Home  AASL  Publications & Journals  Using Technology Tools to Shop Library Automation

May/June 2004

An International School Experience That Worked:
Using Technology Tools to Shop Library Automation

Candace W. Aiani

Shopping for library automation software can be difficult. Even under the best of circumstances, choosing a software package to manage a library requires an inordinate amount of time to research vendors and their various products. If the library is remote, located in a rural setting or, in our case, an international school in a foreign country, the task becomes even more challenging because local access to vendors and distributors is limited or non-existent.

Taipei American School is a private, independent school providing an American curriculum to the expatriate community in Taiwan, primarily foreign businessmen, technicians, scholars, missionaries and other foreigners.  The libraries, which  serve a population of 2,200 students (Pre-K – 12) along with parents and other community members, on four different floors of a building.  There are three librarians, one for each division - elementary, middle, and upper schools - as well as a media librarian.  The total number of materials for all libraries is just over 102,000.  At the time we started shopping for a new automation system, the libraries were using just two databases, one for elementary school materials, and one for middle school, upper school, media, and professional materials combined.

As early as 1999, dissatisfaction with the current library automation system began to surface among the library faculty.  This came about primarily for two reasons: (1) two new library personnel who were familiar with other systems began to raise questions about  capabilities;  (2) we encountered a consistent and seemingly systemic reluctance or inability by our automation vendor to provide technical support and service to us in our remote location. Over the next year or so, emerging database problems and frustrating communications solidified our desire to look at other automation options.  However, there were no local vendors or distributors of English language library management systems in Taiwan. Surprisingly, the process of remotely shopping for automation systems – research, communication, and demonstrations—was surprisingly  easier than we had anticipated because of the use of technology and telecommunications tools.

Getting Started:

As in any research project, one of the initial steps was to gather background information. Since our librarians had been using the same automation package for some time, we needed to get a sense of the possibilities and we needed to know about the current market, vendors, products, and pricing. A few simple Internet searches brought up a wealth of information under “Library Automation.”

Automation Links    One web-based, portal site for librarians that we found particularly helpful for establishing a base of knowledge is LibraryHQ.com at <http://www.libraryhq.com/>.  (1) This site contains a section, entitled HQ Automation Source, (2)  with links to resources, articles, publications, organizations, conferences, and seminars related to automation. The "Library Automation/ Technology Glossary" (3) was helpful for learning current automation technology, and the "Checklist" (4)  provided a starting point for outlining desired features in a new system. By reading their information thoroughly we learned enough to articulate what our particular library wanted from an automation system.

Vendors   Another not-to-be-missed set of articles is the annual "Automated System Marketplace…” report that appeared in 2001, 2002, and,  “The Competition heats u,p” in the April 1, 2003, issue of Library Journal. (5)  These yearly articles provide the novice with insights into industry analysis of library automation vendors.. Besides vendor profiles, the articles describe trends in the industry, mergers and alliances, acquisitions, revenue breakdowns, and new developments.  We got a real sense of current general trends for vendors and trends within the automation industry itself. 

Sample RFPs

Finally, we found it helpful to look at a number of sample RFPs (Requests for Proposal). An RFP is a formal request by, in this case, a library to a software vendor for a proposal for the purchase of a library automation system. The RFP includes terms and conditions for an agreement, as well as specifications related to the performance of the software, vendor, etc. In general, individual school libraries do not write formal RFPs which are more common at the school district level or in other types of libraries.  We used the RFP to focus our discussions and direct our thinking about the contractual aspects of acquiring new software.  For example, the specifications outlined in the sample RFPs proved invaluable when formulating our own list of desired features. A site that we found to be quite useful because it provided library specifications for school library software that costs less than Australian $10,000  (US$7,727) is the Education Department of Western Australia at <http://www.eddept.wa.edu.au/cmis/cat/mrr.htm>.  The specifications included: general software and networking requirements; cataloging, OPAC, and circulation modules’ requirements; support requirements; and requirements for other modules, including acquisitions, serials, and inter-library loan.   When dealing with vendors, it is essential to define which modules the library needs and what features are needed in each module.  Some vendors sell modules (circulation, cataloging, etc.) as a package, while others sell them separately or as add-ons.

Specifications from individual modules in the sample RFPs described features that existed in our current cataloging and circulation package, but they also described other unfamiliar features or modules, such as authority, acquisitions, and serials modules.  We were committed to be open to many different possibilities and changes in the way our services might be delivered or changed.

We began to imagine how our library and our services might be different: if we could offer web-based, remote access; if patrons could track their own accounts; if we could download MARC records right into our catalog; and if we could create the reports we need for daily operations and for long-term planning proposals.   The four of us took the sample RFP, module by module, and marked each feature as a core feature, an optional feature, or non-applicable feature.  We passed the networking and system requirements to the school technicians so that they could do the same.   Then we added requirements based on our own school needs and our professional experience.  For instance, we added core requirements for communication and training opportunities, as our school library has a very strong service component..  Since Mandarin is Taiwan’s local language, we looked at an RFP for a larger system and added a section of questions on Unicode, a computer language that can read multiple language sets.  Our careful specificity and comprehensiveness resulted in a clearly defined document that served as a guide throughout the rest of the process.

The Power of Research     This initial research validated our hopes that we could actually find automation software that would provide more of the features we needed and/or desired than the one we were currently using. In the process we learned about a whole range of automation options that we hadn't known existed, among which include: personalization features for patrons where the software tracts a patron’s reading habits;  gateway access to databases outside of the OPAC; email integration in circulation to notify patrons of overdues and reserves.; Unicode capability for double-byte character sets; and acquisitions tracking.  We were able to define exactly what we wanted in a new system, and we had the technical language to express and understand concepts related to library automation software.

Lastly, we had some knowledge of the various companies and their markets, and were ready to begin looking closely at specific vendors and specific products. We tried to be realistic in terms of our goals and budget, but we also wanted to investigate some larger systems that might typically be marketed to public libraries or systems with multiple locations, because these automation systems had features that we desired, in particular the ability to search multiple databases simultaneously. 

Initial Contact:

Vendor Interview    The American Library Association (ALA) Annual Conference offers a perfect opportunity to make initial contact with the greatest number of vendors in the shortest period of time. Using a simple check-off list of questions, I interviewed various vendors about their automation products, gathering information about each vendor and each product. The vendors appreciated the preparation and seriousness of this initial list of questions.

Vendor Interview List

The interview question list was not as extensive as the specifications list that we had created from the sample RFPs.  Less than two pages long, questions fell under the following general categories: company information, system requirements, and types of modules, services, reference sites, and a miscellaneous category.

The Benefits of Meeting with Vendors    Meeting with a substantial number of vendors was invaluable; their products were marketed for all types and sizes of libraries and products with both less and more than what our school was seeking.  Talking with them in a short period of time efficiently built our  knowledge base about the current market in library automation software. While I declined most brochures and packets of literature, I requested that more information be mailed. What I did carry away was an interview sheet for each vendor with a business card attached and/or contact information of the person who works with international sales. I left the exhibits with the information I needed.

In-depth Vendor Profiles:

"Long List” of Vendors    Next we produced a realistic list of eight vendors and specific products based on a combination of our initial research and our conference interviews.  We followed up by a letter of thanks to each for their time at ALA, requesting permission to test out the software and asking them to respond to our attached detailed specifications list.

Detailed Specifications List    The specifications asked for information about specific automation features as well as information about the company, services, training, peripherals, and the conversion process. Although the entire document was formatted primarily as a check sheet, we requested that a conditional response be explained in an addendum. This was a substantial document to which a company needed to respond; the detailed and specific responses from six companies made clear that they were quite serious about wanting our business.

E-mail to Reference Sites    We asked for five references from each vendor. If possible, we wanted at least some of them to be international schools, preferably schools in which the software had been purchased in the last forty-eight months, and at least one school that converted from the same library management system as we currently were using.. We contacted each reference site asking about the school’s level of satisfaction with both the product and vendor services. While not all responded, those who did provided valuable insights from the end-user’s perspective. 

Vendor Profile Binder    A binder for each vendor contained a tracking sheet that allowed us to see very quickly what information had been received from each vendor and what information was still needed.  Information was sorted into the following divider headings: General Information, Communication, Reference Sites, Internal Evaluation (Specifications List), and Demo. General Information included the interview sheet and brochures. Communication catalogued all e-mails, correspondence, and communication with the vendor. Reference Sites archived initial e-mails requesting information and responses.  Internal Evaluation contained the specifications list that we received from the vendor. Demo included information pertaining to running and using the demo, as well as notes we took during our demo trials.

Demo Software:

CD or On-Line Versions    Each vendor supplied us with either CD-Rom demo software or access to an online demonstration Web site. Some vendors had virtual tours, others provided fully-functioning programs and still others supplied limited functioning or partial module programs.   While the virtual tours provided the best overall view of the program and had the lowest learning curve, we could not manipulate the program.   The fully functioning programs provided the best opportunity to actually use the software, but the learning curve was greater.

In general, our attempts to use these software packages with no previous introduction were time-consuming and unsatisfying. We had difficulty gaining a level of understanding with one product that could be useful for comparison to another. For a time, it seemed, we had hit an impasse. 

Live Demos    At the same time that we were looking at automation software, our administration was looking at student management software. They had arranged several live demos from WebEx and NetMeeting.  We realized this was our next step, so we set up a number of live demo sessions using communications software. By projecting  that computer’s product onto a screen at our location,  the entire library faculty could see comfortably. Coupled with a conference call (avoiding the bandwidth drain of voice over) this approach enabled us to gain a solid, detailed understanding of each product.

After five live demos, each lasting approximately two hours, we confidently created a "short list"of the two software packages that met our goals and objectives for library automaton software.

Budget Proposal    At this point we had enough information about the vendors, their products and their pricing to be able to submit a proposal for funding to our administration and school board. We wanted to confirm that we would have funding in order to be able to work seriously with a vendor.

The "Short List:"

Comparing Software  We rolled up our sleeves to begin an in-depth comparison of the two software packages and vendors, outlining and articulating what each had to offer and what we would give up by choosing one over the other. Informing the vendors that they had been chosen for the short list, we requested a pricing proposal.  The other three vendors received letters thanking them for their work with us, but informing them that they had not made the final list.

FTP and MARC Records...Scanning and Barcodes...    We began to work with each vendor to nail down exactly what services were needed for the conversion process and other technical aspects of migrating from one software package to another. We FTP'd our MARC records to each vendor so that they could decide what data conversion processes were needed, if any.  We scanned and e-mailed copies of a number of different barcodes to see if they would all operate within the new system.  We communicated any questions that came up about any aspect of the conversion.

Staff Input    Since we have several libraries, each with separate support staff responsible for the day-to-day operations of the library, we wanted to give everyone an opportunity to provide input about each of the automation systems on the short list.

More Demo Work    The faculty now had to go back to the demo software to see if there was anything we had missed in the previous demo sessions. For this trial run, we imported some of our own records into the fully-functioning software. We printed reports, added and deleted patrons, set up the administration modules, catalogued materials, downloaded records, and did anything else that we could think of or were interested in testing. We knew that we would have to live with our choice for a very long time. When we were satisfied that we were making the right choice, we took the plunge and purchased the new library management system.

The whole process, from initial conception to installation, took over two years.  It was labor intensive in terms of both professional time and collaborative decision-making.   However, now that the final decision has been made and we are offering new and improved services to our patrons, we can say that it was all worth it.  We did our homework. We documented our findings. We collaborated with each other and with the vendors – and we were training in the process of an ongoing assessment.  We chose a management system deliberately and thoughtfully, using the tools and strategies we teach our students to use when they tackle real-world problems.

References

(1) Library HQ.com: Resources for the Wired Librarian. 24 June 2003, <http://www.libraryhq.com/> (4 January 2004).

(2) Library Automation Resources: Tools to help you choose a Library Management System. <http://www.libraryhq.com/automation.html> (4 January 2004).

(3) Library Automation/Technology Glossary, <http://www.libraryhq.com/glossary.html> (4 January 2004).

(4) Library Management System Checklist: How does your current system compare to a modern client/server library system? If you can’t check off the following functions, you need to consider changing systems. <http://www.libraryhq.com/checklist.html> (4 January 2004.

(5) Marshall Breeding and Carol Roddy. “The Competition Heats Up.” Library Journal 1 April 2003. Archives. <http://libraryjournal.reviewsnews.com/> or  <http://www.libraryjournal.com/index.asplayout=articleArchive&articleid=CA284769>  (15 October 2003).

Selected Bibliography

Breeding, Marshall  and Carol Roddy. “The Competition Heats Up.” Library Journal 1 April 2003. Archives. <http://libraryjournal.reviewsnews.com/> (15 October 2003). [Note the actual article is at <http://www.libraryjournal.com/index.asp?layout=articleArchive&articleid=CA284769> ]

Garstka, Katharine. “Automation Source.” LibraryHQ.Com. 24 June 2003. CEA Capital Partners and Sirsi Corporation. <http://www.libraryhq.com/> (15 October 2003).

“Library Systems.” Department of Education and Training: Government of Western Australia. 23 June 2003. <http://www.eddept.wa.edu.au/cmis/cat/mrr.htm> (15 October 2003).

Candace W. Aiani is a Library Media Specialist at the Taipei American School in Taipei, Taiwan.