The spin begins!

It was with some amusement that I read this conference program description wherein the vendor of a proprietary ILS makes the claim that with their system, you can have the best of both worlds (proprietary and open-source). Theoretically, the claim goes, if you have an open data base structure (apparently by providing a data dictionary) and the ability to modify the parameters to make the software meet the needs of your library, then you’ve achieved the benefits of an open-source ILS, “while replacing the burdens of development, support and maintenance where they belong, leaving you free to concentrate on your library’s mission.”

Well now, isn’t that an interesting spin? On one hand, I’m sure all of the open-source community is glad, as am I, to see the vendors of proprietary ILS software taking enough notice of what is happening with open-source solutions to see it as a threat to which they must respond. I think we’ve got their attention. Unfortunately as is demonstrated by this description, it underscores that they only partially understand what this revolution is all about and how far it has already come.

While we applaud the vendor providing open access to the database and the data (which by the way, doesn’t the library own anyway?) and providing some flexibility in the software to meet the needs of the libraries by modifying parameters, what is still sorely missing in the proprietary software solutions is:

1. Total Flexibility. What if the parameter settings don’t modify far enough to accommodate the needs of the library? At that point, what does the library do? In the open-source community, they can hire a vendor to write it, they can hire a programmer to write it, they can write it themselves, they can collaborate with other libraries to get it written, the list goes on and on. And oh yes, by the way; they can get competitive quotes to get development done. But in the proprietary software world, you can ask your vendor, you can beg your vendor, you can pay your vendor but after all of that you might still be told “not possible” and you certainly won’t be getting a competitive quote for the work no matter what answer you get from your vendor.

2. A higher return on investment. With proprietary software, you’re paying for a higher return on investment for the owners of the software company from which you’re buying the product. You’re paying for that software license and that is profit for your vendor. With an open-source software company, the higher return on investment is yours. In the end, the two solutions (proprietary and open-source) may cost roughly the same, but with the open-source software, you’ll have paid for a solution that meets your needs and is likely customized to do exactly what you want done. Furthermore, remember that you have the advantage, if needed, to have companies compete to provide you with the best service for your money. Or you can determine which costs to manage in-house and which to contract for outside of your library. You can leverage your in-house technical staff if you have them, or you can use a vendors;“ it’s your choice. You just can’t do these things with proprietary systems. It is just another way that open-source helps you to obtain a much higher return on your investment. So the question is where do you want to see the return-on-investment; in your library or in your vendor’s profit line?

3. Community. Sure, the proprietary vendors have user groups and some of them are pretty good at persevering. Most spend a lot of time debating enhancement lists, negotiating them down to the lowest common denominator that will upset the fewest customers and then the vendor will develop and deliver them to the satisfaction of no one, months or even years after they’ve been submitted to them.

Open-source vendors instead have communities of users, a place where ideas are rigorously discussed, tried out, modified and implemented, quickly. Sometimes within hours, sometimes days; but rarely if ever, in years. Not only that, but once the new idea and feature is done, it is given to everyone else in the community; no charge, nada, free, zip — yours to use. This is partially how the open-source community builds such momentum and achieves so much in so little time. In today’s world, do libraries really have any other choice than to try and move as fast as the world around them?

4. No vendor lock-in. Conveniently ignored over and over by proprietary software vendors is this point. Do you have the source code in your hands (no, not an escrow agreement that can be tied up in courts forever, not even an actual sealed copy of the source code in your hands, that can be opened under some legally pre-defined conditions, we’re talking about the source code). Can you call up another vendor and ask them to support and maintain the product, right now? Can you get quotes for multiple vendors for those services? No? Well then you;re the potential victim of vendor lock-in. What happens if your vendor gets sold, acquired, merged, your product terminated or downgraded (you know the routine, you’ve seen it several times in this field in the last year or two!).

Those who’ve adopted open-source solutions rest a lot easier about those scenarios because they know that unlike those with solutions from the proprietary vendors, they’re in control over their destiny and budget. They aren’t investing in a product that can be end-of-lifed without their consent. They can’t be denied use of the product they’ve invested in. It’s their investment, under their control. It makes sleep a lot more restful.

5. There are NO burdens of development, support and maintenance with open-source solutions these days! I suppose the vendor of the proprietary ILS software that started me down this path has missed some announcements in the field lately, but there are a number of companies now in existence (including CARE Affiliates) that have come into existence precisely to fill this need for libraries who want to use open-source, but don’t have the technical resources to do it. For libraries wanting all the real benefits of open-source and still want the convenience of having a commercial vendor providing support, development and maintenance, these companies stand ready to meet that need. Not only that, they do it in a competitive environment while facilitating the community aspect of open-source solutions so that libraries can once again, control their destiny and share their work freely with their peers for the benefit of all.

Isn’t that what libraries are all about? If so, then why would you only want some of the benefits of open-source solutions? Why not get all of the benefits?

Go open.