market_overview
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision Next revision Both sides next revision | ||
|
market_overview [2019/07/07 19:59] 109.149.81.116 |
market_overview [2019/07/23 13:09] 81.156.231.110 |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ====== Market overview ====== | ====== Market overview ====== | ||
| - | ===== UK library systems market share July 2019 ===== | + | ===== UK library system vendors - market share July 2019 ===== |
| - | {{:market_share_library_system_public_libraries_july2019.jpg?direct&819x460 |market_share_library_system_public_libraries_july2019.jpg}} | + | {{:market_share_july_2019.jpg?direct&819x460 }} |
| - | + | ||
| - | |**<font 10pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;black;;#f1c40f>UK Library Systems Market share July 2019</font> ** ||| | + | |
| - | |<font 10pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;black;;inherit>Vendor</font> |<font 10pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;black;;inherit>number of library authorities</font> |<font 10pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;black;;inherit>Percentage of market</font> | | + | |
| - | |<font 10pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;black;;inherit>Axiell</font> |<font 10pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;black;;inherit>29</font> |<font 10pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;black;;inherit>14.1</font> | | + | |
| - | |<font 10pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;black;;inherit>Capita</font> |<font 10pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;black;;inherit>40</font> |<font 10pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;black;;inherit>19.5</font> | | + | |
| - | |<font 10pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;black;;inherit>Civica</font> |<font 10pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;black;;inherit>38</font> |<font 10pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;black;;inherit>18.5</font> | | + | |
| - | |<font 10pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;black;;inherit>Infor</font> |<font 10pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;black;;inherit>12</font> |<font 10pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;black;;inherit>5.9</font> | | + | |
| - | |<font 10pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;black;;inherit>In house</font> |<font 10pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;black;;inherit>1</font> |<font 10pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;black;;inherit>0.5</font> | | + | |
| - | |<font 10pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;black;;inherit>Innovative</font> |<font 10pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;black;;inherit>1</font> |<font 10pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;black;;inherit>0.5</font> | | + | |
| - | |<font 10pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;black;;inherit>ISOxford</font> |<font 10pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;black;;inherit>1</font> |<font 10pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;black;;inherit>0.5</font> | | + | |
| - | |<font 10pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;black;;inherit>PTFS Europe</font> |<font 10pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;black;;inherit>9</font> |<font 10pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;black;;inherit>4.4</font> | | + | |
| - | |<font 10pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;black;;inherit>SirsiDynix</font> |<font 10pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;black;;inherit>74</font> |<font 10pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;black;;inherit>36.1</font> | | + | |
| - | |<font 10pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;black;;inherit>Total</font> |<font 10pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;black;;inherit>205</font> | | | + | |
| - | + | ||
| - | |<font 10pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;black;;inherit>UK Library Systems Market share</font> | | | | + | |
| - | |<font 10pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;black;;inherit>Vendor</font> |<font 10pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;black;;inherit>number of library authorities</font> |<font 10pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;black;;inherit>Percentage of market</font> | | + | |
| - | |<font 10pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;black;;inherit>Axiell</font> |<font 10pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;black;;inherit>29</font> |<font 10pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;black;;inherit>14.1</font> | | + | |
| - | |<font 10pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;black;;inherit>Capita</font> |<font 10pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;black;;inherit>40</font> |<font 10pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;black;;inherit>19.5</font> | | + | |
| - | |<font 10pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;black;;inherit>Civica</font> |<font 10pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;black;;inherit>38</font> |<font 10pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;black;;inherit>18.5</font> | | + | |
| - | |<font 10pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;black;;inherit>Infor</font> |<font 10pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;black;;inherit>12</font> |<font 10pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;black;;inherit>5.9</font> | | + | |
| - | |<font 10pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;black;;inherit>In house</font> |<font 10pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;black;;inherit>1</font> |<font 10pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;black;;inherit>0.5</font> | | + | |
| - | |<font 10pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;black;;inherit>Innovative</font> |<font 10pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;black;;inherit>1</font> |<font 10pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;black;;inherit>0.5</font> | | + | |
| - | |<font 10pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;black;;inherit>ISOxford</font> |<font 10pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;black;;inherit>1</font> |<font 10pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;black;;inherit>0.5</font> | | + | |
| - | |<font 10pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;black;;inherit>PTFS Europe</font> |<font 10pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;black;;inherit>9</font> |<font 10pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;black;;inherit>4.4</font> | | + | |
| - | |<font 10pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;black;;inherit>SirsiDynix</font> |<font 10pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;black;;inherit>74</font> |<font 10pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;black;;inherit>36.1</font> | | + | |
| - | |<font 10pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;black;;inherit>Total</font> |<font 10pt/Calibri,sans-serif;;black;;inherit>205</font> | | | + | |
| ===== Overviews of the library technology market ===== | ===== Overviews of the library technology market ===== | ||
| Line 58: | Line 32: | ||
| "If you are in the market for library systems, what should you be looking for? Needs vary across sectors: corporate, legal, public, school, college, and university – and circumstances differ between individual organisations. Nevertheless, there are enduring similarities between libraries and these are reflected in the market for library systems. The library management system – LMS (or, in US parlance, the integrated library system – ILS) remains the core system for many libraries. However, the weakness of the conventional LMS in terms of managing electronic resources means it is diminishing in importance.The article looks at the key technology themes influencing library system development. | "If you are in the market for library systems, what should you be looking for? Needs vary across sectors: corporate, legal, public, school, college, and university – and circumstances differ between individual organisations. Nevertheless, there are enduring similarities between libraries and these are reflected in the market for library systems. The library management system – LMS (or, in US parlance, the integrated library system – ILS) remains the core system for many libraries. However, the weakness of the conventional LMS in terms of managing electronic resources means it is diminishing in importance.The article looks at the key technology themes influencing library system development. | ||
| - | **[[https://librarytechnology.org/perceptions/2017/|Perceptions 2017: An International Survey of Library Automation]]** .by Marshall Breeding Library Technology Guides. March 17, 2018. | + | **[[https://librarytechnology.org/perceptions/2017/|Perceptions 2017: An International Survey of Library Automation]]**.by Marshall Breeding Library Technology Guides. March 17, 2018. |
| "Some interesting themes can be seen in the analysis of this year's survey results. Large libraries of all types have complex requirements and evaluate their systems on a much harsher scale than smaller organizations. Conventional integrated library systems dominate public libraries, with top scores going to proprietary products in the largest tier and to those based on commercially supported open source software in the mid-size category. Small and very small public libraries also favored proprietary ILS products. In the academic library sector, survey results reveal interesting patterns regarding the newer generation of library services platforms. These products received strong marks in most categories but are perceived as less capable for managing print resources than legacy ILS products. Small libraries give superlative scores to products able to meet their basic requirements without complex features they don't need" | "Some interesting themes can be seen in the analysis of this year's survey results. Large libraries of all types have complex requirements and evaluate their systems on a much harsher scale than smaller organizations. Conventional integrated library systems dominate public libraries, with top scores going to proprietary products in the largest tier and to those based on commercially supported open source software in the mid-size category. Small and very small public libraries also favored proprietary ILS products. In the academic library sector, survey results reveal interesting patterns regarding the newer generation of library services platforms. These products received strong marks in most categories but are perceived as less capable for managing print resources than legacy ILS products. Small libraries give superlative scores to products able to meet their basic requirements without complex features they don't need" | ||
| Line 71: | Line 45: | ||
| From the article: "We estimate the 2013 library technology economy, including the total domestic and international revenues of all the companies with a significant presence in the US and Canada, at around $790 million, an increase of just more than 2% relative to last year’s estimate of $770 million. US revenues of these companies total around $485 million. We continue to estimate the global library technology industry aggregate revenues at around $1.8 billion, which would also include RFID and other self-service products in addition to the technologies related to library management and resource discovery. Within these broad industry figures, each experienced a varying range of increases or losses in revenue". | From the article: "We estimate the 2013 library technology economy, including the total domestic and international revenues of all the companies with a significant presence in the US and Canada, at around $790 million, an increase of just more than 2% relative to last year’s estimate of $770 million. US revenues of these companies total around $485 million. We continue to estimate the global library technology industry aggregate revenues at around $1.8 billion, which would also include RFID and other self-service products in addition to the technologies related to library management and resource discovery. Within these broad industry figures, each experienced a varying range of increases or losses in revenue". | ||
| - | |||
| - | \\ | ||
market_overview.txt · Last modified: 2022/07/05 16:59 by 81.129.35.225
Page Tools
Except where otherwise noted, content on this wiki is licensed under the following license: CC0 1.0 Universal
