Disaffection with the traditional integrated library system (ILS) is widespread these days. Terms that are frequently bandied about to describe them are “monolithic” “inflexible” “expensive” and “unfriendly”, just to name a few. Many librarians increasingly question the level of investment that purchasing and maintaining ILSs requires, particularly in the face of users’ dramatically changed expectations for information retrieval thanks to Google, Amazon, eBay, iTunes, and other web services. Then, too, technological changes are occuring so rapidly that libraries are requiring greater investment in technology than ever before while at the same time, struggling to hire and keep knowledgeable staff who are capable of sewing disparate technological systems together into a cohesive and sustainable whole. Furthermore, libraries are increasingly emphasizing virtual or digital collections rather than simply acquiring print material, and the needs for effectively managing this new kind of resource are sometimes quite different than is required for more “traditional” material. And then there is a distinct sea change in the broader world of information technology with increasing focus on open systems frameworks and, more specifically, open source applications.

Where have library systems vendors gone astray? Put another way, how can they continue to play a role as partners with libraries to serve library users? Do library systems vendors even have a future? I am not an apologist for ILS vendors, by any means. I have worked extensively in libraries, I have used a wide variety of library systems, I have worked on open source library applications, and I have worked for an ILS vendor in developing new features or products. Here are some of the things that, in my opinion, have led library systems vendors astray. These are my personal views, not those of anyone else, and especially not of the library systems vendor who employs me.

• Faulty participation in standards development affecting libraries

• By and large, lack of deep pockets and resources to research and quickly implement new products or features

• Too much time spent on unimportant, widgety enhancements to existing software

• Focus on meeting individual libraries’ or customers’ contractual needs instead of the bigger picture of what is happening in the broader information technology arena or how to best serve the broader customer base

• More attention given to librarians’ needs than library users’ needs

• A tendency to focus on the lowest common denominator customer at the cost of alienating customers who want to expand and enhance and push the envelope of the system

A post from today by Alane Wilson of the excellent It’s All Good blog touches on these same themes. Alane summarizes presentations by two leaders in the library systems marketplace. Among their conclusions:

• the traditional ILS is focused on a legacy business process that will continue to exist for a very long time but eventually will gradually become more and more peripheral to library service

• there is great need for synthesizing diverse services, weaving them together into a cohesive whole, which sounds easy in practice but in reality requires a high level of expertise and expense

• the library systems industry needs to look more outside of itself to understand what is happening in the broader information technology arena (also, I would argue, it needs to better understand what’s happening in the scholarly communication arena, too)

• far too much time is spent on building and developing what one library systems vendor CEO calls “twiddly bits” — what I call widgety stuff

Read the whole thing; it’s quite interesting.