|
For some years the idea of a “core” functional specification for library systems -
designed to avoid the endless repetition of standard question and answer in the procurement process has - has been mooted in the UK.
The benefits are plenty for both vendors and librarians. A panel discussion on the process with a particular focus on this idea was hosted at the LIS show in Birmingham by Juliet Leeves a top UK consultant in this field.
On the panel were: Juliet Leeves - consultant; Marc Daubach (Ex-Libris), Hilary Dunleavy (DS), Peter Gethin (Sirsi) and
Shirley Adams (Geac) each of whom gave their own thoughts in a brief presentation and then comments came from the floor.
Juliet Leeves
began by outlining the process of issuing an RFP (Request for Proposal) or OR (Operational requirement) and its evaluation. She then focussed in on the functional requirements specification which traditionally has been a very detailed document which then requires the vendor to respond in great detail – inevitably at great cost. Carl Grant from Ex-Libris in the USA has estimated that the cost of responding to the RFP is about $5,000. Ex-Libris might respond to 100 of these in a year costing the company $500,000. This will be factored into the cost of the system price for those libraries actually purchasing the system. This of course does not assess the amount of time spent by library staff in producing and assessing these systems.
|
What is a "core specification"? |
|
A "core specification" is a document describing basic
library functionality that any competent library system should provide. The idea is that time currently spent creating and responding to specifications for core
functions - often amounting to hundreds of questions -in every operational requirement is wasted. A standard specification would avoid this work, save
time and money and lead to more useful analysis of systems, and a better decision process. |
She mentioned the Harmonise project being undertaken by CERLIM at Manchester Metropolitan
University - this is looking at the feasibility of a core specification
Marc Daubach from Ex-Libris gave his impressions of how the general process differs in the
UK from the rest of Europe. There the libraries tend to go for a restricted tender which allows the libraries
to get closer to the suppliers. Demos are shorter and a more general discussions of aims is possible. Information about the competitors is freely given whereas in the UK this information is
treated very secretively. Marc supported the idea of the common core specification a "matrix" documents" on which the suppliers could be assessed. This would allow suppliers to highlight
the real differences between the systems.
Hilary Dunleavy from DS outlined a few dos and don'ts for librarians submitting an RFP - give
enough time for a good response, specify what you want the system to do not how you want it to be done and don’t list the things you don't want it to do. Make sure your contacts given in the
document are well briefed and understand the process. Avoid autonumbering and tables in the electronic form of the document. Finally, she pleaded for the source of any modified RFP to be
given - so that the company responding could check on previous responses to the same document to save time. [this shows that the idea of a common specification is  actually being used already in an ad hoc way - ed]
Peter Gethin - Sirsi supported all the ideas and comments previously mentioned and added
some anecdotes - a library where unspecified functionality surfaced after implementation - and became a problem. Again the idea of a common core specification would allow time for such
requirements to be discovered.
Shirley Adams - Geac asked the question directly - why don’t we have a standard procurement
model and a standard OR? Mentioned the example in the financial/accounting industry where BASDA (Business and Accounting Software Developer's Association) maintain such a standard
procurement model and (RFI Request for Information) and also accredit systems for compliance to standards. It could be done in the library industry too she argued but the maintenance and
control of this would need to be defined. In the USA it is the consultants who effectively create and maintain their own documentation - alternatives in the UK would be the Library Association,
government organisation or the suppliers. [The BASDA example appears to be a suppliers organisation - ed]
Comments from the floor were interesting and generally supported the idea of the common
specification and hoped that the dialogue between supplier and library would be improved as a result.
Humphrey Pickering from ALSi pointed out that with more component technology being used
in the future, there was a need for the industry to highlight conformance to interworking standards.
Karen Taylor from Aston University seemed anxious to get things moving "are the suppliers
DOING any of this?" she asked - view supported by Kent University who thought the best way forward was for the suppliers to move on it.
David Liddle -Talis pointed out that the restricted tender is a problem with local authority
lawyers – although there are moves in LGA [the UK's Local Government Association] to lighten up the procedure.
Marc Carden - Innovative pointed out that there were contractual problems and very often
purchasing officers need the detailed level of functional specification. There is a risk that the industry might do all the work to get such a standard together and then still have the 400
questions to answer. However he supported the idea generally and also felt that libraries are nervous of rules and suppliers therefore rely on procedures. They need to engage suppliers in a
dialogue early on in the process
Patricia Killiard - Cambridge University also felt that librarians and suppliers should have a
more open dialogue and come together at some stage almost on a consultancy basis.
Finally Juliet Leeves felt that the time is right to get the core functionality document out and it
would be good for the suppliers to get together at least to produce an ad hoc document which might turn into something more official. Currently there is too much detail leaving no time for vision.
|
Comment:
My own views are that the time for the core spec is right. Contractual elements can be rolled into the procurement process via a dialogue with the relevant authorities - BASDA
have shown how to do this. To do something quickly that would be accepted by the suppliers, the initiative needs to come from that direction. For initiative read money. Why not a Library and Information Software Developer's Association - LISDA? Suppliers are already co-operating in bodies like ZIG and IPIG. There is a strong common interest and such a degree of maturity in the industry would benefit all sides in the future as system interworking becomes more important -
Peter Evans.
|
|
What are your views?
E-mail Biblio Tech Review and we will take the debate to the next stage. We would particularly welcome views from outside the UK - what happens in your marketplace? What do other suppliers think of this idea?
|
|
