CyberTools for Libraries has a significant market in the medical library realm. Michelle Kraft, medical librarian since 1998, has been maintaining a blog entitled The Krafty Librarian (http://kraftylibrarian.com/) since 2004 and has authored a number of posts about CyberTools for Libraries over the years. From decisions in buying an ILS (including CyberTools) to CyberTools news updates, over the years Kraft has reflected on her choice in ILS products.
Starting back in March of 2005, Kraft was looking to purchase an ILS for her self-described "small/medium size medical library" (Kraft, March 23, 2005). In a post dated March 23, 2005, she considered EOS as an alternative to CyberTools. In mid-April, Kraft's library had a web demo of CyberTools. Kraft was impressed by CyberTools' affordability and flexibility. She preferred the look of web-driven EOS to that of windows-driven CyberTools. She pined for an addition of a "mini library web site" within CyberTools, which could include library hours, FAQs, and similar basic information. Kraft also thought a simple patron-initiated circulation module would be useful (Kraft, April 19, 2005).
These seem like simple enough additions to the CyberTools interface a library's collection, so I am surprised that the company hasn't implemented this request. The FPL Library main search page for CyberTools does include, at the bottom of the page, “Links to other resources.” There is one link listed: Home Page. Clicking on the link takes you to the publications page for the U.S. Forest Service, which was unexpected. I assumed the link would be to the FPL Library's home page, which offers basic information about the library's services. I see the benefit in having a patron-initiated circulation system for small-staffed libraries. I am not sure that the FPL Library would desire such a service. The library makes a point of always having a staff member in the library during open hours. Often, users need help in finding the resource they desire, so a librarian would need to be present anyway to assist in patron queries. Nonetheless, many small, special libraries (the type in which CyberTools for Libraries is used) could benefit in offering patrons a self-check out system. This would give solo-librarians, especially, a bit of freedom in knowing that they would not have to be in the library for patrons to have access to checking out books.
In the end, by early July 2005, Kraft blogged about her purchase of CyberTools for Libraries (Kraft, July 8, 2005). In October 2005, Kraft reflected on her preliminary months with CyberTools. Criticisms at this point included clunky operations from the librarian, or back end, application and a too-cluttered patron, or front end, application. My first impressions of CyberTools in 2009, as I have made already in posts to this blog, mirror these two frustrations Ms. Kraft made four years ago. Perhaps someone should enlighten the designers at CyberTools, Inc.? Kraft recommended CyberTools for Libraries for their excellent service, MeSH integration, low price, and ease and flexibility of use within the serials module (Kraft, October 14, 2005).
A few months later, in February of 2006, Kraft reviewed a CyberTools e-newsletter she received. CyberTools ranked second (I assume overall), tied with Innovative Interfaces and behind SirsiDynix, in the ILS marketplace. At this point, CyberTools had plans to renovate their OPAC. The "Krafty Librarian" wanted to see changes made for the library user more so than for the librarian user (Kraft, February 20, 2006). Now in 2009, I think changes could be made to augment both sides of the software. If I were a patron using the library's OPAC, I would be frustrated by the limitations of the search, including low accuracy with some searches and restrictive search display (3 or 4 records are viewable at a time even if search results in 50+ hits). As a librarian-in-training, I find the back end of the software to be a laborious system through which to navigate.
Kraft's most current post on CyberTools is in June of 2009. The main topic is the downsizing of hospital libraries, but she comments that CyberTools continues to be an "inexpensive good catalog system" (Kraft, June 17, 2009). For all its flaws, CyberTools remains a key vendor of an ILS product for small special libraries. I assume that customer service and low cost are large components of this fact. If CyberTools, Inc. could develop their product's usability, it would be solid. Then, perhaps, it wouldn't remain as affordable as it it now! I would be interested in having trial periods with other ILS products that would be affordable for smaller libraries; comparing their features with what CyberTools for Libraries has to offer would help me understand how CyberTools compares with its competitors.
______________________________
Kraft, M. (2005, March 23). Looking at EOS [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://
kraftylibrarian.com/2005_03_01_archive.html.
No comments:
Post a Comment