Libraby Management Systems
Library management systems 1991-2000
1. General overview
In one of the first papers on library management systems (LMS) in the UK to be published during the review period of 1991-2000, Arfield [i] describes how the changing economics of computing resulted in staff at Reading University Library wishing to move away from a system shared between various libraries to an integrated library management system under local control. Reading had been a member of the SWALCAP (originally standing for the South Western Academic Libraries Co-operative Automation Project) which had provided shared cataloguing and circulation services to a number of academic libraries in the UK since 1979. However, ageing equipment was becoming increasingly unreliable and staff at Reading felt that the SWALCAP service was unable to cope with the increasing number of terminals that were required for the users. This situation was replicated in other academic and public libraries at the start of the 1990s and many moved over, or migrated, to integrated library management systems (in Reading’s case the LIBS 100 system from CLSI was chosen). Jones [ii], of the House of Lords Library, describes how the decline in the number of customers of the shared services resulted in the decision by SLS (SWALCAP Library Services) to withdraw this service. Following a study undertaken by an external consultant (when it was recommended that a multi-user integrated LMS be chosen) a decision was made to implement the ADVANCE system from the company Geac in the House of Lords. Another reason for libraries choosing to replace their LMS during this period was the fact that some LMSs were not designed to cope with dates in the 2000s –i.e. they were not Year 2000 (or Y2K) compliant. Many of the integrated LMSs, such as CLSI’s LIBS 100 and Geac’s ADVANCE, were developed during the 1980s so that by the 1990s these comprised a number of modules to cover the general library housekeeping functions of: •
1. General overview
In one of the first papers on library management systems (LMS) in the UK to be published during the review period of 1991-2000, Arfield [i] describes how the changing economics of computing resulted in staff at Reading University Library wishing to move away from a system shared between various libraries to an integrated library management system under local control. Reading had been a member of the SWALCAP (originally standing for the South Western Academic Libraries Co-operative Automation Project) which had provided shared cataloguing and circulation services to a number of academic libraries in the UK since 1979. However, ageing equipment was becoming increasingly unreliable and staff at Reading felt that the SWALCAP service was unable to cope with the increasing number of terminals that were required for the users. This situation was replicated in other academic and public libraries at the start of the 1990s and many moved over, or migrated, to integrated library management systems (in Reading’s case the LIBS 100 system from CLSI was chosen). Jones [ii], of the House of Lords Library, describes how the decline in the number of customers of the shared services resulted in the decision by SLS (SWALCAP Library Services) to withdraw this service. Following a study undertaken by an external consultant (when it was recommended that a multi-user integrated LMS be chosen) a decision was made to implement the ADVANCE system from the company Geac in the House of Lords. Another reason for libraries choosing to replace their LMS during this period was the fact that some LMSs were not designed to cope with dates in the 2000s –i.e. they were not Year 2000 (or Y2K) compliant. Many of the integrated LMSs, such as CLSI’s LIBS 100 and Geac’s ADVANCE, were developed during the 1980s so that by the 1990s these comprised a number of modules to cover the general library housekeeping functions of: •
References: [ii] David Lewis Jones, ‘The Geac ADVANCE system in the House of Lords Library’, Program 27(2), 1993, 123-134. [iii] Charles Oppenheim and D. Smithson, ‘What is the hybrid library?’, Journal of Information Science 25(2), 1999, 97-112. [iv] Chris Rusbridge, ‘Towards the hybrid library’, DLib Magazine 7(7/8), 1998. Available at: http://www.dlib.org/dlib/july98/rusbridge/07rusbridge.html (Accessed 14.1.06) [v] Library and Information Commission [vi] Marlene Clayton with Chris Batt, Managing library automation 2nd ed. Aldershot: Ashgate, 1992 [vii] Robin T [viii] Jennifer Rowley, Computers for libraries. 3rd. ed. London: Library Association Publishing, 1993. [ix] Jennifer Rowley, Electronic library. London: Library Association Publishing, 1997 [x] Lucy A [xi] Terry Hanson and Joan Day (eds), Managing the electronic library. London: Bowker Saur, 1998 [xii] Graeme Muirhead (ed.), Planning and implementing successful system migrations [xiii] Graeme Muirhead (ed.), Planning for library automation: a practical handbook. London: Library Association Publishing, 1998. [xiv] Juliet Leeves with Rosemary Russell, libsys;uk: A directory of library systems in the United Kingdom. London: Library Information Technology Centre, 1995 [xv] Library Information Technology Centre, Guide to choosing an automated library system [xvi] Library Information Technology Centre, Library housekeeping systems for MS-DOS and Windows. London:Library Information Technology Centre, 1996. [xvii] Library Information Technology Centre, Introductory pack on library systems for schools. London: Library Information Technology Centre, 1993 [xviii] Juliet Leeves, John Baker, Alice Keefer and Gitte Larsen [xix] Richard Wilsher, ‘A new system for new circumstances: ADLIB at ACAS’, Vine 108, 1998, 37-40. [xx] Peter Sudell and Margaret Robinson, ‘ALEPH 500 at King’s College London’, Vine 115, 1999, 33-56 [xxi] Peter King, ‘Implementing a new library management system at Bristol University: experiences with Aleph 500’, Program 34(4), 2000, 385-396 [xxii] A. Darroch, ‘Alice through the looking glass’, Electronic Library 17 (3) , 1999, 159-160 [xxiii] J [xxvi] David Perrow, ‘Implementing CAIRS-LMS in a small academic library: experience at Templeton College Oxford’, Program 25 (3), 1991, 207-221 [xxvii] G [xxviii] Peter Hoey, ‘The DataTrek automated library management system in the Library of the Royal Society of Chemistry’, Program 26 (1), 1992, 19-28 [xxix] Jacqueline Gilmartin with Anne Beavan, Dynix: a guide for librarians and systems managers [xxx] Brian Hackett and George Geddes, ‘Towards a new HORIZON’, Vine 108,1998, 7-14 [xxxi] Mandy Neary, ‘DS Galaxy 200 at Birmingham’, Vine 115, 1999,18-23 [xxxiv] Helen Alper, ‘Selecting Heritage/ Bookshelf-PC for the District Library, Queen Mary’s University Hospital, Roehampton’, Program 27(2), 1993, 173-182 [xxxv] J [xxxviii] J. Bradford, ‘The LIBERTAS ILL module’, Vine 95 , 1994, 36-43. [xxxix] David Smith, ‘Laying down the law with OLIB at the Bar Library, Belfast’, Vine 108, 1998, 24-30 [xl] Maurice Wilson, ‘Talis at Nene: an experience in migration in a college library’, Program 28 (3), 1994, 239-251 [xliii] John Scott Cree, ‘UNICORN at the Department of Health’, Catalogue and Index 119, 1996, 6-8. [xliv] Chris M. West, ‘Scrum Five: the Welsh universities’ library system consortium’, SCONUL Newsletter, 16, 1999, 11-15 [xlv] H [xlvi] Frank Edwards, ‘Acquiring an acquisitions module: Croydon Libraries’ solution’, Program 32(2), 1998, 95-105 [xlvii] Juliet Leeves, ‘Automation of ILL management system’, Interlending and Document Supply, 21 (3), 1993, 18-25