1

Challenges of Open Source ILS Adoption

Dr. Vandana Singh School of Information Sciences

University of Tennessee 449 Communications Building

Knoxville, TN 37996 vandana@utk.edu

ABSTRACT

This paper describes the results of a research study

analyzing the challenges of the adoption of open source

integrated library systems (OSS ILSs) among U.S. libraries.

The research team surveyed 73 libraries of all types

currently using proprietary ILSs about their satisfaction

with their ILS, whether they have considered migrating to

an OSS ILS, and some of the changes that would need to

occur inside and outside of the libraries to facilitate

migration to OSS ILSs. The results show that most of the

libraries surveyed have considered migrating to OSS ILSs.

The most common reason for considering migration is the

cost savings of OSS ILSs compared to proprietary ILSs.

The most common issues libraries cited as reasons not to

migrate to OSS ILSs include lack of in-house technical staff

and expertise and perceived lack of OSS ILS technical

support. This paper contributes to the field by discussing

some specific challenges libraries associate with OSS ILSs.

This research will help libraries in the OSS ILS community

to better address these challenges and encourage OSS ILS

adoption.

Keywords

Open source, integrated library systems.

INTRODUCTION

In the past ten years, open source software integrated

library systems (OSS ILSs) have become a popular

alternative to traditional, proprietary systems because they

are more cost-effective and easier to customize. However,

many libraries continue using their traditional systems or

migrating to other proprietary systems. To encourage the

adoption of OSS ILSs among these libraries, OSS ILS

proponents conduct research to learn about the challenges

of OSS ILS adoption and how these challenges can be

resolved. In this study, the research team surveyed 73

libraries of all types currently using proprietary ILSs about

their satisfaction with their ILS, whether they have

considered migrating to an OSS ILS, and some of the

changes that would need to occur to facilitate migration to

OSS ILSs. The results show that most of the libraries

surveyed have considered migrating to OSS ILSs because

of cost savings. However, many issues and challenges

remain that prevent widespread migration. These issues

include a perceived lack of functionalities, a lack of in-

house technical expertise or support, and a concern that the

cost savings and customizability of OSS ILSs are not worth

the hassle of migration. On the other hand, this study also

shows that if the OSS ILS community and vendors can

improve functionalities, training, and documentation, most

libraries using proprietary systems are interested in at least

exploring their options for migration.

LITERATURE REVIEW

According to the literature, in the U.S. Evergreen and Koha

are the most popular OSS ILSs among U.S. libraries.

Evergreen was developed out of a collaboration of libraries

(Pace, 2006), and Koha has become widespread among

libraries of all types (“Oustell,” 2009). Libraries cite many

reasons for migrating to OSS ILSs, including cost-

effectiveness, ease of use, and community and vendor

support options (Singh, 2013d). In addition to these

reasons, one of the reasons OSS ILSs have been so widely

adopted is that they are flexible and customizable for each

library’s unique needs and patrons (Carlock, 2008).

In the past few years, librarians have become more

interested in and willing to consider open source as a viable

option for the library systems (Jaffe & Careaga, 2007).

Many libraries have embarked on the migration process to

OSS ILSs, which includes steps such as testing the system,

preparing the data, customizing and installing the system,

and maintaining and updating the system (Singh, 2013c). In

ASIST 2013, November 1-6, 2013, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

2

order to encourage more libraries to adopt OSS ILSs,

libraries that have already migrated must share their

knowledge, experience, and recommendations for each

stage of the migration process (Singh, 2013b).

Despite the growing trend of OSS ILSs, many libraries

continue to their traditional, proprietary systems. Before

libraries seriously consider migrating to an OSS ILS, they

must evaluate its interface, content, navigation, and search

options among other key features (Yang & Hofman, 2010).

Some libraries are concerned that OSS ILSs lack major

functionalities for acquisitions, serials, cataloging, authority

control, and offline circulation (Longwell, 2010;

McDermott, 2012). Another key concern is whether the

OSS ILS vendors and support community, which provide

training and documentation, are responsive and sustainable

(Muller, 2011). It is important for libraries to compare

technical support options for open source and proprietary

ILSs before they migrate (Singh, 2010). Libraries are very

concerned about open source support options because they

often struggle with a lack of technical expertise for the new

systems (Singh, 2013a).

RESEARCH METHODS

The research team distributed an electronic survey to

libraries using proprietary ILSs. The survey was created

using Drupal on the www.oss-research.com project

management site. The survey was sent to a number of

proprietary ILS listservs to reach libraries using these ILSs.

For incentive, participants were entered into a random

drawing for one of five $25 gift cards. A total of 73

librarians completed the survey.

Survey Questions

In addition to requesting demographic information such as

library name, location, type, and collection size, the survey

asked the following questions:

Who is involved in the group decision-making process to

decide which ILS your library uses?

How satisfied is your library with its proprietary ILS’s

functionalities and technical support?

What are the best and worst things about having your

proprietary ILS?

Has your library ever considered migrating to an OSS

ILS? If not, why not?

What are some of the issues with OSS ILSs that made

your library decide against adoption?

Do you think your library would experience difficulties

with OSS ILS software installation, maintenance, and

troubleshooting? Please explain.

Did organizational policies prevent your library from

migrating to an OSS ILS? Please explain.

Do key decision-makers in your library prefer proprietary

ILSs to OSS ILSs? Please explain.

What would need to change for your library to consider

migrating to an OSS ILS?

Please share any additional advice, lessons, or thoughts

on proprietary ILSs or OSS ILSs you may have.

RESULTS

The following section presents the quantitative results from

the survey, including the demographics of the participating

libraries, the librarians’ evaluation of proprietary and OSS

ILSs, and how decisions regarding ILS adoption are made

in each of the libraries.

Demographics

Out of the 73 survey respondents, 64% were from academic

libraries, 15% were from public libraries, 10% were from

special libraries, 7% were from school libraries, and 4%

specific their library type as “Other.” In terms of collection

size, 52% were small libraries of 1-99,999 volumes, 30%

were medium-sized libraries of 100,000-999,999 volumes,

and 18% were large libraries of 1 million volumes or more.

Out of the 73 respondents, 63 libraries were located in all

regions of the U.S. and 6 libraries were international. See

Table 1 for respondent data.

Evaluation of Proprietary and OSS ILSs

Most of the libraries (62%) were either very or somewhat

satisfied with their OSS ILSs. 25% were either very or

somewhat unsatisfied, and 14% were neither satisfied nor

unsatisfied. 60% had considered adopting an OSS ILS, and

82% were actually in the process of switching ILSs

(including switching from one proprietary ILS to another).

See Table 2 for respondent data.

Decision-Makers on ILS Adoption

The respondents had the option one or more options to

specify who is involved in the decision-making process to

decide which ILS the library will use, including the library

director, group of directors (in a consortium), information

technology (IT) staff, a group of staff members, or “Other.”

Most of the libraries (21%) had a complex combination of

many of these individuals and groups. Others had a library

director only (15%), a director and staff members (16%), a

director with both IT and general staff members (14%), a

Library Type Number of

Respondents

Academic 47

Public 11

School (K-12) 5

Special 7

Other 3

Table 1. Survey respondents by library type.

3

group of directors (10%), a group of directors with both IT

and general staff members (8%), a group of staff members

(10%), and “Other” (7%). Almost 50% of the libraries

surveyed have at least some staff members helping decide

which ILS their library should adopt.

DISCUSSION

The following section discusses some of the libraries’

qualitative responses to the survey, including descriptions

of the best and worst aspects of proprietary and OSS ILSs,

some of the major issues and challenges preventing OSS

ILS adoption, and changes that need to occur for these

libraries to adopt OSS ILSs.

Best and Worst of Proprietary and OSS ILSs

For proprietary ILSs, technical support was the best aspect.

The libraries enjoyed the fact that their systems were fully

functioning, mature, reliable, and stable. The most common

complaint about proprietary ILSs was cost. Libraries also

disliked the fact that they had no control over the direction

of development. Sometimes proprietary vendors halt or stop

developing a product altogether. According to one library,

“Development on our system is non-existent – we haven't

received any significantly new functionality in the nearly

eight years we've been on this ILS.”

For OSS ILSs, most libraries using proprietary systems

(22%) consider it because of perceived cost savings and

additional flexibility or options for customization. Most of

the respondents (14%) said they did not look at OSS ILSs

because they lack the IT infrastructure and technical

expertise to have a smooth migration. One library wrote

that “Our hesitation with OSS ILS revolves around minimal

staff expertise in systems and incomplete development of the

system we examined.”

Challenges of OSS ILS Adoption

As mentioned above, the biggest challenge or issue libraries

see with OSS ILSs relates to library staff. 40% of

respondents said they did not have enough training,

technical expertise, or support to migrate to an OSS ILS.

70% of respondents said they anticipate great difficulty

with OSS ILS migration and maintenance and that this

deters them from adopting an OSS ILS (see Table 3).

According to one library, “Why migrate unless it's

necessary? A system migration is a major undertaking.”

The next most common issue (18%) was a concern about

functionality. Libraries are worried that current OSS ILSs

do not have the necessary functionalities, features, or

modules that they need to run smoothly and provide their

patrons the services they want. After talking to other

libraries on an OSS ILS, one respondent made a

discouraging conclusion: “Users told us they were down for

weeks without a functioning ILS, and then they didn't have

some functionality (authority control, reserves,

acquisitions) that we required.”

Encouraging Future OSS ILS Adoption

Despite these challenges, most of the respondent libraries

are in a good place to adopt an OSS ILS in the future. 70%

of respondents did not have organizational policies or other

limitations preventing OSS ILS adoption. Even more

promising, 67% of respondents said that key decision-

makers in their libraries either do not prefer proprietary

ILSs or recognize the benefits and drawbacks of both

proprietary and OSS ILSs. Comparatively, only 33% of the

respondents said key decision-makers have a definite

preference for proprietary ILSs over OSS ILSs. See Table 4

for respondent data.

Considering that most of the respondent libraries could

adopt an OSS ILS in the future, what is needed to

encourage and facilitate this adoption? The most frequently

mentioned need (26%) is internal: libraries need to devote

funds to hiring internal technical staff that could facilitate a

migration and maintain an OSS ILS. 16% of respondents

also said that changing library directions and policies could

make this easier in the future.

External changes needed include further development of

OSS ILS functionality and support. Respondents not only

wanted to receive a reliable product with a strong vendor or

user community, but they also wanted this product to be

significantly cheaper than proprietary alternatives.

According to one library, cost savings need to be significant

to justify the hassle of a migration: “While we see some cost

savings in OSS, we realize that staff time, training,

hardware, and maintenance are definitely costs that we

can't gloss over.”

Do you anticipate technical difficulty?

Number of Respondents

Yes 51

No (Have a Vendor) 4

No 8

Waiting to See 7

Mixed 3

Table 3. Anticipated technical difficulty.

Level of Satisfaction Number of

Respondents

Very Satisfied 47

Somewhat Satisfied 11

Neither Satisfied nor Unsatisfied

5

Somewhat Unsatisfied 7

Very Unsatisfied 3

Table 2. Satisfaction with current ILS.

4

CONCLUSION

This study seeks to explore why libraries using proprietary

ILSs have not migrated to OSS ILSs and what would be

required to overcome some of the major challenges of

adoption and facilitate migration. The 73 libraries that

participated in the survey responded that improved OSS

ILS functionalities, training, and documentation would

encourage significant consideration of OSS alternatives.

OSS ILS cost savings and customizability can, indeed, be

enough to justify the “hassle” of migration. Most library

directors and staff members are interested in new options

and features for their ILSs as long as they feel that the

systems are reliable and they are confident enough in their

training and support options.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research was funded by an Institute of Museum and

Library Services (IMLS) grant.

REFERENCES

Carlock, R. (2008). Open source integrated library systems.

Nebraska Library Association Quarterly, 39(4), 5-11.

Jaffe, L. D., & Careaga, G. (2007). Standing up for open

source. Library Philosophy and Practice, 9(3), 1-17.

Longwell, B. (2010). Coming soon to a library near you:

An open source ILS. OLA Quarterly, 16(3), 16-17.

McDermott, I. E. (2012). A small public library goes open

source. Searcher, 20(1), 8-44.

Muller, T. (2011). How to choose a free and open source

integrated library system. OCLC Systems and Services,

27(1), 57-78.

Oustell study finds Koha is open-source ILS of choice.

(2009). Advanced technology libraries, 38(5), 9.

Pace, A. K. (2006). Giving homegrown software its due.

American Libraries, 37(10), 50-51.

Singh, V. (2010). Comparison of technical support for open

source software versus proprietary software. Proceedings

from ASIS&T ’10: The 73rd Association for Information

Science & Technology Conference. Pittsburgh, PA:

ASIS&T.

Singh, V. (2013a). Expectations versus experiences:

Librarians using open source integrated library systems.

The Electronic Library, 31(4).

Singh, V. (2013b). Experiences of migrating to open source

integrated library systems. ITAL, 32(1).

Singh, V. (2013c). The nuts and bolts of migration to open

source ILS: Experiences and recommendations from the

librarians. LIBRI, 63(1).

Singh, V. (2013d). Why migrate to an open source ILS?

Librarians with adoption experience share their reasons

and experiences. LIBRI, 63(2).

Yang, S. Q., & Hofman, M. A. (2010). The next generation

library catalog: A comparative study of the OPACs of

Koha, Evergreen, and Voyager. Information Technology

& Libraries, 29(3), 141-150.

Do key decision-makers prefer proprietary ILSs?

Number of respondents

Yes 24

No 20

Split 8

Not Really 10

Unsure 11

Table 4. Key decision-makers’ ILS preferences.