|
LIS 688C�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ���������� Jonathan Eaker ILS Selection ����������� An academic library needs the best Integrated Library System (ILS) available to serve its users and staff. Since the ILS is the interface and backbone to most of the operations that go on in the library it is essential that it runs well and handles all the responsibilities that the library needs. I have read through some of the literature about ILS selection and read up on the various companies and their products and I will present an overview of the products and the some other factors to consider when choosing our system. The selection of our new ILS is very important and requires as much thought and input as is possible, this document is meant as a be guide to our searching process. ����������� In
1997 the ����������� I have found 3 ILS�s in
the market which I think offer us the best products and the best set of
features for our users and our library. Sirsi�s Unicorn (http://www.sirsi.com/Sirsiproducts/unicorn.html),
Ex Libris� Aleph 500 (http://www.exlibris-usa.com/aleph.htm),
and Innovative Interfaces� Millennium (http://www.iii.com/mill/index.shtml)
would all be good choices for our future system. Each of the companies has been
on the market for over twenty years and they have proven their reliability and
usefulness as well showing they continue to upgrade their products with the new
innovations. Each system has its own strengths and I will discuss them in the
following paragraphs. ����������� Sirsi�s Unicorn is a
well rounded system that is used in academic libraries of all sizes, a list of
Sirsi�s clients (this does include users of products other than Unicorn also)
is available on their webpage (http://www.sirsi.com/Sirsiclients/academicclients.html).
It is made to run on both Unix and Windows which allows us to choose which OS
we would like to have for our system. It is also created so that new modules
can be added and updated and API�s that are flexible enough to allow us to use
some of our own software so that we don�t need to update. It will also run on
most of the major server hardware in use, again allowing us to choose which we
prefer.� They also have their system in
tailored versions, with the Unicorn Consorti being most useful for us. ����������� Sirsi�s OPAC is named iBistro (with an online component, iLink)
provides access to the catalog both in the building and online. It allows for
easy searching of the catalog and allows the library to put any other
information they want about the holdings. The Unicorn package�� provides graphical and textual training for
their product to help teach those staff members who may still be hesitant to
use the computer system or are concerned about changing to different system.
They also provide thorough documentation and even a short training program at
their headquarters if needed. One of their products, Sirsi Voice Automation
(SVA), contacts users about overdue books or holdings that have come in or any
other announcement the library wishes to make. Doing this automatically reduces
staff time from these tasks while ensuring library lending operations run
smoothly. ����������� Ex Libris� Aleph 500 ILS
would be another good choice to replace our current system. The OPAC is
flexible, allowing us to include any information which we want with our
holdings. They have a module called ADAM (Aleph Digital Asset Module) which
allows many options for creating digitizing parts of our collection. It allows digital
documents to be scanned and added to the collection with ease and they also say
that the text of these documents can be searched. The Ex Libris software allows
for the sharing of client data and allowing or limiting the use of a particular
client in some part of the library system. � ����������� The people at Ex Libris
tout the hardware/software architecture of the Aleph 500 a lot, and from what
they say it sounds like a well developed system. It�s structured in a way that
allows any piece to be upgraded or repaired without taking down the entire
system. It is Oracle based, while restricting us to one platform, my past
experience with Oracle would make it my first choice anyway. They are
developing a new structure for their system hierarchy which should make us a
little hesitant, but the new system sounds like an improvement. I think adding
an XML services layer is great idea, my experience with XML in other
applications has been very positive. And the API�s will directly interact with
the XML layer which should make new modules quick and easy to add. ����������� Innovative Interfaces�
Millennium is the final ILS I have selected for us to consider. It also is a
major supplier or ILS�s to academic libraries. On thing that Innovative
Interfaces is very proud of is their Java based software. Being Java based does
allow it to run on any hardware and OS out there allowing us to make those
decisions ourselves. The pictures of their GUI�s, for both
the patrons and the staff, look like the best of all the choices. The
OPAC looks very easy to understand and user friendly and the interface for the
staff, appears to clear and organized. They have created a number of different
tools for the OPAC which would allow us to use it any way we want. The most
interesting of these being AirPAC which allows users
to search the catalog or place holds from their mobile phone or PDA. Like the
Ex Libris they use XML, here as a server for the
catalog so that you can search and sort them by many different criteria. ����������� These are just
preliminary choices I have made after looking at all the systems out there
today. These three are well respected and have been in the market for a long
time. To make a final decision on which ILS to choose we need to take a deeper
look at what we need and want in a system. We also need to take a better look
at each of the systems to see if they really provide what they say they do. ����������� In order to see what we
think we need in a new ILS I suggest we give all librarians and library staff a
short questionnaire. It should just ask what features you would like that we
don�t have now, and what do we have now that we don�t use or need. If we get
good participation this should help us focus on the things we need and the
things we don�t want to pay extra for. I also suggest we have key members of
each of the library sections look at the actual systems to see if it provides
what they need for their area. There is no substitute for actually using a
system but by observing it in action we can get a better idea how it actually
works. We should also ask libraries who already use the 3 systems how they like
it, how has it helped them, and if there are drawbacks. It would be nice if we
talked to libraries of similar size and type as ours, and since each of the 3
ILS�s I have chosen are widely used that shouldn�t be too difficult. ����������� We need the staff to help us decide which ILS is right for us. They use it every day and they work with the patrons who use it every day, so they know what is working well and what needs to be improved. They also have the best understanding of our collection and our system so we need them to be involved. We should, in addition to the questionnaire and having people from each section on the final decision making team, make the selection process open so that anyone can see what we are looking at and what we are considering so that they can offer their input at any time. This is just the beginning of our search, but these steps should allow us to get everyone involved and make the best choice for our library. |