Here we are again, happy as can be
Tuesday, November 24th, 2009
When I started with RSC Wales back in June 2007 one of the first things I did was attend a JISC Access Management (AM) event. And here I am again a few years on, having just got back from the 2009 event which I attended hoping to find out what the current access management landscape looks like. What has changed and what have we learned in the interim?
I’ll blog about some of the sessions and some of my thoughts, with inevitable emphasis on the areas most relevant to libraries and LRCs. I haven’t been Tweeting with the rest of the Twittoratti, but there was plenty to digest on the #fam09 tag.
If you want to find out more about the event you can view the programme, download many of the presentations or visit the FAM09 social site.
First, a recap of the access management options for e-resources
Shibboleth (by which I mean Federated Access Management) was the main option under discussion. It requires either in-house support, or you can pay a third party to set to it and provide support until you have enough in-house experience.
A related option, offering the same functionality, is to pay for a subscription to the OpenAthens Service, to gain Shibboleth-like features. I think of the Shibboleth/OpenAthens options as being like looking for somewhere to live.
OpenAthens is like renting a nice appartment. It is nice to live in, but you can’t do what you like with the apartment (e.g. replacing the windows if you don’t like them), and you will never own the apartment – if ever you stop paying the rent you get kicked out and have nothing to show for the years you paid for. Though while you do pay rent, someone else will (hopefully) be responsible for repairs to the property.
Shibboleth is like buying a house. There is a cost at the start, and you the one reponsible for maintaining the property. You can do that yourself if you have the skill; or pay someone else to do so, and maybe when you understand more go on a DIY course yourself and start to do your own maintenance.
There are two other common access management options, though I can’t think of a way of extending the house analogy to them without it being contrived, so I’ll just describe them straight. One option (often used in conjunction with Shibboleth) is to use the more traditional IP plus proxy solution to on-and-off campus access to resources and services.
There is also sometimes the option to have a single, fixed username and password for off-campus access, which can be workable for small e-resource portfolios. This option is gradually disappearing for many resource providers though.
Some of the sessions I attended
Identity and Access as UK Priority, Sara Marsh and Peter Tinson
This session was a summary of where we came from (beginning in 2004), where we are, where we’re going, and potential barriers to getting there, so was an appropriate conference opener. Sara likened herself to the jam of the talk, sandwiched between Peter’s opening and closing bread. I was glad to see that the bread was wholemeal.
The early landscape was one where there were few Shibbolised resources and a lack of in-house skills. Organisations lacked institutional access management strategies, and IT departments felt that access management was just about access to e-resources, and was therefore only a library issue.
And now? All but a few of the big publishers offer Federated Access Management as an option, and those that don’t offer it are under increasing pressure. UCISA and SCONUL surveys found that access and identity management is now in the top ten strategic issues listed by their members, so the importance has risen (though the issue is not at the top of the list).
What is needed for the future? Two main things stood out. Firstly access and identity management/Federated Access Management needs to get into top-level strategies. Secondly we need more examples of the benefits early adopters have gained from Federated Access Management in order to make the strongest possible management case.
Federated Access, the Library Experience, Sarah Pearson, Richard Cross and Francis Lowry
The experiences of two institutions (the University of Birmingham and Nottingham Trent University) in implementing Shibboleth. Many of the things said rang true to my experiences of being involved with a university implementation.
Sarah Pearson spoke about the Birmingham experience. In Birmingham they have used Shibboleth to implement single sign-on (SSO) to Metalib (their federated search tool) and EZproxy, but not to the VLE yet. They try to push users through Metalib as the primary means of accessing e-resources, since then the library can make access more seamless to users.
Sarah showed a diagram of the various ways in which a user at the University of Birmingham accesses e-resources (see below – click to enlarge). It illustrates the complexity of managing the various access options – a diagram like that can be a valuable thing for any library to create in attempting to identify areas which need work.
Collaboration for the University of Birmingham Shibboleth implementation was between:
- Serials Team (Library Services)
They activated e-resources, customised links, implemented authentication, and did troubleshooting. - Digital Library Team (IT Services)
Managed Metalib and SFX installation including interaction with the IdP (Identity Provider) - Networks Team (IT Services)
Setup and maintenance of IdP and interaction with BIIS registry
See Sarah’s presentation for the implementation timescale and process – it shows the complexity of the move from the librarian’s perspective, all the processes involved before you even reach the user education element! Issues such as contacting service providers, finding out what information to provide, obtaining WAYFLess URL information, testing etc is all time-consuming, and if you need to manage resources in a federated search tool like Metalib there are extra steps.
One issue Sarah raised was the fact that some users will navigate directly to a resource rather than going through the library portal, so they will have to deal with WAYFs. Her team has now incorporated that route into their user education (guidance on Metalib and in induction).
Then Richard and Francis gave the Nottingham Trent University perspective. Nottingham Trent University were early Shibboleth adopters, and the central message I took away from their part of the presentation was the positive one that they had experienced no problems, Shibboleth has been stable with no downtime, and it all just worked from day one – on which day it was heavily used by students to take advantage of Microsoft’s free DreamSpark offer (it requires an institution to be using Federated Access Management for their students to benefit – another reason to switch!)
A valuable piece of advice from the presentation was that they never refer to Shibboleth when communicating with users, they only talk about the ‘University username and password’. Obviously they refer to it among library and IT staff though.
In terms of transition, they had a roadmap and a blog to inform staff. They also created a wiki that includes every e-resource they subscribe to and how users access it (since terminology varies from provider to provider), so that staff know how to help off-campus users for each resource. Bear in mind that the help staff on campus won’t see login screens, they will be automatically validated via IP, so this kind of information is invaluable for user suppport. Richard and Francis lamented that there is no consistency of terminology in how Service Providers refer to the login options, necessitating this approach.
The main lessons Richard and Francis wished to share:
- Plan early
- IT and library staff must work together (a partnership emphasised in other talks too)
- Communicate with Service Providers – don’t assume anything
- Don’t expect glowing praise from users – access management should be invisible to them if it works (but expect complaints when it doesn’t!)
They concluded that it is an ongoing process of development, it is not all over on the day that Shibboleth is installed. Also Shibboleth is not a solution to everything, but it is an important and flexible building block in the organisation’s infrastructure.
There were some similarities between the setup at the two universities. For example, both institutions currently use a combination of Shibboleth, IP/EZProxy and other methods (for a minority of resources). Both are currently using Shibboleth 1.3 but are planning to move to version 2.
Both also agreed on some of the challenges:
- There are personalisation issues when using dual authentication (e.g. Shibboleth plus IP). However they can be dealt with e.g. Nottingham Trent University migrated accounts wholesale where possible (e.g. for Refworks) and when that wasn’t an option they supported users individually in migrating settings. In a few instances users had to rebuild their personalisation from scratch.
- Not all Service Providers use a standard WAYFless URL structure, and many don’t include the ability to deep-link it e.g. to a particular e-book or database. Those that do have WAYFless structures may not tell you. There is a lack of standards here.
Tech 101 for Librarians, Andy Swiffin
Andy tackled the issue of terminology, trying to unravel the acronyms, as well as placing the emphasis on why and how you deploy an IdP (Identity Provider). He emphasised the relative simplicity of the process – if you have a web server with Tomcat, and have an identity source e.g. LDAP or Microsoft Active Directory, then you can do it easily. Andy has done a Shibboleth install and configured and tested it in just 12 minutes!
Why adopt FAM?
The same answers came up in a number of sessions, so it makes sense to just summarise the common answers here.
- Increased user privacy.
- KISS – Keep things simple for the user by enabling single-sign-on (SSO) for internal and external resources.
- Granularity – Federated Access Management enables fine-grained authorisation, so it should be possible to save money by only buying a specialist resource for the group that needs it, rather than paying for a subscription for the whole institution that will only be used by a few people. Obviously the ideal from a librarian’s perspective is to offer access to everyone, but as Sara Marsh pointed out – if it is a choice between paying for access for a group that needs something, or not getting the resource at all because access for the entire organisation is too expensive, the former is better than no access at all.
Social gaming
After the evening meal on Monday there was a games room for socialising to take place in. Four Nintendo Wiis were set up so that people could compete in Mario Kart, boxing, baseball, ten-pin bowling, Wii Fit and winter sports; along with giant Jenga and Connect 4, table football and air hockey. I put in some sterling defence work on the table football, but my gaming ability was a major letdown at ten-pin bowling, and for some reason my bowling ball always ended up in the gutter or – even worse – rolling away from me in the wrong direction. I’m almost certain that it was a faulty controller :-p but it made it look like I couldn’t hold my own in a Wii-ing contest.






