A new CEO for OCLC. Or is it really more of the same?

No doubt, you've all heard that OCLC has named Jay Jordon's replacement with their announcement yesterday that they've hired Skip Prichard to fill this post.  Since then I've been contacted by a lot of people asking my thoughts on this.  

I have to admit I do not know Mr. Prichard and therefore have no personal knowledge to use here. However, as with previous announcements concerning this post, I wish him the very best and I hope he turns out to be all that our profession needs today.

Sadly, I will have to admit that I was hopeful that the person they hired this time would offer us two things different from the past.  

First, I was hoping the new person would have a much stronger background in librarianship rather than in business.  I've stated before in a blog post that I think OCLC is on the wrong track.  So it's not news that I think OCLC's position in the profession has been greatly compromised in effectiveness by its continual blurring of the line between being a for-profit vendor and being a non-profit library cooperative.  I'm in Europe as I write this, speaking at a couple of library conferences. It is clear from my conversations with librarians at these conferences that many here consider them purely a vendor.  I also know from my consulting work with academic libraries in the U.S. that younger library professionals feel quite differently from older library staff about OCLC.  Many long-time librarians feel that it was through their personal efforts and contributions of records, that OCLC became the organization it is today.   Yet as they retire, the younger staff who are replacing them, and who really never had any personal investment in making OCLC successful, feel it is a slow, bureaucratic and unresponsive organization. They can't wait until they're in positions of power so they can replace or remove OCLC from their library.  That spells trouble for OCLC down the road.

So I was hoping the Board would return to hiring a person that would help realign the organization around the principles of a strong, totally non-profit library collaborative focused on reestablishing and strengthening the value of librarianship in the field. 

Secondly, given the makeup of the profession of librarianship, I was really hoping they would find a strong, talented female leader to fill this post.  Given Mr. Prichard's background, I'm certain they could have found a female equivalent had they tried.  Naming a woman to this post is already long overdue.   

Instead, it is clear that the Board feels OCLC is more of a business operation than a library collaborative and so they've decided to stay the present course, even though it's with a new person.  

I hope I'm wrong but reading Mr. Prichard's resume, that was my gut reaction.

Librarians should make this investment in themselves.

I was recently sitting in an airport gate and as often happens, I found myself waiting for a delayed departure.  These situations often lead to conversations between fellow travelers and that day was no different.  When the conversation turned to professions, I noted I was a librarian and I received the, not at all unusual response, of a grimace and the question: "Isn't that a dying profession?  I mean everything is online right?  Who wants a paper book anymore?"  

As a result of my years of corporate experience, I see this for what it is; an opportunity to sell my profession and the value of libraries to a person who will clearly benefit from what I'm selling.  By the time the conversation is done, I'm showing her WorldCat and telling her how she can use it to find the knowledge or information, in many different forms, not just books.  She tells me she is a frequent traveler and I show her how she can find out what library is nearest her that can connect her with the knowledge.  She bookmarks the site on her tablet, thanks me and we board the plane.  I hope I've helped to reshape her thinking about  the continuing value of libraries and librarianship.

As I reflect on the experience during the flight, it occurs to me that when these encounters occur and when I do public speaking engagements, I find myself relying on and/or recommending three works over and over.  It also occurs to me that I should make those recommendations more broadly known via this blog because I really believe these three books contain incredibly important information for every librarian to absorb, even though only one of them is written specifically for librarians.  The works are:

• Blue Ocean Strategy by W. Chan Kim and Renée Mauborgne.  There is no question this book was written for business people, but it's applicability to libraries makes it equally valuable for librarians.  As the title implies, there is "blue ocean" and "red ocean".  The red ocean is the result of bloody competition and the "blue ocean" is a place where organizations can live and prosper because they offer unique value to those that are customers/members of their organization.  Trying to figure out where and how we can offer differentiation for our users is a detailed process involving truly understanding who all are your competitors, what they're offerings do and don't offer, the appeal they have to your common users/members and where you can offer needed products and services to your users/members that they would value deeply.  At the same time the book walks you through making sure that what you do remains consistent with your the core mission of your organization so that you're users/members see it as all related and consistent.   When you get done reading this book (and you'll want to keep in handy as a constant reference), you'll have some valuable tools at your disposal for constantly thinking about how you rise above the commodity level of information/information access and where you can provide valued services on a continual basis.

• The Filter Bubble by Eli Pariser.  In my opinion, this should be required reading for every librarian.  Period. It's that important.  I find myself continually amazed when librarians note their members/users simply go to Google and just accept that's the way it is.  No, it's not.  Not unless you accept it and don't work to change it.  Of course to do that, you have to be able to explain to your members/users, why they're better off talking to you and/or using your discovery tools/approaches when they're looking to expand their knowledge, create new knowledge and how in doing that you'll bring them additional value and benefits that'll make it worthwhile.   Which is exactly why I recommend people read this incredibly important book.  It will help you understand why what we do in libraries is so VERY different than what Google does with their search engine.  It also explains the very dangers that exist to our society and future knowledge creation if we do NOT work to change users/members behavior in this regard.  (Now of course, I realize libraries are not going to replace Google, but we should become the more trusted source of information/knowledge access and creation).  Understanding that differentiation is also critical in being able to do what the Blue Ocean Strategy is telling you, which is to find where you offer unique value your users/customers need and how to extend and benefit from that differentiation.  Together these two books will sharpen your ability to weave a compelling "elevator pitch" that all library staff can use when interacting with library members/users and which can be built upon to offer real and valued new services for your users/members.

• Finally, I recommend the The Atlas of New Librarianship by David Lankes.  Again, in my opinion, this work should be required reading for every librarian.  Although, I'll note that this work is not a light read in any sense of the word.  It's a massive book because it covers a massive amount of territory.  So, you won't be carrying it along on road-trips (although I have actually done so on occasion - it's very good exercise).  There are few works in our profession that I would consider more compelling, more invigorating or more inspiring than this one.  When you're done with this work, if you don't want to go out and change the world by convincing people of the value of librarianship, you're blood isn't red or your heart isn't beating.  If the size of the work intimidates you, then you can try his subsequent book, which is based on the Atlas and is called Expect More.  While written for supporters and/or board members of libraries, it covers a lot of the same themes, just with less depth.  Still it’s an excellent work as well (and you can get it as an e-book so it's infinitely more portable).  If reading isn't your thing and you’re a audio/visual person, then watch or listen to any of David's talks many of which are on his website.  I do so on a regular basis (my favorite is this one) just because they remind me what we as librarians are about and how we should do our work.  Collectively, David's works are some of the crown jewels of our profession.      

You'll be a better librarian after making this investment in yourself.  You owe it to yourself and to our profession.

Twitter: A valuable feedback mechanism for reviewing what you said, what was heard and how that compares with what you meant.

Over a week ago I gave a talk at a symposium, about the intersection of librarianship and new technology, particularly that used in the new library service platforms.  It's a talk I've given several times in various forms and as I often do, I try to be a bit provocative and cause people to engage, no matter what their point of view.  

After doing a talk, I always roam through the crowd and ask for feedback.  Of course when you do that, most people want to be polite, so I always find this feedback to be quite positive, even when I've told them I willingly accept any constructive criticism they have of what I've said.  I usually get a great deal of positive feedback and very, very little constructive criticism. 

However, as anyone who reads blog comments or Twitter streams knows, when people are speaking more anonymously, they say what they think without much inhibition at all.  So, I always find it interesting, after doing such a talk, to take the time to read the Tweet stream from the event.  Here I find the critical analysis I'm seeking, which I can then use to improve and refine the content.  Should I then have the opportunity to give a talk on a similar topic sometime in the future, I know it will benefit from this commentary. 

When you do this, what you also quickly find out is that despite what you thought you said and showed, there is what people heard and saw, and what they attributed to you as they Tweeted they're interpretations and sightings -- around the world.  These do not always line up. Now, this is human nature at work, but at the same time, those differences can be fascinating, insightful, humbling, embarrassing and rewarding.  Occasionally that all happens at the same time.  To illustrate my point, here are some examples from my last talk:

1. "The path forward."  In one slide, I show a fork in the road where I talk about the various pathways open to librarianship in the future and where we might want to focus to create real value for our user communities.   When I read the Tweet stream, I found out that people noted something I hadn't -- in the photo I had selected, the pathways ended up in a cemetery!  Oh my.  Well, obviously that wasn't my intent and in fact when I'd selected the picture, I was using a laptop and a much smaller screen, so I thought those small objects were tree stumps and a small monument, all in a park setting.  However, after reading the Tweet stream, and upon closer examination I found the audience was quite right and they were, in fact, headstones. So, that was a bit embarrassing.  That picture, as you might expect, has been replaced in that slide deck.  Plus, I'll now be examining very closely and on a LARGE screen, any pictures selected for use in future slide decks.  
2. "What is knowledge creation??"  I've mentioned in previous blog posts, and frequently in my talks, that I see helping people to create new knowledge as one of the central pillars upon which librarianship rests.   In reading the Tweet stream however, I learned some thought my saying that was improperly, or too narrowly, defining learning as research.  I wasn't trying to be that narrow, nor did I think I said that at all.  However, if someone interpreted that, then I want to rethink how I an more clearly say and convey what I mean. 
3. Vendor/product comments. Providing critical analysis of anything is always tricky turf.  Librarians want to be educated, but they respond quite negatively to criticisms of any vendor/product.  So when asked to provide critical analysis, I try to avoid specific product discussions (I'm not always vague enough) and instead I try to educate people by pointing at areas where I think they should ask questions, suggest the questions to be asked and then encourage them to think very carefully about the answers.  Yet, even this approach can still be viewed as being critical.  I saw that in this Tweet stream. Depending on the cultural background, particularly if you cross international boundaries, this sensitivity can even be heightened.  Yet, upon reflection, I feel that being provocative sometimes carries a cost and this one I'm willing to bear because I think, sometimes as a profession, librarians are entirely too trusting.  Knowing the tough questions to ask is important and if that's viewed as not being polite, well so be it.
4. "What is cloud computing???"  The Tweets reflecting this concern were a valuable reminder that despite the plethora of information that exists on the subject of cloud computing, it is still swathed in massive amounts of misunderstanding and/or a lack of understanding.  The vendors and organizations that are selling cloud-computing concepts sometimes bend the concepts to accommodate their products thus extending this misunderstanding.  It makes it very difficult for people to slice through the hype and get down to the facts.  What some of the Tweets showed me, is the need as the speaker, to be very clear about what constitutes cloud computing. By doing so, I will help to equip my audience to better apply points of differentiation in future analysis they perform. 

All in all, reading those Twitter streams provides very valuable feedback for speakers.  If you give a talk, I recommend you try it out.  It can be a bit painful, but it's a great learning experience and your next talk, like mine, will benefit as a result. 

A new direction...

I want to take the opportunity to update this blog's readers about myself and explain why the blogging has slowed a bit in the past few weeks. 

As some of you may already know, I recently accepted an appointment at the University of Oklahoma in Norman, Oklahoma to become the University Libraries, Associate Dean for Knowledge Services and Chief Technology Officer.   

Before I say more about that, I first want to spend a moment talking about my time at Virginia Tech Libraries and my experience in working with the Dean of Libraries there, Tyler Walters.  Which, to be honest, has been fabulous.  Some may note that my time at Tech was fairly short (about 6 months), but this was in fact, by design.  Tyler and I originally talked about my doing consulting work for him and after numerous conversations, he offered that rather than do a consulting assignment, he would be willing to put me on the staff of the library, part-time, doing the same work we'd been talking about doing. Knowing that I had stated a desire to move to the academic side of the profession, he noted that this move would give me actual work experience "in" an academic library that I could list on my CV.  While doing that we agreed I would be free to continue to seek a full-time position within the profession. Creative thinking.  Mutually beneficial.  I liked it.  For all of this, I'm really and truly grateful to Tyler.  

One thing people on the "business" side of the library profession find out rather quickly is that even though you have the same Masters Degree as those who've worked "in" a library, when you try to return to the library side, it is often met with statements like this: "Yes, but you have NOT worked IN a library for X years".  Really, it's an absurd and infuriating statement.  Particularly for someone like myself who has run a number of companies, or divisions within companies, that showed a lot of success.  I usually tried to counter the statement by pointing out that actually, I'd worked in hundreds of libraries around the world and had a wealth of solutions and ideas for problems rather than just a few based on experience in one or two libraries.  As often as not however, that point fell on deaf ears.  Traditions, as we well know, die slow and hard in the library world.  As I bemoaned my experiences to another library director, he reminded me that the profession of librarianship frequently acts in ways that meet the classic definition of insanity, i.e., the principle which states:  "You keep doing the same thing (hiring the same kind of people) and expecting different results."  I had to sadly smile in agreement.

All of which is to underscore that Tyler Walters saw beyond that and was willing to think "outside-of-the-box".  His thinking was refreshing to say the least.  Tyler represents a breed of director/dean that I only wish our profession had many more like.  He is one of those working to ensure that librarianship remains vital and valued in higher education and society and is willing to explore new pathways to ensure that happens.  

It is my belief (and hope) that Tyler's thinking was rewarded by what the team at Virginia Tech Libraries, and I accomplished while working together.  I hope all feel it was mutually beneficial.  I also strongly believe that under his leadership, Virginia Tech Libraries will continue to be a very successful example for academic research libraries around the globe.  

Which is where Rick Luce and the University of Oklahoma come into the picture.  I've known Rick for many years. He was a customer of Ex Libris North America during the time I was the President and Chief Librarian.  We'd always worked well together and I'd personally talked to Rick and sought his advice, about my desire to return to the academic side of librarianship while he was still the Dean of Libraries at Emory University.  Impressively, he must have taken serious note because after he'd moved to the University of Oklahoma and started some reorganization and creation of new positions, he called me and encouraged me to keep an eye on their job postings as he thought that I might find something of interest.  He was right.  When the posting for the Associate Dean/CTO position appeared, I quickly applied.  After the interview process I was even more pleased to be offered the position.  Here was another library director/dean who could see beyond the usual boundaries when it came to hiring and could see the benefits my background might bring to the operation he was running (a person begins to have their faith in the future of librarianship reinvigorated after multiple encounters like this!).  Again, I want to publicly express my thanks to Rick Luce for having that understanding and for providing me with this opportunity.

With regard to my actual position at OU, in the announcement of my hiring to the staff and faculty of OU, the following was publicly stated:

"With the creation of this position, the University of Oklahoma Libraries is responding to a rapidly changing landscape in higher education and to evolving user expectations.  Knowledge Services will integrate formerly discrete components in the library to achieve a more seamless user experiences when interacting with digital content. Traditional library departments such as Cataloging; Metadata and Library Systems will work together with new areas such as the digitization laboratory to enhance access to digital collections, to preserve digital data, and to examine library technology platforms that best meet the needs to of today's scholars. Knowledge Services will also support learning, teaching and research through the creation of a collaborative commons.  Dean of Libraries, Rick Luce, notes, "As with all academic libraries, OU is experiencing a rapidly evolving and significant transformation in way that students and faculty learn and teach, impacting the way our users need and expect support. We are becoming more  engaged in the integration of information into the digital landscape in support of new pedagogy, in the role of digitization and preservation, and in supporting the infrastructure to manage the life cycle of multiple forms of information. Carl Grant will have key leadership responsibilities at the intersection of digital services and  our transformation to a more user centric organization."

You probably can imagine, given that description and all I've said in this blog, as well as my publications and in my talks, I'm absolutely thrilled to have this chance to go put a lot of these ideas to work in an environment such as is described above.  

For the many followers of this blog, please rest assured, it is my intent to keep sharing my thoughts and observations on our profession, higher education and technology.  It might take me another month or so to get back to a regular (if I ever had one) blogging schedule.  In that same time frame we're moving across almost one-half of this country and I already had a hectic set of speaking engagements planned in the same time frame (not to mention a book that is due shortly). So I beg your understanding.  

Please also note that it is my intent to continue to do some very limited consulting work through CARE Affiliates.    

As always, thank you for your readership and please stay tuned...

LC's Bibframe appears to be an exclusive club. The question is: How do you get a key?

Property iStockPhoto.com

I'm growing increasingly uncomfortable with what I'm seeing happen on the Bibframe listserv.  One could even say that Bibframe is a Bibcage with valuable information being held inside.  However, only by some undisclosed method, can you get the key.  Why do I say that?

It appears that not all documentation about BibFrame is being shared openly, nor are the opportunities to engage in actual experiments using early BibFrame data.  For instance, if you review this document you'll find a list of institutions that are "experimenting" with Bibframe.  This list includes:  British Library, Deutsche Nationalbibliothek, George Washington University, National Library of Medicine, OCLC, and Princeton University.  LC says in the document that: "this section reflects these observations that are based on a combination of personal experiences working with these initiatives..".  That certainly seems to imply they are working directly with these organizations.  

The problem here is that it's not clear how these institutions were selected. I can find no open call on the LC website, or the Bibframe Listserv asking for an expression of interest to be considered as an experimenter. There is no list of criteria an organization must meet to qualify as an experimenter.  So, it appears this happened by "invitation".   While I personally find the lack of transparency in this process deeply disturbing, the larger problem I see is the inclusion of OCLC.  On one hand this might seem entirely logical.  On the other it screams unfair competition for those privately held companies that must compete with OCLC in order to sell their products and services.   Let me detail that concern. 

Let's just say you're a company competing against WorldShare, OCLC's library services platform.  As I've noted in other posts, many of these library services platforms are being newly created and as such, represent major investments and risk on the part of the companies developing them.  OCLC, of course, as a non-profit entity, already has an advantage the other firms do not have available to them, i.e. no taxes to pay. But now, it would appear that they might well be getting another major new advantage, courtesy of the U.S. Government.  For instance, let me just speculate for a moment on what that might look like.  As many of you will likely know, there is a lot of work going on in the schema.org area my guess would be, if you look at this page that OCLC’s interest in schema.org is directly related to getting ready for Bibframe.

So, if you’re a vendor competing with OCLC’s WorldShare, you might think: I’d better be sure I’m all up-to-speed on BibFrame and prepare a path forward for my product to handle this as well.  To do that, you might want to see all the documentation.  Good luck.  

Note this message posted just this week by an OCLC staffer:

-------- Original Message --------
Subject:[BIBFRAME] Newspeak
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 21:05:18 -0500
From: Young, Jeff
Reply-To: Bibliographic Framework Transition Initiative Forum

In the original MARCR mockup, “Book” was defined as a sensible class: 

http://marcr.org/vocab/Book 

This was carried over into the BIBFRA.ME mockup: 

http://bibfra.me/vocab/Book

In the BIBFRAME.ORG mockup, though, “Book” appears to be gone: 

http://bibframe.org/vocab/Book  

What’s going on? 

Jeffrey A. Young
Software Architect
OCLC Research, Mail Code 410
OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
6565 Kilgour Place
Dublin, OH 43017-3395
www.oclc.org
Voice: 614-764-4342
Voice: 800-848-5878, ext. 4342
Fax: 614-718-7477
Email: jyoung@oclc.org
----------------

Note:  If you click on that first link for vocabulary and you’ll be greeted with a request for a username/password login.  

Jeffrey asks: “What’s going on?”  Indeed. I too ask: WHAT’S GOING ON?  Why is this information not available to all?   

If you ask LC for access to this documentation, as numerous people have done on the listserv, there is NO reply.  WHY??   If as an earlier experimenter, OCLC is gaining advance knowledge of BibFrame that they’ll be able to use with WorldShare as well as their numerous bibliographic services, isn’t this giving OCLC a very serious competitive advantage??  If so, this would seem blatantly unfair to the other firms that are developing competing products.

I think I’m strongly on record as stating that OCLC is an important and necessary part of the library ecosystem.   However, at the same time, they should be made to compete fairly and openly with private and publicly owned firms.  What’s happening here smells strongly of unfair competition. It lacks complete transparency and openness.  

Both librarians and competing organizations should raise their voices in protest of what is happening here.  It simply isn't right. Now maybe I’m not correct and I’ll be glad to have someone tell me why that might be the case.  However, if I am correct, this is setting librarianship up to deal with products and services developed in an unfair and uncompetitive environment. 

We know how those kinds of situations usually turn out for the buyers, in this case libraries.  It isn’t good.  This needs to be corrected.  Immediately.

NOTE:  Please be sure to click on the link for the comments below and read those comments as additional information has been supplied by key involved parties!

GOKb; Is this an idea that will go?

Knowledge bases are a source of much frustration for today’s librarians and, if reality is known, the vendors and organizations that assemble, market and sell them.  It is a very complex field and business.   The GOKb project is one open effort coming out of the library side that is trying to address some of those frustrations.  

At the past Charleston Conference, I was invited to attend a presentation on GOKb, the Global Open Knowledgebase.  Here is a good slide presentation about the offering which, if you haven’t heard of it or don’t know what is about, is a good introduction.  If you don’t have time to go through that slide show, this post from the Kuali site, also provides a quick overview:

“GOKb is not a link resolver knowledge base; it is focused on global-level metadata about e-resources with the goal of supporting management of those e-resources across the resource lifecycle. GOKb does not aspire to replace current vendor-provided KB products. But it does aspire to make good data available to everybody, including existing KBs, and to provide an open and low-barrier way for libraries to access this data. Our goal is that GOKb data permeates the KB ecosystem so that all library systems, whether ILS, ERM, KB or discovery, will have better quality data about electronic collections than they do today."

Now, I want to say right up front that I’m impressed with the creativity and intelligence behind the design.  The people behind this project clearly understand the problems they want to solve and what they’d like a solution to do.  

As I told the organizers after the Charleston session, in an ideal world, I think they’d be well on their way to success.  Unfortunately, as we all know, we don’t live in an ideal world.  So these are some of the issues I think need to be overcome for this idea to be viable and sustainable: 

1. Focus.  In all honesty, what I heard and see is a wide variety of issues some of which I think might be better solved, or at least understood, if the developers approached the vendors for an open exchange of concerns and ideas and jointly looking for solutions. GOKb appears to be taking on a very broadly scoped problem for which the solution only offers partial control for the foreseeable future.  That alone poses significant hurdles on the road to success. 
2. Quality control.  Based on my experience, This is an area where I think GOKb  is vastly underestimating both the need and the importance (although I think after hearing this at the Charleston Conference, they may be doing more here).  While I realize the community behind this idea is trying to use the open source software model in doing the GOKb knowledge base,  however, coupling that with my knowledge of what it takes to maintain a proprietary knowledge base, I know the level of expertise and knowledge, the relationships that need to be maintained with the publishing community, the details that must be examined and massaged in this kind of data – I’m just highly skeptical that GOKb will be able to build, and equally important sustain, that kind of effort using community approaches.  In part that fear is based on the size of the community, which as I outline below, could be smaller than expected.  It will take a really large community effort to achieve the quality needed.  Furthermore, even if the community size did seem assured, there will be issues that will require someone (like a committer in the OSS model) that will take on the responsibility of deciding what is right and what is going into the GOKb. Here are a couple of specific instances that are cause for concern:
• Title changes (title histories as well as platform changes) are a frequent issue. How will these be dealt with and, at the same time, assure the quality of the data?
• Vendor files may follow the KBART recommendations and they may be downloadable in a standard way, every week or month.  However, that does not, in and of itself, assure the quality of that data. Experience has often showed it varies quite a lot and thus commercial Kb providers use thousands of rules in their scripts to massage the data, check it, change it … you name it. And the vendors still encounter problems after releasing it.
3. Too many “if” statements.  There are a lot of good, solid ideas behind this project, but what “if “ those statements don’t turn out the way desired?  Are there alternatives in the wings?  For instance:
• OLE/GOKb dependency.  What I heard was that this is being coupled with OLE and that it is the use by the OLE members that will really drive the expansion of the GOKb.  However, even by OLE’s admission adoption and production usage won’t happen till 2014, two years from now.  A lot can change in that time frame.  The GOKb people, when I pointed this out, told me: “OLE sites will have to load title lists to support their operations, linking to licenses and orders, etc. Those title lists will support GOKb. OLE sites will also have to maintain those lists because it’s what they pay for and track usage for. So even if that data isn’t driving discovery, it’s being maintained at the level needed for management, which is what we’re trying to do. Extending it beyond the OLE libraries is a roadmap goal, but not required for GOKb to serve its primary purpose as being a management KB for OLE.”  But as I’ve noted in this post in my blog, OLE is still primarily a large academic libraries project and there is no assurance, at this point, that it will find a receptive market beyond those types of libraries.  If it does not, that will limit the size of the base of users and will cause the workload of maintaining this data to rest on a much smaller number of institutions.  This will raise each participants need to commit resources.  Will that be possible?  Who knows at this point?
• Another silo?  It appears to me that what is being built here is yet another Kb silo to be maintained and interfaced with existing Kb silos.  In order for that to be at all manageable, it will need to be an automated interface, presumably through API’s so that an exchange of data can be easily performed.  My concern here is that we have neither the needed interface specified, nor the standards in place, required to make this a truly scalable and easily implemented process.   Those steps will require a great deal of time as vendors will need to get the specs nailed down and then factor them into their development schedules.  Furthermore, even if we have the API’s in place and the data formats, cross-referencing these databases is often very problematic.  It may not be unreasonable to expect to match the big resources in the KB, but it is wildly optimistic to think the majority will match as intended, and this will result in a lot of work and effort to sort these out on a continuing basis. The GOKb organizers tell me that they are seeking to find willing partners on the supplier side to exchange data using existing standards.  As they point out, vendors in developing applications that can accept ONIX data can no longer say there are no systems that consume that data.  They also tell me that the  JISC partners have some evidence that all the players have expressed some interest in this standard and have done some work with it.  So there is some cause for hope here although I’m worried the timeline for all this to happen is much longer than most librarians realize. 

There is a lot good effort and money being put into the GOKb project and ideas.  There are clearly issues surrounding GOKb that need resolution. Without those, GOKb might end up being yet another silo of data to be maintained and one without a clear pathway to the broader adoption and support that will sustain it.  As I’ve noted in many blog posts and in my many talks, librarianship needs more of these types of collaborative efforts and this one incorporates many excellent ideas.  

I urge librarians to pay close attention to GOKb and to contribute and participate in any way they can to make it a viable and sustainable idea.  Clearly the time to do that is right now.

NOTE: After posting this, a reader reminded me (and I apologize for not including it in the original post) that JISC has also been making some efforts on this front with their KB+ project.  Data to be included in that knowledge base includes: a) Publication Data for all NESLi2, SHEDL and WHEEL agreements, all freely available under a CC0 license, b) Subscription Information and c) License information.  The GOKb people had previously mentioned to me that they were in touch with JISC about KB+ and sharing ideas.  Another reader has told me that there is actually a great deal of cross work happening between the two groups including the sharing of resources and joint meetings (with the next one scheduled for late January 2013).  So, hopefully this will have a good result for both projects.

"Going Mobile"; What does that mean for libraries?

Photo property of iStockPhoto.com

I remember when The Who originally released the song “Going Mobile”  which is about one of the band members driving a mobile home across the country (if you're too young to remember that, then click on the link and listen to some good classic rock). Listening to it now, I find the lyrics have some suitability for describing people's use today of of mobile devices: 

“Goin' mobile, I can stop in any street, And talk with people that we meet.  Goin' mobile, Keep me moving, Out in the woods, Or in the city.. Goin' mobile..”

Stephen Abrams just did a recent post on his blog about the PEW report discussing mobile library usage which showed: 

“Some 13% of Americans ages 16 and older have visited library websites or otherwise accessed library services by mobile device – a figure that has doubled since the last national reading was taken.”

He followed that post with this one stating: 

“Nine in 10 college students to own a smartphone by 2016" 

The January 1st, 2013 issue of PC Magazine, contains an article on the top tend tech trends for the year as predicted by the Gartner Group.  One of those predictions states that: 

"2013 will be the year that mobile phones will surpass PC’s as the primary device used in accessing the Web." 

All of this only underscores the importance of making the mobile device interface a desirable and useful experience for our library membership.   

When I recently gave the keynote presentation at the PALCI Membership Meeting and talked about the larger subject of next generation library automation infrastructure, I noted the challenges we’re facing in dealing with mobile users and their devices.  Afterward, a member of the audience pointed out to me that in his opinion one of the prime challenges we’re facing isn’t really tied so much to whether the device is mobile or not, but rather to the size of the screen, i.e. big vs. small. His point, while certainly a valid one is, in my opinion, really only one facet of a much larger set of complexities involved in supporting the mobile user. 

In support of what this person pointed out, I’m sure many of you have had the frustrating experience of using an iPad or a laptop which has a reasonably full size screen and upon visiting a Website, is determined by that website to be a mobile device, which then as a result presents a lower resolution and typically, a substantially reduced feature/functionality set for you to use. (Library discovery interfaces are a prime example here!).  It’s very frustrating and a bad choice by the interface designers/coders to do this. Unless they really understand their user’s needs, chances are they only cause the user to leave the site until such time as they can come back (which might or might not happen) using a machine that will be provided the full functionality the site offers.  What’s even more frustrating is that good designers and coders can largely avoid putting users through this experience.   There are many websites, which provide excellent information, like this one for Android devices, which describes how to do a good web interface design that will determine if a smaller display is needed and what to do in that event.  However, the larger point is that we have to understand when a user is mobile, that they need those functions important to them at that point-in-time, which is not the barest minimum set, nor is it the fullest functional set. It’s the appropriate set of functions. 

In order to achieve this, we should also seize the opportunities mobile interfaces create for us. It will include things like HTML 5, apps, semantic content, processing inputs from many sensors, streaming content, gesture recognition, speech interfaces and creating simple, human driven designs. Our users will want a Web that works the way they, and the world they live in, work. As the stats above show, the web is becoming mobile by default. We also need to remember that IPv6 has 340 trillion, trillion, trillion addresses. That’s for a reason. Data is the world and much of that data will be coming from IP addressed sensors. The mobile device will be reading and providing information to/from these sensors. Already, there is probably already a GPS in your phone as well as a gyro.  More is on the way.

Another article I read this past week by Ben Showers in the December 2012 issue of Research Information, touches on some of some of the other considerations for designers of library mobile interfaces.  His article included ideas like a: 

“library card on your phone, which is always with you and enables you to check out books as well as lookup content, and a social networking app for students on distance-learning courses that allows you to connect with people doing similar subjects or from the same institution”.

I'll note that equally important are things like location sensitive tailored information displays, i.e. if you’re standing on the hilltops of San Francisco looking at the skyline, you want your mobile device to use it’s camera to see what your seeing and give you information about that skyline, the buildings your seeing, who the architects are, who owns them, the history of the building, who resides/works in them, etc.  If you’re looking at the night sky, you want your mobile app that is describing the stars you’re seeing to link to your library and show you where you can find more information about those stars. The list goes on and on.  

How are we going to do this?  I suggest we realize that:

• API’s become the key to the future of information provision and utilization. People will want to use your library's information resources, but they'll want to use in in their own way.   No one interface is going to do that for them, so easy-to-use API’s will make it possible, likely through Apps of some type.  This is also why, when I’m writing about the new cloud computing, library services platforms and the need for extensive and easily used API’s (Application Programming Interfaces) I see the need as so very critical to our success.  The opportunity they create is for us, as librarians, to weave our library content and services into people's life experiences.  
• We will need to understand the real nature of what mobility means, as described above, and then develop, or work with, apps that enhance and educate the user based on their location, the app’s specific focus, the user’s profile and those sensors that will be feeding that mobile device information about the user environment.   
• We'll also need our library staff to be able to use their mobile devices, throughout their workday, while working with users/members so as to be able to interact with these new library service platforms such that they help them provide enhanced and better services for library members/users.    

Doing this will allow us to make our libraries more valued by our members/users because we will be able to weave library content and services directly into their life experiences while offering them the chance to make those experiences both enhanced and educational.   

"Going mobile" is an essential, important and exciting part of library services both today and in the future.  Make sure your library content and services are going to be as mobile as your library membership/users.  

NOTE:  After writing the post above, the NY Times did an article which has some great ideas (although not written for libraries, they are directly applicable and fit with what I said above).  Creating functionally targeted apps that directly provides needed content/services into user lives and work at the appropriate point, librarians stand a real chance of taking back from Google, some search functions.  Great article for stirring the imagination.

The Top Tech Trends session at ALA MidWinter in Seattle

I'm quite honored to have been ask by LITA to help organize and moderate this year's Top Technology Trends at ALA Midwinter in Seattle.  LITA leadership decided to change the format of the session this year and together we worked to:

1. Make it a discussion rather than a panel. Towards that end, it will not feature people lined up behind tables, or formal presentations but instead people sitting in chairs in a semi-circle so they can easily see each other to facilitate the discussion and the exchange of thoughts and ideas in response to the questions posed about the topic.
2. Bring to the forefront some newer, but clearly leading and promising people among the LITA membership.  We also worked to make sure that while doing this we increased the representation of women on the panel so as to more accurately reflect the larger profession.
3. Provide a mix of backgrounds to address the topic as represented by people from for-profit, non-profit, standards and library backgrounds.

As a result, we have confirmed a group of amazing and knowledgable people:

Mackenzie Smith, University Librarian, University of California, Davis.
Bess Sadler, Information Systems Project Manager, Stanford University
Julie Speer, Associate Dean for Research and Informatics, Virginia Tech University Libraries
John Law, Vice President Discovery Solutions, Serial Solutions
Todd Carpenter, Executive Director, NISO
Roy Tennant, Senior Program Officer, OCLC

As noted above, I will be acting as the moderator of the panel.  In part, this is because the panel is focused on the topic of: "If Data I Created Resides in a Cloud Environment, Is it Still Mine?" which was sparked by a blog post I did about library data ownership.  (If you have questions you want me to consider asking this panel, please send them to me!)

This topic is really timely and has tremendous number of implications for libraries, all of which we'll try to explore during the course of this session.  I think you'll find it well worth your time and I hope you'll support the changes we've made to the session by showing up (in mass!) and then by giving us your feedback.  So please put it on your schedule by clicking on this link which will give you additional information including date/time and a link to automatically add it to your calendar.

The twitter hashtag for this event will be #alamwttt

See you there.  Join in and learn about the topic of library data ownership!

Impressions of the new library services platforms - Part 7 - Open Skies by VTLS

(TM) VTLS
Photo property of
iStockPhoto.com

Note:  If you haven't read the first post in this series, I'd recommend you're clicking here and doing so before reading the following post. That first post sets some definitions in place that are used in the analysis and comparison(s) that follow.

Notes of Disclosure:  As some of this blog’s readers will know, I served as the President & COO of VTLS between April of 2003 and April of 2007.  Since leaving the company they’ve done business with me in my capacity as a consultant at CARE Affiliates LLC.  With that on the record, I’ve made every attempt to provide the same critical analysis of the product and company that I’ve applied to those of the other companies in this series. 

Overview

VTLS is one of the older firms in the library automation business and is one of the very few to remain under the original leadership/management.  The company has long done business internationally, a trend that continues to represent a substantial part (82% of revenues according to the 2012 LJ Automation Marketplace survey of their business today).   Their entrant into the library services platform is tentatively being called "Open Skies" a name, which might change upon final release.

Approach

Open Skies is the very latest entrant into the library services platform arena.  The approach of VTLS has taken is similar to that seen with Innovative's Sierra in that they're repackaging their existing ILS technology (Virtua) while combining it with other existing VTLS technologies and adding in new capabilities.  VTLS has also added support for multimedia, multi-format metadata, support for mobile devices and greater interoperability with 3rd party systems through support for open application programming interfaces (API's) and service oriented architecture (SOA). They're using a unified Drupal user interface (UI) on top of Chamo and Chamo Discovery and other existing products and through that interface are making data from VITAL and Virtua available to end-users.  As we've seen with other library services platforms use of Solr is also employed in Open Skies.  The specific steps are to merge access of content from Virtua and VITAL, merge Chamo and Visualizer into a new Chamo Discovery module, create a common metadata management system for Virtua and Vital and develop enhanced displays of FRBR and RDA records.

Considerations for Libraries

Given this approach, there is no loss of existing functionality in moving from Virtua to this product, rather it is an approach that adds functionality by integrating print and digital content, adds streaming media support, allows events and activities to be supported, provides basic preservation services for digital content and e-book collection management as well as extensive support for mobile users.  Of course the functionality in Virtua, a mature product, was comprehensive for an ILS. 

I'm going to repeat many of the same things I previously said in my blog post about Sierra, because the company approaches are very similar and thus carry the same advantages and disadvantages both for the libraries selecting this option and for VTLS as a company.  

Again, let's start by looking at the logic, starting with libraries. As noted before, this approach realizes many libraries are in no hurry to re-engineer their backroom processes in light of the possible costs involved and feel that the library can get better or greater support by focusing on end-user facing improvements.  Understanding that many libraries have to make very tough choices in this environment, many will, for at least the short term, focus new investments on user-facing improvements.  Thus, investing currently in re-engineering back room processes won't be a priority for these libraries and if they're already running Virtua, they'll have a choice of simply upgrading to Open Skies with minimal disruption and yet obtain new functionality to serve out to end-users.   For those not running Virtua but yet needing to move off of an existing ILS, this choice will be tougher when it comes to Open Skies as no ILS conversion is painless and therefore the libraries will have to weigh, if they're going to go down that path, would they be better off to just go straight to a totally new, more fully integrated back end Library Service Platforms, such as those represented by WorldShare, Alma, or Intota.  That won't be an easy question to answer, but it will be one the library staff will need to ponder and decide carefully.

As noted when I discussed this approach concerning Innovative, for VTLS the logic here is that they can point out that there is no loss of existing functionality (since they aren't redeveloping it and in fact, are adding to the existing functionality), there is minimal additional training needed (which is also less demanding on company staff resources), they'll be able offer a quicker conversion of existing customers to the updated product, fewer bugs (the code isn't new), less documentation to write, less testing to be done, etc.  It's a sizeable list of advantages.  But before declaring this path an obvious winner, as with Innovative, lets consider the disadvantages for libraries and VTLS.

The risk for libraries comes in several parts. First, because this is not a true cloud-computing platform (it's a SaaS solution), and local installations are still supported, VTLS will not be able to optimize their use of company resources in supporting one version of the software.   VTLS will doubtless end up supporting many versions given the path they've chosen here. This will be translated into higher overhead costs that ultimately all VTLS customers must bear (and one which those providers offering a true cloud-computing solution will avoid).  Of course, this has to be balanced against the needs of those libraries, which due to security or availability reasons, feel they must run a local installation and for which cloud computing solutions simply won't be an option.   For them this overhead will be very worthwhile.

With regard to the software, the totally rewritten and re-engineered products (WorldShare, Intota, Alma, OLE) provide more integrated and streamlined workflows and thus are far more efficient for those libraries that are rapidly moving towards adding support for digital collections. These more efficient workflows mean you can take existing people and financial resources, and reallocate them to new user-facing services. However, if Open Skies doesn't offer these new integrated workflows it's a missed opportunity for your library.  How important this will be for your library depends on where it is in that continuum of moving towards digital collections.  The same thing I said about Sierra applies here.  It is up to you to make a determination if the work and cost of converting to the newer, more efficient systems is worth the efficiencies you'll gain?  Almost certainly, in the long run, it would be. However, many libraries need to deal with the short term first, and there the picture is not always as clear. Sometimes, this is an acceptable risk. VTLS, which reported in last years LJ Automation Marketplace survey that there are 1,798 installations using their products, has apparently decided that the majority of their customers will agree with their assessment.

As for how open the system is, Open Skies provides basic support for linked data as well as open API's that conform to Chamo structures (but note that this is not an open public specification such as Open Social,  which is used in products like OCLC's WorldShare).

Reporting capabilities and the ability to support aggregated data and analytic analysis appear to be further down the road for Open Skies.   There is no mention of these capabilities or any plan to address them, in the presentations I've seen.

Open Skies is scheduled to be released in early 2013 and should be fully demonstrable for the first time at Mid-Winter ALA in Seattle in January 2013.

Bottom Line

As mentioned at the beginning, VTLS is still under the original leadership that started the firm, Vinod Chachra.   One has to admire the ability of any CEO to survive that long in this marketplace.  It's no small feat.  Yet it also raises questions/concerns.  If you're signing up for Open Skies, you're likely doing so with the expectation that it will last anywhere from three to ten years.  In which case, as we've seen happen with all the other firms in the business, one has to wonder what happens when the day comes that the leadership and/or ownership of the firm changes?  Will it stay within the Chachra family, will it be sold and if so, to which company and/or private equity firm? Or will the Board bring in new management at that time, and if so, what will that mean for the customers and products?   All are perfectly valid questions to be put on the table in any analysis of Open Skies and the answers should be obtained and examined carefully before a library makes any commitment to this product.  

VTLS has, for some time, best succeeded in a couple of segments in the library marketplace.  As mentioned above, they've long had a strong presence in international libraries, ranging from national libraries to small, public, academic and special.   The other place they've established a strong niche is in those sites where a highly customized solution is required.   Queens Borough Public in New York City, Hong Kong Public in Hong Kong and ISSN International Centre in Paris, France are just a few of the most prominent examples.  While those customizations ultimately make it back into the main product, one has to wonder if that kind of additional specialized complexity will be of interest to libraries in North America that are facing budget restrictions and have the need to simplify and or streamline backend operations?  Even if it can be configured out of the workflow of those libraries not wishing to use it, that complexity creates overhead in the core product in terms of documentation, testing and maintenance -- all of which create costs that all VTLS customers must bear. Yet, for those libraries within the segments described above, VTLS will likely continue to be a good choice.   

An additional challenge that VTLS faces, at least in the North American market, is that they don't have a large presence.  So, for Open Skies to penetrate this key market it will place prospective buyers in the situation of having to go through an extensive conversion process and retraining of staff.  If a library is going to do that then they'll most certainly want to consider if they shouldn't just move to one of the newer, more fully re-engineered and comprehensively integrated back-end library service platforms?   While Open Skies offers some interesting capabilities, libraries will have to carefully analyze whether or not those will provide more value for end-users and administration than can be obtained by re-engineering backroom workflows so as to be able to free up staff in order to resource other entirely new services.

Of course, given the 1,798 existing installations of VTLS products and for libraries deciding new services are not as critical as the existing services, the smoother move to Open Skies from Virtua will offer a lot of benefits and new functionality.  For those libraries in particular, Open Skies may be an entirely logical step and viable option for moving forward in the next several years.  As with any of these newer offerings, library technologists considering Open Skies should perform their due diligence, understand their needs carefully and make a well informed decision.

NOTE:  This is one post in a series.  All the posts are listed below:

1. Introduction 
2. Sierra by Innovative (this post)
3. Intota by Serials Solutions
4. Worldshare by OCLC
5. OLE by Kuali
6. Alma by Ex Libris
6a. Ex Libris and Golden Gate Capital
7. Open Skies by VTLS (this post)

Impressions of the new library services platforms - Part 6a - Ex Libris & Golden Gate Capital

In light of my last blog post in this series and the news today that Golden Gate Capital has purchased the Ex Libris Group, I'm being asked; What are my thoughts on this? Especially given that I said in my last post this could happen anytime in the foreseeable future.

My previous blog post on equity investors in this market contains many of the issues that I think we as librarians need to contemplate in reviewing these kinds of deals and what they mean for us as a profession.  Certainly, this one with Ex Libris and Golden Gate Capital is already following the standard playbook to some degree, with company officials making statements like: "Customers shouldn't expect any changes".  Despite those verbal assurances, I'm expecting there WILL be changes.   It's a rare equity investment firm that thinks they don't bring new expertise, new opportunities and/or new value to the table.  In order to capitalize on those things, changes will happen.  The company will portray these as normal management processes/decisions and to some degree they'll be right. It's just that the management team now has a major new advisor at that table.  So for me, the only real question about changes is how many, how fast and where?  The answers to those questions, we'll have to wait and find out.  However, in the case of Ex Libris, as I noted in my previous post about them, they've done a very good job during the past transfers in ownership, of keeping changes to a minimum.  The company management has also largely retained control over most of the everyday decision making that shapes the company and products.  

As for the timing on this, I'll admit that even though I thought it was imminently possible, I was a bit surprised that it happened this quickly. That surprise results because the company is in the early stages of the transitioning from a revenue model based on the sales of software licenses and associated services (which brings more recognizable revenue to the table early in the contract life), to that of a service provider (where the revenue is much lower on the front end, but the recurring revenue is much higher over the multi-year life of a contract). Investors generally like to see higher recurring revenues, especially from contracts with multi-year terms.  It simply means the profitability of the firm is more assured and as a result, when the next ownership sale comes along, the firm will be valued higher.   In the case of Ex Libris, they only have a modest number of Alma sites up and running (although they do have a large number of SaaS customers which also generates solid recurring revenues).  However, the benefits of that new service model are yet to be fully realized when it comes to Alma. This will happen as Alma becomes a substantial part of the business in the future.   When that happens, the company should see its value climb substantially (given other variables stay equal).  

So why did Leeds Equity sell now?  Or course, there could be many reasons and I have no specific knowledge here.  Reasons might include thinking they've taken the company as far as they can, it's simply time, they want to move into other investment areas or, it could be one other reason.  Which is that they've done what many investors are doing at the moment.  Which is to say they are  evaluating the likelihood of a substantial increase in capital gains tax rates at the end of the year.  This hike could be as much as 10 points (ten dollars per one hundred) and that could have a real impact on profits for any asset sale planned within the near term.  If they believe that rates are going to rise (and many, many investors do, see this NY Times article for more on this) then there is some substantial incentive to aggressively complete a sale inside of this calendar year and avoid those taxes.   Given the December closing date forecast for the Golden Gate Capital/ExLibris/Leeds deal, this might be a strong indication that they are of this belief.  As a friend of mine always says: "Follow the money…".  You'll frequently find the answers you're looking for if you do that.

I'm also being frequently asked: Are equity investors good for companies in our profession?  

While I think I've answered that to some degree in my previous post on equity investment firms, I would say that within the boundaries of what equity investors do, and the criteria by which we measure them, yes, they do a good job for the companies they own. They certainly bring valuable advice and resources to these companies.  

However, in my humble opinion, the criteria by which we measure the success of these firms is entirely too narrow. (And please note this is not a criticism of equity investors as such, but of what we as a society have come to demand and expect of these types of firms).  Let me also point out (just in case you forgot) that all of these issues were reviewed in painful detail for all of us during the last United States Presidential election process.  So I won't repeat them all here again.   I would however ask you to think about what these issues say concerning us as citizens in this society?  The answer to that question is not an all together comfortable statement.  

I personally believe we as people have moved far away from assigning any real value to how well a company satisfies its customers or staff and instead we've focused far more, and somewhat exclusively, on the return on investment, i.e. how much money do they put on the bottom line and what have they done for us today?

You may not think that you personally fit into this category.  Well, ask yourself how much attention you pay when you're buying a company's products, services or stock, to issues like; how they do business, how they treat employees, customers, or the environment?  If you're one of those people that is always looking solely for the lowest price or the biggest stock dividend, or the best return on your 401K or pension and that's where you stop --  well then please realize you are helping to create the very conditions and expectations where long-term costly employees are quickly and easily discarded, where sales are driven to conclusion without very much attention to how happy the customer will ultimately be with the product(s) or where the increase in employee benefit package costs are transferred to the employees rather than borne by the company.  Of course, this list goes on and on.    Those are moves that are made to increase the profit and the bottom line value of companies.  Thus, it makes a company far more valuable on the day when it (or the stock) gets sold and the profits taken.  

Furthermore, let's remember what I said in my previous post about those profits and equity investors, which is that when dealing with these types of owners, LARGE percentages of the profit are taken OUT of our profession.  Now those profits might still be going to other great causes, like pensions or other solid investments. However, it is very unlikely it's staying directly within our profession or otherwise helping to promote the value of librarianship.  Library owned collaboratives do that.  Open source software efforts do that.  Equity investors may not.   So, is this good for us, particularly right now when our budgets are under so much pressure?  I think you'll likely have to answer that question for yourself.  Are we "valuing" the right things any more?  Certainly, in my mind, that question is totally open to debate.

The bottom line here? When people ask me will equity investment firms do well for the companies they're buying; what am I saying?    I'll say "yes".  Given the kind of criteria we as a society hold these firms to, they'll do quite well.  Now, will they do well for librarianship as a profession?  There are no easy answers to be made in response to that one.  Informed decisions that reflect our beliefs as people, as librarians and as representatives of the organizations we work for are the best we can hope to do. 

NOTE:  This is one post in a series.  All the posts are listed below:

1. Introduction 
2. Sierra by Innovative 
3. Intota by Serials Solutions
4. Worldshare by OCLC
5. OLE by Kuali
6. Alma by Ex Libris
6a. Ex Libris and Golden Gate Capital (this post)
7. Open Skies by VTLS