First spotted on LibrarianInBlack. There is a new entrant in the Library systems space and it is called Evergreen. There is a very interesting article on Linux.com about Evergreen including a brief outline of the decision to create their own system.
The most interesting quote, at leas to me based on recent experience, was this:
Librarian Brad LaJeunesse, PINES System Administrator with GPLS in Atlanta says that his “main motivator” for Evergreen was that the world of library software is “pretty dismal, and the products are awful. Trying to run a state-wide library system on duct tape and bailing wire is pretty difficult.”
It’s an open secret that ILS systems today are a frustrating mess for smart librarians (and patrons). Asked what problems he had with prior systems, LaJeunesse is quick to tally off a list: “Scalability. The ability to treat organization units as individual entities. Lack of granular permissions. Poor customer service. Lots more,” he says.
This is the second open source ILS that I’ve heard about. The first was Koha that has been around for quite some time. Another entrant is the WPopac which is concentrating on bringing the features we’ve come to know and love from the Web 2.0 world to an opac system.
The WPopac system has been written about twice, here and here, on the librariesinteract.info blog, which is a measure of how excited some of us have become over it.
The “open secret” that ILS systems are a mess has been around for a long time, and is still with us. Is it too much to hope that a another open source alternative may make the existing vendors take a serious look at what they currently offer?
Perhaps it isn’t the Library systems vendors that need to change, perhaps it is the Libraries and the Library administrators that need to change. A change in outlook away from the monolithic ILMS towards a more Open Source approach that ties together the various components using open protocols and standards may be needed.
I’m very interested in hearing what other people think.
Edit:
A lengthier article on the Evergreen system can be found at the Library Journal website.
Feed
January 3, 2007 at 09:28
Wow, I thought it was just me who was wondering why on earth Libraries put up with such appalling software. I have my suspicions that it might have something to do with the structure of most public libraries, particularly in Australia, where government (state or local) bureaurocrats encourage a nervous approach when it comes to outlaying money. I’d like to see state-wide consortia funding the development of open-source ILS systems tailored to their needs – an ultimately cheaper and more effective solution than the current reliance on a multitude of privately produced and maintained software “solutions” that range from terrible to merely inadequate.
January 3, 2007 at 09:38
Penrith City library (NSW) also created their own system using open source.
January 3, 2007 at 10:18
I suspect it also goes much deeper than that. I suggest there is a fear in the Library sector, both public and higher-ed, in using Open Source software. Or at the very least openly using Open Source software. I’d even be willing to suggest that it goes into Federal Government as well. Anecdotal evidence suggests that grants for open source development can be very hard to get.
I am encouraged though that other people are beginning to wonder about why we put up with the software that we do, and that other libraries are using open source development. The future for ILS and ILMS packages may not be so bleak after all.
January 3, 2007 at 11:18
It’s great that Evergreen has finally been released! I first heard of it back in 2004, when I was investigating an open source ILS for the library I was working at then. I very much wanted to make the switch, at the time to Koha, but it wasn’t quite ready. Open Source software for libraries has come a very long way even since then.
Corey – Many government agencies tender for custom software solutions, sometimes Open Source. Here’s a guide to Open Source Software for government agencies – http://www.agimo.gov.au/_sourceit/sourceit/oss
I wonder if a case could be put for the government to fund development of ILS software for libraries, in a similar way to Greenstone with UNESCO for libraries in developing countries?
January 3, 2007 at 13:16
Maybe Western Australia is unique, but we have a government agency dedicated to demonstrating and advising about Open Source software.
It’s called OpenSourceWA. Here’s more about it, and a page about Open Source Software from the Department of Premier and Cabinet.
January 4, 2007 at 11:41
Nope, WA isn’t unique on this one
Open Source NSW
January 5, 2007 at 04:42
Introducing Fish describes a new option for replacing the OPAC part of the ILS. How critical though is this uncoupling from the circulation module of the ILS – do finders care if they have no information about whether the item is on the shelf or on loan to someone?
The find interface looks simple to use and uncluttered.
January 5, 2007 at 11:59
Peta,
That’s an interesting question. I would have thought it would be very important to the user to know if the book is in the shelf, on loan etc.
The uncoupling from circulation doesn’t necessarily mean you lose this type of information. For example if the API was rich enough you could extend a system such as Fish with a mechanism to check the status of the book.
The whole idea of uncoupling parts of the ILMS hangs on the issue of APIs. If it isn’t possible to make the different components work together and behave nicely, it won’t be possible to successfully move away from the vendor based ILMS.
This, I think, is where these open source solutions come into their own. Because, as far as I can see so far, they’re all based around industry standards, communication protocols and frameworks. Can we say the same about our bought ILMS package?
January 5, 2007 at 14:03
I would have thought they’d care too – the question was prompted because I couldn’t find any availability information on Fish – maybe it is coming.
Putting on my library user hat, I want to know if something is in or out.
January 6, 2007 at 06:24
I don’t necessarily agree that our vendors are concerned with standards and especially APIs. Granted we have access to the back end database, but the more complex things requiring an API isn’t available.
Take our comments earlier about checking if a book is available. There is no API, at least in our system, that we could use to say “Hey, is this book with ID currently on the shelf?”. We’d have to check the database, and hope that between releases they didn’t change anything like the database schema or database access details.
The issue of APIs or the lack thereof, I think, are going to be the biggest problem for Libraries that want to start doing more interesting things with the ILS / ILMS. Simply because up until now we haven’t argued for the APIs, standards compliance and other aspects that would make it easy. These things haven’t been necessary because up until now the vendor provided everything we wanted.
With the current shake-up of the ILS / ILMS sector, and all of the new things we want to do like Library2.0 etc., the next couple of years are going to be rather interesting.
January 6, 2007 at 08:59
Penrith City library (NSW) also created their own system using open source.