1. Kuali Community Workshop OLE Board Meeting
Neil Block, Harry Kaplanian, EBSCO

2. Assumptions
Next-gen ILS landscape: room for a strong entrant focused on academic libraries
Open Source resonates with academic libraries
Market will embrace an additional next-gen ILS: OLE - that is open source
The OLE community needs to grow to remain sustainable
Synergies exist between OLE and EBSCO offerings

3. EBSCO Vision Support OLE as open source ILS
Contribute actively to the development of OLE software
Integration between OLE and EBSCO/YBP services

4. EBSCO Vision Why? Support OLE as open source ILS
Contribute actively to the development of OLE software
Integration between OLE and EBSCO/YBP services
Why?

5. EBSCO Vision Why? Support OLE as open source ILS
Contribute actively to the development of OLE software
Integration between OLE and EBSCO/YBP services
Why?
Vendor-provided ILS are not giving libraries choice
We provide complementary services to OLE
No intentions to build an ILS
Potential for business model providing services for OLE
Not enough next-gen ILS vendors (only 2).
Vendor lock-in
Services EBSCO provides are complementary to those needed for OLE implementation

6. EBSCO: OLE Review Team EBSCO Project Team Weekly status meetings
Harry Kaplanian – Product Management
Neil Block – Market view and ILS functionality
Vincent Bareau - Architect
Tamir Borensztajn - Marketing
Jacqui Pazzanese – Project Management
Oliver Pesch – EBSCO Strategy
Weekly status meetings
Project Plan underway
Monthly meeting with key stakeholders / executives
Peri and Patty Mescher – valuable resources – Thanks!

7. EBSCO: OLE Project Status
Phase 0: Legal review – confirm no licensing issues – (Complete)
Phase 1: Join OLE Board membership & participate (Complete)
Phase 2: Project Kickoff - (Complete)
Phase 3: OLE detailed analysis and test assumptions
Functional gap analysis – (April 29 – In Process)
Architecture review & update/recommendations - (April 29 – In Process)
Rice and UI
Consortia friendliness
Multi-tenancy
Integration points
Other key areas
Market research – (April 30 – In Process)
Phase 4: EBSCO Team formation - PM, CustSat, Technology (May – July)
Phase 5: Define objectives and develop plan, announce participation, actively assist to help grow OLE community (July - )

8. EBSCO: OLE Project Status
Phase 0: Legal review – confirm no licensing issues – (Complete)
Phase 1: Join OLE Board membership & participate (Complete)
Phase 2: Project Kickoff - (Complete)
Phase 3: OLE detailed analysis and test assumptions
Functional gap analysis – (April 29 – In Process)
Architecture review & update/recommendations - (April 29 – In Process)
Rice and UI
Consortia friendliness
Multi-tenancy
Integration points
Other key areas
Market research – (April 30 – In Process)
Phase 4: EBSCO Team formation - PM, CustSat, Technology (May – July)
Phase 5: Define objectives and develop plan, announce participation, actively assist to help grow OLE community (July - )

9. Other EBSCO Activities
Participation in OLE Board, Functional Council and Technical Council calls
OLE software installed on AWS cloud service
Visits to University of Chicago and Lehigh University
Completed agreement with GoKB to provide EBSCO metadata
Market research study to validate assumptions

10. EBSCO Market Research
Retained a third-party research firm to test open source ILS market assumptions
Survey of 20 U.S. academic libraries (varying sizes, public and private institutions) on:
Awareness of next-gen ILS market
Knowledge of open source ILS software options
Perception of open source v. vended ILS system
Costs
Functionality
Viability
Market study began last week

11. Market Research: Initial Findings
Are you a believer in open source systems?
95%-Agree
Is there room in this market for an open source ILS to compete with a vendor-provided ILS?
100%-Agree
Have you heard of Kuali OLE?
70%-No
Have you heard of Koha
75%-Yes

12. Market Research: Initial Findings
Are these ILS systems / suppliers forward-thinking, progressive and capable for academic libraries?
Ex Libris Alma / OCLC WMS: high percentage agree
III Sierra / SirsiDynix BLUEcloud / ProQuest Intota: slightly lower percent agree
Kuali OLE: 75% not sure
Koha: 40% no; 40% not sure

13. Market Research: Initial Findings
Given the option between an open source ILS and a vendor-provided ILS, which would you choose?
Open source-30%
Vendor-provided-65%
Open-Ended Questions
What would have to change for an open source ILS tool to become an option you would consider?
What advantages do you believe open source systems provide over closed source systems?

14. OLE Architectural Review Update
Harry Kaplanian, EBSCO

15. Kuali OLE Architecture Evaluation (ongoing)
Stood up AWS instance of Kuali OLE
Deployment, setup and maintenance – very manual process, needs automation
Evaluation of feature set – sometimes challenging
Evaluation of user interface and user experience
Upgraded from to 1.6 – process not clearly defined
Difficulty in setting up a working test library

16. Architecture Evaluation (ongoing)
General Observations
Document and workflow underpinnings are not hidden by UI layer
Rice
Deeply embedded, making challenging to disentangle
Use of Service Bus should allow Rice replacement at the module level. But may require compatibility layer
Still a version (or two) behind.
Transition from KNS to KRAD is not complete. Making any transition to another framework more complicated
If Rice is to be replaced, does there need to be a fundamental re-evaluation of the document / workflow approach?

17. Architecture Evaluation (ongoing)
Multi-tenancy
Rice does not support multi-tenancy
OLE layer does not support multi-tenancy
Need to further evaluate exclusive database storage for persistence
Considering 3 modes of configuration
Baseline: individual library instances (current)
Application Pool: shared application layer; dedicated database layer; would require consolidating all persistence to DB layer; requires new tenant management layer
Full SaaS: requires full multi-tenant support; requires much development

18. Architecture Evaluation Next Steps
Finish Rice Analysis
Dependencies in OLE and integration points
High level understanding of Rice future development plans
Can Rice be replaced in parts over time (e.g. UI)
Finish OLE-specific analysis
Dependencies on third-party components
Evaluate possible open integration points for EBSCO/YBP services

19. Feature Comparison Existing feature Planned feature OLE EBSCO
ExLibris (Alma)
OCLC
PQ (Intota)
Discovery
Shared KB
GoKB
Community KB updates
Local catalog updates
MARC updates
Print holdings
eContent holdings
Circulation
Acquisitions
LinkResolver
Usage & Analytics
Cataloging IR
Fedora
Rosetta
ContentDM
ERM
ILL
Selection
Order API
Workflow Management
Order integration
Existing feature
Planned feature

20. Feature Comparison Existing feature Planned feature OLE + EBSCO
ExLibris (Alma)
OCLC
PQ (Intota)
Discovery
Shared KB
Community KB updates
G GoKB
Local catalog updates
Print holdings
eContent holdings
Circulation
Acquisitions
LinkResolver
Usage & Analytics
Cataloging IR
Fedora
Rosetta
ContentDM
ERM
ILL
Selection
Order API
Workflow Management
GoKB
Existing feature
Planned feature

21. EBSCO: Next Steps Complete Market Research Analysis – Early May
Complete OLE functional gap analysis and architectural review – mid-May
HW Wilson foundation funding request – mid May
Results of Foundation funding inquiries – mid-May
Decision on how to move forward: late May
EBSCO team formation (if decision is positive): June–
Define objectives, develop plan, announce participation, help grow OLE community: Late June-

22. Questions?