Raging Arguments About The Future Of The ILS

I feel a little misrepresented by a post from Talis’ Richard Wallis claiming you don’t need technology for Library 2.0 – but it helps, but the company blog doesn’t allow embedded URLs, so I’m posting my comment here:

Richard, please don’t misunderstand me. Technology is the essential infrastructure for Library 2.0. My point was that technology alone doesn’t make a library. It would be better to read my post in the context of Meredith Farkas‘ and Jenny Levine‘s recent posts crying out for more programmers in libraries.

Meredith and Jenny are right, libraries need more technology help, but people like John Blyberg and me (and there are quite a few of us) need their help to demand better products from vendors. I say that because I think we can agree on this point: programmers at the customer end of the equation can’t win in the long-run against vendors who continue to deliver poorly designed products.

So while I advocate for change within our libraries, my challenge to vendors is clear: deliver flexible, extensible products that leverage working standards, not just “library standards.” There are many examples outside the library space showing the success of such efforts, use those examples, build on them. And the true lesson of Web 2.0 for you is that the vendor who opens up their product wins against others who impose barriers to remixing.

library, libraries, ils, vendor, talis, web 2.0, web20, lib20, library 2.0, library20, future, vision, open systems

2 thoughts on “Raging Arguments About The Future Of The ILS

Comments are closed.