Coordinating Committees

Library Management System Task Force
Conference Call, June 30, 2009

Minutes

Present:  Bolthouse, Brunsting, Doering, Knight, Lowrey, Lundquist, Muraski, Nordgren
Absent:  Jewell, Musselman, Olle-LaJoie

Open Library Environment Project (OLE) - benefits, drawbacks?
OLE has the advantage of incorporating flexibility to allow for future growth in the system.  It also places an emphasis on enterprise level integration so that we can connect with other campus systems such as business financials, student databases and authentication systems in a more seamless fashion.  It is aimed specifically at academic and research libraries with one of the OLE founding partners being the OhioLink consortium.  We think that this will bode well for development that truly meets our needs.  What really differentiates it from other open source software is that it says it will not just replicate the concepts of software we already have, but will transform library workflows so we can manage changing services and resource formats--this is not just replication of a traditional ILS.  OLE also has a governance model that is more appealing to us than the open source with vendor model that we’ve heard about with LibLime/Koha.  OLE will have tiered membership that represents different levels of involvement but will “ensure that all participating members have a voice in the development, maintenance and propagation of the code consistent with each tier as well as a commitment to the project’s ongoing success.”  LibLime’s model is more that of a gatekeeper where they are the sole decisionmakers as to what development will be pursued and when. 

The first phase of the OLE project should be complete now.  Their report should be available on the web site any day now.  We do feel we need to pay attention to this project—it may help us with our direction--but we’re not sure what our formal involvement should be.  Libraries will have a chance to comment on their plans and we could participate in this way.   Will we have enough input into future development?  Should we rely on OhioLink to represent our interests?  The web site does say the success of OLE depends on making this attractive to lots of libraries outside the original partners.  This all sounds like a good plan, but it could change at any time.  There is no compelling reason to move away from Voyager at this time--it functions well, for the most part.  Voyager has a lifespan of 10+ years and Ex Libris is currently developing version 8 and committed to releasing version 9.  If we were to purchase Primo and go with the URM, their commitment might not be like the silo we have now. 

Jon Mark is going to ALA and will look for more information on OLE.  At this point in time, our recommendations to CUWL, as spelled out in the preliminary report, are unchanged.  We want to continue to watch the development of various systems, particularly the Ex Libris URM, WorldCat/OCLC’s proposed LMS, OLE, and the open source systems (Koha and Evergreen).

Planning for the CUWL retreat
Those on the call indicated they will be attending the retreat.  Terri, Sharon and Bill were not sure they could attend the dinner the night before; Jon Mark could drive in if we determine we want to meet.

Suggested readings for the retreat (see CUWL wiki at http://cuwlwiki.wetpaint.com/page/CUWL+Retreat)
Send any additional readings to Marlys for posting.

Submitted by Marlys Brunsting