Two library information systems available today are the Koha Integrated Library system and the Vubis http://www.library.geac.com/page/vubiseng_LIB.html system from Extensity services and GEAC.
These two systems are designed for use in small to large libraries, and as such do have some commonalties between them.
Common factors between the two systems include
Web-based Interfaces (GUI)
It is almost a given today that a library system will be of the GUI (Graphical User Interface) type. Both Koha and VubisSm@rt use GUI as their format. This aids in the use of the system, both by staff and clients as GUIs are usually more logically structured, as well as quicker and easier to use.
Circulation modules
Being library systems, both Koha and VubisSm@rt have thorough circulation features built into their system. Both allow the creation of circulation "rules", such as maximum limit of loans, loan period etc. Both are flexible, and cater to the library's individual need, rather than attempt to fit a library into a certain procedure.
Serial modules
Both of the systems promote their ability to manage serials acquisition and processing. VubisSm@rt contains a predictive function for serials, reducing repetitive addition of dates, issue numbers and other predictable serials data. (http://www.library.geac.com/object/infovubisserialseng_LIB.html) and Koha also does contain a similar function. Multiple MARC formats
Both the systems accept data in various MARC formats. MARC 21 and UNIMARC are accepted on Koha, while Vubis does accept more. However, the range Koha accepts does aid cataloguers, as a majority of data for copy cataloguing would be in one of these two formats.
"Thin clients" and platforms.
Both the systems are designed to run on various operating platforms, such as UNIX, Linux and Windows. Again, this is to make the system accessible to all clients, and using the concept of "thin clients" where the database management is performed solely on the server and the clients’ platform present the information, and accept interaction from users, makes the system able to be updated with minimal disruption.
From the websites promoting Koha and VubisSm@rt , it does show that these two separately developed library systems do cover similar ground. A major difference is the Koha system is open source, therefore more affordable for small libraries, but not as covered by support staff as Vubis (a sold system) is. In place of this Koha has a wiki system used in the construction of guides and manuals (see http://www.kohadocs.org/usersguide/pr01.html for an example). Aside from this difference, Vubis and Koha are remarkable similar, as expected, as they are aimed at the same target audience.
Friday, September 14, 2007
Friday, September 7, 2007
Response to ACT Public Library Information Services
In March 2006, inCite published a paper by Margaret Hyland entitled "ACT Public Library Information Services". Based on the belief expressed by Hyland that "The underpinning philosophy of online services at the ACT Public Library is that online customers should be able to do anything that can be done by a customer in a library branch." the paper listed various benefits expected by the implementation of an online based service for the ACT Public Library.
Some of these benefits are discussed below.
There was a push for increased empowerment of the clients to take charge of their own transactions. Automation of the reservation process made it much more efficient for clients the placing and collection of reservations. This resulted in much quicker delivery for clients, often receiving the item within one or two days of the order.
Broadening of geographic area covered by the library. No longer solely the ACT and surrounding area, the library was accessible to a wider region through its website. Also the addition of the AskNow! reference service was utilised (using library staff) by clients over the country.
As Margaret wrote "Online service delivery has significantly altered staff workloads". As a former staff member of the ACT library service at the time of the publication of this paper, I can attest that this did occur. The increase of communication between the staff and clients increased the amount of comments to the library especially with regard to purchase suggestions. This, a short-term negative (increased workload for staff), turned to a long term positive. The collection development policy was re-evaluated to consider these suggestions for material. The process took a lengthy period of time but has resulted in the implementation of a substantially more ‘community relevant’ collection policy. This increased our collection of useful material for the population we served, and therefore our chance of providing exact information was increased.
Hyland also mentions the outsourcing of library processing to other areas, for example the Customer Information Centre (or "call centre"). Introduced for a variety of reasons, but significantly to reduce the amount of client record work by staff in branches, the CIC was successful in directing tasks to a core group of staff. This not only freed branch staff to deal with other issues, it also had the effect of improving the level of service for the basic maintenance tasks, due to the staff being more experienced in the execution of them.
The ACT Library continues to develop programs to increase their level of service delivery.
Some of these benefits are discussed below.
There was a push for increased empowerment of the clients to take charge of their own transactions. Automation of the reservation process made it much more efficient for clients the placing and collection of reservations. This resulted in much quicker delivery for clients, often receiving the item within one or two days of the order.
Broadening of geographic area covered by the library. No longer solely the ACT and surrounding area, the library was accessible to a wider region through its website. Also the addition of the AskNow! reference service was utilised (using library staff) by clients over the country.
As Margaret wrote "Online service delivery has significantly altered staff workloads". As a former staff member of the ACT library service at the time of the publication of this paper, I can attest that this did occur. The increase of communication between the staff and clients increased the amount of comments to the library especially with regard to purchase suggestions. This, a short-term negative (increased workload for staff), turned to a long term positive. The collection development policy was re-evaluated to consider these suggestions for material. The process took a lengthy period of time but has resulted in the implementation of a substantially more ‘community relevant’ collection policy. This increased our collection of useful material for the population we served, and therefore our chance of providing exact information was increased.
Hyland also mentions the outsourcing of library processing to other areas, for example the Customer Information Centre (or "call centre"). Introduced for a variety of reasons, but significantly to reduce the amount of client record work by staff in branches, the CIC was successful in directing tasks to a core group of staff. This not only freed branch staff to deal with other issues, it also had the effect of improving the level of service for the basic maintenance tasks, due to the staff being more experienced in the execution of them.
The ACT Library continues to develop programs to increase their level of service delivery.
Friday, August 31, 2007
Intranets and Knowledge Sharing
James Robertson’s paper "Intranets and Knowledge Sharing" deals with the concept of "community practice". In the context of Robertson’s paper, community practice refers to the practice of information sharing within a small group, or "community". The community decides among themselves, consciously or unconsciously the best method to share this knowledge. In Anne Lloyd’s article "No Man (or Woman) is an Island" she describes it as a "collective view of practice and profession". The two components of community practice are firstly, and more importantly, the community interaction that gives a need for information sharing, and secondly, the media used to provide this information and distribute it. It is in the second component that Intranets are involved.
Robertson lists many applications of an Intranet, provision of staff directories, enabling an easier and quicker evaluation of who is involved in which project, and using the Intranet to maintain or increase staff morale. Of course, the structure of such a collaborative space is immensely important. It is not enough to be able to store information, but in accordance with the concept of community practice, the information must be easily shared. A system that falls down on this point is not worth the expense of having implemented. Therefore, the more successful systems will be easy to use, and able to be used quickly.
Intranets can also house a weblog that can be used to publish information to a group. An example of a weblog, to a limited degree, is what you are reading now. Usually written in a more informal style, and easy to update through online forms, a weblog is able to contain easily accessible information for a group. Many organisations have moved into a related item, the "knowledge log" or K-log. These are more formal blogs used solely for archiving and publishing knowledge on a specific project or for a specific group. These vary from many weblogs, which are more personal, (an example is my Livejournal at http:jerichospin.livejournal.com)
Recent years have seen the emergence of the wiki. A major example of the power a wiki can present is the online encyclopedia, wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.org/ ) Wikis are able to be edited, (information added, removed or edited) by anyone, and thus can make the informations store fairer to those involved by not being able to promote certain information at the expense of other information from another source.
All of these techniques and tools are used through an Intranet setup to enable more effective and fairer sharing of knowledge through the principles of community practice.
Robertson lists many applications of an Intranet, provision of staff directories, enabling an easier and quicker evaluation of who is involved in which project, and using the Intranet to maintain or increase staff morale. Of course, the structure of such a collaborative space is immensely important. It is not enough to be able to store information, but in accordance with the concept of community practice, the information must be easily shared. A system that falls down on this point is not worth the expense of having implemented. Therefore, the more successful systems will be easy to use, and able to be used quickly.
Intranets can also house a weblog that can be used to publish information to a group. An example of a weblog, to a limited degree, is what you are reading now. Usually written in a more informal style, and easy to update through online forms, a weblog is able to contain easily accessible information for a group. Many organisations have moved into a related item, the "knowledge log" or K-log. These are more formal blogs used solely for archiving and publishing knowledge on a specific project or for a specific group. These vary from many weblogs, which are more personal, (an example is my Livejournal at http:jerichospin.livejournal.com)
Recent years have seen the emergence of the wiki. A major example of the power a wiki can present is the online encyclopedia, wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.org/ ) Wikis are able to be edited, (information added, removed or edited) by anyone, and thus can make the informations store fairer to those involved by not being able to promote certain information at the expense of other information from another source.
All of these techniques and tools are used through an Intranet setup to enable more effective and fairer sharing of knowledge through the principles of community practice.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Library 2.0
In Jack M Maness’ paper "Library 2.0 Theory: Web 2.0 and Its Implications For Libraries", the concept of Web 2.0 and the newer theory of a Library 2.0 concept are examined. By their very name, these are seen to be upgrades or improvements of both the Web and Library practice, and involve a rethinking of the structure of both the web and web based information accessed by libraries. The paper suggests, that the term "Web 2.0" made popular in 2004 by Tim O'Reilly and Dale Dougherty of O'Reilly Media, refers to those web based technologies that are more user involved, in that the user helps to create and disseminate the information as well as consume it. A perfect example of a Web 2.0 site is Wikipedia, where the users of this online encyclopedia are also able to create entries and edit existing entries. Maness defines Library 2.0 as "a user-centered virtual community" or "a Web manifestation of the library as place".
The main aspect of Library 2.0 theory is the inclusion of users in the process, the sense of an increased amount of communication between not only within the groups of users and from librarian to user but also the reverse, user to librarian. A "family feel" if you will.
Library 2.0’s key elements are therefore a sense of interactivity and increasing the level of authority of the user. For example, Wikipedia’s ability to be edited by all users. Sarah Houghton, on her blog Librarian In Black, defines Library 2.0 by saying
"Library 2.0 simply means making your library’s space (virtual and physical) more interactive, collaborative, and driven by community needs. Examples of where to start include blogs, gaming nights for teens, and collaborative photo sites. The basic drive is to get people back into the library by making the library relevant to what they want and need in their daily lives…to make the library a destination and not an afterthought."
This definition has been claimed by many of the writers of Library 2.0 as a working definition, although there is still many debates on the concept. I prefer the definition by Houghton as it stresses what I see as the primary feature of Library 2.0, those of interactive communication and collaboration of librarians and users, the focus on offering relevant content based on a community’s needs, and the sense Library 2.0 gives of being unlimited in its potential.
The main aspect of Library 2.0 theory is the inclusion of users in the process, the sense of an increased amount of communication between not only within the groups of users and from librarian to user but also the reverse, user to librarian. A "family feel" if you will.
Library 2.0’s key elements are therefore a sense of interactivity and increasing the level of authority of the user. For example, Wikipedia’s ability to be edited by all users. Sarah Houghton, on her blog Librarian In Black, defines Library 2.0 by saying
"Library 2.0 simply means making your library’s space (virtual and physical) more interactive, collaborative, and driven by community needs. Examples of where to start include blogs, gaming nights for teens, and collaborative photo sites. The basic drive is to get people back into the library by making the library relevant to what they want and need in their daily lives…to make the library a destination and not an afterthought."
This definition has been claimed by many of the writers of Library 2.0 as a working definition, although there is still many debates on the concept. I prefer the definition by Houghton as it stresses what I see as the primary feature of Library 2.0, those of interactive communication and collaboration of librarians and users, the focus on offering relevant content based on a community’s needs, and the sense Library 2.0 gives of being unlimited in its potential.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
