13. October 2016 · Write a comment · Categories: Uncategorized

surveyThanks to everybody who has completed the survey so far – and especially those who took the time to offer suggestions for improving future surveys.

Somewhat to my surprise there still seems to be a lack of understanding of some aspects of RFID so I thought it might be useful to explain their significance here.

The frequency being used by the chosen supplier still puzzles many of my respondents. The majority report using HF 13.56MHz – the standard most frequently recommended in Europe, Australia and New Zealand and North America and the one that supports the data models in use in the UK, much of Europe and most of North America. A few report using UHF – generally more popular in Asia but quite a few have no idea which they are using.

Why does frequency matter? There are a number of operational reasons – many have been extensively discussed elsewhere on this blog so I won’t repeat them here – but probably the main thing to remember is that UHF tags cannot be read by HF equipment – or vice versa. So your future choice of supplier might be severely limited.

My reason for asking the question is to try and establish the extent to which UHF – gaining popularity in India, China and Japan (despite being the older of the two technologies) – is penetrating those markets currently dominated by HF solutions. Since UHF systems have only very recently become capable of supporting anything other than a single ID their use in conjunction with ILS/LMS/ILMS systems is very limited. Additionally, they cannot communicate with NFC devices – a technology I expect to become more widely used in conjunction with RFID over the coming years.

A respondent from North America expresses regret that they are still unable to use smartphones to issue stock – a possibility that has so far failed to excite the interest of supplier selling expensive self-service kiosks for some reason. The good news is that I know of at least two European universities that have developed this capability themselves and may well release products in the coming year.

Another, from closer to home in the UK, complains about the restrictions of SIP2, preventing them from developing more modern library services. This reply I found particularly heartening for two reasons. First, because it came from a public library – a cause dear to my heart and secondly because it suggests that the work I’ve been doing with RFID and LMS suppliers for the past four years to replace SIP2 with something more useful is worthwhile. The Library Communication Framework – which seeks both to extend interoperability and make the development of new services much easier – is also extensively discussed on this blog – search for LCF.

So far no-one has reported using their self-service devices for anything other than library work although one respondent (from a university) did acknowledge the possibility in their comment:

“Our RFID supplier has added all manner of bells and whistles to the kiosks’ capability but we aren’t interested in that.”

I’m looking forward to hearing from a library that is using kiosks for other purposes – Lambeth perhaps?

(The survey of RFID use in libraries runs until November 15th 2016. You can contribute here.)

imageRFID companies have been quick to respond to the challenge of keeping libraries open in these austere times. All the major UK providers now offer individually designed solutions to enable cash strapped local authorities to extend opening hours by managing access to buildings outside of staffed hours with some of the more desperate authorities now rumoured to be considering using this opportunity to remove staff from some service points altogether.

With library buildings now being converted to 24/7 operation suppliers have seen the potential to repurpose them as service delivery points for a wide range of council services. Kiosks originally designed to issue books and pay fines now offer citizens the opportunity to pay for other council services. Bibliotheca were first in the field with their ‘My Community
product but others, like DTech’s ‘access-it’ clearly have the potential to develop along similar lines.

In this rapidly evolving landscape LMS company Axiell appear to be taking a rather different approach.

The last few months have seen some major changes at Axiell. With Grant Palmer’s tenure ending earlier this year and Sven Totté, Axiell’s Lund based CEO now working with the Nottingham based UK team it is perhaps unsurprising that the company’s direction now reflects a more Scandinavian view of the library market.

With the concept of the Library Service Platform (LSP) steadily gaining traction in the market place (most recently with EBSCO’s potentially game-changing announcement of support for a new Open Source project in the academic sector) it’s interesting to see similar language being used to describe the new product offers from many LMS and RFID providers, Axiell included.

Axiell have been announcing a steady stream of new products and partnerships since mid 2015 that now seem to be part of a strategy of steering the company towards enabling the kind of library service enjoyed by the Danes – as recently described by my friend Jan Holmquist on his blog.

In addition to providing cross platform support for staff (including volunteers) functions through their ‘Spark’ product Axiell have also announced a partnership with Scottish company SOLUS to provide mobile applications for library users – which could potentially include the possibility of using mobile devices to self-issue items at the shelf.

Perhaps the most surprising announcement – and the original impetus for my call with Sean Meagher (Axiell’s UK Marketing Manager) on Tuesday morning – was their decision to return to the policy of combining LMS and RFID solutions in a single offer. This is made possible by a little known quirk (in the UK at least) in the deal that established Bibliotheca’s European operations. The Danish arm of this company, Bibliotheca A/S is jointly owned by Axiell and Bibliotheca and continues to supply their own portfolio of products to the Scandinavian market.

UK customers of Axiell will now have the freedom to choose between Bibliotheca UK’s range of products and services or be supplied and supported by Axiell – using hardware and software supplied from Denmark.

Both companies support both the UK data model for RFID data and BIC’s Library Communication Framework (LCF) and I am assured that there will be no pressure placed on existing Bibliotheca UK clients to switch over.

So what’s the difference between these options? Well I’d like to think that in part at least it represents a choice between a Scandinavian public library model and the more austerity-driven agenda of UK local authorities, but that’s both an over-simplification of the issues and certainly naive. The real choice is probably between Axiell’s more unilaterally integrated approach to service delivery and the freedom to choose the solutions you want – and integrate them yourselves.

Probably the most important consequence of these changes is that Axiell clients now have a choice offered by no other LMS supplier and the ability to decide which solutions most closely match their vision of the future of their library service and not just which kiosks they like best.


I am indebted to both the National Acquisitions Group and Book Industry Communication (BIC) for sponsoring me to write a revised version of the widely used (and much copied!) Guide to Library RFID Procurement published in 2011.

A great deal has changed in the 5 years since the old guide was published. RFID has found its way into many more aspects of all of our lives, libraries included. The emergence of mobile technologies that can read library RFID tags by using an RFID technology called Near Field Communication (NFC) has opened up even more possibilities for using the technology and new applications are now appearing almost daily – some of them written by enthusiasts and students rather than the big commercial companies.

Libraries around the world can now use RFID to help them manage many more processes than simply self-service loans and returns – from building access to stock disposal and everything in-between.

So writing a new guide was something of a challenge! I should warn any plagiarist that they really won’t be able to simply this guide – or even the specification of requirements – in support of a procurement process without doing some work of their own. This guide focuses on helping you define what you want to achieve with the technology – rather than enabling suppliers to tick some boxes on a form before you hand over large sums of money for a solution that doesn’t quite deliver what you expected.

But before anyone criticises me here for being negative about those who use or supply RFID solutions I should say that both constituencies have been equally vocal in urging me to “do something” about the procurement process for some time now. It clearly helps neither party if requirements are ill-defined.

So this guide seeks to steer you toward a better definition of your needs and desires for this still developing technology whilst still ensuring that you ask the right questions – about standards, privacy etc. – of potential suppliers. Who knows what you might be able to achieve with RFID over the coming years? You may surprise yourself!

I am however mindful of the fact that many procurements are still driven by a desire to replace staff so I have tried to emphasise the questions that still need to be asked of potential suppliers to do that, so that even if you have no interest in making stock interactive, automating your accessions processes, saving money on kiosks by encouraging users to use tablets and phones, using the technology to improve user experience, facilitate consortia creation and co-operation or any of the many other things you ought to be doing with RFID you will still find it useful.

You can download a copy of the new guide here.

Pleased as I was to reach my holiday destination (Cartagena in Colombia) yesterday I was almost as excited to receive the news that self-service loans – and more – are at last available for library users in the UK.
SOLUS are, like me, based in Scotland and like me are eager to find ways to exploit the full potential of RFID and the new app does just that. Borrowers in RFID equipped libraries will be able both to issue items at the shelf and clear security in a single operation. Those still using barcodes will be able to use their devices cameras to issue items but will still have to deal with whatever security system (if any) is in use separately.

Returns can also be handled using mobile devices.

Dovetailing with the launch of “self-service” within the Library App, SOLUS has also announced the Q1 launch of “SOLUS Pay”, its mobile payment solution, which will allow users to make payments from within the App.

Initially aimed at library charges there are no payment limits with SOLUS Pay so both library services and their wider parent organisations will be able to pay other service charges through their Library App.


Full press release available here.

Yesterday I was in Birmingham at the offices of Capita Library Services our hosts for a day of coding and discussion. My job, as chair of BIC‘s various Library Communication Framework  (LCF) committees was to kick-off the first LCF “Plugfest” where developers from different library system suppliers spent the day writing and testing applications using the new framework launched last November.


The Plugfest is an important part of the process of developing more interoperable systems as it offers developers the opportunity to verify that the applications they are writing work in practice. It also ensures that the team of Technical Editors charged with the responsibility of maintaining the framework are made aware of new requirements and any problem areas. Plugfests will be an essential and frequent part of the development process as more and more library applications adopt the framework. Yesterday’s event was attended by representatives from 2CQR, Bibliotheca+3M, P.V. Supa, from the world of RFID; Capita, Civica, Innovative and Infor (late apologies were received from Axiell) representing LMS providers as well as third party suppliers Lorensbergs and Insight Media.

Unusually for such a highly competitive market everyone attending had already signed up to share freely the fruits of their labours. This spirit of co-operation appears to be almost unique to the UK as colleagues in Australia and North America frequently express disbelief when I tell them that competitors in the UK library market actually work together to try and find ways to improve both the user’s and staff experience of library automation. “You’d be lucky to get them in the same room here!” is one popular response. Certainly there are plenty of examples of companies meeting to discuss new standards and best practice – America’s National Information Standards Organisation (NISO) has been discussing a successor to the SIP protocol for more than three years now – but it seems to be unusual for competitors to share code, provide hardware and develop best practice together as they do in the UK.

Perhaps that’s why the authors of the other big interoperability event of the day – the publication of the long-awaited ACE funded, SCL initiative on creating a single digital presence for England’s public libraries – ignored invitations to discuss LCF during their lengthy investigation of the UK library systems market.

Now of course I’d be the first to acknowledge that the BiblioCommons report concerns itself with much wider issues than the existing systems infrastructure but a significant part of its recommendations appears to suggest that the only way forward is for them to write new code to create a new BiblioCommons software layer on top of the various existing LMS systems, pending migrating everyone to a new, purpose-built BiblioCommons LMS at some future date. One might argue that the same result might be achieved more cheaply by awarding a contract to a single supplier now and cutting out the highly risky intermediate stage recommended by BiblioCommons. But then that is what they do for a living.

Nonetheless ignoring the significant work already being done in this area seems at best something of an oversight?

I’ll be writing a full review of the BiblioCommons report on my other blog in the near future as its findings and recommendations go way beyond the relatively simple aim of establishing a common framework for interoperability but the irony of the juxtaposition of these two events was irresistible!

Meanwhile, back in the real world, this first Plugfest was a great success and the LCF Project is now well and truly under way. New functionality – that is both interoperable between disparate systems and which can readily be migrated without impact between suppliers – is no longer a system integrator’s dream but a developer’s work in progress.




25. November 2015 · Write a comment · Categories: Uncategorized

A lot of people have been asking me what I think about the recent merger between Bibliotheca and 3M.

It’s an impossible question to answer easily and is usually prompted by a variety of concerns. How will customer service be affected? Will products (like the two e-book offers) be merged as well? How will the RFID market now develop? What’s happening to the staff? (Just a selection of the emails in my inbox recently.)

Obviously the answers to all of these questions will be answered in the fullness of time, and by those actually making the decisions not by some opinionated individual with an axe to grind. But there are some ‘big picture’ changes that I think are likely to be happening as a consequence and today I’d like to focus on just one of them – the future of SIP (the Standard Interchange Protocol).

There can be very few librarians – certainly very few in the UK or North America – who haven’t heard of SIP. It’s part of the development history of library systems – as z39.50 was for discovery systems – and like z39.50 has played a significant role in developing interoperability between some very differently designed library systems.

But it has also been holding back the development of RFID solutions from the very beginning.To understand why we need to remind ourselves why SIP was developed in the first place.

SIP was the result of 3M’s efforts to standardise communication between their early (non RFID) self-service machines and the library management systems to which they connect. As such it was concerned only with establishing the status of items being presented for loan. When 3M introduced RFID they did so to combine circulation and security in a single operation using data instead of magnetism to manage security. They did not however attempt to change the functionality it could deliver.

And that’s pretty much how things have stayed for 25 years or so. SIP drives the circulation transaction, RFID handles the security.

RFID is actually a pretty expensive way to manage such a simple process but it works, looks modern and librarians have been in love with it for years. Until now.

Suddenly new pressures acting on the library market are changing the way we to think about RFID.

The first of these is of course financial. Buying in self-service is still a very popular response from local authorities seeking to cut their costs. Often this goes hand-in-hand with staff cuts – the machines do the work of lending and returning stock and volunteers can do the re-shelving. The big appeal of this approach is the transfer of recurring costs (the staff) to capital expenditure (the machines). There’s always money around for ‘invest to save’ projects, far less for providing professional staff to provide a “comprehensive” service (however the government of the day chooses to interpret that). Looking ahead it’s difficult to see past the likelihood of more councils short-sightedly spending more money on self-service machines to keep fewer and fewer libraries open.

Librarians are becoming disenchanted with self-service – it costs them their jobs.

But councils are likely to consider more RFID (or rather self-service) as the best way of supporting the government’s agenda by cutting costs. Just maybe they might pause to consider whether spending all that money on book lending machines is really delivering an adequate return on their RFID investment? Of course to do that they would need the expert advice of their librarians to tell them how the technology could deliver a more efficient and effective service at lower cost. If there are any left to ask…

Pressure also comes, perhaps surprisingly, from the suppliers.

Since 2011 and the domestic market’s wholesale adoption of the UK data model RFID suppliers have begun to realise the wider potential of the technology for delivering new products and services. Having a single data model has enabled their developers to plan to deliver new functionality against a single, known tag standard. (It has also enabled some librarians to change suppliers without having to re-tag or re-program all their existing stock).

And with so much investment in self-service over the past ten years suppliers are beginning to run out of opportunities to sell new systems. They need to find new ways to use RFID to deliver new services and solutions.

For librarians another problem is that suppliers are rapidly running out of librarians to whom they can sell them – so they are talking to directly to councils. That has tended to shift the emphasis for service development away from improving the library service toward expanding the range of council services that can be delivered in the library building.

Librarians tend to regard RFID with suspicion because it doesn’t deliver a better library service.

And that’s at least in part because of SIP. (Remember SIP? This is a blog about SIP)*

Because SIP was originally designed to help 3M sell more self-service circulation machines it has proved very resistant to being adapted to deliver much else. When 3M donated the protocol to NISO two years ago they originally hoped that the NISO ‘imprimatur’ on their newly developed version 3.0 would rekindle a flagging US market. Sadly for them this strategy appears to have failed thus far. SIP 3.0 is still nowhere to be seen (although rumours of its death may be exaggerated).

In the meantime Bibliotheca have effectively taken over 3M’s library business – and in the process become the largest RFID supplier in the USA.

Now like 3M, Bibliotheca systems still have to rely on SIP to manage much of the communication between them and the LMS systems that still handle the decision-making process. But unlike 3M, Bibliotheca have been one of the most enthusiastic supporters for removing the limitations of SIP since they first arrived on the library market scene. One of the ways they plan to do this is by using BIC’s Library Communication Framework to develop new functionality for their RFID installations.I’m sure they have others.

The future of SIP looks very insecure right now. Even if NISO do eventually publish a new version of the protocol it is unlikely to move forward the functionality of library systems (or RFID) by a single byte. With 3M in the process of leaving the library stage SIP’s greatest advocate has gone. Fortunately what remains is an opportunity (using LCF) rather than a void. Will Bibliotheca use its undoubtedly strong global influence to change the way we use RFID through LCF? I really hope so – for their sake as well as the market’s.

To really gain true value from RFID we need several things:

A common data framework that is open to all (LCF);

A major supplier dedicated to using that framework (we have several – including Bibliotheca);

An informed library workforce that understands how the technology works so that they, and not the suppliers, drive the demand for development (not sure about that)


Buyers that have the wit and wisdom to make informed decisions (well 2.5 out of 3 isn’t bad).

So what do I think about Bibliotheca’s take-over of 3M? Well it gives me more hope for the future development of our library services than the alternatives.



*acknowledgement to Arlo Guthrie for adapting the line from Alice’s Restaurant.







22nd October saw another important milestone being reached for the Library Communication Framework (LCF) with its official launch taking place at the somewhat unlikely venue of the “Poetry Café” in the heart of London’s Covent Garden.  IMG_5588

The somewhat cosy atmosphere did however encourage conversation – one of the aims of Book Industry Communication (BIC) “Breakfasts” – and everyone I spoke to appeared to have enjoyed the experience.

The three main presenters – Catherine Cooke from Tri-Borough Libraries and Archives, Anthony Whitford of Capita and myself – explained the genesis of the project, its purpose, governance and future development as well as offering advice on what steps librarians and suppliers should take if they want to participate. All the presentation slides are available here.

The heavily over-subscribed event was attended by many of the leading suppliers in the library sector – 2CQR, Axiell Ltd, Bibliotheca, Capita, Civica, D-Tech International Ltd, Ex Libris UK, Infor, Innovative Interfaces, Insight Media Internet Limited, Lorensbergs Ltd, Nielsen Book, ProQuest Bowker, PTFS Europe, SOLUS UK Ltd.; representatives from key library organisations – CILIP, Libraries Taskforce,  DCMS, The British Library, and even librarians – from Buckinghamshire Library Service, Enfield Library and Museum Service, GLL, Tri-Borough Libraries and Archives.

Many of the suppliers present – and some who were unable to attend – had already pledged their support for the framework by signing up for membership of the recently established LCF Consortium (full list here). Consortium members agree to work together to promote the adoption of the framework for the development of better interoperability between library management (LMS) and third party systems. To the casual reader this might sound like a public relations exercise but it’s much more than that. Contributors work together in an entirely open environment, its deliberations and decisions open to public examination and comment. Three Technical Editors – one from JISC, one from the supplier market and a third from the standards arena – are responsible for growing and maintaining the framework on a day to day basis while their decisions are reviewed monthly by a Technical Committee which I chair on behalf of BIC.

Governance rests with BIC who undertake to manage the development of the framework on behalf of the library community. The LCF “Charter” (to be issued before the end of the year) will, among other requirements, bind members to agree to share their contributions to the framework with other users.

The consortium is separately funded from other BIC activities by its supplier members and BIC membership is not be a pre-requisite for membership.

There is a lot more information about LCF available on the web and elsewhere on this blog. Follow @BIC_LCF to keep up to date on developments.

Bibliotheca logoConsolidation continues in the library automation sector as Bibliotheca this afternoon announced their acquisition of 3M’s global library business.

Rumours of a sale had been circulating for some months with China’s Invengo  – specialists in RFID – widely tipped to win the race to seal the deal.

The new company becomes easily the largest supplier of library self-service and security products in the western hemisphere and by combining the already established 3M’s Cloud Library with Bibliotheca’s recently announced Opus product, the enlarged company is likely to provide stiff competition in the e-lending sector for current market leader Overdrive – which announced its latest software product to the UK market only this morning.

Two separate deals – one for North America and another for the rest of the world – have been signed with Bibliotheca acquiring both staff and assets at 3M’s headquarters in Minneapolis.

One consequence that will be of especial interest my colleagues at Book Industry Communication (BIC) will be the potential international boost that this gives to their recently launched Library Communication Framework (LCF). Bibliotheca has always been one of the keenest supporters of LCF from the project’s inception and I am assured that this is set to continue.

More details to follow.

Today sees the official launch of the Library Communication Framework (LCF). Originally conceived as a replacement for 3M’s Standard Interchange Protocol (SIP) the framework has been several years in the making and has, through the active involvement of both suppliers and librarians working together, grown from a simple updating of protocols for running RFID self-service into a significant contribution to interoperability across a range of products and services.BIC

Exactly why LCF was developed has been the subject of many papers and reports over the period. The more enthusiastic reader will find a succinct (if somewhat dated) explanation in the BIC archive.

Having myself first proposed that a replacement for SIP was long overdue back in 2010 it was in fact my colleague Frances Cave who first suggested that a “framework” would offer a more flexible approach for the industry in general. The history of these early discussions and meetings up to the original launch of what was then called “BLCF” (the “B” standing for BIC) can be found here.

Renamed “LCF” (in response to a request from American colleagues, who thought the “B” might be thought by some to stand for “British”) the LCF working party – which it has been my privilege to chair – has expanded both in membership and scope since 2012 and over the last 18 months has seen the establishment of a regulatory mechanism to ensure that the framework remains current and avoids the problems – inherent in SIP – of allowing developers to add new values and functions almost at will. BIC – an independent organisation – will maintain and develop the framework for the benefit of all.

Most heartening – for me – are the number of both RFID and LMS suppliers that have already signed up to the LCF “Charter” – a statement of intent to comply with, promote and of course use the framework to develop better interoperability between systems. The astute librarian will want to scan the list of LCF supporters carefully and perhaps question why some suppliers haven’t wanted to support the aims of this entirely open framework.

Developing better interoperability and ultimately more closely integrated systems has been the dream of librarians for many years. There have been many attempts to solve the myriad problems of multiple formats, different architectures and a lamentable lack of industry standards. Most have sunk without trace. Libraries have responded to these disappointments in a variety of ways – single LMS procurements, moves to Open Source solutions and potentially even API heavy middleware adding significant cost without commensurately improving interoperability. The industry badly needs to put its house in order. The framework provides a starting point for realising that dream.

The framework is officially launched today and the press release can be downloaded here. A BIC Breakfast meeting in London on the 22nd October will provide an early opportunity for librarians and others to find out more about the framework, ask questions about its use and most importantly discover how making it a mandatory requirement in future system procurements will ensure the best return on investment for cash-strapped libraries. I and two of my fellow LCF working party – Catherine Cooke (Triborough Libraries) and Anthony Whitford (Capita) will be speaking – details here.

Note: Please don’t confuse the library communication framework with purchasing frameworks (such as that brokered by organisations like ESPO).

This is a data framework developed by members of the library profession working with their suppliers to improve interoperability. Purchasing frameworks essentially facilitate hardware purchase at discounted rates.

24. August 2015 · Write a comment · Categories: Uncategorized

A new header to celebrate new beginnings!

The wonderful city of Edinburgh. I can’t imagine why it has taken me so long to come and live in the capital city of this magnificent country.

This has been a year of considerable change for both me and for the profession with which I have been so closely linked (despite never having been a member!) for most of my life.

For me the changes have been mostly positive. Certainly moving to Edinburgh feels like being granted a new lease of life. People still value their public library service here. A recent news report shows that, even with austerity, libraries in the capital are welcoming increasing numbers of visitors through their doors. I sense a greater feeling of optimism here than seems to exist south of the border – it seems to me that for the thirty years I’ve been working with Scottish libraries this has almost always has been the case.

But there’s no room for complacency here. Librarians here face the same challenges as their English counterparts. But the SNP is actively fighting to save libraries in Scotland and, like Plaid Cymru with its vision for the future of the service in Wales, has an altogether more positive and less fragmented view of their future than anything being brokered by English political parties.

So a mark in the ‘plus’ column for moving to Scotland!

In other news…

Despite having been mired in RFID for the greater part of the last six years I have retained an active interest in library systems. Since 2013 I have had the pleasure to be asked to advise on library management system (LMS) projects in both Scotland and Ireland – the latter culminating in the drafting of the specification and much of the business case for their national LMS procurement. Quite a refreshing change from ISO standards and self-service kiosk design! So much so that I recently closed down my company – Library RFID Ltd – and am now in the process of rebuilding that website to more accurately reflect my current activities.

Whilst I am still keenly interested in RFID I have become increasingly frustrated at the lack of ambition of both suppliers and consumers for developing the potential of the technology – particularly for mobile applications – and am consciously changing the emphasis of both this blog and my website in an effort to change this state of affairs.

Inspired by meetings earlier in the year with smartphone and tablet app developers in both the commercial sector and the universities, where new uses for NFC and RFID in libraries are already being planned, I think it’s definitely time to start building the foundations of the next generation of more mobile and agile library systems. A view that I hope will resonate with both the CEO of the recently-created library task force, Kathy Settle and the Arts Council’s Brian Ashley, both of whom were kind enough to find the time to meet with me over the summer.

I don’t believe anyone wants to recreate the kind of proprietary, fragmented solutions that prevented the RFID library market in the UK from functioning effectively for much of the first ten years or so of its development. The SCL’s efforts to create a single digital platform – assisted by consultants from Canadian application provider BiblioCommons – is I think a clear recognition of the lack of any kind of cohesion in existing library system provision. The Welsh and Irish decisions to implement a single supplier solution represent – in my opinion – another example of what happens when consumer patience runs out. I hope both succeed in improving matters but I am more than a little concerned that both solutions are fighting the last war rather than anticipating the future.

In my view there are no ‘silver bullet’ solutions and very few tech-savvy library systems specialists left in the public sector to assess the efficacy of the solutions being proposed – but I would say that, wouldn’t I?

In a effort to try and do something positive I’ve recently agreed to work with Ken Chad and some other equally talented library people (not necessarily librarians Steven!) in building a new model for systems procurement for libraries to replace the existing core specification originally created by former colleague Juliet Leeves back in the 1980s. Events elsewhere having unexpectedly given me some time to spare over the coming months.

Another ‘plus’ for library technology development!

Sadly for me there was one sad moment in all this excitement. In March Book Industry Communication (BIC) decided to make changes to the structure of its committees and working groups to better reflect the wishes of its membership which has ultimately ended my fifteen year relationship with the Library Committee. I hope we achieved some useful outcomes during my time – not least the adoption of a national data model for RFID use.

I am, for the moment, still actively engaged in promoting the Library Communication Framework – a project I initially proposed back in 2011 – but only until a librarian can be found to take over. I wish them and BIC well – and thanks for all your support.

Just one small tick in the minus box then.

Onward and upward… (Edinburgh  streets offer no other alternative!)