Open Source Software

Library Adoption, Trends, and Perspective

Marshall BreedingDirector for Innovative Technologies and ResearchVanderbilt Universityhttp://staffweb.library.vanderbilt.edu/breedinghttp://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.

Summary

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

Library Technology Guides

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

Lib-web-cats

Library Automation in New Jersey

ILS Products in NJ Public Libraries

ILS Products in NJ Academic Libraries

Automation Marketplace

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

LJ Automation Marketplace

System Name 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

AGent VERSO 14 19 6 23 15 54 47 24

Evergreen               6Voyager 50 44 35 22 34 12 4 5ALEPH 500 80 58 51 53 83 67 29 26Vubis Smart 13 34 54 56 60 56 40 46

V-Smart               11Millennium 157 136 144 119 107 95 95 64

Koha (Classic/ZOOM)           30 57 40

Library.Solution 79 70 73 58 41 34 35 32

Carl.X / Carl.Solution       1 3 10 0 0

Polaris ILS 12 21 20 37 39 54 32 56Unicorn 117 207 124 134 91 71 121 108

Horizon 126 114 168 193 147 94 15 0

Virtua 37 60 67 35 25 27 30 39

ILS Sales Statistics: total

ILS Sales: Selected Companies

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 80

50

100

150

200

250

VoyagerALEPH 500Vubis Smart +V-SmartMillenniumKoha (Classic / ZOOM)Library.SolutionCarl.X / Carl.SolutionPolarisUnicornVirtua

ILS Sales: Polaris

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 20080

10

20

30

40

50

60

Polaris

Polaris

ILS Sales: Millennium

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 20080

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Millennium

Millennium

ILS Sales: Koha

2006 2007 20080

10

20

30

40

50

60

Koha

Koha (Classic / ZOOM)

Installations: Millennium

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 20080

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

Total Installations

Millennium

ILS Sales: Unicorn / Horizon

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 20080

50

100

150

200

250

UnicornHorizon

Sirsi acquires Dynix

Horizon Discontinued

  2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Composite Endeavor + Ex Libris 367 382 408 417 393 418 467Composite Sirsi + Dynix 860 839 789 679 629 491 450Auto-Graphics, Inc. 45 42 42 32 32 36 38Book Systems, Inc. 88 59 58 53 50 57 63Civica 34 34 35 130 322 379 392COMPanion Corp. 86 86 62 63 65 67 67EOS International 69 69 72 79 82 82 79Equinox Software           6 13Follett Software Company 266 240 220 245 370 404 402Infor Library Solutions 127 104 104 105 77 75 72Inmagic, Inc. 44 45 40 40 40 55 55Innovative Interfaces, Inc. 268 285 285 295 295 310 326LibLime 6 14 28The Library Corporation 173 180 189 210 210 191 204Polaris Library Systems 105 65 67 68 66 69 76Serials Solutions         78 102 142Softlink America Inc. 75 80 94 97 104 115 132SydneyPLUS 65 65 56 59 60 60 60Talis 83 84 77VTLS Inc. 100 104 93 95 75 86 97

Company Personal Totals

Personnel Growth Comparison

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 20080

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000Comparison of SirsiDynix and Ex Libris

Composite Endeavor + Ex Libris

Composite Sirsi + Dynix

Customer Support Ratios

Company Supported Systems Support Staff

Installed Sites

Ratio

Polaris Library Systems Polaris 38 269 7.1

Innovative Interfaces, Inc.

Millennium 176 1348 7.7

The Library Corporation

Library.Solution, Carl.Solution, Carl.X 87 734 8.4

Ex Libris Aleph, Voyager 198 4593 23.2

Auto-Graphics AGent/Verso 9 244 27.1

VTLS Virtua 41 936 22.8

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

Perceptions Reports

ILS Product Satisfaction

Company Satisfaction

Support Satisfaction

Company Loyalty

Open Source Interest

Tracking the Open Source Movement

Through Marshall’s articles and columns

March 2002: Open source ILS: still a distant possibility “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

Oct 2002: An update on Open Source ILS “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 2002http://www.librarytechnology.org/ltg-displaytext.pl?RC=9975

… then the world changed

Mar 2007: On update on Open Source ILS“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 2007http://www.librarytechnology.org/ltg-displaytext.pl?RC=12445

Mar 2008: Making a business case for Open Source ILSWe’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 2008http://www.librarytechnology.org/ltg-displaytext.pl?RC=13134

Apr 2008: Automation System Marketplace “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.

Dec 2008 The Viability of Open Source ILS

Source: “The Viability of Open Source ILS” ASIS&T BulletinDecember, 2008

Impact of Open Source ILS 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

More Open Systems 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.

Open Source Issues 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

Cost issues 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

Risk Factors 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)

Open source ILS Benchmarks 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 Market share 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

International View of Open Source ILS

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

Open Source Companies

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

Proprietary Closed-source ILS

Open Source perspective 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.

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

Open Source Vendors

Rethinking library automation

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

ILS Reinvention projects 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

Breaking down the modules Traditional ILS

◦ Cataloging◦ Circulation◦ Online Catalog◦ Acquisitions◦ Serials control◦ Reporting

Modern approach: SOA

Comprehensive Resource Management 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.

SOA model for business automation

Underlying data repositories◦Local or Global

Reusable business servicesComposite 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

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

Service Oriented Architecture

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

Legacy ILS + e-content modules

FederatedSearch

Circulation Acquisitions

Cataloging Serials

OpenURLLinking

Electronic Resource

MgmtSystem

Staff Interfaces:

End User Interfaces:

Data Stores:

Functionalmodules:

SOA for library workflow processes

Data Stores:

ReusableBusiness Services

CompositeApplications

Granulartasks:

Open Library Environment:Working toward a next generation library

automation framework

OLE Project

Marshall BreedingDirector for Innovative Technology and ResearchVanderbilt University LibraryNashville, TN USA

Key Objectives 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

OLE Project: Phase I 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

OLE Team @ Duke

Regional Workshops

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

OLE Project: Phase II 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

OLE Reference Model

OLE Governance

Library Driven Not vendor-driven Interest in joining Kuali Existing organization for non-profit status,

legal support, user community

Status and Next Steps

Recruit partners for Build Phase Write Build Proposal Complete OLE Blueprint components

◦ Scope Document◦ Reference Model◦ Inventory of workflows / processes

OCLC’s Library Automation Strategy

WorldCat Local discovery service 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

WorldCat Local quick start 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

WorldCat Local automation platform 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)

Competing Models of Library Automation

Questions and Discussion