In this week's collection of readings, we examined Integrated Library Systems (ILS) and the challenges faced by libraries as they try to balance between staying abreast in the latest technology and ensuring that an update to a new ILS will not tax the libraries' existing resources.
Marcia Deddens's "Overview of Integrated Library Systems" (Deddens, 2002) provides a glimpse at the evolving market for ILS and the relationship between vendors and libraries. Citing examples from Endeavor Information Systems, Innovative Interfaces, Inc., and SIRSI--all of which promise products which ease the library's task of making information digitized and accessible online. Deddens brings up an excellent point in questioning whether the term ILS has become dated, and offers an appropriate replacement: Digital Access Management Systems (DAMS) (Deddins, 2002).
Marshal Breeding's (2005) "Re-Integrating the Integrated Library System" delves into issues facing the increasingly convoluted waters of the standard ILS. In an effort to meet the information demands of their users and to keep up with the simplified browsing capabilities of sites such as Amazon.com and Google, libraries expand the offerings on their ILS by including Add-ons and links to e-journals (Breeding, 29). Though Breeding notes how the dated history of a traditional ILS creates compatibility issues with new, digitized resources, and while Breeding calls for a means of improving the integration within the existing ILS, he confesses there is no realistic solution (Breeding, 30).
Like Breeding, Andrew Pace pushes for integration and interoperability (Pace, 2004). Likewise, Pace also touches on ideas offered by Deddens, in that the old notion of an ILS is dead--particularly because as vendors push new and improved systems for digitized collections, the advances make the traditional ILS less integrated (thus making the name itself a contradiction). Pace also raises the question of exactly how much of an existing system needs to be updated/revamped. Is it necessary to start from scratch (Pace, 2004)?
Stephanie Taylor's "A Quick Guide to Z39.50" (2003) highlights the issue surrounding dated ILS practices by discussing the history of the development of Z39.50--a clint-server protocol which which functions as a translator between two ILS. Though Z39.50 serves as a tool which provides the interoperability and integration libraries desire, there are questions about whether Z39.50 itself requires an update. If so, would such an update force libraries to update their existing ILS accordingly?
While the question raised by these scholars is simple, the answer is complex. Should libraries update when they run the risk of further isolating their existing/future systems in an attempt to gain increased visibility and usage? Does upgrading run the risk of being counter-productive? Technology evolves, and people adapt accordingly. Imagine Microsoft and Apple were based on the same programming and hardware. Imagine the Sony Playstation 3, Xbox 360, and Nintendo Wii could all play the same discs. For users, this would be advantageous, because they could pick a computer or system without feeling a sense of risk. However, for the companies, this would prove disastrous, because it is the unique quality and character of their products which appeals to different users. Vendors depend on that uniqueness to stay competitive and develop products which appeal to some libraries (who, in turn, hope the final product will appeal to their targeted patrons).
Breeding, M. (2005). Re-Integrating the integrated library system. Computers in Libraries, 25, 28-30.
Deddens, M. (2002). Overview of ILS. EDUCAUSE. http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/DEC0201.pdf
Pace, A. (2004). Dismantling integrated library systems. Library Journal.
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA374953.html
Taylor, S. (2003). A quick guide to …Z39.50. Interlending and Document Supply, 31, 25-30.
No comments:
Post a Comment