In the course of putting together the JISC/SCONUL Library Management Systems Study, the authors interviewed the four major vendors of integrated library systems in higher education in the U.K.: Ex Libris, Innovative Interfaces, SirsiDynix and Talis. Among the “who are you” and “what do you do” questions were two that get to the heart of what many of us are clamoring for from our vendors:
- How do your products interoperate with products those from other LMS/ERM vendors?
- Do you have partnerships with other LMS/ERM vendors?
Since three of the four are also leading vendors in North America (and I’m betting the fourth would like to be one as well), I think it is instructive to look at how these four vendors answer these two questions.1
Ex Libris
How do ExLibris products interoperate with products those from other LMS/ERM vendors?
We interoperate with our own products first (e.g. Primo and MetaLib) but all new products designed to interoperate more widely by means of standardsDoes ExLibris have partnerships with other LMS/ERM vendors?
With Talis for VerdeInnovative Interfaces
How do Innovative products interoperate with those from other LMS/ERM
vendors?
Our history is rooted in providing products that interoperated with other products. This continues with ERM for exampleDoes Innovative have partnerships with other LMS/ERM vendors?
No. Our aim is to provide best of breed across the whole range of library needs. Of course we don’t stand in the way of libraries that wish for example to add Aquabrowser or Endeca. However we want to provide solutions that are better. To date, we haven’t seen a big groundswell for these types of products…for all of the press and interest it has gotten, products like Endeca haven’t made a major dent in the marketplace.SirsiDynix
How do SirsiDynix products interoperate with those from other LMS/ERM
vendors?
Z39.50 and other, APIs (SD has been doing this API stuff for over 15 years). We work with other vendors through our certification programme — in particular for SIP2 and NCIP. All other ILS vendors are supported through Z39.50 as well as federated search programs.Partnerships with other LMS/ERM vendors?
No genuine partnerships with LMS competitors (e.g. to cross sell products).Deeper integration is available for resource sharing and ILL.
Talis
How do Talis products interoperate with those from other LMS/ERM vendors?
Talis List integrates with all LMSs and Talis Base does too (via Ztarget). Gateway (EDI) will interoperate but it not quite there yet. We work with other link resolvers, self-serve, and SRU/SRW services etcKeystone is focussed on our own LMS for now but is designed to enable interoperability with other LMSs. Anything new we develop is standards based to work with other LMS and as appropriate with other external system
Partnerships with other LMS/ERM vendors
The only formal relationship is with ExLibris. Our Connexions programme includes working with ExLibris with Verde but there were some problems because Verde didn’t support 1Cate (now OCLC resolver), which the customer wanted to continue to use.
In section 4.41 of the report (”The staff perspective on the LMS”), the authors quote a passage from Carl Grant’s blog2: “These companies have become unresponsive to the collective goals of our profession and, like so much of our society these days, are no longer focused on the we but the me. It is a sad state of affairs and one that will not be tolerated.” There is a growing desire from the library community, particularly in the U.K. with the formal study of the JISC Information Environment for higher education institutions, to have systems interoperate in a clean, service-oriented architecture kind of way.
The vendor responses, on the other hand, would seem to be more akin to one-upmanship and isolationism: we look to interoperate with ourselves before others, we’ll interoperate if we’re at the center, you’re on your own if you want to try to integrate another product with ours, we’ll interoperate if others play by our rules. This isn’t what the customer is looking for.
Too harsh of an assessment? Let me know in the comments.
Footnotes
- Adamson, V., Bacsich, P., Chad, K., Kay, D., & Plenderleith, J. (2008). JISC & SCONUL Library Management Systems Study. 156 p. Retrieved April 17, 2008, from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/resourcediscovery/lmsstudy.pdf. [↩]
- Grant, Carl. (2007 Jul 4) A symphony out of tune: when companies go deaf. Care-Affiliates blog. Retrieved 13-Jun-2008 from http://www.care-affiliates.com/thoughts/archives/6. [↩]
3 Comments
The core of the problem seems unresolvable for the proprietary commercial vendors: there is simply not enough growth in the traditional relationship to support the kind of competitive and responsive marketplace that customers need. In turn, their struggle to remain viable businesses have left them reluctant to move away from the arcane pay-per-use business model that treats customers as competitors.
Our role in this relationship is to not look elsewhere for solutions - either in the community or with competitors - and remain with the One Vendor to Do it All. And let’s not forget to “re-purchase” your ILS every couple of years too, with the latest “special” upgrade ‘that’s not included with annual maintenance’ etc.
Some enterprising upstarts are challenging this, but I think most of the innovation and change will be catalyzed from the open source camps, where investments are just starting to rock ‘n roll..
While not trying to duck the issues you quite rightly highlight, I would point out that the questions were in the present tense. Answering with ‘our products will integrate, etc., etc.’, would have no doubt drawn equal scepticism, but for different reasons.
The answers you picked out are symptomatic of an industry in transition. Transition from products without exception based on architectures that never envisioned light-weight loosely-coupled integration. Transition to a REST based service oriented architecture where integration between library and non-library applications should be simple and based on simple and open standards.
The “Do you have partnerships with other LMS/ERM vendors?” question in the survey demonstrates an attachment to traditional thinking towards integration. So far, with the traditional heavy-weight protocols we are used to in the library world, the only reliable way to get integration that works has been through a partnership between suppliers. Web 2.0 has demonstrated that with simple light-weight protocols, integration is possible without the need for commercial partnerships. There are many benefits that arise from partnerships, but they shouldn’t be a prerequisite for successful integration.
It is not all doom and gloom though. Initiatives such as the DLF’s ILS API defining simple REST base protocols that all vendors should be able to support, have started to gather momentum in the last few months. A momentum that appears to be supported both by vendors and open source groups.
Ah but will the vendors support such APIs? I hear you ask. For an insight in to the surprisingly open and forward thinking of at least three of the vendors, I recommend a listen to last month’s Library 2.0 Gang podcast (the position of the fourth even gets a mention).
@George — I agree with your statement: the marketplace is in an unhealthy feedback loop. I also agree that the shake-up is likely to come from open source projects. The twist that you left unmentioned is the role of commercial support options for open source projects. The dynamics between customer and vendor are considerably different when the object of the support is an open source system — the ability to move from one support vendor to another unsticks much of unhealthy feedback loop.
@Richard — you correctly bring up the issue of the form of the question…it is a historical look at past integrations and not necessarily a statement of planned or future integration. We actually have a common phrase for that here in America — “Past Performance is No Guarantee of Future Results” — something that is included in any manner of financial service offering.
Your points about the industry in transition — of heavy-weight and light-weight integrations — are well articulated. That said, I also subscribe to Clayton Christensen’s theory that an organizations resources, processes and values make it very difficult for it to change direction. In this case, to move from heavy-weight to light-weight interfaces. Even if the soul of the company is willing, Christensen theorizes that the organization would have to stop listening to its best customers in order to achieve the shift. In such cases, Past Performance is really a Very Strong Indicator of Future Results.
Thank you to both of you for your comments.
2 Trackbacks
[...] He is picking up on extracts from the JISC/SCONUL Library Management Systems Study as commented upon by the Disruptive Library Technology [...]
Post a Comment