Advisory Group Meeting Notes, June 11, 2008

 

Advisory Group Charge:

<!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->

The State Library seeks to develop a voluntary statewide shared automation system, using open source software.  The system will be developed for and open to Iowa libraries of all types.  An ad hoc advisory group, broadly representing the Iowa library community, will be formed with the following charge:

• Affirm guiding principles for the shared automation project
• Communicate Iowa libraries’ priorities for a shared automation system
  

• Advise the State Library on strategies for the successful development of a shared automation system
  

Approved by Commission of Libraries
April 21, 2008

The State Library wants to create a “statewide borderless library” that:
•    provides equal access
•    is affordable and reliable
•    is open to all library types
•    uses open source

Advantages of proprietary vendors
•    Turn-key
•    Documentation and support

Disadvantages of proprietary vendors
•    Restrictive licenses
•    Who owns your data?
•    Forced migrations
•    Product abandonment

Advantages of open source
•    Easy customization – access to code
•    Fast development cycle because of large community working on it
•    License cost
•    Multiple options for support
 
Disadvantages of open source
•    Free doesn’t mean cheap – rather than licensing costs, there are staff costs for managing the system
•    Documentation and support usually lag development

Why open source?
•    Fits library model of openness
•    The State Library has successful experience using Plone, open source software as a result of Putting Libraries on the Web (PLOW).  It allowed us to customize software before it was released.
•    No per-user, per-library, per-transaction costs
•    We like the idea of being able to customize the system for Iowa libraries.
•    We have the technical staff at the State Library
•    The Georgia program, Evergreen, has a lot of development already done

Why Evergreen?
•    Developed by librarians for libraries.  Georgia started with the question “Pretend it’s magic.  What do you want in a system?  Don’t make any assumptions about what it cannot do.”  Georgia was able to eliminate the limitations of previous systems.
•    Developed by consortia – Georgian had a shared automation system prior to Evergreen; one library card; one set of circ policies; however Evergreen can be customized to accommodate different libraries and their policies. 
•    Supports an off-line capability
•    Runs on commodity hardware – for example, you could buy Dell servers to maintain system; if add more libraries, add more servers
•    Known to be able to scale 286 libraries
•    Other consortia are implementing it – British Columbia, Indiana in the discovery stage, Michigan is beta testing
•    Economy of scale – as libraries come on the system, we can add more services.
•    We will be able to set priorities for development; not every lib will get what they want when they want it.  Group still has to come to agreement on what the priorities are.
•    Evergreen is very flexible and powerful.

We are not considering Koha because it was not originally designed for consortia; we need to consider scalability.  We want to be in a community that had consortia in mind from the start.

Assumptions as of June 11, 2008

General Assumptions

•    Participation is voluntary – strong history of local control
•    Libraries of all types may participate – this is big!
•    We are at least two years out.  Advisory group could develop strategy for who comes on first.  Growth rate must be regulated – can’t have 500 libraries join at the same time
•    Minimum participation is both the shared catalog and the shared circulation (still under discussion)
•    Non-automated libraries can become automated through the system
•    IT infrastructure will be hosted by the SL
•    Libraries must maintain a high-speed Internet connections
•    Locator and SILO ILL will be maintained
•    Shared catalog will not replace Locator
•    Shared catalog and Locator will be synchronized

Public Catalog
•    Available over the Internet
•    Relevance-ranked search results
•    Sharable patron book bags
•    Patron self-service interfaces – patron can place their own holds
•    Title and meta record level holds
•    Vendor-independent added content integration
•    RSS/ATOM feeds from any search

Catalog and Collections
•    Libraries will continue to acquire and process their own items
•    Libraries will catalog items in the system with OCLC or other cataloging utility
•    Bibliographic data will be matched and merged
•    Libraries will add item data
•    Current collections can be maintained

Circulation & Patrons
•    One statewide library card for participating libraries
•    One shared patron database
•    Patron database will be built from scratch
•    Each library honors patron confidentiality rules
•    System is set with default circulation policies but local libraries can change to reflect current practice regarding loan periods and fines

Training and Support
•    SL will provide training for local library staff
•    SL will provide telephone support
•    Telephone support will be provided whenever libraries are open.

Anticipated Committees
•    Cataloging Standards
•    Circulation Policy
•    Administrative Rules – security, rights and permissions
•    Advisory
•    Transition – how to add libraries
•    Training – documentation, support

Resources Needed
•    Additional Staff – 2 developers, 1 program manager, 2 trainers/consultant, 1 support specialist
•    Equipment – servers, relatively small piece of costs compared to staff costs; staff costs might be 80% of costs

Funding and Governance
•    Participating libraries will pay something – expected to be less especially for large libraries; for small automated libraries it might not be less because they are not paying that much now
•    Other funding sources – state funds, LSTA funding, grants
•    Mary Wegner is prepared to go to the Legislature to talk with them.  We would be asking for less than $1 million.  Has already talked with ILA lobbyist, will be talking with ILA board this week.  Make request for the upcoming legislative session.  Also want to seek out grant funding. 

Goal is to have in place a shared automation system that provides Iowans with enhanced access to library resources.  To provide access for Iowans in a more convenient way; to foster collaboration. 

The question of a delivery system was raised.  Could we partner with AEAs?  Delivery is part of the Georgia system.  There must be collective will to do it and willingness to pay for it.  The State Library would support raising the question.  It can be part of the discussion, but this project won’t be developing a delivery system.

Ideas from the task force:   

•    Kresge Foundation
•    Consult Chronicle of Philanthropy
•    HON Foundation in Muscatine
•    IMLS
•    Look at rural funding.  REC rural development
•    Need political support - Look for chamber support, League of Cities, telco, support broadband.  AEAs to support school libraries.  Farm Bureau
•    Honorary people on letterhead – partners that don’t necessarily give money
•    When would we be ready for beta tester – need stable ongoing funding commitment before libraries would be willing to be beta.

What the State Library is looking for by the end of the day – are you comfortable with us continuing or do you say no to the project?

Demonstration of Evergreen
http://demo.gapines.org/

See Evergreen Roadmap
•    Serials
•    Acquisitions
•    Course reserves
•    Self-registration
•    Self-check
•    Credit card processing
•    Batch record import/export – web based

Comments about Evergreen

•    Control of patron information.  Do you want all libraries to have access to everything a person has checked out?
•    Evergreen feels familiar.  Naming is intuitive.
•    Check-out interface is good. 
•    Customizing your own reports is a plus.

Feedback from task force

•    Need more staff.  Consortium in IL has more staff just to tweak existing system.  You can use it as an economic development tool for Iowa.  We have statewide access to information.  Money stays in Iowa.  Hiring new people who would live in Iowa.
•    Open source is progressive; we want to promote image of being progressive.  As resources shrink we need to pool resources.  A lot of bumps in the road but I think it is where the future is and where we should be going.
•    Holdings of academic libraries would be available to students.
•    Encourage SL to move forward.  The sooner the better.  A lot of libraries are at a point of deciding what to do.  (SirsiDynix, Winnebago)
•    If we don’t make it in the 2009 legislative session, keep trying. 
•    Iowa values local control.  We know where the fences are.  Two biggest bumps – my turf and it will be a sell to automated libraries used to a fully functional system.
•    It depends on how we market it.  How to market to boards.  Give librarians talking points to take to boards.

How to describe project; how to describe benefits. 

Cautions, worries, concerns
•    Serials acquisitions are important to academic libraries.  Need to state we are committed to working on this.
•    Need to keep in mind the amount of information embedded in automation systems.  Can help us make informed decisions.
•    Can we live with staged entry? 
•    It’s great SL is working on this.  Proud of Iowa for taking on this project.