The open source ILS: Still only a distant possibility

One of my main professional interests involves following the library automation industry. I maintain a Web site devoted to this topic and regularly write about the companies and systems that comprise this arena. So it is with great interest that I consider the impact open source software (OSS) might make on this industry. The open source movement could effect radical changes to libraries should it produce an integrated library system (ILS) that earns a level of acceptance on the same order that Apache did in the Web server market. Like Apache, an open source ILS would have to offer top-of-the-line features and performance to gain acceptance over its commercial rivals. My general approach to software, technologies, and systems is initial skepticism. I've learned that the hype about any new technology usually exceeds its practical impact in the long term. My attitude toward OSS in libraries is no different. While I appreciate its successes, I also recognize its limitations. There is no doubt that Linux and Apache represent a worldwide victory over high-powered commercial opponents in the operating system and Web server arenas. (1) I do not, however, expect to see such victories of OSS over commercial products in the ILS arena. Both broad historical and recent trends argue against a movement toward libraries creating their own library automation systems--either in an open source or closed development process. An undeniable trend in library automation involves a movement toward vendor-supplied systems and away from locally developed ones. Libraries large and small recognize that they do not have the resources to develop and maintain library automation systems. Some of the recent examples that come to mind include: * Library of Congress: Adopted Endeavor Voyager to replace several locally developed systems. * UCLA: Early implemented DRA Taos over their locally developed ORION system. * Stanford University: Abandoned locally developed BALLOTS system for SIRSI Unicorn. * Penn State: Converted from their locally developed LIAS system to SIRSI Unicorn. Other less prominent libraries that have left locally developed systems for commercial systems include Carelton University, Jefferson County (Colo.) Public Library System, and the Fogelson Library of the College of Santa Fe. Very few large libraries continue to operate locally developed library automation systems. The only two ARL libraries currently running locally developed systems are the University of California at Berkeley and the University of Texas at Austin. Neither of these locally developed systems is open source. It should be noted, however, that the development of these systems far predates the open source movement. One may well speculate that had the open source movement been in place during the period in which many libraries were creating library automation systems, the current environment of reliance on commercial systems would be quite different. The complexity of library automations systems exceeds the pool of available volunteer programmers. Full-fledged ILS software can easily contain a million lines of software code. Library automation companies that have recently undertaken the development of a new ILS have generally expended about five years of development time with a team of thirty to fifty programmers. The creation of a new ILS is a multimillion-dollar project. It is hard to see that even a large collective of libraries would have the available programming staff to develop and maintain a large-scale ILS. Preferred technology architectures evolve faster than the development cycles of applications built upon them. The history of technology has seen constant shifts in computing models and architectures. Time-sharing host/terminal systems gave way to client/server systems with thick graphical clients. These gave way to an N-Tier architecture and Web-based clients. …