[Web4lib] RE: vendors and usability

[Bridge, Frank]

Hello--

I was directing my remarks at a specific business model:  

One in which the user base would pressure a library automation vendor to
re-design the internals of an existing system or to create a brand new
system so that customers could then overlay/attach library-preferred
front ends thereto.  That front end could either be an
internally-developed or third-party-developed product.  I also limited
my comments to the library automation marketplace only.  

I am pleased that the Horowhenua Library Trust hired Katipo
Communications to develop its open-source IOLS software.  I checked the
Koha Web site and learned that the software is being "...maintained by a
team of volunteers around the globe."  Koha rolled out in 1999 and has
approximately 60 libraries currently using this software.  Koha has done
reasonably well, but this model does not approximate the arrangement I
described above, and it appears that the Koha company/software viability
is more a labor of love and dedication rather than for financial gain.
These are admirable motivations and results--sixty users of free
open-source software in six years of company history.  
But to gain a substantial foothold in the IOLS industry, you are now
looking at a set of about a half-dozen large competitors each of whom
has a user base of at least hundreds of libraries each over which to
spread the development costs and support operations.  And yet even those
user bases are limited compared to other open-source projects with whom
Koha has drawn parallels.  Firefox and Apache have such a vast potential
audiences that it is unrealistic to compare the success and
sustainability of these applications to any IOLS.  
Don't get me wrong--if any group of librarians wants to pressure the
existing set of predominating IOLS vendors to develop the package
described above, more power to those librarians.  But if such a package
is truly viable, then these very same people are missing a great
opportunity to turn a nice profit themselves.  Why not hire a group of
programmers, design a system from scratch, write the API's to access the
data structure, create the system documentation and the support network,
and then stand back with pride after developing what you believe to be
the right kind of IOLS?  
However, if the opportunity was truly there for the taking, then why
haven't the existing vendors already done it?  Demanding that they do so
will not make it happen.  

A bit of history:
In 1999 Horowhenua Library Trust in New Zealand hired Katipo
Communications to develop Koha, a full-featured open-source ILS. Koha is
now used in over 60 libraries worldwide almost all of whom pay for
support from one of four vendors (LibLime in North America, Katipo in
Australasia, Paul Poulain in 
France and MJ Ray in the UK). So market sustainablity is definitely
possible for 'open-ended' systems.

Interestingly, instead of competing with one another the four vendors
supporting Koha are collaborating together and sharing their development
resources to make the product better (with sponsorship from libraries).

> It is that business opportunity that creates the pressure to design 
> such a system, not just our demands for it.
In fact, in many cases, open-source projects have far exceeded their
proprietary counterparts in terms of overall design, usability and 
functionality: Firefox and Apache are two examples. Don't forget the Yaz
toolkit and Zebra, both designed by Index Data ... Yaz powers more than
half of all Z39.50 servers and clients world-wide and is widely
considered to be the leading toolkit for building Z39.50 applications.

I believe the open-source ILS can achieve the same status.

---
Frank R. Bridge
Technology Management Administrator
Chesterfield County Public Library
PO Box 297
9501 Lori Rd.
Chesterfield, VA  23832-0297
Voice:   804-748-1980
Fax:      804-751-4679