Open Source Meets Turnkey: Koha for Software, LibLime for Support
by Karin Dalziel from PNLA Quarterly, Spring 2008, 73(3).
Open source software, from desktop applications to library wide Integrated Library System (ILS) software, has been a hot topic of conversation lately. Increasingly libraries are looking to open source solutions to meet the evolving needs of library patrons. One of the often quoted disadvantages of open source is the lack of support. In the past, there were no vendors that could offer support, so libraries had to rely on in house technicians or a crowd of very helpful but sometimes unavailable volunteers. Today, libraries can choose open source and enjoy the benefits of full support and turnkey hosting for open source ILSs. In the US, libraries currently have two options: LibLime, which supports the
open source products Koha and Evergreen, and Equinox, which supports Evergreen only. This paper takes a look at LibLime, primarily their Koha and Koha ZOOM offerings.
Profile of Company
LibLime is an Integrated Library Systems (ILS) systems provider, like SirsiDynix or Innovative. The main difference between most commercial ILS vendors and LibLime is that LibLime provides service for open source ILSs, rather than only providing support for their own proprietary ILS. LibLime’s primary offerings are Koha and Koha ZOOM, though they offer support and hosting for Evergreen as well.
Koha began as a solution for Horowhenua Library Trust in New Zealand, which needed to replace its text based ILS for the year 2000. The Horowhenua Library Trust hired Kapito Communications consulting firm to design an ILS solution, and the result was Koha (Anonymous, 2007b). The first library in the US to implement Koha was Nelsonville Public Library System in Athens County Ohio. The systems administrator for Nelsonville Public Library went on to co-found LibLime to support the implementation and development of Koha in other libraries (Ferraro, 2005a).
Besides supporting open source ILS solutions, LibLime also helps develop the Koha code base. One of the advantages of using open source software is that collaborations can be formed between companies willing to share code. To that end, LibLime partnered with IndexData, a provider of open source indexing and digital library solutions, in 2006 to incorporate advanced searching into Koha (Breeding, 2007a, para. 8). The partnership resulted in a new product, dubbed Koha ZOOM, which is now offered as a separate product from the original, now called Koha Classic.
In 2007, LibLime acquired the portion of Kapito Communications that had to do with the development of Koha. This move “expands the staff of LibLime from 6 to about 9 employees, bringing into the company individuals associated with Koha’s original development” (Breeding, 2007b, para. 1). LibLime also secured existing support contracts for Koha, copyrights relating to Koha, and the koha.or domain name. Adding a New Zealand branch to the LibLime corporation also allows LibLime to offer support round the clock.
Solutions for All Types of Libraries
LibLime will support just about any kind of library or other entity that needs a system to catalog, retrieve, and display results. In fact, their first customer was not a traditional library at all, but General Motors (Engard, 2007, para. 11). Koha is in use by many libraries around the world, and LibLime has implemented or helped with over 300 installations, including implementations for public, academic and special libraries (Anonymous, 2007b; Breeding, 2007a; Engard, 2007). LibLime co-founder Ferraro says he “can’t really identify a single type of library that’s more ready than any other” for open source (Anonymous, 2007a, para. 32). As different types of libraries support and pay for development of the products, the potential user base grows larger.
LibLime’s business model is a little different from traditional ILS providers. Instead of requesting a feature from a vendor, a library can either request it of the open source community, sponsor an addition through LibLime, or pay their own technical staff to implement it. When an addition is sponsored, it is then added back into the code base and released for other libraries. Ferrarro says: “If you want something developed you have the option to sponsor development through a software provider like LibLime” (Ferraro, 2005b). The more libraries that sponsor development projects for Koha, the better the software will get.
There are several options for support through LibLime. They offer turnkey hosted support, which requires little to no technical expertise from the library, self hosted solutions, or a limited support option for libraries with knowledgeable technical staff (Rogers, 2007, para. 8). LibLime supports Koha, Koha ZOOM, and Evergreen. It is important to note that while Evergreen has a competing service provider in the US (Equinox software: esilibrary.com/esi/), Koha does not.
Strengths of Koha and Koha ZOOM
Public Interface
One of the major advantages of Koha as an ILS is its public interface. While many ILS vendors have been developing applications to improve the user interface of ILS systems (which must be purchased separately) Koha, and especially Koha ZOOM, feature a robust and usable OPAC interface. The importance of interface is hard to overestimate: for many library users, the OPAC is the library. Marshall Breeding said he “believe[s] that failure to make progress in this area can foster a creep of irrelevancy as potential users increasingly rely on information resources provided by entities other than libraries” (Breeding, 2007b, para. 1). Breeding continues, saying a next generation interface is “more in tune with current Web technologies and user expectations. It’s broader in scope, takes advantage of search technologies and techniques that are closer to the state-of-the-art, and offers more dynamic interactions with library users” (Breeding, 2007b, para. 6).
Koha certainly succeeds in many of these expectations. The interface is customizable and can be made to match a library’s existing web design. Koha ZOOM offers advanced searching features like excellent relevancy ranking, faceted search, spell check, and RSS feeds for searches. Users can also re-rank searches many ways, including “‘field-weighted,’ ‘relevance ranked,’ ‘popularity,’ ‘author,’ ‘call number,’ ‘dates,’ and ‘title’” (Anonymous, 2007b, para. 14). Many of these features are absent or poorly implemented in other ILS offerings.
Search
Koha ZOOM, which incorporates Index Data’s search product Zebra, excels in search technology and relevancy ranking. Speed is noticeably improved from Koha Classic, and Koha ZOOM can scale much larger than Koha Classic while still providing speedy search results (Eby, 2007, para. 1).
Eby quotes Owen Leonard, webmaster of Nelsonville Public Library System as saying Koha ZOOM “really leverages the full potential of the MARC format to bring advanced and intuitive search functionality to our patrons. The OPAC also now [allows] us to integrate content from external web services to expand and improve the information we offer to our patrons” (Eby, 2007, para. 3). The search as implemented on Nelsonville Public Library System’s site is very zippy, and provides very relevant results.
Weaknesses of Koha and KohaZOOM
Cataloging and other back end functions
While the public face of the ILS is clearly Koha’s strength, its weakness lies in some of the back end functions. The system is entirely web based, and though that can be advantageous for some library systems, particularly ones that want to run thin clients for workstations, it comes with a certain lack of usability. Nicole Engard says “One feature that I was not impressed with this time around … was the cataloging module” (2007, para. 21). The cataloging module provides a somewhat clunky interface for data entry, forcing the user to use the mouse quite a bit and use tabs to access different part of the record. In the inaugural issue of “The Code4Lib Journal,” BWS Johnson wrote “Cataloguing for a large institution would be tough [in Koha]. Holdings information is a bit bodged at the moment. The cataloguing module is certainly clunky to use” (2007, para. 13). If a library were to sponsor a more robust cataloging interface, though, this issue would improve. Lack of technical staff
Though LibLime offers a turnkey solution for LibLime, many of the advantages of open source are lost if no one in the organization knows anything about coding or open source. To get the most from the software and the system, the library should be able to at least evaluate problems, submit bug reports, and make decisions about the sponsorship of new code. Because of the funding structures of some libraries, it may not be possible to have technical staff on hand. For example, the technical staff of some public libraries is shared with the city. Without some technical expertise, a library may lose out on some of the important benefits. Still, a hosted solution from LibLime should certainly be evaluated along with other options.
Future
LibLime appears to be growing quickly as the buzz surrounding open source software in the library community continues to grow. LibLime’s flagship product, Koha ZOOM, will continue to get better as more libraries sponsor development of the code. The next probable development in the open source market is the emergence of new vendors to support the same products, and this may be the best thing for open source. Many tout the lack of vendor lock in as one of the reasons to try open source, but currently there is not much competition, especially in the US. An anonymous author said “if LibLime isn’t offering the best services to [their] customers, [the customers] have the opportunity to look elsewhere for support” (Anonymous, 2007a, p. 35). This advantage is lost if there is no other vendor to turn to. I believe more competition in the open source market could actually help LibLime, because libraries would see that the product is not tied to one vendor, and would therefore be more likely to try open source.
Bibliography
Anonymous. (2007a). Using open source, Library Technology Reports, 43(3), 28.
Anonymous. (2007b). Next-generation flavor in integrated online catalogs, Library Technology Reports, 43(4), 38.
Breeding, M. (2007a, April). The business side of open source: LibLime buys Koha division, Library Technology
Guides. Retrieved February 15, 2008, from http://www.librarytechnology.org/ltg-displaytext.pl?RC=12738.
Breeding, M. (2007b). The birth of a new generation of library interfaces, Computers in Libraries, 27(9), 34.
Eby, R. (2007). Open-source server applications, Library Technology Reports, 43(3), 48.
Engard, N. C. (2007, August 17). Intro to Koha redux, What I learned Today… Retrieved February 16, 2008, from http://www.web2learning.net/archives/1165.
Ferraro, J. (2005a, April 27). Koha use, Web4Lib. Retrieved February 15, 2008, from http://lists.webjunction.org/wjlists/web4lib/2005-April/003761.html.
Ferraro, J. (2005b, July 15). Getting catalog software vendors to make more useable software choices, Web4Lib. Retrieved February 15, 2008, from http://lists.webjunction.org/wjlists/web4lib/2005-July/037726.html.
Johnson, B. (2007). 700 dollars and a dream : Take a chance on Koha, there’s very little to lose, The Code4Lib
Journal (1). Retrieved February 16, 2008, from http:// journal.code4lib.org/articles/28.
Rogers, M. (2007). LibLime signs Kansas and Indiana., Library Journal, 132(16), 21-22.