Transcript Trendspotting - Library Technology Guides

Library Adoption, Trends, and Perspective
Marshall Breeding
Director for Innovative Technologies and Research
Vanderbilt University
http://staffweb.library.vanderbilt.edu/breeding
http://www.librarytechnology.org/

Interest in open source software has shifted into high
gear with the emergence of multiple viable options,
even reaching into the ILS realm. Breeding provides
an overview of the recent developments in the open
source movement in the library automation arena,
describes some of the current products and projects
underway, and gives some perspective on this
alternative versus the commercial, closed source
products. He discusses some of the issues that
libraries should keep in mind if they are considering
implementing an open source automation system and
shares his view on how the open source movement
will impact the commercial library automation
industry.

http://www.librarytechnology.org
Repository for library automation data
 Lib-web-cats tracks 39,000 libraries
and the automation systems used.

◦ Expanding to include more international
scope

Announcements and developments
made by companies and organizations
involved in library automation
technologies




Started building database in 1995
Most comprehensive resource for tracking ILS
and other library automation products
Many state library agencies do not keep
accurate records of library automation data
Problem: how to resolve remaining
“Unknown” libraries.
◦ No Web site, no reliable e-mail contact
Annual Industry report published in Library
Journal:
2009:
 2008:
 2007:
 2006:
 2005:
 2004:
 2003:
 2002:

Investing in the Future
Opportunity out of turmoil
An industry redefined
Reshuffling the deck
Gradual evolution
Migration down, innovation up
The competition heats up
Capturing the migrating customer
System Name
AGent VERSO
2001 2002 2003
14
19
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
6
23
15
54
47
Evergreen
24
6
Voyager
50
44
35
22
34
12
4
5
ALEPH 500
80
58
51
53
83
67
29
26
Vubis Smart
13
34
54
56
60
56
40
46
V-Smart
Millennium
11
157
136
144
119
107
Koha (Classic/ZOOM)
Library.Solution
79
70
73
Carl.X / Carl.Solution
Polaris ILS
95
95
64
30
57
40
58
41
34
35
32
1
3
10
0
0
12
21
20
37
39
54
32
56
Unicorn
117
207
124
134
91
71
121
108
Horizon
126
114
168
193
147
94
15
0
37
60
67
35
25
27
30
39
Virtua
250
200
Voyager
ALEPH 500
Vubis Smart +V-Smart
150
Millennium
Koha (Classic / ZOOM)
Library.Solution
100
Carl.X / Carl.Solution
Polaris
Unicorn
Virtua
50
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Polaris
60
50
40
30
Polaris
20
10
0
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Millennium
180
160
140
Millennium
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Koha
60
50
40
30
20
Koha (Classic / ZOOM)
10
0
2006
2007
2008
Total Installations
1,600
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
Millennium
200
0
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
250
Sirsi acquires
Dynix
200
Horizon
Discontinued
150
Unicorn
Horizon
100
50
0
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Composite Endeavor + Ex Libris
Composite Sirsi + Dynix
Auto-Graphics, Inc.
Book Systems, Inc.
Civica
COMPanion Corp.
EOS International
Equinox Software
Follett Software Company
Infor Library Solutions
Inmagic, Inc.
Innovative Interfaces, Inc.
LibLime
The Library Corporation
Polaris Library Systems
Serials Solutions
Softlink America Inc.
SydneyPLUS
Talis
VTLS Inc.
2002
367
860
45
88
34
86
69
2003
382
839
42
59
34
86
69
2004
408
789
42
58
35
62
72
2005
417
679
32
53
130
63
79
2006
393
629
32
50
322
65
82
266
127
44
268
240
104
45
285
220
104
40
285
245
105
40
295
173
105
180
65
189
67
210
68
75
65
80
65
94
56
97
59
100
104
93
95
370
77
40
295
6
210
66
78
104
60
83
75
2007
418
491
36
57
379
67
82
6
404
75
55
310
14
191
69
102
115
60
84
86
2008
467
450
38
63
392
67
79
13
402
72
55
326
28
204
76
142
132
60
77
97
Comparison of SirsiDynix and Ex Libris
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
Composite Endeavor + Ex Libris
200
Composite Sirsi + Dynix
100
0
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Company
Supported Systems
Polaris Library Systems Polaris
Millennium
Innovative Interfaces,
Inc.
The Library Corporation Library.Solution, Carl.Solution, Carl.X
Support Installed Ratio
Staff
Sites
38
269
7.1
176
1348
7.7
87
734
8.4
198
4593
23.2
9
244
27.1
41
936
22.8
Ex Libris
Aleph, Voyager
Auto-Graphics
AGent/Verso
VTLS
Virtua
Infor
Vubis Smart, Advance, PLUS, Vubis
Original
2
140
70.0
LibLime
Koha
3
308
102.7

Perceptions 2008: an international survey of
library automation
◦ http://www.librarytechnology.org/perceptions2008.pl
◦ 1,340 Responses from 51 countries

Perceptions 2007: an international survey of
library automation
◦ http://www.librarytechnology.org/perceptions2007.pl
Through Marshall’s articles and columns



“I do not, however, expect to see such
victories of Open Source software over
commercial products in the integrated
library system arena. Both broad historical
and recent trends argue against a
movement toward libraries creating their
own library automation systems—either in
an Open Source or closed development
process.”
Early open source efforts included Avanti,
Pytheas, OpenBook, and Koha
3 out of 4 now defunct
Source: Information Technologies and Libraries, Mar 2002

“the open source systems such as the three
mentioned above are but a small blip on the
radar. Compared to the thousands of libraries
that acquire automation systems from
commercial vendors each year, the handful
that use open source systems cannot yet be
noted as a trend. “
◦ Discussed Koha, LearningAccess ILS, Avanti
MicroLCS
Source: Information Today, Oct 2002
http://www.librarytechnology.org/ltg-displaytext.pl?RC=9975
“As I look back at my 2002 column on open source ILS, I see
that I mentioned both Koha and the Learning-Access ILS.
Over this 4-year time period I have seen Koha usage increase
from a single library system to two or more library systems
plus a few individual public libraries and a large number of
other small ones. The LearningAccess ILS is used in 15
libraries. Evergreen currently represents the largest group of
libraries sharing a single open source ILS implementation.
Over the same time period, well over 40,000 libraries have
purchased a commercial ILS. So, relative to the entire library
automation arena, those using an open source ILS still
represent a minuscule portion of the whole.
That said, conditions are ripe for a more rapid adoption of open
source ILS than we have seen in the past. “
Source: Computers in Libraries, Mar 2007
http://www.librarytechnology.org/ltg-displaytext.pl?RC=12445
We’re living in a phase of library automation
characterized by an increased interest in open
source-not just in back-end infrastructure
components but also in the mission-critical
business applications such as the integrated library
system. Open source library automation systems,
including Koha and Evergreen, have been propelled
into the limelight. Recent survey data fails to
corroborate broad interest that libraries are ready
to adopt open source ILS. The success of early
adopters of open source ILS now serve as a catalyst
for others. Paths now exist with more mature
systems and professional support options. As the
open source movement matures, these system will
need to compete on their own merits and not solely
on a philosophical preference.
Source: Computers in Libraries, Mar 2008
http://www.librarytechnology.org/ltg-displaytext.pl?RC=13134
“Last year marked the launch of the open
source ILS into the mainstream; it received
major attention in the press and at library
conferences. From a business perspective,
open source ILS contracts represented a
very small portion of the library automation
economy. The success of early adopters'
implementations has already diminished
skepticism. Many indicators suggest that
open source ILS contracts will displace
larger percentages of traditional licensing
models in each subsequent year.
Source: “Automation System Marketplace: Opportunity out of Turmoil”
April 1, 2008

The open source ILS movement has progressed
past the point where its viability can seriously be
questioned. The current momentum of open
source ILS adoption makes it almost inevitable
that it will represent an increasing portion of the
library automation landscape. A set of companies
has emerged to provide support options. Each of
the products has already achieved a level of
functionality suitable for their current target
market. The current open source ILS products
have a demonstrated a history of increasing
functionality with models in place that promise
reasonable levels of future development.
Source: “The Viability of Open Source ILS” ASIS&T Bulletin
December, 2008


Some libraries moving from traditionally
licensed products to open source products
with commercial support plans
Disruption of ILS industry
◦ new pressures on incumbent vendors to deliver
more innovation and to satisfy concerns for
openness

New competition / More options




Pressure for traditionally licensed products to
become more open
APIs (Application Programming Interfaces) let
libraries access and manipulate their data outside
of delivered software
A comprehensive set of APIs potentially give
libraries more flexibility and control in accessing
data and services and in extending functionality
than having access to the source code.
Customer access to APIs does not involve as
much risk to breaking core system functions,
avoids issues of version management and code
forking associated with open source models.


Explosive interest in Open Source driven by
disillusionment with current vendors
Seen as a solution to:
◦ Allow libraries to have more flexible systems
◦ Lower costs
◦ Not be vulnerable to disruptions that come with
mergers and acquisitions


Considered as a mainstream option
TOC (Total Cost of Ownership) still roughly
equal to proprietary commercial model

Costs shifted from traditional software
licensing models
◦ No initial purchase of license or annual license
fees






Hardware costs (same as traditional)
Vendor support costs (optional)
Hosting services
Conversion services
Local technical support (may be higher)
Development costs – vague models for
next-generation development

Open Source still a risky Alternative
◦ Dependency on community organizations and
commercial companies that provide development
an support services

Commercial/Proprietary options also a risk
◦ Opinions vary, but:
“the traditional ILS market is no longer a haven for
the risk adverse.”
(British Columbia SITKA talking points
http://pines.bclibrary.ca/resources/talkingpoints)


Most decisions to adopt Open Source ILS
based on philosophical reasons
Open Source ILS will enter the main stream
once its products begin to win through
objective procurement processes
◦ Hold open source ILS to the same standards as
the commercial products
◦ Hold the open source ILS companies to the same
standards:
 Adequate customer support ratios, financial stability,
service level agreements, etc.

Well-document total cost of ownership
statements that can be compared to other
vendor price quotes



Open Source ILS implementations still a
small percentage of the total picture
Initial set of successful implementations will
likely serve as a catalyst to pave the way for
others
Successful implementations in wider range
of libraries:
◦ State-wide consortium (Evergreen)
◦ Multi-site public library systems (Koha)
◦ School district consortia (OPALS)
Increasing adoption in the United States and
Canada

◦
Koha, Evergreen, OPALS
Less interest in Asia, Europe, UK
India


◦
NetGenLib, Koha
Strong interest in Latin America

◦
Koha, ABCD


US: LibLime, Equinox, MediaFlex
Aggressive marketing
◦ Concept of open source
◦ Promotion of specific products

Struggling to meet expectations
◦ Satisfaction lower than many companies offering
proprietary products
◦ Some companies offering proprietary products
score much lower than open source






Many ILS products offered through traditional
licensing continue to prosper
Some proprietary ILS products seeing
significant numbers of library defections
Systems more mature and rich in features
Balance of power among ILS vendors shifting
Some libraries running proprietary ILS
question long-term viability and are
exploring alternatives
Traditional ILS now the target of new
alternative automation models





Are open source ILS products taking library
automation in a new direction, or are they open
source versions of what we already have?
Will current slate of companies be able to support
increasing numbers of libraries without the same
difficulties as the incumbent ILS vendors?
The ILS landscape is forever changed by the open
source alternatives
Open Source ILS catching up with the Legacy ILS.
Urgent need for a new generation of library
automation designed for current and futurelooking library missions and workflows.

Sufficient resources to meet the needs of
growing base of customer libraries?
◦ Number of libraries services per FTE is very high


Adequate revenue to sustain business?
Do libraries exert more control over software
than with proprietary models?
◦ New features added in a paid sponsorship model
◦ Comparison with other vendor enhancement
processes





Fundamental assumption: Print + Digital = Hybrid
libraries
Traditional ILS model not adequate for hybrid
libraries
Libraries currently moving toward surrounding core
ILS with additional modules to handle electronic
content
New discovery layer interfaces replacing or
supplementing ILS OPACS
Working toward a new model of library automation
◦ Monolithic legacy architectures replaced by fabric of SOA
applications
◦ Comprehensive Resource Management
“It's Time to Break the Mold of the Original ILS” Computers in Libraries Nov/Dec 2007

OLE Project

Ex Libris URM
◦ Funded by the Research in Information Technology program
of the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation
◦ 1-year project to produce the requirements for a new
approach to library automation
◦ Will embrace the service-oriented architecture
◦ Business process modeling based on library workflows
unconstrained from existing legacy software
◦ Possible follow-on project to build and open source
reference implementation
◦ Mentioned publically but not formally announced
◦ Working toward new platform that better integrates print
and electronic content
 Probably will be based on some existing products

Traditional ILS
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦

Cataloging
Circulation
Online Catalog
Acquisitions
Serials control
Reporting
Modern approach: SOA




Broad conceptual approach that proposes a
library automation environment that spans
all types of content that comprise library
collections.
Traditional ILS vendors: Under development
but no public announcements
Open Source projects in early phases
Projection: 2-3 years until we begin see
library automation systems that follow this
approach. 5-7 years for wider adoption.
 Underlying
data repositories
◦ Local or Global
 Reusable
business services
 Composite business
applications



SOA = Service Oriented Architecture
Design approach
◦
◦
◦
◦
Independent software pieces
Pieces can be interchanged or repurposed more easily
Pieces can be combined to create new services or systems
Business experts and IT experts work together
◦
◦
◦
◦
Create high-level map of how the business should work
Deconstruct workflows
Define reusable services
Recombine services into a system that meets our
requirements
SOA Process
http://www.sun.com/products/soa/benefits.jsp
End User
Interfaces:
Circulation
Functional
modules:
Federated
Search
Cataloging
Data Stores:
Staff Interfaces:
Acquisitions
Serials
OpenURL
Linking
Electronic
Resource
Mgmt
System
Composite
Applications
Granular
tasks:
Data Stores:
Reusable
Business
Services
Open Library Environment:
Working toward a next generation library
automation framework
Marshall Breeding
Director for Innovative Technology and Research
Vanderbilt University Library
Nashville, TN USA

Next generation library automation
◦ Provide technology support suited for current
library workflows

Community based
◦ Owned and governed by the institutions it serves

Services oriented
◦ Flexible technology approach

Business Process Modeling
◦ Rethink library workflows outside of patterns set
by legacy software





Planning and Design Phase
Develop Vision + Blueprint
Work with consultants with expertise in SOA
and BPM
Instill community ownership of OLE
Recruit partners for Phase II




Conduct business process
modeling (BPM) exercises
Define library workflows
which must be supported
in OLE
Small group work to
develop descriptions of
library workflows
Workshop output will
shape project design




Build project
Community source reference implementation
Create software based on OLE blueprint from
current project
Build partners will have a high level of
investment in OLE and will commit to
implementation




Library Driven
Not vendor-driven
Interest in joining Kuali
Existing organization for non-profit status,
legal support, user community



Recruit partners for Build Phase
Write Build Proposal
Complete OLE Blueprint components
◦ Scope Document
◦ Reference Model
◦ Inventory of workflows / processes




Existing service in pilot stage for new
discovery service
WorldCat.org data + ArticleFirst (30 million
articles)
Agreement with EBSCO to load EBSCOhost
citation data into WorldCat
Pursuing agreements with additional content
providers




No-cost option to FirstSearch subscribers
No reclamation to reconcile local ILS with
WorldCat
One ILS supported; must be among
supported products
Program to expose thousands of libraries to
WorldCat Local as a discovery option

Extend WorldCat Local to include
◦
◦
◦
◦


Circulation
Delivery
Acquisitions
License Management
Positioned as Web-scale, cloud computing
model, cooperative library system
Pilot sites being finalized; general availability
in 2010

Traditional Proprietary Commercial ILS
◦ Millennium, Symphony, Polaris

Traditional Open Source ILS
◦ Evergreen, Koha

Clean slate automation framework (SOA,
enterprise-ready)
◦ Ex Libris URM, OLE Project

Cloud-based automation system
◦ WorldCat Local (+circ, acq, license management)