Only if you are sponsoring the tip Ken?
f
-----Original Message-----
From: lis-pub-libs: UK Public Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ken Chad
Sent: 23 August 2007 13:19
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Future of the LMS Re: Open Source LMSs
Anyone going to this? Open Source LMS (ILS in US parlance) is on the agenda...
http://www.lincolntrail.info/ilssymposium2007/intropage.html
'Lincoln Trail Libraries System is pleased to announce an exciting and thought-provoking conference, the Symposium on the Future of Integrated Library Systems. Please join us on September 13-15, 2007 as we listen and respond to nationally-recognized speakers discussing the many challenges and changes within the Integrated Library System landscape and learn what this means for the future'.
Thursday, September 13, 2007 - Saturday, September, 15, 2007 Conference Location:
Hilton Garden Inn
1501 South Neil
Champaign, IL USA
+1 217-352-9970
Ken kenchadconsulting.com www.kenchadconsulting.com
>From: "Usher, John" <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: "Usher, John" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Open Source LMSs
>Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 18:09:16 +0100
>
>Or the summary of the summary of the summary?
>
>There's no-one minding the shop? One person or group, it doesn't matter
>- is there a focus?
>
>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
>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 Steven Heywood
>Sent: 20 August 2007 17:55
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: [LIS-PUB-LIBS] Open Source LMSs
>
>
>
>And (struggling to find a letter in between (a) and (b)!): local public
>library technical developments not necessarily being driven by local
>public library agendas (let alone local customers' needs), straddling
>as we do the capacious uncertainties between MLA's current visions of
>service provision and local councils' interpretations of the Varney
>report-style "one stop shops" for public sector access.
>
>Perhaps we're all too baffled as to how all that's supposed to be
>fitting together - and how it reconciles (or not) with our workaday
>operating realities - to be able to get a proper fix not on what we
>want/need now but what we'll be wanting/needing in two years' time
>(bearing in mind that someone's going to have to do the R&D and delivery in the mean time).
>
>Just my own two penn'orth.
>
>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: 20 August 2007 17:35
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Open Source LMSs
>
>
>Ken,
>
>'...The vendors are partly to blame, as are ourselves. In many cases
>we got exactly what was asked for...'
>
>See - 'The Programmers Christmas' - a parody of 'Twas the night before
>Christmas'
>
>http://urbanlegends.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ
><http://urbanlegends.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=urban
>legends&cdn=newsissues&tm=12&gps=72_1244_1276_870&f=00&tt=2&bt=1&bts=1&
>zu=http%3A//www.ucolick.org/%7Ede/humour/sware-engr.html>
>&sdn=urbanlegends&cdn=newsissues&tm=12&gps=72_1244_1276_870&f=00&tt=2&b
>t=1&bts=1&zu=http%3A//www.ucolick.org/%7Ede/humour/sware-engr.html
>
>For those who can't be bothered to follow the link, the sting is in the
>last two lines:
>
> And the user exclaimed with a snarl and a taunt,
> "It's just what I asked for, but not what I want!"
>
>- and I got that one *20* years ago from someone who was then an 'umble
>support programmer, and is now a senior manager in a major LMS supplier
>- no names, no pack drill, but he knows who he is (and will probably
>read this, 'cos I know he does...)
>
>
>'...So I guess I *still* wonder (notwithstanding earlier comments about
>the differences between the way US and UK public libraries are
>operated) why the debate about the future of the ILS/LMS in the UK is
>(or appears to me to be) so muted...'
>
>*Possibly* because:
>
>a) we don't know what we really want ? (see above), and if we did,
>could we afford it, or staff it?
>
>b) absence of a strategic view of what systems could - and should - do
>for the services, driven by service deliverable: for the customers? for
>the staff? for all the stakeholders?
>
>c) of a fragmented market, with so many authorities buying individual
>systems?
>
>d) of a focus by the suppliers on the technological drivers rather than
>the service objectives, and no central techological point to challenge
>that on the Public Library side (Unlike JISC, Becta, NHSNet - errr! OK,
>not sure the last is a good analogy, but you know where I'm coming
>from...)
>
>e) we want it Good, Fast, Cheap (the corollary of the Project
>Management Triangle - Time, Quality, Cost), to which the answer is: Pick Two!:
>
>f) of Inertia - '...if it ain't broke, don't fix it...' ?
>
>
>etc. etc.
>
>
>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
>Fax: 020 7527 6926
>Alternative contact: Michelle Gannon - 020 7527 6907
>
>www.islington.gov.uk
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ken Chad [ mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent: 20 August 2007 16:47
>To: Usher, John; [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Open Source LMSs
>
>
>Good summary.
>
>I'd add....
>
>Hmmm ..'suppliers get enough profit for their labours'. I don't think I
>said that. Indeed that can, and should, be a matter subject to
>*objective* criteria. I see commercial operations as another way to
>sustain a product or service. You are (effectively) taxed for the BBC
>and public libraries whilst ITV and Google are paid for (mostly) by
>advertising. Your politics may define your 'business model' preferences
>for any particular service.
>Anyway commercial services have to have a level of profitability to be
>sustainable. Profit is a source of a business's ability to invest in
>sustaining and developing a product or service. So profit is clearly
>desirable (you can only really argue about the level and where it goes).
>The
>recent changes of ownership/consolidation in the LMS market is an
>indicator that the vendors are *not* being as effective (and therefore
>profitable) as they should be and there is room for improvement (or else why change?).
>
>There is also an argument going on about 'Market failure'. Sometimes
>this is
>implicit: 'Why don't/can't the vendors (i.e. the market) give us what
>we need?' Or it is made explicitly as a reason for government or other
>bodies to intervene and provide a non-market solution. For example this
>is one justification for the Mellon foundation to take an interest in
>Open Source, generally for HE, and in particular in the LMS market.
>Even strong advocates of market solutions believe that markets aren't
>the solution for everything.
>
>So to get back to one of my original questions about the comparison
>with the situation in the US
>
>"I don't detect 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?"
>
>The US situation was neatly summarised in a blog last November that
>reported on a meeting about the 'Future of the ILS'
>
>http://ea.typepad.com/enterprise_abstraction/2006/11/the_future_of_t.ht
>ml
>
>Here's part of what was said in the blog..
>
>'I'd like to followup on Eric Lease Morgan's suggestion on creating
>some sort of statement -- a Windsor Manifesto if you will. I don't
>think we were able to come to a consensus on all issues, but there are
>some areas that I think the group would have agreed upon (please
>correct me if I'm wrong):
>The ILS, as is, does not serve our current nor future needs.
>The vendors are partly to blame, as are ourselves. In many cases we
>got exactly what was asked for.
>We'd like to continue this dialogue to seek a good common path forward.
>If the vendors don't provide what we need... we must provide what we
>need for ourselves.'
>
>The last statement is an indicator of perceived 'market failure' and
>one of the possible solutions is Open Source. The meeting was held at
>Windsor University in Canada..which has now decided to go the Open
>Source route to replace its commercial LMS system.
>
>So I guess I *still* wonder (notwithstanding earlier comments about the
>differences between the way US and UK public libraries are operated)
>why the debate about the future of the ILS/LMS in the UK is (or appears
>to me to
>be)
>so muted. From the evidence of this list it does seem we are pretty
>happy with things here. So no 'Windsor Manifesto' for the UK eh :)
>...it does have a nice ring to it
>
>Ken www.kenchadconsulting.com 07788 727 845
>
>
>
> >From: "Usher, John" <[log in to unmask]>
> >Reply-To: "Usher, John" <[log in to unmask]>
> >To: [log in to unmask]
> >Subject: Re: Open Source LMSs
> >Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 13:59:16 +0100
> >
> >Hi Ken,
> >
> >Summary of the summary?:
> >
> >* 'Open Source' is not technology, it's Information management -
>librarians
> >should be in there?
> >- As PHP (or PERL or Python) programmers, MySQL managers and website
> >authors?
> >(ps. correct URL for Wikipedia LAMP is
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAMP_%28software_bundle%29 )
> >
> >* 'Open Source' is 'not yet' for libraries - we need a 'watching brief'?
> >- As we do with all emerging technology.
> >
> >* 'Open Source' isn't necessarily cheap - it's just another a
> >new(ish) development paradigm?
> >- But one with a very different social and political flavour?
> >
> >* Suppliers get enough profit from their labours - regardless of
> >their protestations?
> >- Economics say that the entrepreneur sets their own reward for their
> >labour = Naomi Campbell's 'I won't get out of bed for less that £10K'
> >
> >* Every new LMS (regardless of the development base) is not fully
>developed
> >- i.e. it's functionally inferior to it's predecessors?
> >- or as I'd paraphrase it: 'If it works properly, and you can
> >understand it, it's obsolete!...'
> >
> >* Anything else? i.e. what do we demand from solutions for our services?
> >not a 'warmed over' 1980's 'Turnkey System', but solutions and
> >services which fit todays needs and those emerging - which are?
> >
> >Is that correct Ken? Feel free to edit!
> >
> >Funny, you say you moved off Mac's - I've got an XP PC at home (alas,
> >not yet Vista), I've just ordered an Ubuntu Linux PC from Dell (and
> >they do ones with FreeDOS too, it seems!), and now Mac's are Intel
> >(and growing
>in
> >popularity again, and can run Windows at the same time...) I'm
> >thinking
>of
> >acquiring one of those too! Free Market choice (if you can afford it).
> >
> >Onwards and Upwards!
> >
> >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: 15 August 2007 11:47
> >To: [log in to unmask]
> >Subject: Re: [LIS-PUB-LIBS] Open Source LMSs
> >
> >
> >Thanks to everyone who contributed, on the list and individually to
> >me. I think this is a valuable discussion. My article will be
> >published in
>CILIP
> >Library+Information Gazette on 7th September. I won't repeat the
> >Library+article
> >here but I think it's worth making some points.
> >
> >In summary it seems the jury is out on Open Source LMSs for UK public
> >libraries. Clearly many of us are sceptical and uncertain. I
> >certainly
>feel
> >agnostic at the moment. That's pretty normal for any kind of major
> >change like Open Source. John Usher rightly issues a hype warning.
> >However to answer John's point 'isn't it just another techie issue
> >for libraries to get bogged down in', I think there is a good
> >argument to be made that Open Source isn't just a narrow technology
> >issue. It's part of a much wider debate that goes deep to the heart
> >of what libraries are about. In the government's own view and policy
> >on Open Source 'OSS is indeed the start
>of
> >a fundamental change in the software infrastructure marketplace'. Ok
>that's
> >still technology but many think Open Source is a key part of a much
> >wider and radical change in the wider information economy. (I say a
> >bit more about this in my article). As librarians it seems to me that
> >is something certainly worth paying attention to. Sure let's not get
> >'bogged down' but doesn't our profession have a major stake in the
> >information economy? My response to the MLA's recent 'Blueprint..'
> >discussion document was
>largely
> >about how the technology changes have fundamentally changed the way,
> >what we might call, the 'library function' is delivered to users --a
> >much bigger issue than an Open Source LMS.
> >
> >I certainly don't feel confident about advocating Open Source LMS
>solutions
> >right now But I do advocate paying them attention. I wouldn't have
> >felt confident about advocating Windows when it first came out (I was
> >one of those odd Mac users back then). But whatever we think of
> >Microsoft,
>Windows
> >did capture the market and I guess almost all of us use it now. My
> >Mac
>went
> >years ago. So I'm keeping my mind open.
> >
> >And let's not forget that Open Source has a considerble track record.
>Right
> >now Open Source is most successful and widely adopted in the
> >underlying technology infrastructure (sometimes referred to as LAMP,
> >see
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAMP_(software_bundle)
> >
> >Here it is very successful with a large market share. Some of us
> >will be familar with or even use componts like Apache web servers
> >and the Linux operating system. In this context Open Source provides
> >a model for
>software
> >that is reliable, well supported, sustainable, secure and economic.
> >It
>has
> >displaced solutions produced by the traditional market method.
> >
> >It's worth pointing out too that the Government has a policy on Open
>Source
> >and this applies to the whole public sector including Local Government.
>It
> >links Open Source (as others do) with open standards and
>interoperability.
> >So aren't local government officers duty bound to at least look at it?
>For
> >example those librarians who are in the position of *having* to
> >replace their existing LMS because it has come to the end of its life.
> >
> >There is a modest track record for Open Source *applications* outside
> >of libraries but still in local government. The APLAWS Content
> >Management solution is established. I don't yet know how dynamic the
> >APLAWS
>community
> >is and how, or if, it is growing. I'd be interested to hear of anyone
> >has some real first hand knowledge.
> >
> >An application in the UK public sector that *does* seem to have
> >really taken off is Moodle. It has taken FE in particular 'by storm'
> >and is replacing commercial solutions. It has now a majority market
> >share. FE is not a sector that it seems to me that has time or money
> >to burn on whacky solutions to mission critical systems. Moodle is
> >also getting stronger in HE.
> >
> >To pick up on Stephen Haywood's good points, most users of Open
> >Source don't contribute to the development of the software. So just
> >because you buy an Open Source LMS doesn't *necessarily* mean you
> >have to have your own development or support resources. Of course
> >many of the early adopters
>have
> >an evangelical streak and do want to get involved in that way.
> >However there are various models, described in detail in the
> >literature, for creating a sustainable development and support
> >community. Also it's not necessarily
>a
> >simple cost issue. Open Source software isn't necessarily free to buy
> >or indeed, overall a cheaper solution. Advocates claim it's simply a
> >better way of developing high quality software. Many organisations do
> >in fact
>entrust
> >their 'core business systems' to Open Source solutions. He is
> >definitely right howver that Open Source presents a real challenge to
> >existing procurement models. The JISC OSS Watch has recognised this
> >and is advocating change.
> >
> >So coming back to the library domain itself, some public (and
> >academic) librarians (mostly in the US) now consider open source a viable solution.
> >They are putting their money where their mouth is and selecting Open
>Source
> >LMSs to replace traditional commercial market solutions. The Georgia
>Pines
> >system (over 240 libraries) is operational. It's true though that its
> >functionality is at present not as fully developed. But isn't that
> >just like any new LMS? Every market, even libraries, has its 'early
> >adopters'
>willing
> >to invest in new approaches.
> >
> >I think its also interesting that we are now beginning to see the
>emergence
> >of companies and organisations dedicated to support, develop and
> >sustain Open Source LMSs. Can the library sector sustain an Open
> >Source LMS long-term? Hmmmm I just don't know right now. I have
> >earlier voiced scepticism in print (one of my earlier Gazette
> >articles) on this. But
>some
> >people believe it will work and I think it's at least worth listening
> >to them. Ex library sytem vendors like Carl Grant have staked their
>livlihood
> >on Open Source being a success in Libraries. And let's not forget
> >some public libraries are living right now with traditional
> >commercial market developed LMSs that are not sustainable. They know
> >the system (and sometimes the vendor too) is end of life and they are
> >in a precarious position.
> >
> >I think Dan, speaking from a vendor perspective (Infor) made a valid
>point
> >about the high expectations that librarians have of their LMS,
> >bearing in mind the price they pay relative to solutions developed
> >for the
>commercial
> >sector. But if Dan's analysis is correct we have to ask why are LMS
>systems
> >(relatively) cheap? Have the LMS companies found a way to develop
>solutions
> >far more economically than anyone else? Or are they accepting lower
>returns
> >on their investment? Common sense tends to the latter view doesn't it?
> >Isn't
> >that perhaps one reason why we are seeing the vendor consolidation
> >and change of ownership happening? And if the market really is
> >characterised
>by
> >low margins will the new (often private equity) owners view things
> >the
>same
> >old way? Will they continue to accept what they surely must consider
> >underperformance from the library bit of their business? Private
> >equity comes in to *change* companies. They are perfectly open about
> >their short termism -3-7 years and then refinance or sell.
> >
> >So are we at a one of John Usher's 'tipping points? Probably not yet.
> >But
>I
> >sense something is up in the LMS market. Things like the recent
> >radical changes in vendor ownership and Open Source are just
> >symptoms. So I think we should watch what is happening in the US with
> >considerable interest.
> >
> >Ken
> >
> >Ken Chad Consulting Ltd www.kenchadconsulting.com 07788 727 845
> >
> >
> >
> > >From: "Usher, John" <[log in to unmask]>
> > >Reply-To: "Usher, John" <[log in to unmask]>
> > >To: [log in to unmask]
> > >Subject: Re: Open Source LMSs
> > >Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 16:53:20 +0100
> > >
> > >Well, Dan's confirmed just part (sorry Dan!) of what we want, so
> > >how do
> >we
> > >get it - and when?
> > >
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: lis-pub-libs: UK Public Libraries [
> > >mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Dan Holmes
> > >Sent: 10 August 2007 16:47
> > >To: [log in to unmask]
> > >Subject: Re: [LIS-PUB-LIBS] Open Source LMSs
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >My personal opinions, of course....
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Re: Nick Poole's models; Open Source tools are already used by
>developers
> > >of LMS software - they have to be. Open Source as in open source
> > >code
>is
> >a
> > >different animal; the development model is not suited to the way in
>which
> > >UK libraries operate, (which library has staff who can spend time
> > >developing software?) and there are issues around permanence,
>standards,
> > >quality, responsibility, support, security, etc.. Not to mention
>costs.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >As for the washing machine..... a washing machine only does one job.
> > >Librarians expect a LMS to be:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >1.A fully specified and flexible database system which meets all
>existing
> > >standards and all future standards, and which can be used to create
> > >sophisticated records for all kinds of resources both physical and
> > >electronic
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >2. a sophisticated and powerful retrieval system which is as clever
> > >as Google, and which preferably knows what the user wants to find
> > >before
> >it's
> > >told
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >3. A fully featured transaction processing and archive system which
> > >can manage millions of transactions a year, with split second
> > >response
>times,
> > >which can alert to every conceivable combination of circumstances,
>which
> > >incorporates full financial processing functions, customer
> > >relationship management functions, manages complex and ever
> > >changing statistical demands, and which can be used with no
> > >training by part-time staff
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >4. A full order processing system with complete accounting, EDI and
> > >web-based functions, which enables complex materials to be ordered,
> > >received and processed with no keystrokes and which provides
> > >automatic links to any conceivable external accounting system
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >5. A complete web-based public access system which looks just like
> >Amazon,
> > >which requires no tailoring but which must be completely
> > >configurable, which enables users to do anything they like but
> > >which must be totally secure, and which anticipates in every
> > >particular the undefined requirements of something called Web
> > >2.0/Library 2.0
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >And that's not to mention serials processing, portal applications,
> >digital
> > >asset management.....
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Furthermore you expect all of these applications (each of which in
> > >any other business would be a complete business application) to be
> > >fully integrated, easy to install, require no maintenance to speak
> > >of,
>useable
> > >with no training, and never to go wrong.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >And you expect all that for costs which in the commercial sector
>wouldn't
> > >buy you a bunch of consultancy on a major project, never mind get
> > >you
>the
> > >wherewithal to run all of your core systems day in, day out,
> > >reliably
>and
> > >predictably, with the minimum of intervention and the minimum of IT
> > >expertise.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >I'm not sure the Open Source model could underwrite all that in the
> > >way some people think.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Dan Holmes
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Dan Holmes | Library Sales | UK Library Division | Infor | direct:
> > >0044
> > >1454 892212 | fax: 0044 870 4214095 | <
> > >mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask] | 2 Westpoint Row
> > >| Great Park Road | Bradley
>Stoke
> >|
> > >Bristol | BS32 4QG
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _____
> > >
> > >From: lis-pub-libs: UK Public Libraries [
> > >mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Frances Hendrix
> > >Sent: 10 August 2007 15:36
> > >To: [log in to unmask]
> > >Subject: Re: Open Source LMSs
> > >
> > >
> > >As ever Steven Heywood has covered all the points in his
> > >brilliantly evocative, understandable and amusing way, without
> > >detracting from his wealth of knowledge and understanding of the issues.
> > >
> > >Ken read and think? (any suppliers reading this, the same !) f
> > >
> > > _____
> > >
> > >From: lis-pub-libs: UK Public Libraries [
> > >mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Steven Heywood
> > >Sent: 10 August 2007 15:26
> > >To: [log in to unmask]
> > >Subject: Re: Open Source LMSs
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >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_Informat
>ion/FreedomofInformation/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.
> >
> >*********************************************************************
> >*******************
> > >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_Informat
>ion/FreedomofInformation/ReUsingInformation/
> > > or alternatively e-mail [log in to unmask]
> > >
> > >Contact Islington switchboard: +44 20 7527 2000
> > >www.islington.gov.uk
> >
> >*********************************************************************
> >*******************
> >
> >_________________________________________________________________
> >Got a favourite clothes shop, bar or restaurant? Share your local
>knowledge
> > http://www.backofmyhand.com
> >*********************************************************************
> >******************* 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_Informat
>ion/FreedomofInformation/ReUsingInformation/
> > or alternatively e-mail [log in to unmask]
> >
> >Contact Islington switchboard: +44 20 7527 2000 www.islington.gov.uk
> >*********************************************************************
> >*******************
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Got a favourite clothes shop, bar or restaurant? Share your local
>knowledge http://www.backofmyhand.com
>***********************************************************************
>***************** 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_Informat
>ion/FreedomofInformation/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.
>***********************************************************************
>***************** 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_Informat
>ion/FreedomofInformation/ReUsingInformation/
> or alternatively e-mail [log in to unmask]
>
>Contact Islington switchboard: +44 20 7527 2000 www.islington.gov.uk
>***********************************************************************
>*****************
_________________________________________________________________
The next generation of Hotmail is here! http://www.newhotmail.co.uk
|
