In my earlier posts on library technology planning I wrote about initial steps and examining system support operations. Once these categories have been examined by a technology planning group the next area of focus should be digital services for students and researchers.

These are technologies that impact library users the most directly; therefore, it’s important that a library manages technology in such a way so that it can focus on these technologies. Here’s a list of some of the service-based technologies impacting libraries (not in any particular order):

• Library’s Web site: involves not just the library’s web site but also its compatibility with the university web site, possible integration with a campus portal, as well integration with the university’s learning management system (e.g., Blackboard/WebCT). A significant number of the following technologies also are tied to the library’s web presence.
• OPAC: this warrants a separate category though it is part of the library’s web presence.
• Electronic Reserves: part of integrated system or a standalone product
• electronic document delivery: includes the ILL management system, which also may be part of the integrated system or a standalone product. But also includes not just ILL but also e-document delivery from within the university, between libraries, from off-campus storage, or even from the library’s collection to the user’s desktop
• proxy for off-campus access to electronic resources
• authentication - single sign on is almost always the goal but not necessarily easily accomplished at many universities
• electronic resources: that listing of hundreds of databases available through a library’s web site; manual, homegrown system, or electronic resource management system
• electronic journal web listings: again - manual, homegrown, through a service such as Serials Solutions, or tied into an electronic resource management system
• OpenURL resolver - Decisions about which system to utilize, how to present it to users.
• Federated or metasearch systems
• Virtual reference
• Information/Learning/Knowledge Commons issues (including wireless computing throughout the library, possible laptop lending service)
• Selfcheckout circulation kiosks

Okay, let’s take a deep breath. Those are just among the technologies that most users will have contact with in their daily interactions with the library. What about more specialized technology-based services to consider?

• Electronic theses & dissertations
• institutional repositories - preprints, working papers, etc.
• Digitizing projects relating to special collections and archives
• Metadata and image storage and preservation issues
• Geospatial data and geographic information systems
• Numeric data collections
• digital media centers to work with faculty and students on the creation of digital content
• Technical issues revolving around support and use of digital audio/video content and streaming media
• Supporting development and preservation of university-based electronic journals
• Supporting development and preservation of non-traditional scholarly communication, electronic publishing by faculty

Nothing listed so far is new to the library scene but there’s still are the emerging Web-based service ideas that aim to integrate a library’s electronic resources further into the user’s environment.

Obviously, libraries have a lot to think about when it comes to technology.

(Catching up on my reading)

Acquiring Copyright Permission to Digitize and Provide Open Access to Books reports on CMU’s efforts to obtain copyright permissions to digiize books published after 1923. As with most CLIR reports, it’s an interesting study. CMU was most successful with targeted, specialized collections such as in their rare book collection. Two-thirds of the copyright holders in that collection granted permission.

The report details the process used and the costs. Permissions were easier to obtain in targeted collections than for larger sets of works, such as in CMU’s Million Book Project. CMU found that permissions were more likely to be granted from special publishers, authors and estates, museums, galleries, and scholarly associations. Commericial publishers, including university presses, were less likely to grant permission. University presses often reported that copyright reverted back to the author after the work went out-of-print. In other cases,publishers defined out-of-print differently than libraries since publishers saw potential in print-on-demand for titles were no longer being printed.

Overall, it’s a very useful report on copyright practices related to digitizing book collections.

In my first post on library technology planning I mentioned the importance of reviewing the existing daily system support operations. This isn’t a particularly sexy area of technology; it’s certainly not something that will get any attention in the blogosphere; it doesn’t revolutionize libraries with exciting new Web-based services. Yet, the regular system support operations are what keep our libraries functioning day-in and day-out. But it is also what often keeps libraries from being able to pursue innovative approaches to technology.

My comments apply mostly to a university environment, which is what I know best. Each university is different, with its own specific situations, so it´s not possible to offer definitive advice but there are some common issues that a technology review should examine. The goal should be to maximize the library’s resources for utilizing technology. The easy answer is that more staff is needed but that’s not always possible. An academic library should determine if certain technology functions could be better handled through another part of the university.

It’s important for a library to have an excellent relationship with the university’s main IT/Telecommunications division. On some campuses, this relationship has been adversarial. My sense is that, over the past ten years, the situation has improved at most universities. Libraries, like many academic departments, often started with technology on their own. In some cases, library staff may have even wired the building themselves. Based on my own experiences, I’ve seen libraries transition many of their system operations to a centralized IT division very successfully.

The benefit is that it frees library resources, particularly staffing, to focus on library-specific technologies rather than broader computing issues. Library administrators should know that such arrangements are never about saving money but about being able to accomplish more through available staffing.

Centralized IT divisions generally do not agree to take on these additional tasks from a library just out of kindness. There is often a chargeback for these services. Yet, it’s also in the benefit of centralized IT to manage many of these activities, especially for reasons of network security and stability.

To accomodate the IT financial charges, library administrators - along with IT administrators - could approach the university’s administration with a proposal identifying the benefits and the costs. In many cases, if the proposal is well conceived and delivered, university administration may identify additional funds that can be allocated to the library as a “pass through” budget item that would be funneled to central IT through the library for the management of centralized IT services. Of course, the tactics will differ at each university and library directors will know whether or not their administrations will be receptive to such proposals.

Of course, the immediate question from any administrator would be if funding for the chargebacks wouldn’t be available within the library’s own budget - particularly if staff would no longer be committed to supporting these operations. It’s at this stage that the library’s technology plan and the library’s overall strategic plan become very important. The library must show that it is thoroughly committed to delivering the best library services, as enabled through technology. To do so requires serious staffing commitments. Again, it’s not about saving the library money but about maximizing available resources to focus on technologies that most directly serve the needs of library users.

Indeed, a library might find that its future technology staffing requests are met more favorably once it has undergone a transition of some functions to a centralized IT division. This arrangement demonstrates that a library is doing all it can to maximize its resources and is not simply asking for a staffing increase without having first examined itself.

There is often a reluctance, particularly among technologists, to centralize certain functions. This fear is often based on a “loss of control.” In some cases, that may be legitimate. Ultimately, it all depends upon the credibility and support patterns of a university’s IT division and their willingness in this area. This process is usually a long-term approach, one where systems and techologies are slowly migrated over a period of several years so that both parties become comfortable with the solution.

Some of the technologies that should be examined:

• Networking Infrastructure: I would be surprised if there are still cases where libraries are managing their own networks and installing ethernet cable, but maybe there are some instances. However, the management of routers and switches should certainly be centralized.
• Network Operating System: This was a bigger issue in the ’90s when many institutions used NetWare. Many places have now adopted a Windows networking environment. And some libraries are likely not to have ever adopted a networked operating environment. Regardless, the technology planning process should conduct a review of the library’s network operating environment. It’s an expensive area of operations. And it’s vital for daily PC use, printing, and file sharing. University IT divisions are increasingly offering this service on a centralized basis. There are disadvantages since desktop support is directly impacted. Yet, when implemented in the right manner, with an excellent relationship between the library and central IT, it’s an approach that can work well.
• Hardware/OS support for the integrated library system: (Note: this area does not involve the actual ILS software support, just support for the hardware and operating system). Small and medium-sized libraries are likely to have a turnkey system where this support is provided by the vendor; the library’s main issue here is conducting regular backups. Considering that this system is the core of library operations, libraries may be especially cautious about not managing the system hardware and OS from within the library’s own staff. Yet, this can be a prime candidate for centralization, particularly due to its importance to the entire university.
• Application servers: these are the servers that support the web site, digital library projects, institutional repositories, and other small systems such as ILL software. In many cases, the hardware does not need to physically reside in the library’s server room.It’s more likely that programmers or system developers are connected to the server through a terminal connection in their offices rather than sitting directly at the server console. It´s the work of system administration (e.g., updating security, conducting backups) that take place at the machine itself. So, in some cases, the library may benefit from being relieved of these system admin duties by having some application servers centralized. Depending upon the capabilities of the library’s staff, it might even possible for one or more system staff within the library to retain root/superuser password access to its application servers.
• Developmental servers: this is the sandbox where programmers and developers test out new applications for the library. Of all library technology, developmental servers are the least likely to be centralized. The library’s technology staff should be able to explore and try out tools quickly and easy on its own developmental equipment.
• PC Support: There should always be technical staff within the library to respond its users requests and needs. However, depending upon the university’s PC support, arrangements might be worked out that allow for different levels of support. Some support may be provided in-house, while other issues might be handled through a central unit.

The entire purpose of reviewing daily system support operations is to identify if any resources can be re-allocated to focus on technology that is more library-specific. With an increasing amount of demands and needs for library technology, it’s almost impossible for any library to perform all of its technology operations independently. As I stated, any solution depends heavily on the quality and willingness of a central IT division to assume (even at a price) a greater amount of system operations from the library.

The library may well find that it can indeed perform those operations more effectively and more cheaply internally, which is great as long as the library also can move ahead with its other technological needs. In reality, it’s likely that a library will find some areas of system operations that can be passed to central IT and other areas that will remain internally. Even if a library ends up retaining all of its system operations, a regular review of these issues is an important part of library technology planning.