Library Technology Guides

Blog content

Profile


Photo of Marshall Breeding author of

Name: Marshall Breeding

Title: Publisher

Organization: Library Technology Guides


GuidePosts

Perspective and commentary by Marshall Breeding

Blog Archive subscribe to GuidePosts via RSS


Annual push to collect library automation data

GuidePost Picture

If your library has recently acquired new library automation software, please make that information available to others by updating your entry in lib-web-cats.

Some of the major projects I take on every year involves reports relate to the library automation industry. This includes the Automation Marketplace feature that I write for Library Journal published in the April 1 issue. I致e been writing this feature since 2002. The Automation Marketplace feature takes a close look at the activity related to integrated library systems, link resolvers, federated search products, and discovery interfaces that libraries acquired during that calendar year. The report that will be published in April 2010 will describe the business activity from January 1 through December 31, 2009.

While much of that report is based on a survey that I send to the companies, I also rely on data that I collect from a variety of other sources. I値l be sending each of the companies involved their survey later in the year. Now I知 interested in information from libraries. I would like to be sure that any library that acquired any kind of major software product in 2009 has had that recorded in the lib-web-cats directory. The implementation of the system does not need to be complete. I知 interested in recording the transaction at the point of institutional commitment, which usually corresponds to signing a contract with a vendor. In the open source arena, things may happen somewhat differently, but I知 just as interested in hose systems.

Having this information registered in lib-web-cats not only helps my research, but also helps support other libraries as they make decisions regarding their library automaton strategies. Knowledge of what automation systems that other peer libraries have acquired provides important perspective. Collecting more data from libraries makes me less dependent on the what the venders choose to submit and provides the means to cross-check and verify results.

Find your library:
(hint: for public libraries, enter city or county)

The Advanced Search of lib-web-cats supports queries that involve current and previous automation systems, which can be qualified by library type, location, collection size, and many other ways to help identify patterns in library automation deployments.

Even if your library did not make a recent change, please take time to review the entry for your library in lib-web-cats and be sure that I have the complete history of the automation systems deployed. Thanks in advance for the help and support.

Marshall Breeding Sep 14, 2009 08:58:18 Link to this thread

Login or register to leave a comment.


An open letter to the Koha community

There comes a point where an open source software projects grows beyond what can be managed through informal channels. The Koha project has seen great success through widespread deployments and company involvement. Recent events suggest that it's time to take a closer look at the governance of the Koha project.

Who is the community?

I suggest a shift from a community comprised of developers to that of a community focused on the libraries that use the software.

In the Koha open source project, the word "community" has been used as the group of companies and individuals involved in its development. This represents a very developer-focused perspective and leaves the libraries using the software extremely vulnerable to a variety of external factors. An alternative approach would involve a library-focused approach were the libraries that use the software drive the strategy of the software. Libraries may not enjoy the benefits of open source regarding vendor-independence, sustained development, and enhancement of the software in ways that best meet their current and future needs unless they, rather than the developers, assert ownership of the project.

The libraries that use the software are stakeholders of the highest level. Yet, they have not been well represented at the table for many of the strategic conversations that involve the future of Koha. Companies and developers so far have had the dominant voices.

Vendors will come and go. The success of an open source project should not be vulnerable to the business viability and the commercial interests of those that provide services. Rather, libraries should manage the governance of the software, while establishing conditions that encourage participation by vendors that provide services to the community of libraries that rely on the software. Libraries involved in the use of open source software should take action to ensure that they are not vulnerable to the success or failure of any given business or reliant on specific business strategies. The companies currently involved in the support of open source software in the library automation arena are generally small, undercapitalized, with very limited resources. The individuals within these companies have proved to be dedicated to the concept of open source software, brilliant programmers, and strong proponents of libraries. While each company has strong promise of success in the short term, long-term prospects are always uncertain.

In order to enjoy the benefits of independent software governance, libraries must also assume its associated costs. Given the limited resources of the companies involved, the library community should not expect them to take on a layer of expense that may or may not fall within their business strategies. In order to ensure objective governance of the software, libraries must tax themselves in a way that supports the establishment and operation of a foundation.

A foundation that might provide a model would be the Kuali Foundation (www.kuali.org). This foundation governs core infrastructure software used in higher education, including the Kuali Rice enterprise class middleware, Kuali Financial, a large-scale accounting system, and Kuali Student for the management of student accounts. The OLE project is looking toward Kuali Foundation as its governance body. Note that the board of directors of Kuali consists entirely of the CIO-level administrators of universities that use one or more of the Kuali modules. Since it's open source software, organizations can download and use the Kuali software for free, but that Kuali membership ranges from $4,500 to $24,000 annually. Kuali membership gives organizations a strong role is the strategic governance of the software. Corporation can be Kuali members at $20,000 annually. The Kuali software competes with commercial software that can represent over an $1 million investment, so the scale of economy is an order of magnitude higher than the ILS sphere.

Some of the characteristics of a foundation involved with Koha might include:

  • A board of directors composed primarily of individuals from libraries that use the software. Since Koha finds use internationally, some stipulations should be made that ensure representatives from many geographical regions.
  • A sustainable business model. All libraries that use Koha might be asked to pay a voluntary membership fee to the foundation. Governance overhead is a component of the use of open source software that libraries have to this point not been well educated about, but that recent events highlight as necessary.
  • A full or part-time executive director. This person would manage the foundation, coordinate the development activities, and attend to legal issues.
  • Establish the software license that will govern the legal use of the software.
  • Prepare required tax documents, such as the IRS I-990 required of non-profit organizations.
  • Custodian of the intellectual property related to the project. This would include any copyrighted material, especially the software and documentation, trademarks, patents, and Internet domain names.
  • Coordinate user meetings.
  • Maintain the repository for software and documentation.
  • Strategic planning for software development. Look beyond bug fixes and incremental enhancements to ensure that there is a roadmap toward trajectory of the software that will be responsive to the needs of libraries in a longer-term view.

The role of vendors

Companies involved in the support and development of Koha would continue to play an important role. They would be expected to compete and cooperate, providing essential services to the libraries that use the software.

Service and support companies would not be expected to bear the expense of shared infrastructure and processes. This establishes a more level playing field where large and small vendors alike gain no advantages or disadvantages relative to the key assets of the Koha project.

Companies would continue to offer support services to libraries in much the way that currently happens. Sponsored development might be coordinated through the foundation.

Provide voluntary support to the foundation through sponsorship of user meetings.

Play a strong advisory role in the foundation.

As key stakeholders in the project, companies would be entitled to membership in the foundation. Some seats on the board of directors may be allocated to vendor representatives.

Note: I am not a stakeholder in Koha. I知 not involved in a library that uses it or a company that supports it. I知 just an interested observer offering a suggestion based on my experiences and observations.

Marshall Breeding Sep 15, 2009 10:04:16 Link to this thread


Unfortunately, librarians and library staff are so trained by the commercial software vendors that all software is developer-owned, that even Koha users are still under the mind-set that the companies offering support are in charge. After KohaCon last April, I was so disillusioned and frustrated. I really felt that the user group(s) were heading down the same path and working hard to get back into the 'normal' groove of being led by developers.

What can we do? Koha Libraries need to access Bugzilla more often to vote for changes, put in requests for new changes and generally work to support each other more.

The vision of the Koha Foundation as the clearinghouse for changes, etc. in the software would work well. Features and changes would be coordinated and contracts awarded to companies to develop once enough money was collected from sponsors. As for membership dues, you have to be a dues-paying member to be eligible to be on the board, but membership dues should not be required. Dues should also be scaled to match the library budget.

Lenora Oftedahl Sep 15, 2009 12:20:43


"The libraries that use the software are stakeholders of the highest level. Yet, they have not been well represented at the table for many of the strategic conversations that involve the future of Koha. Companies and developers so far have had the dominant voices."

Marshall, I take it that you see the establishment of a foundation as a corrective for this. My observation, looking at most projects, is that a foundation is important, but on its own it cannot address the governance issues you're describing. Not to argue with the general premise that a foundation is a good thing for a project to have.

Karen Schneider Sep 16, 2009 15:05:31


I am new to Koha and the Koha community. Recently we used Koha to automate a university library in Ethiopia. I know there is a growing interest for open source software in the developing world and the formation of a foundation would make libraries and IT professonals in the developing world part of the effort forward.

Tesfaye Bayu Sep 17, 2009 03:43:14

Login or register to leave a comment.



Archive

Jul 2014 (3 posts)
Jun 2014 (1 post)
Apr 2014 (1 post)
Mar 2014 (1 post)
Feb 2014 (1 post)
Dec 2013 (1 post)
Nov 2013 (3 posts)
Aug 2013 (2 posts)
Jun 2013 (1 post)
Apr 2013 (1 post)
Jan 2013 (2 posts)
Dec 2012 (1 post)
Nov 2012 (1 post)
Oct 2012 (1 post)
Sep 2012 (1 post)
Aug 2012 (1 post)
Jun 2012 (2 posts)
May 2012 (3 posts)
Mar 2012 (1 post)
Feb 2012 (1 post)
Jan 2012 (2 posts)
Dec 2011 (3 posts)
Nov 2011 (3 posts)
Oct 2011 (1 post)
Aug 2011 (1 post)
Jul 2011 (1 post)
May 2011 (1 post)
Apr 2011 (1 post)
Mar 2011 (3 posts)
Jan 2011 (1 post)
Dec 2010 (2 posts)
Nov 2010 (2 posts)
Sep 2010 (1 post)
Aug 2010 (2 posts)
Jul 2010 (1 post)
Jun 2010 (2 posts)
May 2010 (1 post)
Mar 2010 (2 posts)
Feb 2010 (1 post)
Jan 2010 (3 posts)
Dec 2009 (2 posts)
Nov 2009 (2 posts)
Oct 2009 (3 posts)
Sep 2009 (2 posts)
Aug 2009 (1 post)
Jul 2009 (1 post)
Jun 2009 (1 post)
May 2009 (1 post)
Apr 2009 (2 posts)
Mar 2009 (1 post)
Feb 2009 (1 post)
Jan 2009 (2 posts)
Dec 2008 (1 post)
Oct 2008 (2 posts)
Sep 2008 (2 posts)
Aug 2008 (5 posts)
Jul 2008 (1 post)
Jun 2008 (4 posts)
May 2008 (2 posts)
Apr 2008 (3 posts)
Mar 2008 (2 posts)
Feb 2008 (2 posts)
Jan 2008 (2 posts)
Dec 2007 (2 posts)
Nov 2007 (3 posts)
Oct 2007 (3 posts)
Sep 2007 (1 post)
Aug 2007 (3 posts)
Jul 2007 (1 post)