Tag Archives ⇒ Koha

Koha at Staffordshire University

· ostephens

David Parkes (http://dukedomlargeenough.blogspot.com @daveparkes) and Paul Johnson (http://blogs.staffs.ac.uk/informationlandscape @infoscene) talking about the selection and implementation of open source library systems at Staffordshire.

Institutional committment to ‘open’ – open educational resources, open access, widening participation.
Maturing of open source landscape
Realisation there were opportunities

Business case pretty easy to make economically – costs speak for themselves. However, more difficult to put the ‘risk’ aspect. Institutional IT slightly wary at the start (although now fully on board) – had to work, and learn, with them.

Very quick turn around – March 2010 decision, live with new system in August 2010
Library management systems need to talk to many many other systems on campus – perhaps unusual in this respect. LMS more complex than they realised when they started.

Because on legacy system, with rising costs, felt had less to lose than others perhaps.
In business case not just getting IT on side, but also faculty and students. Needed to understand what they needed from the system – found no particular resistance to moving, but also no particular desire to move.

Some demand for specific things – e.g. mobile interface.

Because of institutional strategy with regards ‘open’, they were able to align business case with institutional strategy. Specified in their tender that they wanted a hosted, open source, system.

Paul describes some issues of implementation – but I’d summarise that this seemed very similar to any system implementation – issues around change of practices, new terminology, etc. etc.

Paul describing how they worked with PTFS Europe on adding ‘rolling loans’ functionality. Some complexities around this, and especially how fines were charged. Despite good progress decided in the end to scrap rolling loans and move to 1 and 2 day loans. The only real impact they could see was slight drop in fine revenue. Generally positive reaction from students.

Hourly rolling loans now available in Koha – but Staffordshire unlikely to go back to this.

Paul stresses before having custom work done, really consider if you need it.

Paul saying how great data migration process was. Had a lot of legacy data – much of it lacking key data for discovery services – e.g. 008 only present in 15% of bibliographic data. They were able to match up with open data from the British Library to increase this to 38% of data.

Staffs use self-service – issues with secure communication between hosted Koha system and self-issue machines on site when using SIP2.

Overall think fair to say Staffordshire very positive about their experience of both PTFS Europe and Koha.

PTFS Europe, Koha and Evergreen

· ostephens

Nick Dimant now, starts off by covering the growth in PTFS Europe customer base – now including East Dunbartonshire Council in Scotland who are to be the first Evergreen installation for PTFS Europe in the UK.

Growth in customer base has meant PTFS Europe have to extend their staff at the same time (quick run down of their current staff).

Why both Koha and Evergreen? Koha meets the needs of a large number of libraries, Evergreen focussed on consortium.
Nick outlining how library automation has changed over recent years:

  • Growth in web tech
  • Increase in self-service
  • Acquistions via EDI
  • Catalogue records imported
  • Serials mostly electronic
  • etc.

At the same time:

  • Growth in library consortia
  • Growth in shared services

These two (Nick suggests conflicting) trends served by the two different systems.

PTFS charge daily rate for services as needed, and charge for hosting where desired (which is what most customers do)
To give broad idea of costs, for customers in 2011:

  • Y1 costs – £8k-£60k per org
  • Annual hosting and maintenance have ranged from £3k-£20k
  • Quotes on request

Nick says, typically annual maintenance on old system pays for complete migration and thereafter significant savings on hosting and maintenance. Nick stresses not just about cost, but also good, modern, library systems.

  • Hosting – PTFS Europe use Bytemark for hosting.
  • Support – help desk; bug fixes; upgrades – all part of annual service
  • Most customers don’t have custom software development done, but PTFS Europe do offer this where required

Evolution in the UK – enhanced functionality:

  • EDIFACT EDI
  • SIP2 Enhancements
  • Circulation and Acquisitions enhancements

PTFS Europe have formed partnerships with various organisations – work together with other Koha users/customers – enhancements going back into Koha code base.

Future plans for PTFS Europe – development of ILL, possibility of supporting other software (to be discussed later today).

Q: What is relationship with PTFS Inc.
A: Work with them where makes sense, but PTFS Europe committed to community version of Koha in contrast to approach of PTFS inc/LibLime in the US

Q: What is PTFS Europe attitude to the FE Market – what knowledge do they have of those needs etc.
A: Price can be an issue – FE colleges used to paying for low cost library systems, difficult for PTFS to compete This led to some discussion around this -feeling that this isn’t always true, and some FE concerns paying much larger amounts – especially where there are consortium etc.

Open Source Library Management Systems

· ostephens

Today I’m at a PTFS Europe event looking at Open Source library (management) systems. PTFS Europe obviously have an interest here as they sell support for the Koha open source LMS, and it seems that they are also considering supporting other library systems – such as VuFind (for search/discovery), CUFTS (for electronic resource management), a reading list system etc.

The day is opening with talk from Ken Chad. Ken noting we are in period of continuous, disruptive change. Ken says libraries must compete with all kinds of other providers such as Google, Amazon, Wikipedia, LibraryThing, acadremia etc. The point, Ken says, is that users can go elsewhere to fulfil their information/library needs.

Ken going to talk about elements of strategy, business case and how these things fit together.

Ken starts by saying what strategy is not vision or mission – but how we persue these. Universities could have the same or similar visions but very different strategies. Elements of strategy are:

  • objective – single precise objective that will drive the org for the next 3-5 years. While ‘single’ may seem limiting, a single objective can often require many other things to happen, but honing your aims down to a single precise objective can be hugely helpful.
  • scope – identifying what the organisation will not address
  • advantage – this is the most critical aspect in developing an effective strategy statement – it means reall understanding the value that the organisation brings to the customer
Ken describes the ‘strategic sweet spot’ – intersection between library’s capabilities and customer’s needs, where no competitors can serve the needs.
One approach – answer the question what are your capabilties?
  • what is your ‘essential advantage’ – an ingrained ability to succeed … sustained over time and is almost impossible to copy
  • ‘way to play’ – means a considered approach for creating and capturing value in a particular market – what are the things that set the organization apart from competitors
Some business case building blocks:
  • Summary – demonstration of strategic fit
  • description of proposal
  • market analysis
  • options
  • cost
  • resource requirements
  • risk assessment
  • project implementation and review
Common errors:
  • over-optimistic projects – too much to be delivered too soon
  • inadequate market research
  • underestimation of the resource requirements – particularly support
  • insufficient attention to full economic cost
  • writing the plan to give answer you want – doesn’t necessarily convince others
What factors can open source contribute to a strategy? In particular how will it make us more competitive and increase the value of our offering?
What makes OSS attractive? Surveys consistently highlight points such as:
  • lower costs
  • superior security
  • avoid vendor lock-in
Low cost seen as the most attractive aspect. Need to look at ‘total cost of ownership’ (TCO) – all the other factors that add above the purchase price.
Freedom from vendor lock in – open source software does not ‘go out of print’ – the source is available to all. If you don’t like the support you get you can go elsewhere or do it yourself. While not always true, open source tends to be based on open standards – no ‘vendor’ interest in locking you into a proprietary standard.
Community – collaborative efforts to build open source applications can produce software that better meets the needs of partner institutions. Belief is largely founded on hope of overcoming the historical disconnect between producers of software & HE users – “who have complex, unique and poorly understood needs” (from report by Paul Courant and one other – didn’t get the details)
Options and flexibility – OSS can offer these to orgs
“How to chose a Free and Open source Integrated Library system” – from Tristan Muller of the Fondation pour une Bibliotheque Globale, Quebec