1. 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/

2.  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.

3.  http://www.librarytechnology.org 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

4.  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

9. Annual Industry report published in Library Journal:  2009: Investing in the Future  2008: Opportunity out of turmoil  2007: An industry redefined  2006: Reshuffling the deck  2005: Gradual evolution  2004: Migration down, innovation up  2003: The competition heats up  2002: Capturing the migrating customer

10. System Name20012002200320042005200620072008 AGent VERSO 141962315544724 Evergreen 6 Voyager 5044352234124 5 ALEPH 500 80585153836729 26 Vubis Smart 1334545660564046 V-Smart 11 Millennium 15713614411910795 64 Koha (Classic/ZOOM) 305740 Library.Solution 7970735841343532 Carl.X / Carl.Solution 131000 Polaris ILS 12212037395432 56 Unicorn 1172071241349171121108 Horizon 12611416819314794150 Virtua 3760673525273039

17. 2002200320042005200620072008 Composite Endeavor + Ex Libris367382408417393418467 Composite Sirsi + Dynix860839789679629491450 Auto-Graphics, Inc.4542 32 3638 Book Systems, Inc.88595853505763 Civica34 35130322379392 COMPanion Corp.86 62636567 EOS International69 727982 79 Equinox Software 613 Follett Software Company266240220245370404402 Infor Library Solutions127104 105777572 Inmagic, Inc.444540 55 Innovative Interfaces, Inc.268285 295 310326 LibLime61428 The Library Corporation173180189210 191204 Polaris Library Systems105656768666976 Serials Solutions 78102142 Softlink America Inc.75809497104115132 SydneyPLUS65 565960 Talis838477 VTLS Inc.1001049395758697

19. CompanySupported SystemsSupport Staff Installed Sites Ratio Polaris Library SystemsPolaris382697.1 Innovative Interfaces, Inc. Millennium17613487.7 The Library CorporationLibrary.Solution, Carl.Solution, Carl.X877348.4 Ex LibrisAleph, Voyager198459323.2 Auto-GraphicsAGent/Verso924427.1 VTLSVirtua4193622.8 InforVubis Smart, Advance, PLUS, Vubis Original 214070.0 LibLimeKoha3308102.7

20.  Perceptions 2008: an international survey of library automation ◦ http://www.librarytechnology.org/perceptions2008.pl 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 http://www.librarytechnology.org/perceptions2007.pl

26. Through Marshall’s articles and columns

27.  “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

28.  “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

30. “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

31. 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

32. “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

33.  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

34.  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

35.  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.

36.  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

37.  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

38.  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/talking- points)

39.  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

40.  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)

41.  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

42.  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

43.  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

44.  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 future- looking library missions and workflows.

45.  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

46.  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

47.  OLE Project ◦ 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  Ex Libris URM ◦ 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

48.  Traditional ILS ◦ Cataloging ◦ Circulation ◦ Online Catalog ◦ Acquisitions ◦ Serials control ◦ Reporting  Modern approach: SOA

49.  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.

50.  Underlying data repositories ◦ Local or Global  Reusable business services  Composite business applications

51.  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  SOA Process ◦ Create high-level map of how the business should work ◦ Deconstruct workflows ◦ Define reusable services ◦ Recombine services into a system that meets our requirements What Is SOA What Is SOA

52. http://www.sun.com/products/soa/benefits.jsp

53. Federated Search Circulation Acquisitions Cataloging Serials OpenURL Linking Electronic Resource Mgmt System Staff Interfaces: End User Interfaces: Data Stores: Functional modules:

54. Data Stores: Reusable Business Services Composite Applications Granular tasks:

55. 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

56.  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

57.  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

59.  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

60.  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

62.  Library Driven  Not vendor-driven  Interest in joining Kuali  Existing organization for non-profit status, legal support, user community

63.  Recruit partners for Build Phase  Write Build Proposal  Complete OLE Blueprint components ◦ Scope Document ◦ Reference Model ◦ Inventory of workflows / processes

65.  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

66.  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

67.  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

68.  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)