Search UW System

UW System Home > Council of University of Wisconsin Libraries > Coordinating Committees > Library Technology Initiatives > Documents

Preliminary Report to CUWL
Library Management System Exploratory Task Force

May 5, 2009

Charge

“The task force is charged with developing a vision for a new library management system (LMS) for all UW libraries. The committee should provide an environmental scan of options currently available and on the horizon, both proprietary and open-source.  In addition, the committee should review the initiatives of other libraries and library systems, in the state, region and nationally. The committee should consider options that can connect to other computer applications (e.g. student information systems, course management systems, campus financial systems).”

Progress

February/March: 
The committee developed a plan of action to identify what is currently available, develop a list of questions to narrow down options and to learn more about what other libraries are doing. We reviewed the literature, blogs and learned from conference sessions. Relevant articles, web sites and information about other projects (e.g., the OLE project and the Kansas State University Libraries ILS Task Force investigation) were posted on the CUWL wiki.  Fourteen open source and proprietary products were identified based on committee recommendations, library marketplace reports by Marshall Breeding, and the article, “Helping you buy ILS’s” by Pamela Cibbarella.  This included Ex Libris’ planned replacement of Voyager, the Uniform Resource Manager (URM). 
Lisa reported that the Voyager system replacement is in the Common Systems Roadmap now with a replacement date of 2011/12.  Only the first part of Ex Libris’ new system will be available by that time--the portion that deals with print and electronic serials management.  The new LMS portion is not expected until at least a year after that. 

April: 
The committee had a conference call to discuss the products we had researched as well as the KSU report.  Although it was useful to identify the products currently available, many were ruled out as inappropriate for an academic library consortium of our size.  Those that warrant further research in the future are Evergreen, Ex Libris URM, Koha, and maybe NewGenLib, Polaris and Vubis Smart.  OCLC just announced plans to develop LMS functionality to WorldCat Local, so we will monitor that as well.
The Kansas State University Libraries ILS Task Force report was of particular interest because they are in a very similar position as UW System.  They are also a large academic library consortium currently using Voyager.  Their phase I report focused on the high priority and standard requirements of a new LMS based on focus groups and conversations with library staff.   The full report can be found at
http://ksulib.typepad.com/ilstf/files/library_systems_evaluation_task_force_report_part_1.doc

Many of the high priority features they identified are the same ones we have been discussing:

• An improved catalog interface
• Reports that can be run by anyone in the library
• Easy-to-use staff interface with better integration between modules
• Improved bulk record handling and global changes
• Interaction with other systems such as financials and the student information system as well as ILLiad, SFX and MetaLib.

Their results identified several driving principles that will affect their evaluation of systems: 

• Retention of existing functionality
• The public interface is “broken”
• Integration of modules
• A system should have an existing user base and clearly established vendor support network

Their phase II report, located at http://ksulib.typepad.com/ilstf/files/integrated_library_system_task_force_phase_2.doc has four recommendations:

• Migrate to an open source integrated library system (ILS), to be accomplished by 2011
• OPAC overlay and fixes to Voyager in the interim
• Explore consortial opportunities
• Continue to monitor the state of integrated library systems

Our LMS Task Force discussed their first recommendation of migrating to an open source ILS.  At this point in time we would like to watch as new developments unfold before making a recommendation. 

Advantages to a true open source solution are:

• It gives us local control over the code and opportunities for local customization
• We gain agility to develop new functionalities and fix bugs more quickly
• We can draw upon the resources and support of the larger user community
• There is the potential for overall cost savings, but the total cost of ownership has yet to be determined.  The addition of new staff to develop the software must be taken into account.  If a hybrid solution is chosen, such as selecting Koha and contracting with LibLime (or selecting Evergreen and contracting with Equinox) to migrate our data and develop the software, then some costs shift to a commercial vendor while maintaining the freedom of open source code. 

Disadvantages of open source at this point in time:

• There are modules that are not completely developed yet and some of the new modules are clunky.
• Additional staff will be required with true open source software
• Open source seems well designed for resource discovery (an OPAC overlay) but is it really the best way to go for the LMS?  That part is very complicated.  Voyager basically works now; we don’t have a clear understanding yet of how well Koha or Evergreen work for circulation, cataloging, acquisitions, etc. in an academic consortia.
• If we work with a commercial vendor to migrate to open source and further develop it, we may be getting into a situation very similar to our relationship with Ex Libris now--not as much flexibility, and not always satisfactory customer support as the vendor gains more and more customers.  One of our concerns deals with the way LibLime decides on future development.  Typically, enhancements are decided by an independent third party group and all customers benefit.  But with LibLime, they are controlling which changes are being made to that version of Koha.  They accept suggestions from customers and then bid out to software developers.  LibLime OKs any changes. 

Many felt that a switch to another proprietary system would not really gain us anything. The proprietary systems offer basically the same functionality we have now with Voyager.  The Ex Libris URM has potential as a next-generation system, but there are so many unknowns about it. We would not rule out a proprietary system at this time, however.

Timeframe – we are not under pressure now to pick a new LMS.  Ex Libris has pushed back the release of the first version of the URM to 2012.  That release will only include the print and electronic serials management.  The rest will come a year or more after that. We learned just recently from our account representative that Voyager will be available to us for 10 or more years.

Another item we touched upon was analyzing our current staff workflows to see if there are duplicative steps or better ways of getting our work done.  Milwaukee is currently working with an outside consultant to analyze their technical services area. Milwaukee’s processes wouldn’t translate directly to other campuses, but perhaps we could learn from it and do the same thing for other campuses.

Barriers

We also talked about some of the barriers that we see with migration to open source or proprietary systems:

• Is there money to migrate to a new proprietary system?
• Not all directors/CIOs are fans of open source software
• If we develop open source software ourselves, are we willing to shift staffing—or add staff-- to software developers?
• Change is difficult for all of us.  Are library staff willing to change their workflows in order to gain efficiencies?
• Do we have to pick a LMS that has every feature we currently have (UB, EDI, reserves, media scheduling, etc.) in addition to the new things we want (e.g. better integration with campus systems)?  Does this mean we will end up with the same thing we have now—a bloated system with inefficiencies?
• As commercial support firms for open-source gain more customers, will they be able to keep up and still provide a high level of customer service?  LibLime is currently experiencing growing pains. Carthage said they have waited weeks to get responses to some of their emails.

Future Directions: At this point, we want to emphasize that we are exploring our options in order to prepare ourselves for the time when we need to move off of Voyager. We need to think more about what is a next generation system.  An in-depth analysis of any product is premature at this point. The landscape is changing rapidly and we want to stay informed. We would like to talk with people at KSU and CARLI and the New Jersey academic consortium to see what they are doing. We might also consider joining the Open Library Environment  Project (OLE) and giving them our input on a next-generation system.   The goal of the OLE Project is to define a next-generation technology environment based on a thoroughly re-examined model of library operations and connected to other enterprise technology systems (see http://cuwlwiki.wetpaint.com/page/Other+Library+Initiatives). At this time we recommend moving ahead with a new overlay to the OPAC. Although that may mean more work to get it to work with both Voyager and our future LMS, that piece is particularly difficult for patrons and we would like to see it decoupled from the LMS.

Questions for CUWL:

• Is the task force heading in the right direction?
• What are your thoughts on open-source software? 
• If we recommend open source software will there be support for adding new staff to handle migration and future development?
• What are your thoughts on joining the OLE Project?
• What are your thoughts on hiring a consultant to analyze the current workflows from collection development to acquisitions to cataloging to circulation?

Submitted by Marlys Brunsting, LMS Task Force Co-Chair
April 27, 2009

LMS Task Force Members:  Jon Mark Bolthouse, Co-Chair (Colleges), Bill Doering (La Crosse), Sharon Knight (Whitewater), Jim Lowrey (Milwaukee), Mitch Lundquist (Madison), Terri Muraski (Stevens Point), Jon Musselman (Platteville), Maureen Olle-LaJoie, (River Falls), Deb Nordgren (CUWL), Lisa Jewell (UWSA)