Resource Review #6: ILS Marketplace

In 2003, Computers in Libraries ran a quarterly series on library automation markets. The article in the April edition focused on integrated library systems for special libraries (Cibbarelli, 2003). Pamela Cibbarelli reviewed functionality and user ratings of 22 ILS products.

The first bit of the article summarized feedback received from ILS software vendors who market their product to special libraries (Cibbarelli, 2003). The survey inquired about various features of the ILS product. Results are presented in a chart organized alphabetically by company. The second part of the article addressed user satisfaction with the products. Cibbarelli had 260 respondents; products with three or more replies from users were included in the results. Features, functionality, and service were ranked on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 as "crying for attention" and 10 as "exceeds expectations." User rating topics, mirroring questions asked of vendors, covered subjects including acquisitions, authority control, circulation, customer support, inventory, OPAC with/without Web interface, reliability, report creations, and serials.

Overall satisfaction of the 22 products ranged from 6.7, "above average/good," to 8.9, "excellent" (Cibbarelli, 2003, p. 37). CyberTools for Libraries, with an overall rating of 8.4, "very good/excellent," tied for 4th place in user satisfaction. ILS products with higher overall user satisfaction include EQS International's Q Series, Innovative Interfaces, Inc.'s Millennium, and Surpass Software's Surpass Safari. Staying true to it's mission, CyberTools ranked especially high on customer support (9.1) and reliability (8.7). It rated lowest for acquisitions, inventory, and report creation, yielding a score of 7.0 for each of these categories.

I wonder how much CyberTools takes heed of these external surveys. As tied to customer service as the company seems to be, I would believe this type of report would be of utmost relevance to them. It would be interesting to do a follow-up survey to learn how the features and services of CyberTools for Libraries and CyberTools, Inc. compares now to where the company was in 2003. Additionally, it would be fun to juxtapose the development of other products and vendors to the way in which CyberTools has evolved.

While Cibbarelli is still writing "the Helping You Buy series" for ILS software, I did not find a more current user satisfaction survey than that which was published in 2003. I enjoyed this article because Cibbarelli dedicated much of her focus to user feedback. In reviewing more current ILS product review reports, none included user surveys. I found trying to decipher the product-features matrix, which became the extent of these later articles, to be rather bland. It would help, I know, if I were looking to purchase an ILS for my library. In this case, I would have a better idea of features I would desire of an ILS. Still, even if I were in the market, I would like to know what current users thought of the product they use. I think Cibbarelli dropped an important part of her survey by no longer including user feedback. Perhaps the semi-subjective user perspective was discarded in favor of the more objective has it/doesn't have it comparison of features. This is a shame, as I find value in noting users opinions.

Further information can be found in the following sources. The most current "Helping You Buy ILSs" is in the October 2008 issue of Computers in Libraries (Cibbarelli, 2008). This article lists the up-to-date features in 33 ILS products. In the July/August 2009 issue of Computers in Libraries, "ILS Year in Review" tracks the newest innovations 24 ILS vendors have made to their software. For example, CyberTools, Inc. released an electronic resource management module. This company continues to strive for affordability; at no extra cost, the base product suite allows librarians to add "an unlimited number of links to e-resources, websites, in-house documents, and more to their collections" (Greenwood, 2009).

______________________

Cibbarelli, P. (2003). ILS marketplace: CIL's quarterly series on library automation markets, April 2003: Special libraries. Computers in Libraries, 23(4), 33-40. [link to abstract]

Cibbarelli, P. (2008). Helping you buy ILSs. Computers in Libraries, 28(9), 6-9, 45-53. [link to abstract]

Greenwood, B. (2009). ILS year in review. Computers in Libraries, 29(7), 50-51. [link to abstract]

Resource Review #5: How to Select an ILS

To choose an integrated library system for one's library is a bit like walking into a well-stocked supermarket and attempting to pick the tastiest peanut butter out of the dozen or so varieties available. All appear, at first glance, relevant to your tastes and needs. Which is the best for you? Fortunately with ILSs, there are a few ways to sample the products. ILS marketplace review articles, vendors on hand at annual library association conference exhibit halls, word-of-mouth suggestions from fellow librarians - all are means to scout out the best fit of an ILS for one's own library. Reviewed here, the May/June 2003 issue of Library Technology Reports provides an in-depth look at how smaller libraries can analyze the market of ILSs (Salter, 2003).

In the preliminary pages of this report, Salter defines small in the context of the "smaller libraries" on which this issue focuses (2003). For small libraries funding is especially tight, even given the limited budgets many libraries manage. Special libraries, according to Salter, are looking at a one-time purchase that will stay within the library for a number of years. This contrasts the purchasing schema of a larger research library, which may upgrade to a newer system after just a few years. From a pool of a significant number of ILS products, specialized libraries must use their money wisely to purchase a system.

The FPL Library has been using CyberTools for five years. As far as I am aware, there is no plan to migrate to a different vendor. I would not be able to comment on this library's budget, but I see first-hand how small libraries are strapped for time. Despite the shortcomings of CyberTools, the FPL Library does not have energy to waste in looking for a new ILS vendor. Especially if CyberTools is low-cost and service technicians are approachable, it makes sense for the FPL Library to stay with this vendor.

This report defines an ILS and cites what features an ILS should have (Salter, 2003). While there are a variety of ways an ILS has been defined previously, this report lists both basic and more advanced attributes an ILS should include. An ILS needs to be functional and flexible.

CyberTools defines itself as being both functional and flexible. It also meets Salter's basic requirements for an ILS. It lags on some of the more advanced features. This is where the 1990s-looking interface is a strike against CyberTools. Perhaps the biggest drawback to this ILS is that the search engine is not easily manipulated. Indeed, it can be challenging to search this database!

The best ILS for one's own small library depends on a few considerations (Salter, 2003). The main characteristics include the industry of your library, the size and type of your collections, the size of your staff, the amount of work you do, and your budget. From here, there are a few more specific points to ponder regarding the vendors who sell products that would suit your needs. Think about the products these vendors have recently developed, their customer service response, recent profit and gross sales of the vendor, among other factors (see the report for a full analysis). The report goes on to provide a timeline for how to select an ILS. Salter also gives recommendations for how to maintain your ILS investment. The last half of the report lists specific institutional profiles.

The head librarian at FPL Library learned of CyberTools through an article in Library Journal. I am not sure of the details of the FPL Library's purchasing decisions, but I am sure cost was an important factor. A government library, fiscal responsibility is always a priority. The FPL Library remained the largest collection for the company until about two years ago. Our head librarian informed me that she believes she asks the most questions of CyberTools. With her background in cataloging, she tends to try to push the system to keep doing more. While the developments CyberTools currently has underway are more health-sciences oriented (a federated searching component, incorporating health science databases, as well as an open-access collection of qualified health science resources), they seem to remain receptive to this government librarian's constructive comments, too.

_____________________________

Salter, A. (2003). Integrated library system software for smaller libraries. Library Technology Reports, 39(3), 1-58. [link to abstract of Overview and How to Evaluate and Purchase an ILS]

Resource Review #4: Website of CyberTools, Inc.

CyberTools for Libraries has a company website, accessible at http://cybertoolsforlibraries.com/. Among other data, the site provides insight as to how CyberTools can be used by a library, the types of support services they offer, and a succinct timeline of the company's history. Without having a specific question in mind, my visit to the CyberTools website left me with a feeling that the site, which was easy to navigate, was well organized and contained useful information for the potential purchaser.

The Solutions menu lists how CyberTools may be applied by industry, in a certain functional area, and by access method. A potential client can browse within each of these three areas. For example, Solutions by Industry provides a list of features especially relevant to librarians categorized by trade: academia, consortia, corporate, government, healthcare, law, other special libraries. This list of especially relevant features categorized by industry has been compiled based on reviews from "our librarians” ("Solutions by Industry," 2009). Now, whether these librarians to whom are being referred represent CyberTools' clients or their staff librarians, I am unclear. Regardless, this section of their website does appear useful. Looking at the government subsection, I see that CyberTools complies with government data security standards, provides secure hosting, and offers US government purchasing rates. Solutions by Functional Area (including Cataloging & Authorities, OPAC, Serials, etc.) details how the various features of CyberTools work. Solutions by Access Method help the potential client decide how they would access CyberTools, using an in house server or opting for software as a service (CyberTools hosts their own services for the client).

From my limited exposure to CyberTools, it appears they have a strong customer support team. Their website lists the services the company offers when first using CyberTools for Libraries (custom training, quick tours, setup support, etc.), as well as the ongoing services they provide (free monthly open forum q&a webinars, live and virtual user group meetings, MyCyberTools login to resource support suite, etc.). CyberTools, Inc. is headquartered in Harvard, Massachusetts, but email and telephone support is offered between the hours of 9 am and 6 pm Eastern on weekdays. The company schedules product webinars to highlight their product's features. The next such meeting is just over 2 weeks from now, on Thursday, November 12 at 2 pm Eastern. This live preview of their product is something I would find valuable in looking for an ILS for my library. It's helpful to to see first-hand how a product works, and the webinar allows librarians located anywhere to join the conversation. Representatives from the company attend library conferences including those for ALA, SLA, ACRL, and MLA (Medical Library Association), but if a librarian finds themselves unable to attend a conference, it is good to have the product preview webinar as another option to learn about CyberTools for Libraries.

The timeline provides brief facts about the company over its 11 year history. Highlights include some of the following. In 2004, Computers in Libraries' Annual Buyers Guide lists CyberTools for Libraries as one of the top providers among the 26 integrated library systems surveyed (Cibbarelli, 2004). Last year, 2008, marked CyberTools for Libraries use in over 300 libraries. It is unclear whether this is a national or international statistic. CyberTools did not increase its pricing in 2009, which is important to note as many libraries are sure to be feeling especially financially strapped this year.

As a self-proclaimed novice of ILS products, I would suggest one beneficial addition to the CyberTools for Libraries website. There is no Frequently Asked Questions page. If added to their website, this page could address such questions as: How does CyberTools for Libraries help to streamline shared functions? Does CyberTools for Libraries perform keyword searches? How does CyberTools for Libraries ensure security to the client's records? These questions were adapted from a list of questions suggested to librarians in quest to purchase an ILS product in the May - June 2003 issue of Library Technology Reports (Salter, 2003). Apart from this recommendation, the CyberTools for Libraries website is a useful tool in learning about their company, and includes a number of valuable details about its products and services offered.

___________________________

(2009). Solutions by industry. Retrieved from http://cybertoolsforlibraries.com/solutions_ind.php.

Cibbarelli, P. (2004). July/August: ILS software update. Computers in Libraries, 24(7), 6-12. [link to abstract of article]

Salter, A. (2003). How to evaluate and purchase an ILS. Library Technology Reports, 39(3), 11-27. [link to abstract of article]

Resource Review #3: CyberTools - The Librarian's Perspective

As a student employee of UW-Madison, the integrated library system (ILS) I first learned was Voyager. Within Voyager, I became versed in the circulation and cataloging modules. As I had nothing on which to base my experience of an ILS, I thought Voyager was a fine program with a few frustrations that could be tolerated with an occasional groan.

Cataloging is the sole module in which I have worked with the CyberTools software, and I have had little experience even within this module, so my review is written as a very novice user of CyberTools. I have not included screen shots of the librarian's end of CyberTools for Libraries as I have provided for the user's end because I am unsure of copyright restrictions on the product. The user-end is available in the public realm; contrarily, the librarian-end is not. My apologies to the visual learners who find themselves reading this post.

When I first saw the back end of CyberTools, it felt as though I had fallen back in time to the 1990s. At first glance, the interface for the display of records appeared very basic, perhaps unsophisticated, and the method of accessing records seemed clunky. It felt to me a cumbrous process to first locate the record of an item and then modify that record. Working within the cataloging module, records are listed on just one line. That line includes the call number, title, and, if there is room yet on the line, year of publication and beginning of the author's name. Often it is difficult to ascertain which is the record of current interest. To bypass this guessing game, I was taught to start in the "Search Catalog" section of the software, a unit separate from the cataloging module. Here records are displayed as they are in the user interface. A more detailed record view allows the cataloger to locate the record of choice with greater ease. From here, a unique record number identifier can be found. This number can be used in the cataloging module to quickly pull up the record of the item in question.

To then alter an item's record, after the record has been pulled up, takes a bit more hopping around. A bibliographical record can be edited on a one-line basis. Click on the radio button next to the MARC 245 field, and the editing menu for the record's title opens. Hit "Ok," the editing screen closes, and the full bibliographical record screen reappears. Repeat this process to access another line of the record. If this record has multiple items associated with it and one item needs editing, the item number must be found (e.g. by inquiring through the "Search Catalog" section), queried through the cataloging module's search interface, and then accessed. Manipulating between modules is a click-by-click movement from main screen to module screen to search screen to record screen back to search screen, module screen, main screen, followed by entry into subsequent module screen, search screen, etc. It is reminiscent of a game of cat and mouse.

I must repeat my nascent relationship with the librarian interface of the CyberTools. It could be that I have not yet fully learned the true power of this software. There may be properties I could adjust to create screen views that would most benefit my use of the product. Another possibility is that the CyberTools development team gets caught in its own web on its strive for simplicity. Does the team want a simple, i.e. uncluttered, interface; do they want a simple, i.e. easy, search? I am unclear as to the implied meaning of "simple" applied in this context. Additional practice within CyberTools for Libraries will allow me to draw stronger conclusions on this matter.

Resource Review #2: CyberTools - The User's Interface

CyberTools is mainly used in the medical library realm, but the company also services law firms and some governmental libraries, including the Forest Products Laboratory (FPL) Library here in Madison. The FPL Library's catalog is available via the internet to the public at http://maple.cybertoolsforlibraries.com/cgi-bin/CyberHTML?USDAFSHO. Figure 1 illustrates an image of the main search page.

Figure 1. CyberTools main search page.

As is evident, the catalog has a plain interface. This simplicity is an aspect Mark Roux, President of CyberTools, believes to be beneficial to his software (see my review of the Roux interview below, in my October 14 entry). Roux states that, at CyberTools, "we are all about the single search portal paradigm. It must be simple, but it also must deliver relevant, quality data" (Connor, 2009, p. 241).

I wonder if, in striving for simplicity, some quality may actually be lost. CyberTools offers a one-box search method, mimicking the popular Google model. It is true that many search engines have migrated to using this design, appealing in its straightforwardness. With many search engines, users are given the option of clicking to a new screen for an advanced or guided search. The advanced search may incorporate authors, titles, dates, journal names, and a whole plethora of other specific options from which to choose to hone a query.

With CyberTools, the only method to search the database is the one-box method. Users can pick from one of seven "Search by" terms (keywords, authors, titles, journal titles, subject headings, enhanced subject headings, or numbers - i.e. call numbers). Also available as a search refinement tool is "Material Type." In this drop-down menu, choices include: text, journal, microform, music, map, computer, composite, A/V, audio, slide, videocassette, 2D/3D, equipment, and atlas (see Figure 2). A multi-faceted query, that is a search that allows a user to list, in multiple search boxes, more than one aspect of an item (e.g. author and title or subject heading and author) is not possible with the one-box search method. It is possible, however, to search for multiple facets using the "Keywords" option in the "Search by" drop-down menu.

Figure 2. Options available in the "Material Type" drop-down menu on the main page of the FPL Library CyberTools catalog.

There are two additional features on the CyberTools main search page I would like to highlight. The first is the "Properties..." button (found in Figure 1 below the "Search Now" button). Clicking on this navigates to a screen with a list of search and display options the user can tweak to assist in a search (see Figures 3a and 3b). With some exceptions, it is difficult to understand, on first glance, how most of these options would affect a search without individually testing each of them. I would assume that the average user would not notice or understand this aspect of the CyberTools search engine.

Figure 3a. First half of options available through main search page "Properties..." button.

Figure 3b. Latter half of options available through main search page "Properties..." button.

The power search feature is located at the bottom of the main search page. It can be seen in Figure 1 as the area of the main page starting with "Saved Results: 0." The power search allows the capability of saving search results, by clicking on the check box to the left of a queried record. The user may review, preview, or email saved results. It is also possible to sort results by location, author, or title and to format results to view as: search results (brief card catalog record), bibliography (citation), or detail (detailed card catalog record). See Figures 4a and 4b as examples.

Figure 4a. "Review" mode of the power search.

Figure 4b. "Preview" mode of the power search. This is the "Search Results" format view, as opposed to the "Detail" or "Bibliography" view. I am unsure why the Jill Thompson record appears twice.

Perhaps it is my predilection for multiple search query lines that makes me at first averse to the appearance and layout of the CyberTools search engine. It could be, with time and practice, that I will come to appreciate the simplicity of this format. As it stands, with every library search engine I use, I always look for the advanced search button. As CyberTools lacks this feature, it will take me some time to hone my searching skills using their interface. A simple product may not be lacking in quality, it may just take practice to utilize this tool to its utmost.

___________

Connor, E. (2009). Interview with Mark Roux, president of CyberTools for Libraries. Journal of Electronic Resources in Medical Libraries, 6(3), 236-241. DOI:10.1080/15424060903173128

Resource Review #1: An Interview with Mark Roux, President of CyberTools

In an interview appearing earlier this year in the Journal of Electronic Resources in Medical Libraries, Mark Roux, the president of CyberTools for Libraries, discusses his product (Connor, 2009). Prior to his affiliation with CyberTools, Roux worked with the medical field providing research support and database troubleshooting assistance. In 1998, CyberTools was created from an acquired product that had been used by the Georgetown University Library Information System.

Roux reports that he is versed in all aspects of CyberTools' products and services (Connor, 2009). As such, he is able to work at both the systems and item-specific level. He prides himself on his near-daily contact with his clients. Certainly, it helps that the president of this company once worked, himself, as a technician in the field.

CyberTools is a “feature-rich” product, according to Roux (Connor, 2009). The CyberTools library aggregates data from multiple sources and presents it all through one search medium. CyberTools provides Software as a Service (SaaS). Roux's company believes that the library is the most important asset to an institution (if only more vendors felt this way...) and his employees strive to provide efficient, effective information technology assistance. Roux boasts that his company has had 100% hosting uptime for the past two and a half years, and was 99.999% effective in the three years prior to that. (“Hosting uptime” is the time a server is available, via the Internet, for use.)

It is worthy to note Roux's contribution to the medical field as an information professional. Not all company presidents have had this kind of experience in their respective fields of employment. Roux possesses a unique knowledge that he is able to contribute to his company. This, no doubt, can help to explain why his company is so supportive of libraries. It is evident that CyberTools, Inc. has put much effort into providing dependable customer assistance.

The company has made strides to keep current with the evolving technological trends (Connor, 2009). While users cannot directly add a new tag to a record, they can suggest a term. This term is submitted for review by the library staff. If approved, the term becomes a “see” reference in the catalog. In addition, CyberTools is poised to release an open-access collection of qualified health science resources, similar to, but distinct from PubMed Central (PMC), NCBI, and BioMed Central. By the end of 2009, Roux projects a federated searching feature to be included with his product, incorporating PMC, NCBI, and a handful of commercial sites. Roux envisions the future for CyberTools to be a product that is easy to use which also returns accurate, valuable data when searched.

One of the major weaknesses in library OPACs (Online Public Access Computers) is the poor user interface. If libraries wish to compete with their corporate counterparts, they will need to make their catalogs more accessible. This is one of many areas in which CyberTools could work to improve their ILS. As I will later mention in my review of CyberTools' user interface, the search capacity of this product is weak. There is no advanced search. As a librarian, I sometimes struggle to pull up even a known item within the FPL Library's catalog. CyberTools may be releasing new features, but they will impact only their medical/health science user base. This company should make improving catalog search capabilities a priority.

__________________

Connor, E. (2009). Interview with Mark Roux, president of CyberTools for Libraries. Journal of Electronic Resources in Medical Libraries, 6(3), 236-241. DOI:10.1080/15424060903173128

Delicious research

Over the past few weeks, I have been working on learning more about CyberTools. I set up a Del.i.cious account to help me bookmark the material I find. For my research, I am scouring the internet and professional literature. I am looking at journal articles, websites, blogs, and any other resource I can find that mentions CyberTools. The quality of the available material covering CyberTools is slim, so I am expanding my research to learn about the various ILSs used in small, special libraries (those for which I am most interested). Is it a competitive market?