Cost Benefit Analysis 1

Cost Benefit Analysis of ILS Implementation for a Large County Library System

A paper submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of

Department of Library & Information Studies

University at Buffalo

For the Course LIS 598, Directed Study

April 2010

Ryan Luce

Cost Benefit Analysis 2

Introduction

Over the last decade a number of integrated library system (ILS) vendors have created and

implemented new platforms that have been adopted by various library systems within the United

States. This rise in new ILS platforms has caused some libraries to consider switching from their

legacy ILS to a new vendor. This study is meant to recreate monetary and technical aspects a county-

wide library system would consider before switching to a new ILS platform. By using a library system

serving a population of 950,000 with 37 of branches as an example of a large library system, this study

will analyze and address the benefits and challenges of changing from a legacy ILS to a new platform.

The purpose of the study is to analyze the cost-benefit relationship between migrating to a new

platform and vendor or staying with existing software and support. The published literature

concerning the switching to a new ILS platform, issues of usability, scalability, and support services

was investigated, resulting in the choice of four alternative ILS platforms that could potentially meet

the current needs of a large library system to be examined in more depth. The paper also presents

estimated vendor pricing for the initial operating year and support for the following three years.

A Brief History of ILS

The addition of computer terminals to libraries in the 1970s allowed for a library system’s card catalog

to be placed on a database, where patrons would be able to search for books through dummy

terminals. This database of a library system’s card catalog is called an Online Public Access Catalog

Cost Benefit Analysis 3

(OPAC). The initial database system was known as an Automated Library System (ALS); with

technology advancements of the late 1980s more library operations were brought into the database

namely, acquisitions, cataloging, circulation, and serials (Kinner, 2009). The transfer of library

operations into a single entity renamed an ALS to Integrated Library System (ILS) that could track all

different facets of a library system. An ILS can be module-based meaning certain operations of a

library system (e.g. circulation, cataloging) can run on this system while other functions can be

operated on separate platforms. In the initial years of computers in libraries, patrons were only able

to view material that was in their library system using the OPAC, but now with technological

advancements an ILS is able to search multiple resources and manage digital content.

The Needs of a Large Library System

Looking at the needs of a large library system as a model for this study, the ILS platform needs to be

able to support all or most of the fundamental operations a library system encompasses. These

include modules for:

Acquisition- The act of the library system purchasing books or other materials through a

company (vendor) including pricing, invoicing, and receipts.

Cataloging- The exporting and importing of Machine Readable Cataloguing (MARC) records

that allow items to be searched in the OPAC.

Circulation- Checking in and out items from the library system, putting holds on items, and

renewing an item.

Cost Benefit Analysis 4

Serials - Keeping track of any serial (typically, a magazine or journal) that is continually

published.

Cost Benefit Analysis 5

Methodology

When identifying four ILS platforms that would meet the needs of a large county library system there

was a two-step process: first we looked at the satisfaction librarians had with their ILS systems.

Marshall Breeding, Director for Innovative Technologies and Research for Vanderbilt University

Libraries, has administered yearly (2007 to 2010) a public survey of librarians in American public

libraries to gauge perceptions, attitudes, and satisfaction with ILS platforms (Breeding, 2007, 2008,

2009, 2010). Using this survey, a number of ILS platforms that were given high marks for satisfaction

by librarians were chosen for analysis.

After choosing a number of ILS platforms recommended by the survey, research was done to

examine the specifications of each platform in terms of the size of the library system it was designed

to meet and capabilities. This eliminated any ILS platforms that were designed for small library

systems or schools. This step included reading ILS platform literature and looking at comparative

library systems with the ILS platforms. Using this methodology, the following four ILS platforms were

chosen for further investigation:

Evergreen (Open Source): was rated a 6.83 out of 9

(Equinox Software for Support) (Breeding, 2010d).

Agent Verso (Proprietary): was rated a 7.40 out of 9 in satisfaction (Breeding, 2010d)

Polaris (Proprietary): was rated at 7.77 out of 9 in satisfaction (Breeding,2010d)

Koha (Open Source): was rated a 7.86 out of 9 in satisfaction

Cost Benefit Analysis 6

(ByWater Solutions for Support)(Breeding, 2010d).

Since two of the chosen ILS platforms were Open Source, a number of companies that provided

support for these platforms were identified using Breeding’s Perceptions Survey. ByWater Solutions

and Equinox Software were both given the highest marks respectively for each system.

Open Source and Proprietary Systems

There are a number of differences between an Open Source System (OSS) and a Proprietary System,

most notably the availability of the source code. OSS allows for the source code to be manipulated

which allows for customization of the ILS platform to meet the library system’s needs. Proprietary

Systems are closed which allow for no alterations to the source code for customization. There are

possible but limited options for a library system to choose in terms of customization of the

proprietary system that the ILS Company could implement. In terms of development, OSS has a

development community meaning technical programmers work to solve problems in the ILS platform

and then distribute these solutions for free. These OSS ILS platforms are licensed under the General

Public Licensing (GPL) agreement which allows any individual or organization to download this

software for free. Conversely, Proprietary Software‘s developers are employed by the ILS company

with system updates usually released annually not in sporadic periods. Proprietary Software can be

downloaded only when there has been a purchase of the ILS platform.

Literature Review

A review of the library literature found a single cost benefit study on the implementation of ILS

Cost Benefit Analysis 7

platforms and a number of articles on navigating the implementation of a new ILS from a librarian’s

perspective. The cost benefit analysis study was done by Linda Riewe (2008)as a Master’s Thesis that

compared the two open source ILS platforms included in this study, Evergreen and Koha with over 20

proprietary platforms, including Polaris. Her findings suggest that “except for initial labor cost, the

average costs of open source ILSs are less than proprietary ILSs in almost all cost and size categories”

(Riewe, 2008, p. 54). Riewe also found that “the most important of the costs is annual costs” and

“libraries with open source ILS …cited customizability, freedom from vendor lock-in, and portability

as reasons for choosing their ILS”(Riewe, 2008, pg.43 ). In looking at proprietary software Riewe found

that they exceeded open source ILS in “documentation completeness, acceptable of installation

time, and original cataloging ease of use” (Riewe, 2008, p.45).

The other literature dealing with ILS platform implementation comes mostly from an

academic library setting but can be applied to a public library system. These implementation

features include monetary considerations including “phased migration to spread out costs over

multiple fiscal years”(Kohn, 2010) to implementation at the close of the fiscal year in order to not

migrate MARC records of serials or journals that would not be purchased in the new fiscal year(Walls,

2011).

Another implementation consideration reported in the literature was project management;

this included the desire to migrate to a new platform, staffing considerations, and technical aspects.

Cost Benefit Analysis 8

In the literature the desire to migrate to a new ILS platform came from legacy ILS users whose “tech

support was no longer able to connect to the local … server” (Walls, 2011, p. 51), looking for a more

“efficient way to store data” (Kohn, 2010, p.428), or “better system/functionality in a new system”

(Zhonghong, 2009, p.216). In looking to staffing considerations the literature showed how library

systems in general should prepare staff and patrons for change. Staffing and patron considerations

included “staff and user involvement” (Zhonghong, 2009, p. 217) in implementing the new ILS

platform including setting up a “test database … letting everyone log in from the very beginning not

only let stakeholders feel included but let everyone become the expert on their own tasks” (Kohn,

2010, p. 432). Staffing considerations included workflow issues where “weekly meetings at which a

designated librarian or staff member presented his/her tasks”; this included “importing a file of OCLC

records” for cataloging and having “ the developer either suggest a different procedure or ask

questions about our needs so that he could find a solution”(Kohn, 2010, p. 432). Reviewing this

literature allows library systems to consider what liberties to take when implementing a new ILS

platform.

A Brief History of Each ILS Platform

Agent Verso

Agent Verso is a proprietary ILS platform first released in 2005 by Auto Graphics Inc. (Agent Verso,

Inc.). Agent Verso can be implemented as a singular, consortium, or multiple branch library system

including city, state, or county (Agent Verso Brochure). Agent Verso is currently installed in 245

public libraries (Agent Verso, Inc.).

Cost Benefit Analysis 9

Polaris

Polaris is a proprietary ILS platform that was first released in 1997 by then parent company Gaylord

Information Systems now, The Croydon Company (Polaris Library Systems). Polaris is currently

installed in 770 public libraries and has recently gained the Dallas Public Library as a customer (Polaris

Library Systems). This library system encompasses 2.3 million people and 28 library branches (U.S.

Census Bureau, 2010; Dallas Library System.)

Evergreen with Equinox Software

Evergreen ILS was first released in 2006 by the Georgia Public Library System (GPLS) in response to

their legacy Unicorn ILS not being able to share resources statewide with PINES (Public Information

Network for Electronic Services) that encompasses 61 library systems and 2.2 million patrons

(Weber,2006; Veatch, 2009). Equinox Software was a company created by Evergreen developers to

support the ILS system (Veatch, 2009). Currently, Evergreen with Equinox Software supports 331

public libraries and has recently acquired King County Library System in Washington which has an

annual circulation that exceeds 22 million items a year compared to the 8 million the large library

system produces (Equinox Software, 2010; King County Library System, 2011).

Cost Benefit Analysis 10

Koha with ByWater Solutions

Koha was developed in 1999 by a group of New Zealand libraries called the Horowhenua Library Trust

(HLT) (Breeding, 2008). Koha was the first open source library automation system ever designed and

was implemented in 2000 (Breeding, 2008). After the development of Koha and implementation in

the Nelsonville Public Library System, a number of companies were created to support Koha, most

notably, Liblime (Breeding, 2008). For this study we will be looking at ByWater Solutions which

supports Koha, which was founded in 2009 and has been receiving high marks for creating a system

that is customized to meet the needs of its customers and quality support services (Breeding, 2010d).

ByWater Solutions is currently a vendor for 77 American public libraries (Breeding, 2010b). Currently,

they do not service a large county library system but due to factors that will be further discussed in

other sections of this report, this did not disqualify them from being a potential vendor.

After choosing the four ILS platforms, all four vendors were contacted to provide more information

on their platforms. All companies have either a webinar that shows all front/back end usability

features of their platform or a test module that allows hands-on use of the ILS. These

webinars/demos were all investigated to experience the similarities and differences between each

ILS platform.

Usability

In this section the-front end usability of the four platforms were evaluated from the patrons’

perspectives in terms of options with using the OPAC, widgets, and tools at their disposal. Also

Cost Benefit Analysis 11

investigated were the back-end technical modules (Acquisitions, Cataloging, Circulation, and Serials

modules) a large county library should consider before implementing an ILS platform.

Cost Benefit Analysis 12

Agent Verso

Auto Graphic’s ILS, Agent Verso is module-based and allows for the full range of systems required by

a large county library system, including but not limited to: acquisitions, MARC record authority,

circulation, and serials (Agent Verso Brochure). Agent Verso’s OPAC interface is innovative,

resembling the cover-flow view of Apple’s iTunes software (see Figures. 1 and 2). Agent Verso’s

“splash page” is easily customizable allowing library administrators to add widgets, calendars, and

newsfeeds to the first page (Koppel, 2011). This ease of adding features is reminiscent of

Wordpress.com’s templates with simple dropping and dragging or clicking to add. Patrons have the

ability for federated searching of multiple online or print resources. Agent Verso also has an option

that will allow patrons to be notified when new material is acquired on a certain subject. This aspect

is similar to web alerts Google has created for subject terms. Agent Verso was designed to duplicate

the refined design of products for the World Wide Web in a library setting.

Figure 1 - iTunes “Cover Flow”

Cost Benefit Analysis 13

Cost Benefit Analysis 14

Figure. 2 – A screenshot of the cover flow design

Polaris

Polaris offers the core functionality that allows for any library system to migrate its data over to the

system. This includes standard modules for acquisitions, circulation, serials, and cataloging. Note

that the cataloging module is maintained by Autographic’s own database which could lead to changes

in the technical departments if OCLC is regularly used for cataloging (Cibbaretti, 2010). Polaris ILS has

a standard interface when compared to other ILS products but has included Web 2.0 features that can

enhance the experience of a patron (see Figure. 1). Polaris has added features of predictive text

similar to Google’s instant search feature (Figure. 3) and allows patrons to share their recently-read

Cost Benefit Analysis 15

books over 85 Web 2.0 websites such as Facebook and Delicious (Lytle, 2011). Polaris has partnered

with a company called Chili Fresh that has enabled patrons to post reviews for other patrons to read

around the world (see Figure. 4) (Lytle, 2011). Other features include patron activation of their

loaning history and outreach services, where patrons can rate the condition of material loaned to

them.

Figure. 3-Search results with Polaris

Cost Benefit Analysis 16

Figure. 4 - Chilli Fresh Review

Evergreen

The initial release of Evergreen in 2006 had a few missing modules, most notably acquisitions, serials,

and Z39.50 communication protocol (Breeding, 2008). The main reason for these missing modules

came from the state of Georgia, where Evergreen was created. The state of Georgia had been

resource-sharing statewide since the 1940s and when designing Evergreen these modules were

supplemented by their existing Unicorn ILS (Molyneux, personal communication, January 28, 2011).

Since the initial version of Evergreen, all modules that were missing have been included; this has

allowed the Evergreen ILS with Equinox support to be used by other library systems of varying size.

Equinox Software was created by the developers of Evergreen after the project was completed to

Cost Benefit Analysis 17

support the system (Weber, 2006). The interface of Evergreen is basic without the innovative layouts

characteristics of Polaris but include six main features for results: copy summary, shelf browser,

reviews, author notes, MARC record, and recommendations. The interface is meant to be simple but

can support the integration of Web 2.0 features when searching for material (Balnaves, 2008).

Figure. 5- Search Results with Evergreen (Equinox Software)

Koha

The initial release of Koha in 1999 had a number of functionality issues including not being able to

browse the collection and pay patron fines (Breeding, 2008). But through the years all essential

modules have been created to match the needs of a large county library system. The modules

Cost Benefit Analysis 18

include: acquisitions, circulation, cataloging, and serials (Cibbaretti, 2010). The interface of Koha with

ByWater Solutions is simple but has a number of add-on options including images of book covers,

customer comments, metadata tags, Google book previews, and Amazon reviews. These options to

enhance the patron’s experience with the online catalog are extras that can be implemented by

ByWater Solutions. Overall, Koha with ByWater Solutions offers a range of interactive tools that can

assist library patrons.

Figure. 6- Search Results with Koha (ByWater Solutions)

Additional Technical Aspects

In looking at the upfront usability of each ILS platform, there are number of back-end

Cost Benefit Analysis 19

technical aspects that should be taken into consideration when evaluating alternative ILS platforms.

Any newly implemented ILS platform is not ready to be used right out of the box and will need some

adjusting to meet the needs of a particular library system. With the increasing amount of electronic

resources (e.g. electronic journals, databases, and electronic books) that library systems are

purchasing, looking at how ILS platforms are investing in the future is a major point of consideration

(Breeding, November 2007).

In terms of interoperability between an ILS platform and third-party content providers,

Application Programming Interface (API) acts as the bridge to connect services that an ILS does not

have for seamless patron use. Looking at the level of openness that each ILS platform provides to the

library system, each has their own version of API, whether it is Evergreen’s OpenSRF API or Polaris’

NCIP API. Thus, each ILS platform will have their own eccentricities that library programmers will have

to become accustomed to (Breeding, 2009). These APIs can come at an extra cost to the library system

and will be discussed in further detail in the findings section (Breeding, 2009). These ILS platforms

show interoperability with APIs which can integrate with Web 2.0 tools, and federated searching

across multiple resources. These APIs can meet the changing needs of today’s patron (Kinner, L.,

2009).

Finally, strategic planning projects are an aspect of usability that should be considered when

looking at alternative ILS platforms. In recent years Radio-Frequency Identification (RFID) tags have

Cost Benefit Analysis 20

become popular in tracking library items. In terms of strategic planning projects such as putting RFID

tags on all items, the library system will want to consider if a new ILS will be able to migrate this

project over to their system. In using the RFID tag as an example, Polaris currently does not support

this type of project (Cibbaretti, 2010).

Scalability

Current ILS Setup

As of spring 2011, the library system used as the model for this study runs SirsiDynix’s Symphony ILS

software that was installed by the company on their Sun Micro server (Hsu, Personal Communication,

February 16, 2011). When looking at scalability for this study we will assume that the large county

library system currently runs its own servers for all library processes. In today’s dollars, to purchase a

server of this size would cost approximately $125,000 (Name Withheld, Library Questionnaire, 2011).

The current design of Symphony allows it to run on multiple platforms for servers including:

Windows, Linux, MAC, Novell, and Thin Client (Khurshid, 2009; Cibbaretti, 2010). For this large county

library system the server runs on Windows software (Name Withheld, Library Questionnaire, 2011).

The Four ILS Platforms

Even though the question of whether these four ILS platforms can handle increased growth over time

(e.g. collection, new patrons) has been answered with the library system operating its own servers, it

is important to understand what each ILS platform runs for server software to understand the

similarities and differences.

Cost Benefit Analysis 21

Server Software information provided by Cibbaretti, 2010; Agent Verso: tech specs.

Additional Considerations

In looking at the multiple server software packages available for ILS platforms there are some details

that need to be explained. Linux servers run a cluster of computer servers together which is similar

to the server farms Google uses for their operations. These clusters of servers allow for “redundancy

for reliability” (Riewe, 2008, p. 33). Macintosh servers are in-between Linux and Windows servers

where there needs to be clusters of servers but each of these is more powerful than a Linux server.

In looking at the pricing for these various server set ups, the library system will need to determine

the pricing of new servers if they are not identical to what they already own.

Cost Benefit Analysis 22

Support Services

Support services for each ILS Company include as number of ways to communicate for technical

guidance and troubleshooting assistance. Below shows the hours of operation each ILS Company

supports and the various ways a library can communicate with the vendor.

Agent Verso: Telephone, Email, Website, Chat, and Site Visits, Hours: 8 am to 8 pmEST

Polaris: Telephone, Email, Website, Chat, and Site Visits, Hours: 8 am to 8 pm EST

Evergreen with Equinox Software: Telephone, Email, Website, and Site Visits, Hours: 24/7 or

Business hours that are 8 am to 6 pm EST

Koha with ByWater Solutions: Telephone, Email, Website, Chat, and Site Visits, Hours: 24/7

(Girardi, Personal Communication, February 15, 2011; Hermann, Personal Communication, March 30,

2011; Koppel, 2011; Masteo, Personal Communication, 2011).

Findings

Getting a quote from an ILS company on their platform can be done by gathering numbers on a

variety of library reports including but not limited to: circulation, bibliographic records, and number

of items and holdings. The questionnaire attached in the appendix is a questionnaire written and

supplied by Polaris ILS with many of the questions from vendors overlapping each other. Below is the

2010 monetary expenditure for the SirsiDynix Symphony ILS for a large county library system:

(Name Withheld, Library Questionnaire, 2011)

Cost Benefit Analysis 23

Sirsi Software Maintaince: $ 113,416

Sirsi API Software Support: $5,000

Sirsi Director’s Station Maintenance: $5,700

Sirsi Support on Sun Server- $6,088

Total: $130,204

Proprietary Software Findings

Agent Verso was not able to supply information on the number of bibliographic records and

circulation each year. Most of the library systems that they support are a few hundred thousand

bibliographic records and 1.5 million items circulating (Sheppard, Personal Communication, March 29,

2010). Polaris was not able to supply a quote at this time for the study.

Open Source Software Findings

In contacting ByWater Solutions for implementation for Koha the following figures apply:

Installation and Migration: $180,000.00 onetime fee

Support: $45,000.00 per year

Training: $8,600.00 onetime fee

Total: First Year: $233,600 Years after installation: $45,000

(Hermann, Personal Communication, March 28, 2011)

Cost Benefit Analysis 24

The pricing above is based on having the correct Linux servers already bought, but the library can

keep their Windows server for ILS operations. (Masteo, Personal Communication, March 28, 2011).

Support costs cover all software maintenance, troubleshooting and API support (Masteo, Personal

Communication, March 28, 2011). The migration process would be to transfer all data over to ByWater

Solutions servers for a few weeks then after the Linux servers are ready; transfer the data back to the

large county library system’s servers (Masteo, Personal Communication, March 28, 2011). Training is

set up for either onsite which is priced above and/or a webinar series of five modules that cost $350

each (Masteo, Personal Communication, April 4, 2011).

Equinox Software which supports Evergreen ILS gave estimates below for installation in a large library

system:

Installation, Configuration and Support 1st year: $57, 700

Data Migration and Cleanup Services 1st year: $131,075

Training and Consulting Services 1st year: $12,500

Estimated Annual Cost: $39,550

First Year Costs: $201,275 Years after installation: $39,550

(Hermann, Personal Communication, March 30, 2011)

The figures given by Equinox Software include the estimated amount for Linux Servers to replace the

Cost Benefit Analysis 25

current technical setup. Equinox, in their estimation, would run 14 servers at $1,000 per unit. In

terms of training on Evergreen ILS there is a session for library staff that will run about $1,500 a day

for five days of onsite training while system administrators will have a one day session. The annual

cost is the Evergreen Platinum Support Package that includes APIs, and the updating of the ILS

platform twice a year.

Comparison of Pricing

Analyzing the price quotes from ByWater Solutions and Equinox Software gives an approximate

picture of what monetary investment will be needed to implement an ILS platform. Equinox

Software is lower in price of the two options but there are some factors to take into consideration

because Evergreen does not have the same Web 2.0 usability features as Koha and has received a

lower rating by surveyed librarians. Koha with ByWater Solutions can run on the same Linux server

structure meaning that this would increase the approximate estimate for installing this platform by

$14,000 if they were to purchase the same servers. The library system could keep the same Windows

server and keep ILS operations. Looking at the support services for each ILS Company there are no

tiered support levels for each company meaning that the annual cost is not lowered or raised by the

technical support becoming accustomed to the new ILS platform.

Savings from Implementation

Implementing ByWater Solutions with Koha would mean an increase in the ILS budget by

Cost Benefit Analysis 26

approximately $103,396 for the first year but after the third year the new ILS platform would pay for

itself with estimated yearly savings of $85,204 a year. Equinox Software’s implementation of

Evergreen ILS would save the large county library system more money and will pay for itself faster

than Koha. The library system will need an additional $71,071 for implementing the Evergreen ILS

system in the first year but it will pay for itself in the second year with a savings of $90,654.

Recommendations

Analyzing the monetary expenditures of Evergreen and Koha has shown that either system could

save the large county library system model money. The cost difference of implementing each ILS

platform is $32,325. Looking at the previous factors of usability, scalability, and support services

coupled with ease of transition by not having to purchase new servers, Koha with ByWater Solutions

is the recommended choice for this particular large county library system. Even though Koha is more

expensive than Evergreen with Equinox Software, they have created the interactive features of a

Web 2.0 experience with their OPAC, a higher satisfaction rating, and allow for all modules to be

maintained with in--house technical specialists.

Limitations of the Research

The scope of the report was shortened to keep the length of the report feasible. Increasing the scope

of the potential ILS platforms would allow for a greater variety of ILS options for library systems to

consider. Pricing add-on resources such as a children’s catalog for a new ILS platform is another area

the merits consideration.

Cost Benefit Analysis 27

Conclusion

The cost benefit analysis of a new ILS platform on a large county library system is largely an

under-researched field that has more room to grow and contribute to the field of Library Science.

There has been little written on cost benefit analysis of ILS implementation but there has been an

emergence of articles on handling the management of ILS implementation. In analyzing the four ILS

platforms, findings suggest that a number of ILS platforms have been influenced by the tools used on

the World Wide Web and will continue to be updated to keep up with today’s patron needs. Looking

at the monetary quotes that were given by the two open source ILS companies there is considerable

savings for a large county library system in implementing a new ILS. Even though these open source

ILS platforms are free to download they can be just as competitive with proprietary systems. Cost

benefit analysis of ILS platforms are a critical research tool for library systems to have when

considering moving to a new system in order to make the transition efficient as possible.

Cost Benefit Analysis 28

Appendix Library Questionnaire

ContactInformation

Library

Street Address

City

State Zip

Telephone Fax

Email

Contact Person

Title/Responsibili

ty

Library Web Site

Library Director

Statistical

Information

Record Counts

Bibliographic 1,585,711Authori

ty315,237

Items/Holdings 3,495,950

Patrons

/Borro

wers

408,381

Cost Benefit Analysis 29

Branches/Bookm

obiles

1 Central

Library; 36

other (city

branches,

towns, etc.)

Hosted / Turnkey

Annual

Circula

tion

8,097,152

Number of Total

Transactions

Numbe

r of

holds

process

ed

annuall

y

420,000

Projected number

of licensed

workstations at

point of system

purchase

In-house Public 30 Staff 450

Current

Automation

Cost Benefit Analysis 30

What is your

current

automation

system?

SirsiDynix

How

long

have

you

been on

the

system?

2004

Hosted or

Turnkey? Turnkey

Annual

Mainte

nance?

Est. $150,000

(dependent upon

current software &

product

subscriptions)

Preferred

Functionality and

Service

What do you like

about your

current system?

What

functionality

and/or service do

you NOT want to

lose when you

change systems?

Cost Benefit Analysis 31

What new

functionality is

most important to

you going

forward?

What other

factors are most

important to you

in a new system

and/or with a

new vendor?

Features in

Current System

(Y/N)

Features in new

system (R =

required; O =

optional; # of

units or locations)

Features in

Current System

(Y/N)

Features in new

Cost Benefit Analysis 32

system (R =

required; O =

optional; # of

units or locations)

Current Future Current Future

Circulation SirsiDynix Cataloging SirsiDynix

Web-based PAC SirsiDynixSelf-check

(# of units)SirsiDynix

Acquisitions SirsiDynix Serials SirsiDynix

EDI : Vendors SirsiDynix

Spanish PAC SirsiDynix Children’s PAC SirsiDynix

Other Language

PAC (list)SirsiDynix

Enhanced PAC

ContentSirsiDynix

Polaris

e-commerceN/A

Academic Course

ReservesSirsiDynix

URL Detective SirsiDynixOutreach

ServicesSirsiDynix

SimplyReports

(# of users)SirsiDynix

Debt Collection:

Vendor

Unique

Managemen

t

Authority Control SirsiDynixZ39.50 Bib

Record SourceSirsiDynix

Cost Benefit Analysis 33

Z39.50 Authority

Record SourceSirsiDynix

LC Authority

Weekly Update

Service

SirsiDynix

PC Reservation:

Vendor

EnvisionWar

e

Telephone

Notification:

Vendor

SirsiDynix

# of PCs 850Inbound # of

lines2

# of locations 37Outbound # of

lines6

Print

Management

EnvisionWar

eTraining Server SirsiDynix

# of workstations 850

# of printers 80 Data Migration: SirsiDynix

# of locations 37 Acquisitions SirsiDynix

# of copiers 0 Serials SirsiDynix

Network/Infrastr

ucture

Network Type

Hub and

spoke

Type of Internet Fiber – 100

Cost Benefit Analysis 34

connection MB

How are remotes

sites connected?

Fiber from

Central

Library to 36

sites with

5­10 MB

Preferred

operating systemWindows XP

Preferred

hardware

platform

HP

Selection Process

What are the

most important

elements in your

decision-making

process? (i.e.,

functionality,

vendor

compatibility,price, etc.)

If you will be

using a

consultant, who

Cost Benefit Analysis 35

will it be?

What is your

procurement

process? (i.e.,

RFP, demos)

If you will use an

evaluation

committee please

list names and

titles.

Please list any additional software not already listed that you have or are

planning to implement:

Cost Benefit Analysis 36

References

Agent Verso. (n.d.). Agent verso, powerful integrated library system (ILS) for public

libraries.[Brochure]

Retrieved from http://www4.auto-graphics.com/documents/2010/VERSObrochureWEB.pdf

Agent verso: tech specs (n.d.). Retrieved from

http://www4.autographics.com/documents/2010/VERSObrochureWEB.pdf

Balnaves, E. (2008). Open source library management systems: a multidimensional evaluation.

Australian Academic & Research Libraries, 39(1), 13.

Breeding, M. (2007). An industry redefined. Library Journal, 132(6), 36. Retrieved from EBSCOhost

Breeding, M. (2008). Major Open Source ILS Products. Library Technology Reports, 44(8), 16.

Breeding, M. (2009). Vendors and Products. Library Technology Reports, 45(8), 15-38.

Breeding, M. (2010). Auto Graphics Inc. Retrieved from

http://www.librarytechnology.org/autographics.pl

Breeding, M.(2010b). ByWater Solutions. Retrieved from

http://www.librarytechnology.org/bywater.pl

Breeding, M. (2010c). Equinox Software. Retrieved from

http://www.librarytechnology.org/equinox.pl

Breeding, M.(2010d). Perceptions 2010: An International Survey of Library Automation. Retrieved

from

http://www.librarytechnology.org/perceptions2010.pl

Breeding, M. (2010e). Polaris Library Systems. Retrieved from

http://www.librarytechnology.org/polaris.pl

Cibbaretti, P. R. (2010). Helping you buy ILS. Computers in Libraries, 30(1), 20-48.

Dallas Public Library. (n.d.). Locations and hours. Retrieved from:

http://www.dallaslibrary2.org/hours.php

Khurshid, Z., & Al-Baridi, S. (2009). Symphony: Sirsidynix's flagship integrated library system: A

Cost Benefit Analysis 37

horizon

user's perspective. Computers in Libraries, 29(7), 6-10.

King County Library System. (2011). 2010 Year in review, the busiest year ever. Retrieved from

http://www.kcls.org/about/annualreport/archives/2010%20Year%20in%20Review%20FINAL.pdf

Kinner, L., & Rigda, C. (2009). The integrated library system: from daring to dinosaur?. Journal of

Library Administration, 49(4), 401-417. doi:10.1080/01930820902832546

Kohn, K., & McCloy, E. (2010). Phased migration to koha: our library's experience. Journal of Web

Librarianship, 4(4), 427-434. doi:10.1080/19322909.2010.485944

Koppel,T. (2011). Auto-Graphics' AGent VERSO, Next Generation Integrated Library System Webinar.

Lytle, J. (2011). Polaris Overview Webinar. Retrieved from

https://polarislibrary.webex.com/.

Mackun, P. & Wilson, S. (2011). Population distribution and change: 2000 to 2011. Washington, DC:

Government Printing Office.

Riewe, L. (2008). Integrated Library System (ILS) Survey: Open source vs. proprietary-tables

(Unpublished Master’s thesis). Retrieved from

http://users.sfo.com/~lmr/ils-survey/080831-paper-Riewe.pdf

Veatch, L. & Walker, J. (2009). White paper on pines/evergreen/equinox [white paper]. Retrieved from

http://pines.georgialibraries.org/files/WhitePaper-PINES-Evergreen-Equinox-8-09.pdf

Walls, I. (2011). The NYU health sciences libraries' experiences. OCLC Systems & Services, 27(1), 51-56.

doi:10.1108/10650751111106564

Weber, J. (2006). Evergreen: your homegrown ILS. Library Journal, 131(20), 38-41.

Zhonghong, W. (2009). Integrated library system (ILS) challenges and opportunities: a survey of U.S.

academic libraries with migration projects. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 35(3), 207-220.