WALDO and Open Source ILS

1
WALDOandOpen Source ILS
2
WALDO

• Westchester Academic Library Directors
  Organization
• Multi-type library consortium
• Membership governed
• Focused on shared procurement of library services

3
WALDO Who we are

• Founded in 1982
• Incorporated in 1994
• Not-for-profit corporation
• Staffed by 8 full-time, 4 part-time contract staff

4
WALDO Membership

• 13 Full Members
• (shared ILS system)
• 11 Associate Members
• (shared union catalog)
• 400 Limited members-academic
• 400 Limited members-public or special

5
WALDO 13 Full Members

• Concordia College- smallest-682 FTE
• College of Mount St. Vincent
• Manhattan College
• Manhattanville College
• Marymount-Manhattan
• Mercy College
• Monroe College
• New York Academy of Medicine
• Nyack College
• St. John's University- largest 16,385 FTE

6
WALDO Also

• Sarah Lawrence College
• Iona College
• The University of Hartford
• Seminary of the Immaculate Conception

7
WALDO Member Partners

• 9 New York Regional Library Resource Councils
• The Connecticut Library Consortium
• The Christian Library Consortium
• HELIN
• The New Hampshire College and University Council
• VALE

8
WALDO Focus

• Our focus is on procurement
• Core Values
• -Lower Vendor Costs
• -Lower Administrative Costs
• -Quality Library Services

9
WALDO Procurement

• 55 Vendor Contracts
• Over 1600 vendor products
• Full pass thru to members of vendor discounts
• 5 administrative fee on net price
• Annual growth over 25 each year since 2000

10
WALDO ILS History

• 1983-2004 PALS
• MnSCU PALS
• Dale Carrison
• Mike Barnett
• Becky Bell
• Dave Barton

11
WALDO ILS History

• 1983-2004 PALS
• Developed by MnSCU PALS
• Hosted Services
• 1984-1997
• County of Westchester NY
• 1997-2004
• Mankato State University

12
WALDO PALS

• It was the right system
• (maybe for the wrong reasons)

13
WALDO PALS

• Right Because
• An Open Source Forerunner
• User governed
• Librarian managed
• Source code access

14
WALDO PALS

• The wrong reason
• SPERRY(UNISYS) Mainframe System
• But we were happy
• until MnLink came along
• and we had to leave

15
WALDO New System

• Traditional procurement process
• Issue massive RFP
• Evaluate RFP responses
• Make award to best responder
• Negotiate contract with award winner

16
WALDO New System

• New Procurement Process Used
• Assess marketplace for top 2 or 3 vendors
• Interview current customers
• Negotiate contracts with 2 top vendors
• Make award to vendor with best overall contract
  offering

17
WALDO Current System

• Provision for vendor extension negotiations at 3
  year point
• August 1, 2007

18
WALDO Current Vendor

• 2004 - Present
• Hosted Services (ASP)
• 5 year contract to July 2009
• Company sold
• Now owned by private equity company

19
WALDO Current Vendor

• So - with mid-term negotiations in mind
• WALDO needed a credible alternative
• to bring to the table for contract extension
  negotiations

20
WALDO Current Vendor

• But - Executive Board found other legacy systems
  equally undifferentiated
• Really not worthy of a migration effort
• What else could be considered?

21
WALDO Open ILS

• What about Open Source ILS?
• Georgia Pines progress with Evergreen said we
  have to take Open Source seriously
• We needed to establish a position by August 2007
  for our extension negotiations

22
WALDO Open ILS

• Service Requirements
• Functionally equal to current system
• Hosting Services
• Software maintenance (bug fixing)
• Applications development
• 24 x 7 help desk

23
WALDO Open ILS

• WALDO Executive Board appointed
• 4 person technical exploration committee
• Executive Director
• Head of ILS technical management committee
• 2 senior ILS system experts

24
WALDO Open ILS

• Initial system demos with KohaZoom (LibLime) and
  Evergreen (Equinox) surprised the committee with
  the advanced capabilities and architecture
  available from either system
• Some missing academic functions
• But in other areas-More than what we have now!

25
WALDO Open ILS

• A decision to explore further
• The tipping points
• Open Source model itself (control
  collaboration)
• Standards based architecture
• Modern development capability
• Protection against vendor lock-in

26
WALDO Open ILS

• And if we didnt
• Outsider ownership of legacy companies
• Troublesome legacy business models
• Near certainty of a migration anyway
• Diminished service levels
• Likely impact of Open Source on commercial vendors

27
WALDO Open ILS

• Biggest question
• Academic Library Support?
• Some but not many academic users

28
WALDO Open ILS

• Time getting short
• Needed
• A more in depth look at a single vendor

29
WALDO Open ILS

• KohaZoom presented the best architectural fit for
  WALDO
• Data independence for each library
• Policy independence for each library
• More mature packaging of solution

30
WALDO KohaZoom

• March 2007- 2 day review with LibLime
• Day 1- Full day presentation of system
  requirements by WALDO to LibLime
• Day 2- Full day presentation of KohaZoom to 10
  WALDO libraries

31
WALDO LibLime

• April-May 2007- Formal LibLime scoping study
  commissioned by WALDO
• 6 libraries visited
• All functional requirements to identified
• Development budget proposed
• Migration costs proposed
• Transition timeline identified
• Full contract terms proposed

32
WALDO LibLime

• May-June 2007- Scoping Study Presented
• May - to Executive Board
• June - to participating libraries
• Time and Cost proposals looked favorable
• June - July - Survey of all participating members
  for cost parameters and migration requirements

33
WALDO LibLime

• July - August 2007- Cost proposal validation
• Against costs of current consortium members
• Against costs of independent users
• September 2007-Final Contract Terms

34
LibLime Financial Proposal

• Contract Structure
• Master Agreement - LibLime and WALDO
• Participation available to all WALDO full,
  associate and limited members
• Current WALDO Full Members as a group
• Additional consortia group memberships
• Additional individual libraries

35
LibLime Financial Proposal

• Favorable Pricing Provisions
• Fixed Pricing terms up to 5 years
• No annual increases for recurring services
• One time implementation costs can be spread
  evenly over term of agreement
• One time development costs can be spread over 1,
  2 or 3 year terms.

36
LibLime Financial Proposal

• Favorable Pricing Provisions
• Annual price increases capped at 5 for new
  orders
• Multi-component discount structure based upon
• Total revenue (36 month rolling average)
• Development revenue (36 month rolling average)
• Lower migration costs for group commitments

37
LibLime Financial Proposal

• WALDO Cost Summary
• 5 year level payment structure
• All costs included
• Migration
• Start-up Training
• Development
• ASP hosting
• Help Desk

38
LibLime Financial Proposal

• Development-all funded
• Core Projects-282,000 starting January 2008
• Required items that can be implemented as SJU
• For example-Course Reserves
• Supplemental-210,000 starting August 2008
• Required items to be implemented elsewhere
• For example-Call Slip processing at NYAM
• For example-music collection requirements
• Contingency-200,000
• For discovered requirements and/or ILL

39
LibLime Financial Proposal

• Provisions for on-going collaboration
• New subscribers will contribute to an Open Source
  development fund. Initial contribution level
  will be at 20 of direct subscription service
  costs. Rate will be adjusted annually to reflect
  requirements for new development
• Funds could exceed several hundred thousand
  dollars per year from limited members

40
LibLime Financial Proposal

• Development Fund
• 70 earmarked for open source development
• 25 earmarked for staff support
• 5 earmarked for training and education

41
LibLime Implementation Proposal

• Time Line
• October-07- Acceptance in principal by full
  members
• October 07-WALDO consortium contract signed
• November-07 member contracts signed
• 20 months to budget impact
• November-07 WALDO project support person comes on
  board

42
LibLime Implementation Proposal

• Time Line
• Fall/Winter 07-Core development (20 items)
• Winter/Spring- Saint Johns University pilot
  implementation
• Summer 08-SJU pilot production
• or Hold Harmless walk away

43
LibLime Implementation Proposal

• Time Line (continued)
• 2009 Budget Cycle Still Open
• Summer 08-Supplemental development (15 items)
  begins
• Summer 08-ILL and contingency development
• First Half 09- WALDO migration
• August 09- Production for WALDO

44
Costs Savings

• Costs Years 1-3 (2009-11)
• Annual Support and Hosting
• 20 of one time implementation costs
• 33 of one time development costs
• Savings Years 1-3
• Breakeven to 1

45
Costs Savings

• Costs Years 4-5
• Annual Support and Hosting
• 20 of one time implementation costs
• Savings Years 4-5
• 32

46
Costs Savings

• Costs Years 6 and beyond
• Annual Support and Hosting
• Savings Years 6 and beyond
• 58

47
WALDO

• John Stromquist
• John_at_waldolib.org