WTH is up with the ILS?

M. Breeding (2005). “Re-Integrating the integrated library system” Computers in Libraries: 25(25).
The articles this week were primarily focused on the Integrated Library System, and all the benefits and drawbacks included in the system. In his article on reintegrating the ILS, Marshall Breeding discusses the idea that Integrated Library Systems have been left behind, as new technologies have been created in the past decade. The drawback of ILSs being left behind, Breeding argues, is that instead of there being one comprehensive system that libraries can utilize for search and find, there are a number of systems making search and find more complicated. Breeding also discusses how it came to be that libraries are in such a situation, and what is stopping integration from happening. He concludes is article with sentiments on solutions for the development of one tightly woven ILS, and believe that eventually add-ons and ILS will become one and provide resources and information in a “one-stop shop” format.
I personally found this article to be very interesting. Breeding is so very right, it is almost as though we are making our interactions with library systems even more complicated than they need to be, and let’s be honest the systems are already pretty hard to understand! While it is difficult because of money and resources, libraries need to not be afraid to throw out the books and work to create a system that is a one stop shop for end users. I believe it is possible, and will bring users back to the library from the “Google escape hatch.” As I read through this article, the question that occurred to me was: how will open source computing affect the systems that libraries have in place, could open sourcing be the solution that libraries have been looking for?

M. Deddisns (2002). “Overview of ILS” EDUCAUSE. http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/DEC0201.pdf
In their article on Integrated Library Systems, the Evolving Technologies Committee of EDUCAUSE argues that today’s ILS is a multi0function web-based content form. That while the system may have been built on a standard relational database structure, it has changed with the times and provides must better access to information than web-based search engines. The article goes on to discuss in brief, three different vendor systems and their ILS offerings. The first one is from the Endeavor Information system, while they glorify their products (as any good marketing campaign should), they do offer to provide libraries at any point in their development as “digital libraries” with three ENCompas Solutions: Resource Access, Digital Collections and ENCompass. They also review Innovative Interfaces, Inc, and focus on the XML harvester, and a Metadata builder. Finally, they provide a brief overview of SIRSI, and their solutions for technology issues. Essentially this article stated that the ILS has long provided people with indexed solutions for searching, and is still better than web-based searches, and management of digital assets will help librarians and IT professionals make the library a better place.
What a drastic difference between two articles! This article spoke to me in a very different way than Breeding’s article. What stood out to me the most was two things. First, I noticed the question included in the conclusion, on whether to consider and ILS as a digital asset management system or to venture into more generalized vendor systems. I think this is an excellent question, and one I would like Breeding to have asked as well in his article. The other thing that stood out to me, and has become my discussion question is that the article argues that Integrated Library Systems continue to do what has always been the critical value of libraries. They provide access to large amounts of information and enhance access through drill-down organized indexing. My question then, is; do people want indexing in that format any longer? Or are the too “googleized” to have a preference