ILS Options for Academic Libraries: Access 2007

Allan Bell
Susan Cleyle
Slavko Manojlovich
Brian Owen
All AULs at Canadian universities

Disclaimer: all comments are those of the individuals, not their institutions.

• Started by reviewing developments in 2006-2007 in the ILS market:
• Francisco Partners buying both Ex Libris and Endeavor
• Vista Equity Partners buys SirsiDynix
• SirsiDynix announces one platform (Rome)

Among ARL institutions, the market shares are:

• SirsiDynix 20%
• Ex Libris 46% (50/50 Voyager/Aleph)
• Innovative 31%
• Other 3%

Among Canadian libraries (CARL), it's SirsiDynix 37%, EL 30%, III 23 %, and 10% other. The numbers shift when you go to smaller sites, the numbers skew somewhat (in Canada), but maintain similar ratios. Numbers get very skewed among community colleges, with SirsiDynix dominant, and EL and III under 10%, but 32% use something else.

Bell pointed out that the competing systems are functionally equivalent, so migration is pointless. Pointed out other flaws: based on old code, saturated market, so little incentive to innovate, etc. Ex Libris has two ILS options, as we know, idea is to replace them both (2009 or so) with one product. EL moving to a "Unified Management Framework," of which Primo is the first step. Primo uses a decoupled architecture, which allows frontends and backends to develop differently. He also pointed out that we should demand to know more about where our maintenance dollars are going.

Bell also thinks the modules of the UMF, including Primo, are too expensive, and we can't continue down that path. He's concerned about the private equity firms behind these vendors. Thinks the fundamental question is whether we want to continue to work with vendors, or evolve into development organizations who do things for themselves.

Brian Owen showed Marshall Breeding's Automation History, which shows that Innovative has an extensive and unbroken history, which is unique in this market. He complimented their business plan as smart for their survival and their products' viability, but points out you must have cash to be an Innovative customer. He feels that Innovative is on the cusp of major senior management transition, pointing out that this has wiped out other ILS vendors in the past. Their code is old and dated, which he says they've duct-taped well, but it needs updating. Customer intertia is another challenge he pointed out, meaning that most of their sites can't even remember why they selected them originally, and simply stick with them for no particular reason other than inertia. Compared their user meeting to Dawn of the Dead, as in a bit zombielike.

He continued with Evergreen, tracing its origins from the Y2K transition in the Pines system in Georgia. Evergreen went alpha in July 2005, beta in early 2006, and production with Pines libraries in September 2006. Advantages are that it's OS, using contemporary tools and platforms: LAMP, cheap hardware, scalable. Challenges for Evergreen are less technical than organizational and structural (as in the community). How does one set priorities? How does one grow a development community? Some coders provide bad code. They need to move into urban areas (with publics) and into academic libraries. They also lack serials and acquisitions modules, a major issue for academics. Someone in the audience mentioned that these modules are slated for spring 2008 release.

He referred to four decades of ILS development using four tag lines:

• in house - 1970s
• out house - 1980s
• out source - 1990s
• open source - now