The systems are changing. But school libraries aren't.

For many of us, school library automation is a journey, not a destination. That paraphrase of a popular Zen saying aptly summarizes the findings of the 2006 School Library Journal-San Jose State University Automation Survey. We took a close look at the systems that media specialists are using, how they're using them, and what librarians want from their future automation programs. (For information about the survey's methodology, see "The Fine Print" below.) While respondents were satisfied with their automation systems, we discovered that most media specialists are operating dated software programs. And although librarians were content with their current vendors, we learned that many media specialists don't know when they will be able to upgrade their systems to the latest versions. The journey, for many, is a slow one. A large number of libraries are using automation software that was installed five or more years ago, when many schools updated their hardware prior to 2000 (remember Y2K?). Data from the National Center for Educational Statistics reveals that three out of four school libraries had automated by 2002. After those systems were in place, the push for newer systems slowed to a point where today only one in five respondents had purchased the latest versions. At the same time, school technology spending in general has slowed. In the last few years, schools have been forced to spend more money on testing and remediation to meet the requirements of the No Child Left Behind legislation. That means that school technology spending has focused on reporting and tracking student achievement—and not on managing media centers.

The big three (now two)

Our survey was conducted in late spring, prior to Follett's acquisition, in July, of the Sagebrush company's library automation business. So our findings present a snapshot of the state of automation technology at the end of the 2005—2006 school year. At that time, three vendors—Follett Software, Sagebrush, and SirsiDynix—controlled 82 percent of the school library automation marketplace (see pie chart at right). Follett had the largest portion of sales with 46 percent; Sagebrush was second at 23 percent; and SirsiDynix followed at 13 percent. The remaining 18 percent of the school library automation market was divided among 10 other vendors. Most schools reported running automation software that was one version behind the latest programs. The gap between schools with the latest versions and those with older ones is huge. For example, 74 percent of the Follett customers who responded to our survey reported using Circulation Plus and Catalog Plus, compared with 26 percent who said they were using the latest version. Thirty-nine percent of Sagebrush's users indicated they were running the latest version. And just 16 percent of SirsiDynix customers were using the most up-to-date version. Admittedly, comparing versions of products is difficult, and it is equally difficult to make true comparisons among the vendors. Two major factors have an impact on the analysis. First, since 2000 the consolidation of vendors has created situations where some vendors have inherited legacy products—older systems that have been replaced by newer ones, but are still in use in libraries. And the recent versions of new products may be very recent—some just a year—with little time to penetrate the marketplace. Second, the new versions of the "big three" vendors' software are aimed at districtwide implementations. Smaller districts and those with site-focused computing naturally prefer a site-based approach. Philosophical and organizational shifts—like who will take responsibility for different aspects of a centralized system—are required in site-focused schools before upgrading to a districtwide product. Whatever the reasons, the majority of survey respondents are using antiquated products. That means that many school libraries are facing "technorot," as hardware and software vendors slowly cease to support the dated automation systems now in use. School libraries in this situation may soon face a troubling future—one in which they're forced to replace both their automation hardware and software in the same budget year.

The workhorse

School librarians say their dated automation systems are very stable and highly reliable. When asked how often these systems were down for 30 minutes or more, the most frequent response (42 percent) was once a year. Perhaps the most remarkable response came from the 35 percent of schools whose systems never once crashed during the year! Considering the variety of reasons a computer system can fail, this is a strong indication that the systems are mature and very stable. When the system does go down, the majority of libraries (69 percent) first call their district technician. Only seven percent of respondents immediately called their vendor's customer service department. Overall, school libraries practice safe computing, with three out of four respondents backing up their systems daily or letting their districts do it for them remotely. A lesser percentage of libraries back up their systems weekly. Only four percent reported they never back up.

Yes, we get our satisfaction

Three factors indicate that respondents are generally satisfied with their systems: a long-term relationship with their vendor, satisfaction with a specific product, and the likelihood that they will purchase their next system from the same vendor. Nearly two thirds (65 percent) of those who responded to the survey have used the same vendor for five years or more. Another 17 percent have dealt with the same vendor for three to five years. Even larger percentages of libraries indicated overall satisfaction with their systems. Eighty-three percent reported they were satisfied, and, of that group, 32 percent reported they were "highly satisfied." Less than 10 percent reported dissatisfaction with their software package or vendor. With these high levels of satisfaction, it's no surprise that more than half of the librarians (53 percent) said they were "extremely likely" to purchase a system from the same vendor in the future. When you add those who said they were "somewhat likely" to buy from the same vendor, the total is 86 percent. That's good news for vendors—except for one thing. When we asked respondents when they would purchase that new system, the most common response (39 percent) was they didn't know. Another 10 percent indicated it would be two years or more before they bought a new system. When it comes to satisfaction with specific functionality, or the things our systems can do for us, librarians were most satisfied with the circulation module, followed by cataloging, the Online Public Access Catalog (OPAC), and vendor support. As for the latter, anecdotal evidence has long suggested that school librarians have concerns about the quality of technical support provided by their vendors. But in our survey, 76 percent indicated they were satisfied. In fact, vendor satisfaction was only 1.2 percent behind the high level of satisfaction (77 percent) that district computer technicians received. And vendors received slightly more "highly satisfied" responses (34 percent) than local support staff (33 percent). The only time the level of satisfaction fell below 50 percent (to 45 percent) was when rating vendors' local representatives. But that doesn't mean librarians were dissatisfied (only six percent checked that box). Rather, it points to the fact that 22 percent reported that they didn't have a local representative, and another 28 percent had no opinion on the subject.

Getting the job done

For the most part, school libraries' automation systems are important administrative tools. Most libraries use their systems each day to circulate materials. They use bar-code readers, remote devices (11 percent), and self-checkout (five percent). Only a handful of libraries use RFID as an option. The second most common task that automation systems perform is managing the database of MARC records. Eighty percent of respondents indicated their staff used the system to create original MARC records at least monthly. A slightly smaller percentage of that group also edits records, while 85 percent import and export MARC records. When it comes to finding, importing, and cleaning up MARC records, third-party software, Internet resources, and Z39.50 tools aren't popular—50 percent say they never used or heard of them. The most frequent type of printed reports were weekly circulation reports, such as overdue notices (47 percent). They were also the most frequently printed monthly reports (40 percent). The second most commonly printed daily reports were circulation-by-borrower reports (10 percent), another tool for managing circulation and overdue materials. The most popular annual reports were collection-age reports (39 percent), used to identify aging parts of collections and to justify budget requests. But respondents aren't spending a great deal of time printing daily reports. Of the reporting options we inquired about, the largest number of respondents said they created reports annually. A significant number of school libraries also reported that they did not use their reports. This is understandable, since most school libraries lack support staff, which often results in one person flying solo.

Future trends

Predicting the future is never easy, especially when the mix includes technology and commerce. The consolidation of vendors in July, when Follett acquired Sagebrush's library automation business, is a powerful illustration of just that. What do school librarians want in their future systems? The top three items on their wish lists are instructional media management, friendlier user interfaces, and acquisitions. Instructional media management, such as managing DVDs or streaming video, drew strong support—71 percent were interested or very interested in this functionality. Even more revealing was that 11 percent indicated they were currently using these features. Close behind, at 68 percent, was an interest in obtaining a more user-friendly interface. As for acquisitions, 54 percent were interested but 39 percent were not. More than half of the respondents expressed no interest in options such as self-checkout, RFID, serials management, and federated search (the ability to search across multiple databases, including the catalog). However, since federated searching is directly related to an easy-to-use interface, these responses indicate that many respondents were unclear about what federated searching actually does.

The road from here

An anecdote shared by one of the respondents sums up what many school librarians want in an automation system: "We want it easy, fast, and reliable." The greatest problem facing many media specialists is that their current systems are becoming antiquated. That means that many school libraries will soon fall further behind the technology curve. Significantly, our data revealed that many libraries have no idea when their systems will be upgraded. School and library budgets play a significant role in this, of course, and funds are always in short supply. Anecdotally, the respondents blame the software vendors' pricing. But pity those poor vendors—for a moment. With so many schools already automated, and with such a high degree of vendor loyalty, vendors are hard-pressed to generate income from new sales. This means that the costs for research and development must be built into the pricing for software upgrades. The irony is that some of the features that respondents say they want in the future may actually exist now—in the latest software they haven't purchased. The issue of a more user-friendly interface is a good example. Vendors have made significant improvements in interfaces, including developing federated search interfaces that greatly simplify the search process. The challenge ahead for school librarians will be to convince their administrators that they need funds to upgrade their systems—so they can take advantage of these advances.

Beyond management

The most significant advances in school library automation (and perhaps in all of educational technology) were the various hardware and software upgrades leading up to Y2K. Today, most of us still run software that was created as part of that push. The main reason it was developed was to manage the library more efficiently. That's why automation systems often fail to address many of today's most significant issues for school libraries, such as how to measure the media center's impact on student achievement. Future library technology needs to stretch beyond just efficient management. The latest library automation systems are not instructional systems; they're administrative tools that support student instruction and achievement. These systems are very good at managing a collection of educational resources. The high level of user satisfaction with the system's main functions (circulation and cataloging) strongly attest that these programs do the job. While library automation has made life easier for media specialists, the key to their future growth is in understanding the relationship between the school library and student achievement. Many of the survey findings are thought provoking. For instance, although 70 percent of respondents print reports annually or more often, a full 30 percent never print reports at all. Automation systems are excellent reporting devices, yet in a time when the lament from many school librarians is "no one knows what we do," large numbers of respondents are not using the reporting functionality. Library automation systems are also an untapped resource for analyzing data. For years, the systems have accumulated data on how students use the library and its collections and other educational resources. But if we don't use this information, it doesn't do us any good. For starters, a simple circulation report, organized by subject heading, can easily show us whether a set of resources related to a particular federal or state standard is being used. Our library automation systems give us access to the raw data that's essential for making wise decisions about student learning. Vendors that embrace this role could end up shifting our thinking about what library automation means, and, in the process, give school librarians important new tools for expressing their value. If that happens, the journey may take some unexpected and exciting turns.

---

Author Information

Daniel Fuller is an assistant professor at the School of Library and Information Science at San Jose State University.