OPACs, Open Source and Patron Perceptions: a look at what happens (and what can happen) when open source software is a library's public face

Katherine Luce

San Jos State University

December 1, 2008

 

Introduction

 

The phenomenon of libraries in this country using open source software (OSS) for their public faces is a fairly recent one. By "public face" I mean a library's catalog, or its website, or any other point where library users meet their library electronically. This software now includes open source integrated library systems (ILS), portals and stand-alone catalog interfaces. The nature of these interfaces is changing as libraries move to meet patron's expectations; many libraries are adding more interactivity. While there are some developed approaches to evaluating OSS in general, applying them to the relationship between libraries and their patrons is not a simple matter. This paper looks at this relationship, and how libraries' adoption of OSS might affect it, specifically in terms of the increased interactivity envisioned by Web 2.0 applications.

 

Libraries' Public Interfaces and the Future

 

There is a growing sense that traditional library interfaces simply can not meet patrons' expectations. The Library of Congress's Byrum (2006) says that fundamental improvements to OPACs are urgently needed, and identifies two areas where traditional OPACs fall short. First, they do not provide access to sufficient resources both within and without the library. Access to digital resources in particular need improvement. Second, their interfaces no longer meet the expectations of patrons who routinely get information from the internet. Yu and Young (2004) find that the use of web search engines colors patrons' experiences of OPACs, with positive and negative effects. Beccaria and Scott (2007) refer to the "uncoupling of discovery tools from the traditional integrated library system" (para. 1). There are two related aspects to this change: library patrons aren't dependent exclusively on library resources for their research, and library catalogs have started to offer access to more of these outside tools. Both Yu and Young (2004) and Byrum (2006) make numerous specific recommendations for changing what OPACs offer and how they present results. The immediate question is how libraries can effect such large, rapid change.

 

Another aspect of how patrons' internet use is changing what libraries feel they must offer is connected to Web 2.0's social, user-centered approach. Web 2.0 is usually seen as including blogs, wikis, and a host of other applications that allow or facilitate user input. Abrams (2006), for example, sees Web. 2.0 as providing an opportunity to create "the next generation of library Web sites, databases, online public access catalogs, intranets, and portals in a way that allows the end user to thrive and survive" (p. 20). While this is a positive articulation of the changes patron's habits outside the library may bring to libraries, the sense remains that the interface libraries present to patrons must change.

 

Meeting these expectations is going to be a complex task. Abrams (2006) sees the technology as complex and rapidly changing. Most libraries are already responding well to these changes, which creates the expectation that they can continue to adapt. Web 2.0 applications appear and become popular quickly, and it is important for libraries to show that they're aware of these developments. As the pace of change accelerates, libraries need to be able to move more quickly to meet changing expectations, preferably without the expense and disruption of repeatedly redesigning their interfaces. As libraries search for more flexibility, some consider moving from proprietary to open-source interfaces.

 

Benefits and Challenges of OSS

 

Some libraries see OSS as a solution to the challenges facing them in making their interfaces more responsive to the changing demands of the public. This has been one of the goals of the Georgia PINES consortium's open-source ILS Evergreen project since the beginning. Weber (2006) states that "the developers of Evergreen set out to counter the shortcomings of the catalog compared with modern Web applications -- modeling interfaces users are comfortable with like those of Google and Amazon" (p. 38). Web 2.0 also plays a role; Balnaves (2008) points out that the most active library ILS projects "are innovative in areas of Web 2.0 support and are extending the core set of features in the applications" (p. 5). Many see OSS as quicker to respond to user input and more adaptable (Goh, et al., 2008). Schneider (2008) lists several OSS programs that libraries can use to make their interfaces more accessible to the public.

 

Other libraries have hesitated to move to open-source software because they lacked information about it, or because of the challenges of having staff learn a different system (Hebert, n.d.). Koha and other open-source options can be difficult to install, especially on non-Linux platforms (Balnaves, 2008; Schneider, 2008). Goh, et al. (2008) believe that libraries are slower to adopt OSS than they would otherwise be because much OSS is intended for use by professionals and is therefore less easy to use than proprietary software. As OSS matures, however, these barriers are becoming less significant; some aspects of this change are discussed below.

 

Evergreen and Critical Mass

 

As more libraries start using OSS for their key operations, other libraries are encouraged to do the same. Balnaves (2008) feels that the growing number of libraries using open-source library software, and the increasing interest in Web 2.0 technologies, both encourage more libraries to consider using open-source. He calls Koha, Evergreen and PMB "nimble in their accommodation of new Library 2.0 innovations" (p. 8). Brad LaJeunesse of Georgia PINES even says that sustainability was a further reason for choosing to use OSS instead of building a system on their own: "we wanted this project to be more than just another home-grown ILS that would most likely wither and die in time" (Rosen, 2005, p. 7).

 

The Georgia PINES consortium's development of the Evergreen ILS, launched in 2006, has changed the landscape for open source ILS on this continent. This very public development and adoption of an open-source ILS for a large consortium of public libraries has changed what people consider possible. The total number of libraries using open-source software for their patron interfaces is still small. While there's an active debate about what the numbers are, which libraries should be counted and how they should be counted, the total number of North American libraries who have implemented open-source OSS seems to be somewhere in the low three digits (Molyneux, 2007, and related discussion; Riewe, 2008). Because this total is so small, each new library - and especially each library consortium such as Georgia PINES or North East Kansas Library System - that is added to the number has an outsize impact on librarians' perceptions of open source software and its accessibility. Balnaves (2008) sees that library networks' adoption of OSS has created a "critical mass" for the projects' sustainability (p. 2). He sees specifically that the diversity of Koha installations ensures its continued viability, and finds that the growth of LibLime and other support companies shows that the market for library OSS is reaching a point of maturity.

 

Community and the Speed of Change

 

The strength of the community surrounding an open-source project is a key ingredient in its success. Lee, Kim and Gupta (2007) refer to the many open source projects that never reach completion, nearly 50%. They feel that the strength of the developer community is a key ingredient in evaluating open-source programs; community is not relevant to the evaluation of proprietary programs. Balnaves (2008) also points out that viability of the community is one of the factors which needs to be used in evaluating the success of OSS. This discussion of the software's initial development can be applied to how OSS is employed by libraries. It's clear that the role of community doesn't stop once the initial development phase has passed.

 

OSS envisions cutting out the inefficient and time-consuming loop of communication needed to make improvements to proprietary systems. Goh, et al (2008), state that OSS "tends to evolve rapidly. People improve it, people adapt it, and people fix bugs" (82). As OSS moves farther away from community of developers who initially created a program, its relation to its users changes. Librarians are not all developers, and their role in an OSS community changes accordingly. Libraries and librarians may put more effort into increasing their ability to contribute to code of their OSS applications themselves, or they may rely on third-party support (or a hybrid). As users, however, they are always valuable eyes looking for changes which need to be made. It does make logical sense for libraries relying on OSS, especially OSS that has been recently developed or customized for their use, to create forums, blogs, wikis and whatever else will encourage the system's users to contribute their experience using it. Please note that all these applications are considered part of the Web 2.0 approach.

 

The fact that Evergreen and other open-source programs are being adopted by library consortia encourages the growth of an active community of librarian-users. Northeast Kansas Library System and other Koha adopters share forums, a Facebook page and other means of communicating easily (NExpress shared catalog, 2008; Northeast Kansas Library System Facebook page, 2008). Evergreen also has a well-developed approach to involving the librarians who use it.

 

This community is one of the reasons that OSS promises to respond quickly to the need for fixes or the demand for new features. Goh, et al. (2008) refer to the accelerated development possible with OSS because of the "peer review given by like-minded professionals, with no commercial agenda" (p. 82). Schneider also describes this accelerated process: "with no limit on the number of participants, an open source project can develop rather quickly. And when the software develops a bug, the programming community moves swiftly to resolve the problem" (p. 45). One of the reasons librarians at Georgia PINES libraries like Evergreen is the speed at which changes can be implemented, compared to the longer process they experienced with proprietary systems (Weber, 2006). Riewe (2008) found that one of the top five reasons libraries chose either Koha or Evergreen was customizability. All this emphasis on community and its relationship to adaptability goes back to Raymond's The Cathedral and the Bazaar (2000), which pointed out the value of many eyes looking at any software, and erasing the distinction between developers and users.

 

Including the Public

 

Meeting patron expectations is one reason libraries turn to OSS, yet most libraries implementing OSS don't fully involve patrons in their open-source projects. Most discussions of the "community" involved in library OSS implicitly define the software's users as the library staff, even though patrons clearly also use these systems. Riewe (2008) found that librarians using open-source systems were slightly more satisfied than those who used proprietary systems, but didn't extend the analysis to public perceptions. Because using OSS for the public face of libraries is new (at least in this country), direct evaluations of the public's experience are hard to find. Since meeting patrons' expectations is part of the reason for moving to OSS, libraries need to know how patrons feel about the new interfaces. Cheerfully assuming that OSS will improve usability for the public is not enough.

 

Indirect information shows that at least that some of the OSS employed by libraries benefits library users. For instance, Evergreen's effort to make library resources more accessible to patrons seems to be successful: the increased costs for shipping holds and sending overdue notices that have resulted from the new OSS interfaces have used up some of the money that the Georgia PINES member libraries saved by using OSS (Weber, 2006). This implies that library users are finding it easier to access library materials. Pace (2006) reports that Kathryn Ames, director of the Athens Regional Library, a Georgia PINES member library, says that patrons "are quite impressed and happy with its ease of use and functionality" (p. 50). De Groff (2008) describes adding more features to library computers at the Howard County Library after confirming that library patrons used the library computers not just for searching the catalog but also for other activities such as accessing the internet and checking email. Howard County's use of OSS reduced in-library requests for computer help significantly, which presumably means that the patrons found it easier to use.

 

At this point, however, the mechanisms for involving patrons directly in their libraries' open-source projects are few, and most library OSS projects seem to consider that librarians are the software's only users. In some ways this makes sense, since the functions performed by a library ILS are complex and encompass much more than the interface for patrons. There is an opportunity here, though, to involve patrons more directly. Librarians have already been drawn into an open-source community originally composed of developers. OSS itself started with a small audience of expert users: developers, or people with at least some development knowledge. There are now many applications which are easy for anyone with a computer to use. There are open-source alternatives for many of the applications people use daily.

 

This same open-source evolution can be applied to libraries' OSS interfaces. The degree to which librarians who use OSS can draw in direct contributions from patrons can limit their need to rely on a cycle of surveys, analysis, and action to understand and respond to patron needs. This cycle interferes with libraries' abilities to provide patrons with new features as they become available. With the development of an active community of users, the feedback can be provided directly and continuously, and changes can be made on an ongoing instead of a periodic basis. Schneider (2008) articulates this approach as "the product stays close to the user"; the real-time, ongoing input from users is a "continuous reality check" on their needs (p. 45).

 

Goh, et al. (2008) have a slightly different issue with evaluating the usability of open-source library programs: usability is subjective. Taking the most direct input available, by making it as easy as possible for library users to provide feedback is one method of getting good feedback in spite of this subjectivity. A direct approach agrees with open-source values; Balnaves (2008) states that "OSS projects generally attempt to enlist the widest possible collaboration in the software development process" (p. 2). Facilitating feedback also aligns with library ethics; Schneider (2008) points out the "tradition of openness and sharing in Libraryland" and links it to the communities involved in developing OSS (p. 44). Greater public involvement can also contribute to the software's sustainability. It encourages the library system to be more responsive to the public's concerns, making it easier to absorb the public's opinions and increasing the chances that a given system will be able to last.

 

Some libraries who have moved to OSS have incorporated methods of encouraging patron feedback in their interfaces. Jackson, Blackburn and McDonald (2007) find that one advantage of using an open-source wiki, MediaWiki, in their library is that information can be gathered "from a push, not pull, perspective from the library end-user" (p. 27). Jackson, et al. further point to the benefits of using other links embedded in the wiki as a method of promoting their library's services "in a more holistic way" (p. 27). In other words: the growth of Web 2.0 technologies, and the related discussion of Library 2.0, is easily integrated with OSS, and with including the public in what libraries consider their open-source communities. Libraries adopting open-source public interfaces should take advantage of their Web 2.0 capabilities to encourage active participation in the evolution of their interfaces.

 

Paul Smith's College's Joan Weill Library recently implemented an open source backup catalog (Beccaria and Scott, 2008). The library's web site offers an opportunity for patrons to offer input through a prominent "talk back" button (Paul Smith's College, 2007). The "talk back" button provides patrons with the opportunity to comment publicly, and read others' comments. It does not seem to be heavily used yet, with only three comments from the fall of 2008, but is an important step in teh right direction.

 

Strangely, the Georgia PINES catalog is still used mainly for library-centered activities, according to the PINES Annual Patron Satisfaction Survey (2008). The heaviest usage reported was in traditional catalog activities: renewing materials (82.1%); putting materials on hold (84%); looking at materials checked out (80.9%); and paying fines (63.2%). More forward-looking activities had much lower usage: reading online reviews (29.4%); looking at tables of contents (15.5%); and creating a "bookbag" (17.4%). One issue may be that people are used to doing these activities elsewhere, but another may well be lack of direct public involvement in configuration of the library's resources.

 

Conclusion

 

In order to get the fullest benefit from implementing OSS, libraries should think in terms of two-way communication with their users as they plan their user interfaces. A positive feedback loop could be created: as libraries adopt OSS in order to incorporate new technologies such as Web 2.0, they could use these technologies to make it easy for patrons to contribute their experience of the new interfaces. This in turn would make is easier for libraries to continuously improve the interfaces (it is quite possible that library patrons could even contribute solutions to code issues), which would make it easier for other libraries to adopt the OSS, and so on. Using a Web 2.0 approach not just to satisfy patron expectations but also to gather information about patrons' experience would help libraries keep up with the rapid pace of technological change. Facilitating patron input could be accomplished by adding a simple button like the Paul Smith's College's "talk back" button, or by establishing a patron forum visited by library staff. Wikis, blogs, IM and the rest of the Web 2.0 toolbox are very well adapted for this use. The suggestion is simple, and should be easier for libraries to consider as more and more of them use open source software. It is in line with the values of both libraries and the open source movement - why expend effort gathering information from patrons when you could easily get them more directly involved? It will probably take some experimentation to find methods which actually get enough patrons to contribute, but gathering good, direct information should make it worthwhile.

 

 

References

 

Abram, S. (2008). Social libraries: The librarian 2.0 phenomenon. Library Resources & Technical Services. 52(2), 19.

 

Balnaves, E. (2008, March). Open source library management systems: A multidimensional evaluation.

Australian Academic & Research Libraries, 39(1), 1-13. Retrieved September 14, 2008 from WilsonWeb database.

 

Beccaria, M. and Scott, D. (2007, October). Fac-Back-OPAC: An open source interface to your library system. Computers in libraries 27(9),

 

Byrum, J.D. Jr. (2006). Recommendations for urgently needed improvement of OPAC and the role of the national bibliographic agency in achieving it. International Cataloging and Bibliographic Control, 35(4), 75-81. Retrieved November 2, 2008 from WilsonWeb database.

 

De Groff, A.B. (2008, March). Using open source to give patrons what they want. Computers in Libraries 28(3), 1-10. Retrieved October 27, 2008 from WilsonWeb database.

 

Goh, D., Luyt, B., Chua, A., Yee, S.-Y., Poh, K.-N., & Ng, H.-Y. (2008). Evaluating open source portals. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science. 40(2), 81-92. Retrieved November 4, 2008 from http://lis.sagepub.com

 

Hebert, E. (n.d.). How open source software can improve our library. Retrieved Nov. 7, 2008 from http://www.degreetutor.com/library/managing-expenses/open-source-library

 

Jackson, M., Blackburn, J. D., & McDonald, R. H. (2007). Media wiki open-source software as infrastructure for electronic resources outreach. Reference Librarian 48(1), (#99), 19-36.

 

Lee, S-Y. T., Kim, H-W. & Gupta, S. (2009). Measuring open source software success. Omega 37, 426-438. Retrieved October 27, 2008 from Proquest database.

 

Molyneux, B. (2007, October 15). Open source ILS market penetration. Retrieved November 1, 2008 from http://www.lisnews.org/features/07/10/15/118229.shtml. Revised analysis published October 19, 2007; retrieved November 1, 2008 from http://www.lisnews.org/node/22251 following discussion of accuracy of original post at web4lib, first post retrieved November 1, 2008 from http://lists.webjunction.org/wjlists/web4lib/2007-October/045598.html

 

NExpress shared catalog (2008). http://www.nexpresslibrary.org/

 

Northeast Kansas Library System (2008). Facebook page, retrieved November 1, 2008 from http://www.new.facebook.com/pages/Lawrence-KS/Northeast-Kansas-Library-System/22811779030

 

Pace, A. K. (2006). Giving homegrown software its due. American Libraries, 37(10). 50-51. Retrieved November 1, 2008 from WilsonWeb database.

 

Paul Smith's College Joan Weill Library web site (2007). http://www.paulsmiths.edu/library/

 

PINES Annual Patron Satisfaction Survey (2008). Retrieved November 1, 2008 from www.georgialibraries.org/lib/pines/user_survey/PINES_Survey_08.pdf

 

Raymond, E. S. (2000). The cathedral and the bazaar. Retrieved November 6, 2008 from http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/index.html

 

Riewe, L. (2008). Survey of open source integrated library systems. Unpublished master's thesis, San Jos State University, San Jos, California. Retrieved Nov. 1, 2008 from http://users.sfo.com/~lmr/ils-survey.html

 

Rosen, F. (2005, Spring). Evergreen: built for a consortium. Library Journal 130, 7. Retrieved October 27, 2008 from Academic Search Premier database.

 

Schneider, K. (2008). Free for all: Open source software. School Library Journal. 54(8), 44-46. Retrieved November 7, 2008 from http://www.schoollibraryjournal.com/article/CA6582321.html

 

Weber, J. (2006, December). Evergreen: Your homegrown ILS. Library Journal - New York, 131(20), 38-41.

 

Yu, H., & Young, M. (2004). The Impact of Web Search Engines on Subject Searching in OPAC. Information Technology and Libraries, 23 (4), 168-180. Retrieved November 4, 2008 from WilsonWeb database.