Koha and Vubis Smart are library management systems that are fully integrated and include acquisitions, cataloguing, circulation, and serials modules. Although Koha is an open source system, both systems have many commonalities.
Both of these systems can operate on a Windows, Linux, or Unix platform and both are web based. In both Koha and Vubis Smart appearance and functionality is completely configurable and both have been designed with the end user in mind. This allows libraries to provide an intuitive and streamlined user interface.
The OPACs have the ability to integrate multi-media objects, on-line resources, and web sites. Various enhancements can be included in both, such as cover images, access to table of contents, summaries, annotations, and reviews. These enhancements are beneficial as they allow users to learn more about an item direct from the OPAC.
Both systems have an advanced search option however initially the Vubis Smart system appeared to be more sophisticated in this area, with the ability to use left and right truncation, wildcards, proximity searching, and fuzzy logic. On testing various library OPACs that use Koha, it became evident that these features can be incorporated into the advanced search, as Crawford County Library has done with fuzzy logic and proximity searching (http://catalog.ccfls.org/cgi-bin/koha/opac-main.pl).
The cataloguing modules allow libraries to tailor data to their specific needs. The modules are standards based and provide the ability to import and export data.
Vubis Smart has the capacity to provide extensive facilities in managing acquisitions. This includes flexibility in ordering, funds maintenance, invoices and reporting. The serial module caters for receiving, claiming, routing and links to ejournals. Details of the acquisition, serials, and reporting features for Koha were not comprehensively listed however the documentation does state that it has the ability to manage these modules with a variety of comprehensive options.
The circulation modules of both systems are based on standards-compliant WWW technologies. Users can access and manage their own borrower accounts in both systems and both are self-service compatible. These features offer flexibility and efficiency to both users and libraries.
From the information supplied and my use of the Koha system it appears that these systems are quite compatible in their functionality even though one is open source and the other only available via a license.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Sunday, September 9, 2007
Act Public Library Online Information Services
‘Reference is dead’ or so Stephen Abram would have us believe (Abram, 2007). Abram has been investigating and reporting on the top ten strategies for library success. Put into context Abram’s findings are that the traditional library services are changing away from face to face interactions to a more flexible service delivery. ACT public library has progressed towards this type of service delivery and the benefits of these developments are positive for both staff and users.
No longer does an information user have to physically come into a library to access information, services and programs, or manage their user accounts. A variety of service options are now available including face-to-face service, telephone access and online access. These options have just increased the demographics of the library, as a user no longer has to be a local. They have increased the size of the collection as information no longer has to be kept onsite or in hardcopy. Online access can also increase the use of services such as requesting resources, participating in online learning, and also aids in removing access barriers for those users with disabilities.
Customer services now takes on new dimensions as communication between the library and users can be done via email thus expediting the communication process and making it far more effective and efficient.
New technologies such as wireless will benefit the library and its users by providing more flexibility in regard to the use of library space. Other technologies, such as data saving devices, will allow users to access, save, and re-use information and resources in more flexible means, both in and outside of the library confines.
The online information services have also altered staff workloads in response to the demand for these services. These services have removed some of the more repetitive manual transactions and staff are now focusing on streamlining access to online resources including catalogues, databases, and websites. They are forming valuable partnerships in the provision of sharing resources and services and energy is now expended on the services that users are participating in and not necessarily on services that the library deemed as necessary.
For the Act Public Library, online services have broadened their communities, refocused their staff and resources, and most importantly, reinvigorated the library so that it is valued within the community as a public space and an online space.
No longer does an information user have to physically come into a library to access information, services and programs, or manage their user accounts. A variety of service options are now available including face-to-face service, telephone access and online access. These options have just increased the demographics of the library, as a user no longer has to be a local. They have increased the size of the collection as information no longer has to be kept onsite or in hardcopy. Online access can also increase the use of services such as requesting resources, participating in online learning, and also aids in removing access barriers for those users with disabilities.
Customer services now takes on new dimensions as communication between the library and users can be done via email thus expediting the communication process and making it far more effective and efficient.
New technologies such as wireless will benefit the library and its users by providing more flexibility in regard to the use of library space. Other technologies, such as data saving devices, will allow users to access, save, and re-use information and resources in more flexible means, both in and outside of the library confines.
The online information services have also altered staff workloads in response to the demand for these services. These services have removed some of the more repetitive manual transactions and staff are now focusing on streamlining access to online resources including catalogues, databases, and websites. They are forming valuable partnerships in the provision of sharing resources and services and energy is now expended on the services that users are participating in and not necessarily on services that the library deemed as necessary.
For the Act Public Library, online services have broadened their communities, refocused their staff and resources, and most importantly, reinvigorated the library so that it is valued within the community as a public space and an online space.
Reference
- Abram, S. (2007, August 30). Top ten strategies for library
- success. Presentation to library professionals, Brisbane, Queensland.
Saturday, August 25, 2007
Intranets and Knowldge Sharing
A ‘community of practice’ is the term used to describe an informal network that participates in knowledge sharing. This network is often formed between peers, colleagues, and within groups who can share resources, tools, and practices and experience.
One of the key elements of a community of practice is to create and take responsibility for populating a knowledge base. There are currently a variety of tools that will support a community of practice, such as content management systems, social networking environments, wikis, and other specialised tools. Communities of practice should not replace face-to-face interactions within organisations but should be used to further enhance these interactions and add to the communication sharing.
An Intranet, which is similar to the Internet only access is confined to within a group or organisation, can support the activities of a community of practice by becoming a dynamic and collaborative environment for knowledge sharing. The Intranet can in fact become the knowledge base. It can be the ‘one stop shop’ for organisations, providing easy access to such tools as best practice work methods, master documentation and templates, organisational information and planning tools, as well as collaborative spaces.
Prior to development of an Intranet, knowledge gaps or needs should first be identified, and knowledge management strategies developed to address these needs. These strategies should include an information management policy that outlines the role of an Intranet within the organization or community of practice.
The structure of an Intranet site is critical to its usage. Intranets need to be developed based on best practice architectural techniques and using suitable technology platforms. Interfaces and structure are critical to its success, and ideally prior to implementation some form of usability testing should be undertaken to ensure effective and efficient use of the tool. The quality of the information contained in the Intranet will help determine its success; information needs to be kept relevant, accurate, and current.
The marketing and promotion of an Intranet within an organization can ensure a community of practice continues to flourish and grow. Effective marketing and promotion can ensure individuals are aware of the existence and purpose of the Intranet and can contribute to and expand on its content. This will further enhance the knowledge and sharing of communication within the community of practice.
One of the key elements of a community of practice is to create and take responsibility for populating a knowledge base. There are currently a variety of tools that will support a community of practice, such as content management systems, social networking environments, wikis, and other specialised tools. Communities of practice should not replace face-to-face interactions within organisations but should be used to further enhance these interactions and add to the communication sharing.
An Intranet, which is similar to the Internet only access is confined to within a group or organisation, can support the activities of a community of practice by becoming a dynamic and collaborative environment for knowledge sharing. The Intranet can in fact become the knowledge base. It can be the ‘one stop shop’ for organisations, providing easy access to such tools as best practice work methods, master documentation and templates, organisational information and planning tools, as well as collaborative spaces.
Prior to development of an Intranet, knowledge gaps or needs should first be identified, and knowledge management strategies developed to address these needs. These strategies should include an information management policy that outlines the role of an Intranet within the organization or community of practice.
The structure of an Intranet site is critical to its usage. Intranets need to be developed based on best practice architectural techniques and using suitable technology platforms. Interfaces and structure are critical to its success, and ideally prior to implementation some form of usability testing should be undertaken to ensure effective and efficient use of the tool. The quality of the information contained in the Intranet will help determine its success; information needs to be kept relevant, accurate, and current.
The marketing and promotion of an Intranet within an organization can ensure a community of practice continues to flourish and grow. Effective marketing and promotion can ensure individuals are aware of the existence and purpose of the Intranet and can contribute to and expand on its content. This will further enhance the knowledge and sharing of communication within the community of practice.
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Library 2.0 theory: Web 2.0 and its implications
Library 2.0 has been described as the new model for library services. Library 2.0 is about communal innovation, interaction, participation, and social networking. It is essentially user-centred and user-driven. Maness (2006) defines Library 2.0 as “the application of interactive, collaborative, and multi-media web-based technologies to web-based library services and collections”
So how does this differ from the more traditional library service? It removes what was sometimes deemed as the inflexibility of libraries and provides more interaction and ownership to users. Library 2.0 allows users to participate in updating and evaluating library services as well as tailoring services to meet their own needs. It provides the ability for users to personalise OPACS, add tags to catalogue records, review resources, instant message librarians or other library users, create and add to blogs and wikis, subscribe to RSS feeds and provides access and sharing of resources in a variety of formats.
Being user centred is one of the key elements of Library 2.0. Users have an active participation in the creation of content and also the design, implementation and evaluation of services offered by libraries. Tools and trends in Web 2.0 have evolved in Library 2.0. and libraries have adopted these practices in line with user demand. As a result Library 2.0 is a much more dynamic and interactive space for users.
Library 2.0 is both communally innovative and socially rich. No longer can libraries afford to live by the philosophy “if we build it they will come’. Library 2.0 focuses on updating and re-evaluated services to best meet the needs of library users and communities. Ideally these users and communities will drive change simply by the use of evolving technologies and their interaction with each other and libraries.
Users will have a real Web presence in Library 2.0. Social networking tools can create an interactive environment for library communities. These tools allow resources, comments, feedback and thoughts to be captured and shared within the library web-presence.
Library 2.0 should never remain stagnate. The philosophy is that it will continue to evolve to meet the changing needs of library users. The roles of librarians and users will become less obvious and with that comes the thought that the wider community may finally see libraries as not keepers of information but as enablers of information.
So how does this differ from the more traditional library service? It removes what was sometimes deemed as the inflexibility of libraries and provides more interaction and ownership to users. Library 2.0 allows users to participate in updating and evaluating library services as well as tailoring services to meet their own needs. It provides the ability for users to personalise OPACS, add tags to catalogue records, review resources, instant message librarians or other library users, create and add to blogs and wikis, subscribe to RSS feeds and provides access and sharing of resources in a variety of formats.
Being user centred is one of the key elements of Library 2.0. Users have an active participation in the creation of content and also the design, implementation and evaluation of services offered by libraries. Tools and trends in Web 2.0 have evolved in Library 2.0. and libraries have adopted these practices in line with user demand. As a result Library 2.0 is a much more dynamic and interactive space for users.
Library 2.0 is both communally innovative and socially rich. No longer can libraries afford to live by the philosophy “if we build it they will come’. Library 2.0 focuses on updating and re-evaluated services to best meet the needs of library users and communities. Ideally these users and communities will drive change simply by the use of evolving technologies and their interaction with each other and libraries.
Users will have a real Web presence in Library 2.0. Social networking tools can create an interactive environment for library communities. These tools allow resources, comments, feedback and thoughts to be captured and shared within the library web-presence.
Library 2.0 should never remain stagnate. The philosophy is that it will continue to evolve to meet the changing needs of library users. The roles of librarians and users will become less obvious and with that comes the thought that the wider community may finally see libraries as not keepers of information but as enablers of information.
Reference
- Maness, J.M. (2006). Library 2.0 theory: Web 2.0 and its
- implications for libraries. Webology, 3(2). Retrieved
August 4, 2007 from http://www.webology.ir/2006
/v3n2/a25.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
