770 million, an increase of just under three percent relative to last year’s estimate of $750 million. A narrower view limited to only U.S. revenues of these companies would total around $475 million. When looking at the global library automation market, we estimate aggregate revenues of around $1.8 billion, which would also include radio-frequency identification (RFID) and other self-service products in addition to the technologies related to library management and resource discovery'//​\\ **Investment**\\ //'​Recent investment activity also seems to be centered on strengthening product development.'//​\\ **The library management system (LMS/​ILS)**\\ //'​There remains a large number of libraries that continue to find the basic model of the ILS well suited to their needs. Public libraries, for example, continue to be vigorously involved with the circulation of their print collections. The ILS designed to manage print collections efficiently continues to be well used in these libraries. The rub comes with the near explosive impact of ebook lending on public libraries'​.//​\\ **Open source**\\ //'The idea of open source resonates with most libraries, but practical concerns trump philosophical preference. With open source now considered a routine option, these systems will prosper only to the extent that they are well supported and deliver on efficiency and innovation.'//​\\ ​\\  +"​Ultimately,​ the single most essential aspect of the OhioLINK vision is to recenter library systems on the user — rather than on the library or its collection. Many library systems are essentially acquisitions and inventory management platforms at their heart. OhioLINK is looking for systems that are fundamentally centered around the user’s search for information,​ desire to access it, and efforts to utilize it effectively"​ 
- **'​[[http://​www.thedigitalshift.com/​2012/​03/​ils/​automation-marketplace-2012-agents-of-change/​|Automation Marketplace 2012: ]]**  + 
-**Agents of Change**'​ Marshall Breeding The Digital Shift (Library Journal) 29th March 2012\\ //'​Today we see a new cycle beginning that brings libraries into alignment with the shift to cloud computing and the increasing dominance of electronic and digital content relative to library collections and services.//​\\ \\ //A new round of competition is heating up to place these new products in libraries, replacing their own legacy products and aiming to displace those of other companies. Ex Libris’s Alma, OCLC’s WorldShare Management Services, Innovative Interfaces’ Sierra, and Serials Solutions’ Intota, as well as the open source Kuali OLE project, are positioned to move toward more dominant market share through a product cycle that will play out over the next decade. These new-generation products will compete with well-established proprietary and open source systems following an evolutionary path,//\\ \\ //As issues regarding ebook lending roil libraries, publishers, and service providers such as OverDrive, automation vendors are working to integrate ebook management and access effectively into their management platforms and discovery services'//​+"​It’s notable that OhioLINK is working to transform the market for a given product category, rather than responding to the initiatives of vendors and publishers"​. 
 + 
 +It’s Not What Libraries Hold; It’s Who Libraries Serve Seeking a User-Centered Future for Academic Libraries\\ 
 +Gwen Evans, Roger C. Schonfeld Ithaka [White Paper] January 2020\\ 
 +DOI: [[https://​doi.org/​10.18665/​sr.312608|https://​doi.org/​10.18665/​sr.312608]] 
 + 
 +From the foreword\\ 
 +"The mission of academic and research libraries is expanding, and our work is transforming. Collections alone are no longer sufficient to articulate our new value proposition and establish ROI to our institutions. Our academic and research libraries are doing more than just managing collection-centric resources, we are contributing to faculty productivities and student success. As we aim to support the goals of our colleges and universities and maintain mission relevance, including technological advancement,​ we must also understand and support the evolving needs and requirements of our users"​ 
 + 
 +[[https://​americanlibrariesmagazine.org/​2019/​05/​01/​library-systems-report-2019/|Library Systems Report ​2019 Cycles of innovation]] By Marshall Breeding American Libraries 1 May 2019. 
 + 
 +From the report: 
 + 
 +“The library technology industry, broadly speaking, shows more affinity toward utility than innovation. Library automation systems are not necessarily exciting technologies,​ but they are workhorse applications that must support the complex tasks of acquiring, describing, and providing access to materials and services. They represent substantial investments,​ and their effectiveness is tested daily in the library. But more than efficiency is at stake: These products must be aligned with the priorities of the library relative to collection management, service provision, and other functions"​. 
 + 
 +[[https://​www.researchinformation.info/​feature/​tradition-change|From tradition to change.]] Rebecca Pool. Research Information 29 September 2017\\ 
 +"​Complex workflows and new services are driving developments in cloud-based library management systems"​ A summary of the market focussing on the cloud based [[:​next_generation|library services platforms]] Alma (ExLibris) Worldshare (OCLC) and Folio (open source) 
 + 
 +[[http://​kenchadconsulting.com/​wp-content/​uploads/​2018/​09/​Library_and_teaching_learning_outcomes_June2017_2a-1.pdf|The new role of the library in teaching and learning outcomes]] //By Ken Chad & Helen Anderson. Higher Education Library Technology (HELibTech) briefing paper (No. 3). June 2017.// \\ 
 +Students in many countries, especially the US and UK are concerned that the growing cost of higher education is not delivering good value. Excellence in teaching and a focus on measurement and assessment of learning outcomes have become entrenched in higher education policy and the strategies of academic institutions. In the UK this trend has crystallised in a new Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) introduced by government in 2017.\\ 
 +As a result library leaders around the world will need to become more strategic in articulating value propositions based around a more holistic view of library/​learning resources.The value of data analytics will be a key driving force. Data from reading list systems and digital textbook platforms combined with information from other institutional systems will allow powerful insights to emerge. Such analytics will be invaluable to institutions,​ publishers and intermediaries as they look at new ways to deliver content.\\ 
 +All this suggests a trend for library technology and educational technology to merge. There looks to be the beginning of shift away from a narrow conception of *librarysystems, the *library* supply chain and *library data*. Conventional integrated library systems (ILS) and even the new generation of library services platforms (LSPs) remain wedded to an outdated view of library learning resources and will have to change significantly or be integrated or subsumed into a new generation of learning services platforms.\\ 
 +\\ 
 +**[[http://​www.kenchadconsulting.com/​wp-content/​uploads/​2018/​09/​Rethinking_the_LSP_Jan2016a.pdf|Rethinking the Library Services Platform]] **Ken Chad HELibTech Briefing Paper January 2016\\ 
 +The second in the series of HELibTech briefing papers challenges the current definition of a library services platform (LSP) and suggests ways in which library systems might develop. While a new generation of library systems has emerged there remains a very significant lack of interoperability between the various components that make up the wider library technology ‘ecosystem’. So, although we talk of library services platforms, libraries and library system vendors have not yet fully realised a platform-based,​ interoperable library ecosystem. Cloud computing could help break this paradigm as it is doing with enterprise resource planning (ERP) solutions. Gartner, an information technology market research and advisory firm, suggests that the ERP suite is being deconstructed into what they characterise as a ‘postmodern ERP.’ Gartner suggests that the result will be a more loosely coupled environment with much of the functionality sourced as Cloud services or via business process outsourcers. Will we see the same trend in library technology?​\\ 
 +A more open library technology ecosystem, possibly making better use of open source components, would eliminate the restrictions of a closed and monolithic suite of services from a single vendor. Solutions are moving to the Cloud but aren’t yet really platforms. It is possible that such a platform-based ecosystem model will be the “next generation” in library automation. The promise for libraries is a more flexible and cost effective solution and for users a much improved user experience.\\ 
 +\\ 
 +**[[http://​www.kenchadconsulting.com/​wp-content/​uploads/​2018/​09/​Resource_management_briefing_HELibTech_KenChad_Aug2015.pdf|Library management system to library services platform]] **Resource management for libraries: a new perspective,​ Ken Chad HELibTech Briefing Paper August 2015\\ 
 +This briefing paper contrasts the library resource management landscape now with the situation in 2008 when the [[http://​www.webarchive.org.uk/​wayback/​archive/​20140615073047/​http://​www.jisc.ac.uk/​media/​documents/​programmes/​resourcediscovery/​lmsstudy.pdf|Jisc/​Sconul LMS study]] recommended that the time was not right for libraries to purchase a new library system. In the intervening period a new generation of '​library services platforms'​ (LSPs) has emerged and the pace of procurement has quickened. Ken analyses the current landscape and looks at the strategic issues around the changing nature of library collections,​ shared services, workflows and analytics. The paper is made available under a CC-0 license to enable easy re-use. 
 + 
 +[[https://​www.researchinformation.info/​feature/​tradition-change|From tradition to change.]] Rebecca Pool. Research Information 29 September 2017\\ 
 +"​Complex workflows and new services are driving developments in cloud-based library management systems"​ A summary of the market focussing on the cloud based [[:​next_generation|library services platforms]] Alma (ExLibris) Worldshare (OCLC) and Folio (open source)\\ 
 +\\ 
 +[[https://​americanlibrariesmagazine.org/​2017/​05/​01/​library-systems-report-2017/​|Library Systems Report 2017]] Competing visions for technology, openness, and workflow. By Marshall Breeding. American Libraries | 1 May 2017\\ 
 +"The library technology industry has entered a new phase: business consolidation and technology innovation. Development of products and services to support the increasingly complex work of libraries remains in an ever-decreasing number of hands. Not only have technology-focused companies consolidated themselves, they have become subsumed within higher-level organizations with broad portfolios of diverse business activities. The survivors of this transformed industry now bear responsibility to deliver innovation from their amassed capacity. Modern web-based systems delivering traditional library automation and discovery capabilities are now merely table stakes. Real progress depends on building out these platforms to support the new areas of service emerging within each type of library."​\\ 
 +\\ 
 +[[https://​americanlibrariesmagazine.org/​2016/​05/​02/​library-systems-report-2016/​|Library Systems Report 2016]] Power plays By Marshall Breeding American Libraries. May 2, 2016\\ 
 +From the article\\ 
 +"A new shape of the industry\\ 
 +Some of the most significant shifts of strength in the history of the industry took place in 2015, and a new set of dynamics emerged with important implications. Consolidation among top players occurred in both the library software and RFID sectors. Each recently acquired smaller companies to expand into additional product areas synergistic with business strategies or new international regions.\\ 
 +The transitions seen in 2015 were not lateral changes of ownership among investors but strategic acquisitions that concentrated power among a smaller number of much larger companies and reassembled product portfolios. Libraries may resist consolidation,​ but this could enable the development of technology products and services that are less fragmented and better able to support libraries as they provide access to increasingly complex collections.\\ 
 +A number of major business transitions transpired this year, and each significantly affected a corner of the industry."​\\ 
 +\\ 
 +\\ 
 +[[https://​www.researchinformation.info/​feature/​brighter-outlook-tools-cloud|Brighter outlook for tools in the cloud]] By Sharon Davies. Research Information 2 October 2015\\ 
 +From the article:​\\ 
 +"the benefits of library tools in the cloud continue to be realised by research libraries, as the adoption of cloud-based systems continues to grow"​.\\ 
 +"​Academic research libraries also understand the cloud-based systems better support management of the growing volume of electronic resources and can support researchers’ needs better"​.\\ 
 +"​Cloud-based systems are lower cost for libraries, they are more easily and rapidly updated, and have a stronger support system across the world with multiple locations. Cloud-based systems also better meet the needs of modern researchers operating in an “anytime, anywhere and on any device” model.’"​\\ 
 +"​Talking about the perception of cloud-based technologies,​ Pace added: ‘An early adopter of OCLC’s WorldShare Management Services said “one of the main challenges is to overcome the illusion of control around managing library management system locally [as opposed to in the cloud]”.’"​\\ 
 +\\ 
 +[[http://​americanlibrariesmagazine.org/​2015/​05/​01/​library-systems-report/​|Library Systems Report. ]]Operationalizing innovation**. ​**By Marshall Breeding. American Libraries 1st 2015\\ 
 +From the report:\\ 
 +"​Following a period of intensive development,​ a slate of new products that aims to align with current strategic priorities has entered a new phase of broader implementation. Index-based discovery services, available since 2009, have become vital components of academic library infrastructure and continue to see strong sales, including both first-time implementations and churn from competitors.\\ 
 +\\ 
 +Library services platforms, in production use since 2011, have passed into the realm of routine offerings, especially for academic libraries in desperate need of systems that can manage both electronic and print resources\\ 
 +\\ 
 +With broader acceptance of cloud technologies,​ more libraries are opting for software as a service (SaaS) deployments,​ especially when they have fewer technical resources to support local implementations.\\ 
 +\\ 
 +We estimate the 2014 library technology economy, including the total domestic and international revenues of all companies with a significant presence in the US or Canada, at around $805 million. This is an increase of nearly 2% relative to last year’s estimate of $790 million. US revenues of these companies total around $495 million, while aggregate global revenues total in the $1.85 billion range. These figures include RFID and other self-service products in addition to the technologies related to library management and resource discovery."​ 
 + 
 +**[[https://www.helibtech.com/_media/lms_change_will_be_relentless_cilipupdate_sept2012.pdf|Change will be relentless**]]** 
 + 
 +By Ken Chad. CILIP Update September 2012\\ 
 +If you are in the market for library systems, what should you be looking for? Needs vary across ​sectors: corporate, legal, public, school, college, and university – and circumstances differ between individual organisations. Nevertheless,​ there are enduring similarities between libraries and these are reflected in the market for library systems. The library management system – LMS (or, in US parlance, the integrated library system – ILS) remains the core system for many libraries. However, the weakness of the conventional LMS in terms of managing electronic resources means it is diminishing in importance.The article looks at the key technology themes influencing library system development.\\ 
 +"The library technology industry saw sharp competition in 2013, with a wide range of products vying to fulfill ever-rising expectations. To better position themselves for this critical period during which many libraries are considering options for their next phase of technology, a significant number of major vendors worked to extend their global reach, streamline internal organizations,​ and complete ambitious product developments. Competition has intensified for the applications used by library personnel to manage the collections and automate their operations, including the new generation of library services platforms as well as enhanced integrated library systems. Discovery services continue as a major area of activity, seen by libraries as especially critical given their intimate connections with customers, serving as one of the main delivery vehicles for access to collections and services"​ 
 + 
 +Value of the market in 2013\\ 
 +From the article: "We estimate the 2013 library technology economy, including the total domestic and international revenues of all the companies with a significant presence in the US and Canada, at around $790 million, an increase of just more than 2% relative to last year’s estimate of $770 million. US revenues of these companies total around $485 million. We continue to estimate the global library technology industry aggregate revenues at around $1.8 billion, which would also include RFID and other self-service products in addition to the technologies related to library management and resource discovery. Within these broad industry figures, each experienced a varying range of increases or losses in revenue"​. 
 + 
 +\\ 
 + 
library_systems_market_overview.txt · Last modified: 2024/02/05 04:22 by 90.219.77.234