Open Source vs Vendor Opportunities

1. Open Source vs Vendor Opportunities Marshall Breeding Director for Innovative Technologies and Research Vanderbilt University http://staffweb.library.vanderbilt.edu/breeding ASERL Membership Meeting Asheville, NC April 4, 2007

2. Software Development • Open Source vs. Vendor Beta Partnerships • Pros and Cons • Who is Doing What, and • Is there an Open Source Project for ASERL Members?

3. Open Source • Program source code available • No license cost for the software itself • Can be part of commercial offerings • Anyone can fix problems, add features, etc.

4. Proprietary Software Development • Source code kept secret • Only binary code distributed • License fees charged for software • Ongoing development funded by license fees + maintenance/support fees

5. Open Source Cost considerations • Relative parity with commercial alternatives • Other cost components same or greater • Hardware • Facilities management • Systems administration, security, network management • Ongoing development • Integration with enterprise environment • Support and service

6. Open Source Infrastructure • Linux operating system • Apache Web Server • http://www.apache.org/ • Tomcat, Xerces, Jakarta, etc • MySQL database • Lucene – full text search engine

7. Open source ILS • Koha • Evergreen • LearningAccess ILS

8. Koha • Originally developed by Katipo Communications in New Zealand for Horowhenua Library Trust • Released as Open Source

9. Koha

10. Libraries using Koha • ~300 (mostly small) libraries • Horowhenua Library Trust • Nelsonville Public Library • Athens County, OH • Crawford County Federated Library System • 10 Libraries in PA

11. Evergreen • Developed by the Georgia Public Library Service • Small development team • June 2004 – development begins • Sept 5, 2006 – live production

12. Libraries using Evergreen • Georgia PINES • http://gapines.org • 252 libraries in Georgia • Does not include municipal systems: Atlanta-Fulton County, Cobb County • Experimental evaluation • King County Library System in WA state.

13. Evergreen

14. Learning Access ILS • Learning Access Institute • Turnkey Open Source ILS • Designed for underserved rural public libraries • http://www.learningaccess.org

15. LearningAccess ILS

16. SCOOLS • South Central Organization of (School) Libraries • consortium of K-12 school libraries in NY • Koha derivative

17. SCOOLS

18. LibraryFind • Metasearch tool • Developed by Oregon State University • http://libraryfind.org

19. Library Find

20. Commercial Support Options • Index Data • LibLime • Index Data • Equinox Software, Inc.

21. LibLime • Commercial spin-off from the Nelsonville Public Library • 9 employees • Recently acquired Koha division of Katipo Communications in New Zealand • Original Developer of Koha

22. Equinox Software • Commercial spin-off of Georgia Public Library Services • Developers of Evergreen • No full-time employees, all still work for GPLS

23. Open Source ILS adoption in libraries • Georgia PINES • Nelsonville Public Library

24. Examples • King County Library System • Serves 1.2 million residents • 43 libraries • 19 million annual circulation • Investigating viability of Evergreen

25. eXtensible Catalog • http://extensiblecatalog.info/ • Working toward Open Source next-generation interface • University of Rochester’s River Campus Libraries • Funded by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation ($283,000) • Study on needs and requirements, not software development

26. Index Data • Zebra database server and indexing engine • YAZ Toolkit for Z39.50 • YAZ Proxy Z39.50 / SRW gateway • Keystone Digital Library System

27. Digital Repositiory • DSpace • HP + MIT • Fedora • Univ of Virginia + Cornell • Commercial enhancements and support from VTLS

28. Partnering with Commercial Vendors

29. Development partner scenario • Capital costs of development born by the vendor • Team of professional programmers • Product management • Quality Assurance • R&D investment • Market research

30. Library responsibility • Input in features and design • Early implementation • Testing, evaluation, assessment

31. Innovative Encore • 20 development partners: Grand Valley State University, Jefferson County Public Library (CO), Miami University (OH), University of Western Ontario (Canada), and Wright State University (OH), Scottsdale Public Library and the Lillian Goldman Library at Yale Law School, Binghamton University [SUNY] (NY), Deakin University (Australia), Deschutes Public Library (OR), Georgetown University (DC), Michigan State University, Nashville Public Library (TN), Scottsdale Public Library System (AZ), Springfield-Greene County Library (MO), the Tri-College Library Consortium (PA), University of Glasgow (Scotland), the University of Queensland Library (Australia), Westerville Public Library (OH)

32. Vanderbilt Primo Experience • Library-wide decision making process • Major investment of library resources • Complex project with many components

33. Primo • New Discovery and Delivery tool for library content and services • Next-generation library interface • ILS bibliographic data + TV News • Example of adding local digital content • Integrated federated search • Integrated OpenURL linking services

34. Project costs • LITS team leader • Project Manager • Systems administrator • Major agenda item for Digital Library Steering Committee • 5 project teams • Intensive effort: Aug 2006 – May 2007

35. Balance of work: Vendor / Library • Work performed by the library represents a very small portion of the overall effort to develop the complete system • Beta-test Libraries not primarily responsible for: • Initial product conception • Programming • Debugging • Technical design • Recruitment, training, support for team of designers, programmers, QA • A beta-test library enhances the quality assurance that the vendor must do anyway

36. Advantages to Beta Test • Ability to influence a product without taking on full costs of development • Early adoption • Increased opportunities to ensure the product will meet the needs of the library • Increases leverage with vendor • Discounted capital investment • Offset by increased investment in library staff

37. Disadvantages to Beta Test • Limited degree of involvement on the front-end vision of the product • Less direct advantage to other libraries • Will still have to purchase and pay support for the product • Significant investment of library resources • Cost/Benefit ratio?

38. Advantages to full Open Source Development • Full control • Concept/Vision • Features, Functionality • Direct benefit to larger community that may also use the software • Less vulnerability to vendor abandonment?

39. Disadvantages of Open Source Development • Capital investment • Development tools, facilities, hardware • Resource investment • Software design specialists • Professional programmers • System administrators • Recruitment, training, management • Project management tools • Assessment tools • Benchmarking, etc.

40. Institutional Commitment • Who will be responsible for bearing the cost of the project • Ongoing development of the product • Support, maintenance, security

41. Potential projects • Next-generation catalog • ASERL combined catalog • Primo implementation that spans multiple ASERL libraries • Resource sharing • Kudzu replacement • Automation/Tracking for Kudzu delivery service