Sharing an Integrated Library System
By Bob Bocher
Considering that most libraries implemented their first integrated library system (ILS) years ago, the question of sharing an ILS with other libraries may seem passé. Yet this question can still be relevant for a variety of reasons. For example, libraries go through periodic system upgrades or migrations and these processes can result in discussion about sharing. Related to this, there is considerable churning in the ILS market place, including interest in open source systems. Other factors that can also make sharing a viable option include changes in library personnel or funding. Whatever the reasons, if sharing an ILS is a possible option for your library, it is beneficial to review some of the basic advantages and disadvantages of a shared ILS.
As one might expect, there are different interpretations of what constitutes a shared integrated library system. From the author’s perspective, a shared system means having at least two libraries—linked via a telecommunications network—using the same hardware platform and library application software and accessing common data files. Historically the hardware and application software resided at a single location, but in today’s more distributed environment, this is not always true.
Myriad questions must be addressed in sharing an integrated library system that do not arise when a library has its own, stand-alone system. For example, to what extent will the participating libraries seek commonality in loan policies, cataloging practices, and in developing coordinated acquisitions? What factors will be used to determine how much of the system’s initial and ongoing costs will be supported by each library? How will the shared system be governed to resolve disputes, address needed upgrades and deal with other issues?
A commitment to a shared ILS should be made on the assumption that it will be a long-term commitment. Libraries sharing a system do occasionally decide to withdraw or to disband the entire cooperative venture, and language allowing this is usually part of any shared system governance agreement. However, the withdrawal process is seldom technically or procedurally simple. And it can easily become acrimonious when done in an atmosphere of discord, distrust and paranoia.
Advantages
Below are some of the basic advantages of shared integrated systems. Many of the advantages will be of particular interest to smaller libraries. Not listed as an advantage is a common assumption that a shared ILS will be less expensive for each member vs. each library having its own integrated system. The validity of this assumption depends on too many variables to presume, a priori, that this is always the case.
* Easy access to more resources
This is a major benefit for joining or creating a shared integrated system, especially for smaller libraries. Treating the participating libraries' collections as one union catalog significantly increases the resources available to patrons. Requests for titles not held in the library can easily be made by staff or directly by patrons searching the union OPAC, and then electronically placing a “hold†on that item(s). Many shared systems also make other electronic information resources, like full-text databases, available to participating libraries. In almost all instances the consortium license for these databases will be less costly than if each library purchased them individually.
* More robust, sophisticated systems are available
This advantage is most evident if members of the consortium are smaller libraries that as an alternative to a shared ILS have or would be implementing stand-alone, PC-based systems. While the PC systems have evolved substantially over the past decade, in general the larger ILS systems still have more functions, features and flexibility than do the smaller PC-based systems.
* Better quality cataloging
Even when using MARC records from reliable sources, smaller libraries in particular seldom have adequate staff time to maintain consistently high quality cataloging. In a shared system the largest library in the consortium will often assume the responsibility of cataloging acquisitions for the other members. (Costs for this are part of any membership agreement.) The larger library has more highly qualified staff who are more likely to invest the needed time to maintain high cataloging standards, which are then reflected in a better online catalog.
* Member libraries are not responsible for ILS operation
In a shared integrated system, library staff must know how to use the system but they are not burdened with the additional major responsibility of actually managing it on a day-to-day basis. System management is the responsibility of staff hired specifically for this purpose. It is the system manager who resolves technical problems and manages all the other "behind-the-scenes" details that must be done on a routine basis. Alleviating smaller libraries of this responsibility can be especially beneficial.
* Library cooperation is enhanced
By definition, any shared ILS will foster cooperation among the participating libraries. Although it is certainly helpful to have some history of cooperation, implementing a shared system can serve as a catalyst to bring together libraries and staff that may have had little previous contact. Such contact can lead to other cooperative projects and programs.
Disadvantages:
There are understandable reasons why shared integrated systems are not always the right option for all libraries. Some of these reasons are noted below.
* Need compromise on local control and governance
This can be a major impediment to getting a shared ILS operational. Simply stated, librarians are not always willing to concede some of their local autonomy to make the compromises that are necessary as part of any group process. For a shared integrated system to be successful, some local control must be relinquished for the common good of the group. For example, hours of meeting time are consumed as consortium members tried to agree on a common loan period for DVDs.
* Different libraries serve different clienteles
It is easier to get a shared integrated system operational when all participants are from the same type of library. Different types of libraries can share a system, but a higher level of cooperation is often required. For example, there may be little commonality in circulation policies between a community college library, a K-12 school and the local public library. In some systems that serve different types of libraries, the hardware and software are shared but the member libraries maintain separate databases with separate circulation and other policies.
* Telecommunication expenses
In shared systems, data are communicated among the participants over telecommunication circuits usually leased from one or several telephone or cable companies. Paying the cost for these circuits can be a major expense, especially in rural areas. Fortunately public and K-12 school libraries can use the federal E-rate discounts to help reduce telecommunication costs. And some states, like Wisconsin, also have state programs to further subsidize the cost of data circuits. In addition to costs, telecommunication options and network configurations can be complex. It is essential that there are staff on-board who have the technical expertise to manage the wide area network (WAN) and who also have the ability to competently negotiate with telecommunication carriers. If needed staff should seek help from a telecommunication consulting firm. In most shared ILS the WAN used to transport shared system application packets is also used for Internet access. This adds another layer of complexity, for example, the possible need to implement some network quality of service to prioritize ILS traffic.
* Who will pay what?
The mechanism or formula used by a consortium to determine who pays what can be subject to endless and divisive debate. Most cost formulas take into consideration a library's collection size and circulation. This works reasonably well for libraries of the same type but is less viable when different types of libraries are sharing a system, because of wide variances in these factors. What may be viewed as a fair cost sharing formula by one library may be viewed as extortion by another.
* The features needed from the ILS and system selection
What one librarian defines as a critical feature essential to his/her library may be of little importance to another. If a Request for Proposal (RFP) process is still used this often results in an RFP that labels 99% of its listed features as "mandatory" because at least one librarian insists that the feature be labeled as such. This is an impossible standard for vendors to meet. Even when there is agreement on the basic features, the actual moment of vendor selection can be the point at which congeniality break downs. Libraries may withdraw from the process, necessitating another price quote from vendors, or the withdrawals may cause the whole consortium to collapse.
* Timing issues with potential partners
Many shared integrated systems that were formed up to the mid-1990s had member libraries which had never automated. Since the mid-1990s, this situation has become increasingly rare to the point where it is likely almost non-existent today. Thus a group of libraries looking at forming a shared ILS needs to address issues like contract expiration and upgrade timeframes of the libraries’ current ILSs.
Conclusion:
Shared integrated systems offer many advantages to the participating libraries and the patrons they serve. This option should always be explored as a library embarks on a major review of their current ILS. As with any successful group process, implementing a shared integrated system is dependent on maintaining a high degree of cooperation among the partners and willingness to compromise.
Author Background
Bob Bocher is the Library Technology Consultant for the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction’s Division for Libraries, Technology, and Community Learning (the State Library Agency). Wisconsin has placed a priority on getting its 388 public libraries into shared integrated library systems. By use of federal (LSTA), state and local funding the number of libraries participating in shared ILS has increased from 51% in 2001 to 90% in 2008. Bob is also on the ALA Office for Technology Policy Advisory Committee and he chairs its Telecommunications Subcommittee. He recently co-authored the book Privacy in the 21st Century: Issues for Public, School, and Academic Libraries.
Bob Bocher, Technology Consultant
Wisconsin Division for Libraries, Technology, and Community Learning
(robert.bocher@dpi.wi.gov, 608-266-2127)