Monday, September 17, 2007

Integrated Library System Vendors

While some libraries today still use stand alone systems, most have adopted some form of integrated library management system (LMS). Given the wide range of LMS options on offer, it is important to be aware of the characteristics and features of various systems and providers. Without this information, it would be difficult to determine which system best suits a libraries purpose. Koha and Vubis Smart by Extensity provide examples from either extreme of the spectrum of LMS's currently available to libraries.

Koha is open source software, or freeware, distributed under the General Public Licence (GPL). Koha is maintained by a team of developers across 4 countries, however under the GPL anyone can make additions and modifications which can then be made available to all users. While additions and add-ons are continuous and free, Koha provides limited support, and no hands on assistance.

Vubis Smart by Extensity (formerly Geac) on the other hand is a commercial, vendor-produced product. Vubis Smart is designed to be more user centred and features a graphical interface and customisation for users. As a commercial vendor, they provide comprehensive support for system integration and implementation.

Whilst the philosophy and aims of both of these types of vendors and systems differ, at a functional level they each serve the same general purpose and so still provide some common features in their software. By identifying the commonalities between these systems, it is possible to ascertain the essential core components of Library Systems.

Commonalities include:

Standards compliance allows for interoperability across and between systems. Both Koha and Vubis Smart support Z39.50, XML and Unicode, in addition to UNIMARC, USMARC, and MARC21 standard formats.

Full featured Integrated Library System (LIS) with core functions of circulation, acquisitions, catalogue, serials, collection management, and report generation.

Both Koha and Vubis Smart are web-based, and offer OPAC’s for web searching by users. Both also offer clear and user-friendly interfaces for searching. However, it is likely that Vubis Smart would be more refined considering it is a commercial product, which competitively aims to provide higher levels of user service. The two systems both offer fuzzy logic capabilities in their searches.

Koha and Vubis Smart can be integrated with email, thus allowing for efficient communications with the libraries online users.


References:

Koha Development Team & Katipo Communications 2005, ‘Koha’, viewed on 8 September 2007, http://www.koha.org/

Vubis Smart 2007, viewed on 8 September 2007, http://library.geac.com/page/vubis_LIB.html





Sunday, September 9, 2007

The ACT Public Library Online Information

The ACT Public Library is expanding online services and aim to provide:

  • Learning pathways to facilitate and aid lifelong learning goals
  • Real time online tutoring service - Live Homework HelpDigital literacy training
  • Facilities enabling users to become self sufficient online
  • Electronic communication of library notices
  • More provision of download/uploading via technology – CD, DVD, USB
  • e-book and upload capabilities onto MP3 players and iPods

These new and extended services are a result of user demand and expectations, continuing developments in ICT, and because of their new library management system, which targets electronic service delivery (Hyland 2006).

Benefits that these developments will bring in terms of service delivery include:

Remote access to new and traditional services.
This makes the library more accessible to more users. Already mentioned in other posts on this blog is the developing preference for online rather than traditional library services (August 17). It also follows the idea of going where your users are, triggering more online services and advances towards library 2.0 (Grossman 2006).

Clients are more independent.
Allowing users to track and conduct transactions, search for more information and make suggestions. Movements to improve user information literacy and a goal to foster lifelong learning will result in greater user independence.

Users want to be more independent, creating the seamless ‘information sphere’ (Thomas & McDonald 2005) that the Net Generation expect can help to facilitate this. Movements towards more ‘Library 2.0’ user centred technology are providing this independence.

An online suggestion for a purchase facility led to re-evaluation of collection development (Hyland 2006). This is a direct result of more user input, and the benefit is that the collection can become more oriented towards user needs and requirements.

More standardised reference service.
Often there are standard procedures or policies for online reference (Liplow 2003, Coffman 2004, Janes & Hill 2002) and there are often online reference forms for users which minimises reference interview questions, making faster more accurate answers.

The ACT Public Library has an Ask-A-Question facility, however it is a very basic request form. In the future, this may be an area they will need to develop further.

Online user requests can build up a knowledge base of questions answered. This base can subsequently be provided for users to search (example AWM). It also provides the librarians with stored questions and answers which can be reused, used for training purposes, or for evaluative purposes.

Increased technological knowledge of staff.
Staff will gain more experience and knowledge of ever advancing technology, and will be kept to speed with new developments as they arise. This will also put them in a position for assessing these developments for the future.


References:

Coffman, S & Arret, L 2004, 'To chat or not to chat: Taking yet another look at virtual reference, Part 2', Searcher, September 2004, available at http://www.infotoday.com/searcher/sep04/arret_coffman.shtml

Grossman, D 2007, ‘Internet librarian 2006: 10 years old and going strong’, Searcher, vol.15, no.2, pp45-50

Hyland, M 2006, ‘ACT Public Library Online Information Services', Incite, 2006 no.3, available at http://alia.org.au/publishing/incite/2006/03/print.html?ID=25

Janes, J & Hill, C 2002, 'Finger on the pulse: Librarians describe evolving reference practice in an increasingly digital world', Reference and User Services Quarterly, vol.42, no.1, pp.54-65

Liplow, AG 2003, 'Transfer what you know to what you do', in The virtual reference librarian's handbook, Library Solutions Press, Berkley, CA & Neal-Schuman, London & New York, pp.53-75

Thomas, C, & McDonald, RH 2005, ‘Millennial Net Value(s): Disconnects between Libraries and the Information Age Mindset’, available at http://dscholarship.lib.fsu.edu/general/4







Sunday, September 2, 2007

Communities of Practice

From the article ‘Intranets and knowledge sharing’ by James Robertson 2004, ‘Communities of practice’ can be described as groups of like-minded people with a sense of community and identity who collaborate, share knowledge and experiences in order to solve problems, learn, and build up a knowledge base as a valuable tool for the future.

As the originators of the term, most authors writing on the topic defer to Lave and Wengers’ outline of a Community of Practice (Cousin & Deepwell 2005, Buysse et al 2003, Wesley & Buysse 2001). Wenger (Wenger & Snyder 2000) defines 'communities of practice' as groups of people informally bound by shared experience, sharing experience and knowledge in free flowing, creative ways, and fostering new approaches to problems.

Communities of practice, Intranets and knowledge sharing
Knowledge management, and indeed knowledge sharing can only be achieved when people have a means of communication and an environment which facilitates that sharing. There has been much discussion of knowledge management in the literature, with varying opinions (see for example further reading on KM below). However, this point is crucial to all: that leveraging knowledge cannot be achieved by technology alone; though technology such as intranets and groupware can assist in the sharing of knowledge.

Intranets are private, internal networks based on internet standards (Choo 2000). Within an organisation, intranets can support communities of practice by:

  • Use of remote login reducing geographic distances, thus bringing people together.

  • Providing a common space for communication and collaboration, and access to each other’s work.

  • Providing a space for conversation and communication: forums, message boards, blogs, wiki’s etc, allowing for informal discussion. Knowledge creation is seen as a social process (Choo2000, McDermott 1999), and thus must not be totally formalised.

  • Easy navigation by use of hyperlinks and a user friendly interface, facilitates convenience and accessibility of information to all users.

Thus intranets can be used to create a knowledge base and provide access to it. Communities of practice cannot function without communication, collaboration, a drive to share and foster knowledge, and so an environment which allows for this. In large organisations especially intranets are often already in place, or the infrastructure to support it is, which make it an ideal space to utilise for supporting communities of practice.


References:
Buysse, V, Spackman, KL & Wesey, P 2003, ‘Communities of practice: Connecting what we know with what we do’, Exceptional Children, vol.69, no.3, pp.263-277

Choo, CW, Detlor, B & Turnbull, D 2000, ‘The intranet as infrastructure for knowledge work’, in J ackenzie Owen (ed.) Web Work: Information seeking and knowledge work on the world wide web, Information Science and Knowledge Management: 1, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp.71-100

Cousin, G & Deepwell, F 2005, ‘Designs for network learning: A communities of practice perspective’, Studies in Higher Education, vol.30, no.1, pp.57-66

McDermott, R 1999, ‘Why information technology inspired but cannot deliver knowledge management’, California Management Reiview, vol.41, no.4, pp.103-117

Robertson, J 2004, ‘Intranets and knowledge sharing’, adapted from a paper prepared for the KM Challenge conference, Sydney, March 30-31 2004, available at http://www.steptwo.com.au/papers/kmc_intranetsknowledge/index.html

Wenger, EC & Snyder, WM 2000, ‘Communities of practice: The organisational frontier’, Harvard Business Review, vol.78, no.1, pp.139-145

Wesley, PW & Buysse, V 2001, ‘Communities of practice: Expanding professional roles to promote reflection and shared inquiry’, Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, vol.21, no.2, pp.114-123

Further reading on Communities of practice:
Nickols, F 2003, ‘Communities of practice: An overview’, Distance Consulting, available at http://home.att.net/~discon/KM/CoPOverview.pdf

Sites of note include:
http://www.ewenger.com/theory
http://www.infed.org/biblio/communities_of_practice.htm
http://home.att.net/~discon/KM/CoPs.htm
http://hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/2855.html
http://www.steptwo.com.au/papers/cmb_intranetcop/index.html

Further Reading on Knowledge Management:
Abell, A & Oxbrow, N 2001, ‘Role of IM in KM: core skills in new contexts’ in Competing with knowledge: the information professional in the knowledge management age, Library Association Publishing, London
Al-Hawamdeh, S 2002, ‘Knowledge management: rethinking information management and facing the challenge of managing tacit knowledge’, Information Research, vol.8, no.1, 10p
Bouthillier, F & Shearer, K 2002, ‘Understanding knowledge management and Information management: the need for an empirical perspective’, Information Research, vol.8, no.1
Damodaran, L & Olphert, W 2000, ‘Barriers and facilitators to the use of knowledge management systems’, Behaviour and Information Technology, vol.19, no.6, pp405-413
Duffy, J 2000, ‘Knowledge Management: what every Information Professional should know’, Information Management Journal, vol.34, no.3, pp.10-14
Earl, MJ 1996, ‘Knowledge strategies: propositions from two contrasting industries’, in M J Earl (ed) Information Management: the organisational dimension, Oxford University Press, Oxford

Ferguson
, S 2004, ‘The knowledge management myth: will the real knowledge managers please step forward’, paper presented at ALIA conference Challenging Ideas, 2004
Tucker, M 1999, ‘Dark matter of decision making’, Intelligent Enterprise magazine, vol.2, no.3
Wilson, TD 2002, ‘The nonsense of knowledge management’, Information Research, vol.8, no.1, 27p