ILS Vendor Landscape

1
ILS Vendor Landscape

• Companies and Products

Marshall BreedingDirector for Innovative
Technologies and Research Vanderbilt
University http//staffweb.library.vanderbilt.edu/
breeding http//www.librarytechnology.org/
Library and Archives Canada December 7, 2007
2
Business Trends

• A look at the companies involved in library
  automation and related technologies

3
Business Landscape

• Library Journal Automated System Marketplace
• An Industry redefined (April 1, 2007)
• An increasingly consolidated industry
• VC and Private Equity playing a stronger role
  then ever before
• Moving out of a previous phase of fragmentation
  where many companies expend energies producing
  decreasingly differentiated systems in a limited
  marketplace
• Narrowing of product options
• Open Source opportunities rise to challenge
  stranglehold of traditional commercial model

4
Other Business Factors

• Level of innovation falls below expectations
• Companies struggle to keep up with ILS
  enhancements and RD for new innovations.
• Pressure within companies to reduce costs,
  increase revenue
• Pressure from libraries for more innovative
  products

5
Library Automation MA History
6
Why worry about who owns the Industry?

• Some of the most important decisions that affect
  the options available to libraries are made in
  the corporate board room.
• Increased control by financial interests of
  private equity and venture capital firms
• Recent industry events driven by external
  corporate decisions
• Market success and technological advantages dont
  necessarily drive business decisions

7
Investor owned companies

• SirsiDynix -gt Vista Equity Partners (Recently
  bought out Seaport Capital Hicks Muse/HM
  Capital)
• Ex Libris -gt Francisco Partners (recently bought
  out VCs)
• Endeavor -gt Francisco Partners (recently bought
  out Elsevier)
• Infor (was Extensity, was Geac) -gt Golden Gate
• Polaris -gt Croydon Company
• formerly part of Gaylord Bros (acquired by Demco)

8
Public companies

• Auto-Graphics
• De-listed from SEC reporting requirements
• Was OTCAUGR now Pink SheetsAUGR

9
Founder / Family owned companies

• Innovative Interfaces
• 100 ownership by Jerry Kline following 2001
  buy-out of partner Steve Silberstien
• The Library Corporation
• Owned by Annette Murphy family
• VTLS tech spin-off from Virginia Tech, wholly
  owned by Vinod Chachra
• These companies not under the control of external
  financial interests

10
Impact of Ownership

• Long term vs short tem interests
• Decision makers in tune with the needs of the
  customer base?
• Ability to understand libraries as business
  customers
• Serving non-profit organizations quite different
• Its possible to operate a profitable company and
  stay true to the interest of library as customer

11
Revenue sources

• New ILS sales
• Maintenance support
• 15 purchase cost annually with inflation
  adjustments
• Non-ILS software
• Library Services

12
Diverse Business Activities

• Many ways to expand business in ways that
  leverage library automation expertise
• Non-ILS software link resolvers, federated
  search, ERM, portal/alternative Web interfaces
• Retrospective conversion services
• RFID or AMH
• Network Consulting Services
• Content products
• Imaging services

13
Business Development Strategy

• Essential to understand the strategic business
  plans of the company
• Long term growth?
• Short term profits?
• Growth through MA
• Organic growth by attracting new customer
  libraries
• Positioning for sale?
• Get past press releases and spin and look closely
  at the corporate behavior.

14
Libraries Demand choice

• Current market narrowing options
• Consolidation working toward monopoly?
• Many companies currently prosper in the library
  automation industry
• Room for niche players
• Domination by a large monopoly unlikely to be
  accepted by library community
• Monopoly would be subverted by Open Source or
  other cooperative movement

15
The Chopping Block

• Horizon 8.0 (Mar 2007)
• Horizon 7.x (Mar 2007)
• ENCompass (Jan 2006)
• LinkFinderPlus (Jan 2006)
• Taos (Dec 2001)
• NOTIS Horizon (Jun 1994)

16
Legacy Phase out

• DRA Classic
• Dynix Classic
• MultiLIS
• INLEX/3000
• Advance
• PLUS
• VTLS Classic
• NOTIS
• PC Systems Winnebago Spectrum, Follett Circ
  Plus, Athena, Concourse

17
Status of current ILS Products

• Most ILS products from commercial vendors mature
• None less than a decade old
• Approaching end of life cycle?
• Evolved systems
• No success in launching new systems
• Horizon 8.0
• Taos

18
Current Vintage

• ALEPH 500 1996
• Unicorn 1982
• Millennium 1982
• Virtua 1995
• Voyager 1995
• Carl 1982
• Polaris 1997
• Koha 1999
• Library.Solution 1997
• Evergreen 2004

19
ILS Migration Trends

• Few voluntary lateral migrations
• Forced Migrations
• Vendor abandonment
• Need to move from legacy systems
• Exit from bad marriages with vendors
• Exit from bad marriages with consortia
• Its never been harder to justify investments in
  ILS

20
Products surrounding the ILS

• Need for products focused on electronic content
  and user experience
• Next-gen interfaces
• Federated search
• Linking
• Electronic Resource Management

21
An age of less integrated systems

• Core ILS supplemented by
• OpenURL Link Resolvers
• Metasearch / Federated Search
• Electronic Resource Management
• Next Generation Library Interfaces

22
No longer an ILS-centric industry

• Portion of revenues derived from core ILS
  products diminishing relative to other library
  tech products
• Many companies and organizations that dont offer
  an ILS are involved in library automation
• OCLC
• Cambridge / Bowker
• WebFeat
• Muse Global

23
Library Automation Companies
24
SirsiDynix

• Highly consolidated company
• Sirsi Corp, Dynix, DRA, MultiLIS, INLEX/300,
  Docutec, OCLC Local Systems, DataPhase, Electric
  Memory, NOTIS Systems
• Largest in the industry
• 125 revenue
• Owned by Vista Equity Partners
• Previously supported by VC Seaport Capital,
  Hicks Muse)
• Consolidated company working toward consolidating
  and integrating products and business units.

25
Corporate Strategy

• Single ILS strategy based on Unicorn (Feb 2007)
• Move toward Saas (Software as a Service)
• Abandoned development of Horizon 8.0 / 7x
• Reduction in Force
• Phase out higher earning staff
• Single HQ? Provo?

26
Unicorn / Symphony

• Server component written in C
• C-ISAM pre-relational database structure
• Oracle version available
• BRS fulltext search engine
• Unicode implementation problematic
• Robust API
• Perl used for reports and system administration

27
Workflows

• Latest version of staff client
• Recently translated from C to Java
• Few gains in functionality
• Slower performance
• Necessary to get to Unicode given choice of C
  development environment

28
Rooms

• Launched as the companys strategic portal
  product in 2004
• Limited market interest in academic libraries
• Some use by public libraries
• Strongest interest in K-12 School arena
• Does not fit within the current expectations for
  next-gen interfaces

29
Challenges

• Poor reputation among library community
• Lack of trust due to abrupt abandonment of
  Horizon
• 8.0 and 7.x versions
• Expect some decrease in overall customer base
• Stimulated Open Source movement
• Unicorn/Symphony perceived as old technology

30
Product strategies

• Continually slow in creating new products
• No electronic resource management product
• Remarkets Serials Solutions
• Abandoned local development of ERM for both
  Unicorn and Horizon
• No Linking product OEM Serials Solution
• No Next Generation Interface
• Recent agreement with Brainware (another Vista
  portfolio company)

31
Strengths

• Large company
• Customer support infrastructure

32
Ex Libris Profile

• Global provider of software to Academic Libraries
• Largest in the academic market, Third largest
  overall
• Owned by Francisco Partners
• Acquired Endeavor in Nov 2006
• Strong focus on non-ILS products
• SFX MetaLib Verde DigiTool Primo
• Continues to support and develop ALEPH and Voyager

33
Ex Libris Corporate History

• Founded in 1980 to create automation software for
  the library of Hebrew University in Jerusalem
• Automated Library Expandable Program Aleph 100
• Aleph Yissum was a technology transfer spin-off
  of HUJ
• Acquired Dabis July 1997 (German ILS vendor)
• Ex Libris formed in 1986 to market ALEPH
• Aleph Yissum and Ex Libris merged in 1995
• 1999 VC investments by Tamar Technologies and
  Walden Israel
• Azriel Morag exits Aug 2005
• Failed IPO in Sept 2005
• Acquisition by Francisco Partners in Jul 2006 for
  62 million
• Acquisition of Endeavor in Nov 2006

34
Francisco Partners

• Private Equity Firm
• 5 Billion
• Technology focused companies
• Looks for synergies in portfolio companies

35
Corporate Strategy

• Assemble company capable of dominating academic
  market
• Internal software development avoid OEM
  approach for strategic products
• Investments in development
• Aggressive pricing (?)
• Lower development costs in Israel

36
ALEPH 500

• Current flagship ILS
• Designed for large complex libraries
• Rich functionality
• Reputation for being difficult to implement
• Evolved system parts of the system still in
  COBOL
• Large Academic
• British Library

37
Product Strategy

• Products for libraries in higher education
• Strength in products for managing electronic
  content
• SFX, MetaLib, Verde
• Recent effort to develop Primo as a
  next-generation discovery and delivery platform.
  Will serve as a front-end for all products

38
Innovative Interfaces

• Founded by Jerry Kline and Steve Silberstein
• Kline bought out Silberstein in 2000
• Some bank debt to finance the transition which
  has is paid off.
• Company wholly owned by Jerry Kline
• No involvement with VC or Private equity
• No recent involvement in MA
• Acquired SLS in 1997

39
Product Strategy

• Evolutionary Product strategy
• Innopac -gt Millennium beginning in 1995
• Millennium was one of the first library
  automation systems to use Java. Employed only on
  the client side. Server remains in C.
• Millennium as core technology
• Encore, RightResults, ResearchPro
• Early to market in new product areas
• Electronic Resource Management
• Institutional Repository platform
• Next-generation interface

40
Corporate Strategy

• Strong revenues to support RD
• Relies on internal software development
• Avoids OEM approach for strategic products
• Defiant resistance to VC and Private Equity
  investment/control

41
Company Strengths

• Large and growing customer base
• Continues to make new sales in a difficult ILS
  market
• Ability to perform rapid software development
• First to market in Electronic Resource Management
• Remarkable response to Encore

42
Company Challenges

• Reputation for closed systems
• Aggressive pricing
• Perceived by many of its library customers as
  rigid
• Ability to resist buyout offers

43
VTLS

• Wholly owned by Vinod Chachra. Virgina Tech
  initially had equity that has been sold to
  Chachra.
• VTLS developed Circulation System in min 1970s
  when Chachra was VP for IT
• Technology transfer spin-off from Virginia Tech
  University in 1985
• Pioneer in library automation systems

44
Virtua

• Initially introduced in 1995
• Current technologies
• RDBMS, Unicode, 3-tier client/server architecture
• Early ILS implementation of FRBR

45
Virtua Success / failures

• Univ of Kansas signed in 1996 gt Voyager 1998
• State Library of Queensland signed in 1998 gt
  Voyager 2002
• New York University signed June 2004 gt ALEPH Nov
  2007
• University of Oxford signed June 2005.
  Implementation problematic go/no-go decision
  planned for Dec 2007

46
Oxford University

• Selected Virtua in June 2005
• ILS for 100 libraries
• Contract included creation of custom software for
  Oxfords closed stack retrieval process.

47
Lost opportunities

• Lost most of its North American customer base
• In the 1980s VTLS was a major supplier of
  automations software for public and academic
  libraries in North America
• Failed to transition customers from VTLS classic
• Slow adoption of Virtua

48
VERIFY Electronic Resource Management

• Signed Tri-College Library Consortium of Bryn
  Mawr, Haverford and Swarthmore Colleges as
  development partner in 2005
• Following unsuccessful implementation Tri-College
  has begun to implement Ex Libris Verde

49
VITAL Institutional Repository

• Built on open source Fedora platform
• Major contracts in Australia (Arrow consortium)

50
VTLS Challenges

• Damaged reputation in the marketplace due to
  failed system implementations
• Virtua is aging rapidly resources to revitalize
  development?
• Ripe for acquisition?
• Continues to announce new sales most are
  low-value international contracts
• Overextended resources on NYU Oxford

51
VTLS Strengths

• Strong international presence
• Solid implementation of Unicode
• Strong re-sellers. Eg iGroup

52
OCLC in the ILS arena?

• Increasingly overlapped with library automation
  activities
• WorldCat Local recently announced
• Penetrating deeper into local libraries
• Library-owned cooperative on a buying binge of
  automation companies
• Openly Informatics
• Fretwell-Downing Informatics
• Sisis Informationssysteme
• PICA (now 100)
• DiMeMa (CONTENTdm)
• ILS companies concerned about competing with a
  non-profit with enormous resources and the
  ability to shift costs.

53
Cambridge Information Group / Bowker

• Serials Solutions
• Syndetic Solutions
• Electronic Resource Management
• Federated Search
• E-Journals data
• AquaBrowser
• Next-gen Interface

54
Product and Technology Trends
55
Current state of library automation functionality

• The core ILS focused mostly on print resources
  and traditional library workflow processes.
• Add-ons available for dealing with electronic
  content
• Link resolvers
• Metasearch environments
• Electronic Resource Management
• A loosely integrated environment
• Labor-intensive implementation and maintenance
• Most are must have products for academic
  libraries with significant collections of
  e-content

56
Problems with current slate of automation
components

• Development cycle behind current needs
• Very loosely coupled
• Diverse interfaces
• Not seamless to library users
• Multiple points of management for library staff
• Long and complex cycles of implementation and
  integration

57
Why such fragmented automation?

• Maintenance alone not adequate to fund
  development of new products
• Libraries not willing to accept higher
  maintenance and support payments
• Business requirement to spin off new products
• Can be counter to the need for more seamless,
  integrated, and comprehensive automation

58
Common tools for access to local collections

• Library OPAC (ILS module)
• Links to aggregators, publishers
• Cross linking via OpenURL
• Journal finding aids (Often managed by link
  resolver)
• Metasearch engines
• All loosely coupled

59
Library OPAC

• Evolved from card catalogs and continues to be
  bound by the constraints of that legacy.
• Complex and rich in features
• Interfaces often do not compare favorably with
  alternatives available on the Web
• Print materials becoming a smaller component of
  the librarys overall collections.

60
Redefinition of library catalogs and interfaces

• Traditional notions of the library catalog are
  being questioned
• Its no longer enough to provide a catalog
  limited to print resources
• Digital resources cannot be an afterthought
• Forcing users to use different interfaces
  depending on type of content becoming less
  tenable
• Libraries working toward consolidated search
  environments that give equal footing to digital
  and print resources

61
The best Library OPAC?
62
Troubling statistic

• Where do you typically begin your search for
  information on a particular topic?
• College Students Response
• 89 Search engines (Google 62)
• 2 Library Web Site (total respondents -gt 1)
• 2 Online Database
• 1 E-mail
• 1 Online News
• 1 Online bookstores
• 0 Instant Messaging / Online Chat

OCLC. Perceptions of Libraries and Information
Resources (2005) p. 1-17.
63
Change underway

• Widespread dissatisfaction with most of the
  current OPACs. Many efforts toward
  next-generation catalogs and interfaces.
• Movement among libraries to break out of the
  current mold of library catalogs and offer new
  interfaces better suited to the expectations of
  library users.
• Decoupling of the front-end interface from the
  back-end library automation system.

64
Toward compelling library interfaces

• Urgent need for libraries to offer interfaces
  their users will like to use
• Move out of the 1990s
• Powerful search capabilities in tune with how the
  Web works today
• User expectations set by other Web destination

65
The holy grail

• A single point of entry into all the content and
  services offered by the library
• Print Electronic
• Local Remote
• Locally metadata created Content

66
Comprehensive Search Service

• More like OAI
• Open Archives Initiative
• Consolidated search services based on and data
  gathered in advance
• Problems of scale diminished
• Problems of cooperation persist

67
Web 2.0 influence

• A more social and collaborative approach
• Web Tools and technology that foster
  collaboration
• Blogs, wiki, blogs, tagging, social bookmarking,
  user rating, user reviews
• Web services important infrastructure
• XML APIs
• AJAX (asynchronous JavaScript and XML)

68
Interface expectations

• Millennial gen library users are well acclimated
  to the Web and like it.
• Used to relevancy ranking
• The good stuff should be listed first
• Users tend not to delve deep into a result list
• Good relevancy requires a sophisticated approach,
  including objective matching criteria
  supplemented by popularity and relatedness
  factors.

69
Interface expectations (cont)

• Very rapid response. Users have a low tolerance
  for slow systems
• Rich visual information book jacket images,
  rating scores, etc.
• Let users drill down through the result set
  incrementally narrowing the field
• Faceted Browsing
• Drill-down vs up-front Boolean or Advanced
  Search
• gives the users clues about the number of hits in
  each sub topic.
• Navigational Bread crumbs
• Ratings and rankings

70
Appropriate organizational structures

• LCSH vs FAST
• Full MARC vs Dublin Core or MODS
• Discipline-specific thesauri or ontologies
• tags

71
Current Next-Gen catalog products
72
Common characteristics

• Decoupled interfaceMass export of catalog
  dataAlternative search engineAlternative
  interface

73
Endeca Guided Navigation

• North Carolina State University
• http//www.lib.ncsu.edu/catalog/
• McMaster University
• http//libcat.mcmaster.ca/
• Phoenix Public Library
• http//www.phoenixpubliclibrary.org/
• Florida Center for Library Automation
• http//catalog.fcla.edu/ux.jsp

74
AquaBrowser Library

• Queens Borough Public Library
• http//aqua.queenslibrary.org/

75
Ex Libris Primo

• Vanderbilt University
• http//alphasearch.library.vanderbilt.edu
• University of Minnesota
• http//prime2.oit.umn.edu1701/primo_library/libwe
  b/action/search.do?vidTWINCITIES
• University of Iowa
• http//smartsearch.uiowa.edu/

76
Encore from Innovative Interfaces

• Nashville Public Library
• http//nplencore.library.nashville.org/iii/encore/
  app
• Scottsdale Public Library
• http//encore.scottsdaleaz.gov/iii/encore/app
• Yale University Lillian Goldman Law Library
• http//encore.law.yale.edu/iii/encore/app

77
VUFind Villanova University

• Based on Apache Solr search toolkit
• http//www.vufind.org/

78
OCLC Worldcat Local

• OCLC Worldcat customized for local library
  catalog
• Relies on hooks into ILS for local services
• University of Washington Libraries
• http//uwashington.worldcat.org/
• University of California Melvyl Catalog

79
Questions and Discussion