October 2010

An Automated System Enabling Libraries to Efficiently Track and Loan Materials ◦ The Catalog of library materials ◦ The database of patrons ◦ Check-outs ◦ Check-ins ◦ Requests for materials ◦ Overdue fines, fees, notices ◦ E-commerce ◦ Patron preferences, lists, reading history, etc. Current system purchased in 2002 through private grants.

 Large and complex.  Many limitations for consortium or federated system.  Lack of support for modern server architecture.  Vendor customer service policies are not what is needed and there is no alternative.  New features and updates are lagging and require additional purchases.  Significant operational cost ($240K annually) with no new features.

 Proprietary software vendors are limited in number and have very different goals than public libraries.  Information, Reading, Entertainment – ◦ Successful organizations that provide these types of services have direct control over their information systems.  We need and want more features, better reliability, and better service. Could an Open Source System be the Answer?

MYTHS FACTS  Open source is “free.”  We can have everything we want!  There is no support.  No licensing fees or annual maintenance fees.  We can better direct the outcome of our investments  The community needs to agree and work together to ensure that common software works together.  “The More the Merrier!” Choices are available and there is no vendor “lock.” Freely available to download and develop, and is an ongoing condition of change.

 Preliminary Evaluation ◦ Functionality, Sustainability, Financial Viability, Timeframe  Detailed Functional Testing ◦ 600+ requirement statements ◦ Test Environment ◦ Data Migration ◦ Document gaps  IMLS Grant Partner ◦ Federal grant to pave the way for large public libraries to use open source. ◦ Six libraries across the U.S. – King County Library System lead

 Taskforce participants  Included requirements from Statewide project  State project initially more focused on small libraries  State timeline 6-7 years  Large urban systems have special needs/our goal  We need something sooner

 Review new software version to identify gaps ◦ Gaps = “new development”  Begin communication & forums for library staff ◦ December – initial introduction (Circulation & OPAC) ◦ Early 2011 – Other functional areas (Holds, Circulation policies, Reporting, Other modules) ◦ Online information portal ◦ Access to test environment ◦ Create training plan for migration  Work with libraries to prioritize gaps  Create development and migration plan  Determine overall timeline