Many thanks for this John, and to Robert Day for yesterday's useful
contribution.
For me personally (my views, not those of my employer, etc. etc. etc.) the
key stumbling blocks are:
1) Who would be responsible for the development and upkeep of the LMS? How
many library authorities have the resources to be able to commit to doing
this themselves? And if they have those resources wouldn't they be better
employed doing something other than reinventing the same wheel as all the
rest of the library authorities? (It's interesting to bear in mind that
we're having this discussion at a time when we're being told how inefficient
it is to have our staff ordering, receiving and invoicing our stock).
2) If the development and upkeep is to be outsourced to someone else how
will accountability for this be enforced, if at all? Could we sensibly
entrust our core business systems on goodwill?
3) After years of Compulsory Contractual Tendering and Public Private
Partnership most of the IT back-up available to most library authorities
will be in corporate IT divisions or outsourced to partnership organsations.
In the event of the library authority deciding not to buy an off-the-peg LMS
from one of the usual suspects it could be that their local IT guys decide
that rather than adopting an Open Source LMS with structures or technologies
they're unsure of they'll do something bespoke locally with structures and
technologies they're using everyday (even if that doesn't give the best
result in the long run).
4) What sort of commitment would there be to medium- long-term development
paths or messy immediate needs? Without contractual obligations it can be
very difficult to avoid the situation where developments are technically
interesting rather than being operationally useful. It can be difficult
enough even with contractual obligations.
5) How will interoperability requirements be ensured? Unlike in the States,
for instance, public libraries in this country aren't semi-autonomous local
services, they're just another local authority service with a requirement to
fit in to the t-gov agenda and be available and applicable via generic
front-end points of contact such as call centres and portals. The LMS market
is a neat and orderly backwater in the public sector IT market.
6) Would Open Source be adopted because it's the best solution or because
it's the cheap option? We know from bitter experience that the expectation
would be that the impact on workload would be absorbed by the existing
workforce regardless of their capacity to cope with it.
I think that people who are willing to go Open Source are brave and hardy
souls and good luck to them, especially if the organisations they're working
for are prepared to support the work and accept that there will be times
when problems aren't solved by a wave of a magic wand. The Open Source
movement is useful for demonstrating that different working models can be
applicable to situations and also as a training and preparation ground for
people who are interested in library technology. The strength of this
movement lies in its ability to challenge orthodoxies and debunk "can't be
done" positions.
I don't think that going Open Source is a good way of running our core
businesses though. We're still stuck in the tinkering phase of the
development of IT, which seems to have had the longest period of adolescence
of any mainstream technology since the napped flint. We long should have
reached the mature phase where the customer can buy something and expect to
have it do the intended job, not be fobbed off by being told that the
product's in beta or that everything will be fixed in the next upgrade. If
you buy a washing machine you don't expect to be told that the next release
of the product will be the one where the door doesn't fall off in mid-spin.
From a library service's point of view all they should have to know about
the technology (hard- and software) they're using for their LMS is that
there's a box with wires that they connect to and that if they do this,
it'll issue a book, do that it'll return a book and do the other and they'll
get all the management statistics they need to be able to address the full
suite of CPA-related performance indicators. It would be a matter of concern
if they had to know about the technology's operating systems.
Steven
Steven Heywood
Systems Manager
Rochdale Library Service
Wheatsheaf Library
Baillie Street
Rochdale OL16 1JZ
Tel: (01706) 924967
[log in to unmask]
http://www.rochdale.gov.uk
http://libraries.rochdale.gov.uk
-----Original Message-----
From: Usher, John [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 10 August 2007 13:09
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Open Source LMSs
Hi Ken,
Aren't we barking up the wrong tree with Open Source? Isn't it just another
techie issue for libraries to get bogged down in?
You've been in the industry for many years - as a user, as a supplier, and
now a consultant - so you've seen trends come and go.
We started on proprietary Minicomputers for catalogues and proprietary
mainframe processing of offline captured data - Hollerith punch cards,
punch tape and mag tape - for circulation.
Then we went to the Mini-based 'turnkey' systems - you tried to sell me
CLSI, remember? - on proprietary Mini's and then on more 'Open'
standardised processors such as DEC PDP's, and Intel arrays such as Pyramid.
Then we all went Unix, 'cos it was 'Open' - but which Unix? Sun Solaris,?
DG-UX (etc. etc..) or the 'standardised 'SVR4' version for ISO compliance,
which was never *quite* standard.
Then the proprietary suppliers (e.g. IBM and ICL) went 'POSIX' compliant for
ISO to beat back Unix, so Unix flavours' retreated.
And we couldn't run Microsoft, 'cos NT Server wasn't truly multi-user - but
the world has clearly moved on.
Now we're all moving to Microsoft or Linux - but which 'Linux
distribution'? Dell recently said it would love to ship Linux PC's, but will
someone please tell it which 'flavour' to standardise upon? It gave up on an
earleir attempt for this reason - One version of Microsoft OS at a time is
hard enough to support, but multiple Linux distributions!
And we had the database wars - Index-Sequential (ISAM), Pick, Relational (or
Pick or ISAM sitting on top of Relational)
But which relational database - Ingres? Sybase? Oracle? SQL Server? MySQL?
And then we had programming language debate - proprietary, C, C++, then
Object Oriented Programing (OOP's) and Fourth Generation Languages (4GL's)
were going to revolutionise speed of programming - but whatever happened to
the latter two?
And now it's the shift to Platform and Web/Library 2.0, with 'Sprints' and
'Permanent Beta' etc. etc.
And there'll be something else coming down the pike - be very sure. Remember
the Gartner Production Adoption Hype Cycle!
It's enough to frighten the horses!
Many years ago, I was asked in an interview which I thought more important -
hardware or software? (This was before Sun's motto of 'the Network is the
computer'), so I said they were interdependent - and was offered the job!
But today I think that there is one thing more important than the hardware,
software or network, and that's the 'Wetware' - what's between people's
ears!
I think we need to concentrate on other issues:
a) the tasks we need the applications to do, and the workflows inside them,
in a rapidly changing world - e.g. why does a public library need to buy
separate, expensive (and complex to integrate with the LMS) ERM, PC Booking
and Self-Services systems for low percentage of their total business when
the LMS could be extended to encompass these new roles?
b) the close working of suppliers and customers to define the business needs
and produce 'quality' applications - quality defined as 'fitness for
purpose' - rapidly, and evolve them quicky in a rapidly changing
environment. But do library services really know what they want from these
systems?
c) develop solutions (e.g. standardised 'front ends') which mean that the
*true* costs of moving from one LMS supplier to another (I submit these are
the inertia and staff training issues) are lowered. We used to by everything
from one supplier, but that is now not the case, and that needs, IMHO, to go
deeper.
Change only seems to occur when a 'Tipping Point' is reached in any
authority - e.g. the old system is 'time-expired', a corporate edict is
issued on the OS or database to be used, otherwise it's 'stick with what you
know'? Nice for the suppliers!
d) good support - from library staff, from IT staff, from suppliers. If Open
Source is the tool to do this, then fine, but is it? IBM seem to be making
good use of Open Source, so perhaps its the level of commitment and
owhership by suppliers to support that Open Source (or anything else) which
is the real issue?
Feel free to tear this to pieces - would be good to see a real debate about
this!
Regards
JU
John Usher
ICT Development Manager
Islington Library & Cultural Services
Islington Council
Central Library
2 Fieldway Crescent
LONDON N5 1PF
Tel: 020 7527 6920
Mobile: 07825 098 223 <NEW NUMBER>
Fax: 020 7527 6926
Alternative contact: Michelle Gannon - 020 7527 6907
www.islington.gov.uk
-----Original Message-----
From: lis-pub-libs: UK Public Libraries
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Ken Chad
Sent: 08 August 2007 16:43
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [LIS-PUB-LIBS] Open Source LMSs
I'm just completing an article for CILIP Library+Information Gazette on Open
Source--and more particularly Open Source LMSs. In the US especially, a
number of major libraries, (inc. large publics, research and academic
libraries as well as smaller libraries) has gone this open source route but
I haven't detected anything here in the UK (yet?). Have I missed something?
If you are looking at (or even interested in) Open Source solutions for your
LMSs I'd be really interested to know.
In the US there is *very* vocal dissatisfaction with the LMS vendors. The
consolidation, changes of ownership, private equity stuff, paradoxically
seems to be much more strongly resented there. There is a strong feeling in
some quarters that the market model has failed libraries and a new paradigm
is needed. A growing community is springing up dedicated to the support and
further development of Open Source LMSs. Commercial companies are emerging
(cf Redhat and Linux) to support and develop Open Source LMSs
I don't detect the anything like the same depth of feeling here in the UK.
Is this true or are we in true Brit fashion just less demonstrative
('mustn't grumble')? Or maybe the LMS vendors simply do a better job here in
the UK? Or could it be that the sector is so wedded to the traditional
procurement model (RFP/Tender), which organisations like OSS watch in the UK
think are not appropriate for Open Source
Of course some LMS vendors (VTLS and Talis --others? ) do offer Open Source
solutions that they make freely available but they have not yet gone the
route of offering the complete LMS in this way.
Any view on the role of Open Source in the UK LMS marektplace?
Ken
Ken Chad Consulting Ltd. www.kenchadconsulting.com
Tel 07788 727 845
_________________________________________________________________
The next generation of Hotmail is here! http://www.newhotmail.co.uk
****************************************************************************
************
This e-mail and any attached files are confidential and may be legally
privileged; please note however the information contained in this e-mail may
be subject to public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 or
the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. Unless the information is
legally exempt from disclosure, the confidentiality of this e-mail and your
reply cannot be guaranteed.
If you are not the addressee, any disclosure, reproduction, copying,
distribution or other dissemination or use of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error please notify
the sender immediately and then delete this e-mail.
Any part of this e-mail which is purely personal in nature is not authorised
by London Borough of Islington.
If you wish to re-use the information, perhaps for commercial purposes, in a
way which, without permission, might breach our copyright, please first read
our policy on Re-use of Public Sector Information which can be found on our
website
http://www.islington.gov.uk/Council/CouncilStructure/Access_to_Information/F
reedomofInformation/ReUsingInformation/ or alternatively e-mail
[log in to unmask]
Contact Islington switchboard: +44 20 7527 2000 www.islington.gov.uk
****************************************************************************
************
This e-mail and any attached files are confidential and may also
be legally privileged. They are intended solely for the intended
addressee. If you are not the addressee please e-mail it back to
the sender and then immediately, permanently delete it. Do not
read, print, re-transmit, store or act in reliance on it. This e-
mail may be monitored by Rochdale Council in accordance with
current regulations. This footnote also confirms that this e-mail
message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses
currently known to the Council. However, the recipient is
responsible for virus-checking before opening this message and any
attachment. Unless otherwise stated, any views expressed in this
message are those of the individual sender and may not necessarily
reflect the views of Rochdale Council.
As a public body, the Council may be required to disclose this
email and/or any response under the Freedom of Information Act
2000 unless the information in the email and/or any response is
covered by one of the exemptions in the Act.
