Can a proprietary library system/platform be more open than an open source one? Open library platforms - a pragmatic approach
Ken Chad, Director Ken Chad Consulting Ltd. March 2025
Preamble
In 2024 I attended the International Group of Ex Libris customers (IGeLU) conference and a short while after I attended the World Open Library Foundation Conference (WOLFCon). They both helped me reflect on the nature of open library systems/platforms. It was interesting to note that Ebsco the major funder of the open source Folio library system attended IGeLU and Clarivate (home of Ex Libris) attended WOLFCon.
Introduction
The definition of ‘open’ library systems has evolved over time. In the early 1990s a library system vendor advocated ‘open systems’ based largely on its use of the UNIX operating system. This gave libraries ‘more choice’, notably in terms of the minicomputer of which the library system would run on. A decade or so ago open-source software became a defining factor in how many librarians perceived open library systems. The divide between open-source and propriety library software approaches was seen as a ‘battle’ between opposing ideologies. The market has moved on and a more pragmatic approach to library technology solutions is warranted.
Platforms
Open source and proprietary are different ways to develop software and each has its pros and cons. The reality is that nowadays large scale solutions are not based wholly on either open source or proprietary software. More significant than arguments about the relative value of open and proprietary approaches to software is the rise of cloud based software ‘platforms’ which have come to dominate many sectors. Open source and proprietary solutions are typically hosted in the cloud on services like (proprietary) Amazon Web Services (AWS). As services move to the cloud the underlying technology becomes of less concern and the focus is on the functional and practical benefits an open library platform can deliver.
Open Library Platforms
Librarians are key stakeholders in terms of purchasing library technology. They typically define needs and set out requirements. Nowadays those requirements will define a broad ‘ecosystem’ - an open library platform - rather than a singular library system. Library platforms may be characterised as open source (like FOLIO and Koha) or proprietary (like Ex Libris Alma/Primo and OCLC WMS) but they all embrace open-source components and combine them with proprietary solutions. For example, a proprietary solution from Ex Libris will run in the cloud on an open-source operating system and will use other open-source components such as Elasticsearch. An open-source solution such as FOLIO or Koha will typically be implemented with a proprietary discovery service such as EBSCO’s EDS or Ex Libris Summon. If the library needs a reading/resource list solution to integrate with its open-source library system its only option is to buy a proprietary solution such as Aspire or KeyLinks. This combination of ‘internal’ built-in functionality and ‘external’ interoperability provides libraries with a potentially rich ecosystem.
Sustainability and development
Many library systems, proprietary or open source have faded away or linger on with just a few remaining customers. Platforms require major investment and scale to succeed. Large scale library platforms with financial heft behind them will be more able to encompass strategic new developments like AI. Whether the solutions are proprietary or open source, that investment nowadays comes mainly from major library technology companies such as Ebsco or Clarivate. Libraries alone developing bespoke solutions or small communities developing open-source solutions find it difficult sustain or develop those solutions. For example, in the UK bespoke and open-source reading list solutions failed and have been replaced by proprietary solutions from major vendors. The Kuali open-source library system similarly failed after gaining just three customers.
Functionality
The term library services platform (LSP) was coined in 2011 by library consultant Marshall Breeding to describe a new generation of solutions and to differentiate them from older Integrated Library Systems (ILS)/Library Management Systems (LMS). A LSP typically does ‘the heavy lifting’ in terms of key functionality. It delivers the mission critical applications and workflows librarians need to support a wide range of library functions. This now goes beyond the core management and discovery of a library’s collection of print and electronic resources. The core platform can embrace resource sharing/ILL, resource list management and access, collection development tools, analytics and management of and access to the library’s own repositories for research outputs and digital collections/archives. Libraries may have differing views about what is core but It makes sense that these functions are tightly integrated into a single platform from a single provider. That delivers workflow efficiencies, improved analytic capabilities and support from a single helpdesk. It also means a richer basis for interoperability.
Interoperability
In Breeding’s view view, a key justification for the term LSP was that ‘they enable the library to perform its services, internally and externally through their built-in functionality, as well as exposing a platform of Web services and other APIs for interoperability and custom development’. A pragmatic librarian will seek a solution that delivers the best open ecosystem. Through application programming interfaces (APIs) an open platform enables add-on functionality for example to support self-service devices, and integration with other institutional systems such as finance, the learning management system, student registry etc. The volume of traffic through these APIs can be significant. Ex Libris reports approaching 4 billion API calls in 2024. However to take advantage of APIs may still require technical expertise. This is not a question of open source or proprietary approaches to the library system. Few libraries have the technical capabilities develop their own add-on APIs based solutions. APIs may be technically ‘open’ but are effectively closed to all but the technically competent few. Interoperability can be facilitated through developer networks which provide the APIs together the necessary documentation and support. However membership of developer networks will remain for the ‘techies’. Lowering technical barriers makes platforms more open. This is why initiatives such as Ex Libris’s Open Workflows are significant: ‘Users can create customized workflows conveniently, with significantly less effort and cost.’ Such an approach can make a propriety system more open than one based on open source.
Resource sharing/ILL is a powerful example of the transformation benefits of interoperability. In the past interoperability between library systems from competing vendors was complex and rarely achieved. This is changing. A library using Alma/Primo can now interoperate with a library using a different system such as Sierra or FOLIO. A solution such as Rapido/RapidILL can enable a researcher or student to get a critical article in minutes even if it is not one subscribed to by the library.
Community
Continuous, sustainable development of new products and services is vital and input from user communities is an excellent way to accommodate that. The more customers a platform has the more likely it will be able to galvanise a committed community around it to provide support and input into development. This will typically take the form of independent user groups, focus groups on particular functional areas and a program of customer development partners to help bring solutions into full production. In addition vendors like Ex Libris provide an ‘Idea Exchange’ - a forum for users to influence on-going innovation by sharing and supporting ideas they’d like to see implemented. The OCLC Community Center allows ‘anyone who uses a given OCLC product or service to contribute their feedback and experience to the product development process.’
The scale and relevance of the community matters. A large community is likely to be more effective than a small one. However the community also needs to be relevant in terms of the sector (e.g. academic libraries) and geography (North America, Europe, Asia etc). The pragmatic librarian will therefore seek out a platform that has a flourishing community consisting of like-minded peer institutions that share alignment to its goals. This will contribute to a relevant and sustainable solution that can adapt to future needs.
Conclusion
The pragmatic academic librarian reviewing the library technology marketplace today will have witnessed the move away from the ILS to the LSP. All LSPs are a mixture of open source and proprietary components. The core functionality on offer will be vital but, sustainability and development, interoperability and community will be key considerations.
About Ken Chad
Ken gained his Masters Degree from the Information Science Department at City University in London. He is also an alumnus of the Warwick University Business School Business Innovation and Growth Programme. He has over 20 years software business experience and has worked at Executive Director/Board level. His customers included a wide range of academic, research, college, public, corporate and national libraries in the UK and throughout the world. His consulting activities include work for businesses, academic institutions, the NHS, central and local government, sector bodies such as Jisc. He has published and presented widely on the strategic impact of technology-driven change ,library technology, research systems and ebooks. Ken is a member (MCLIP) of the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals (CILIP) and the American Library Association (ALA). He set up and manages a number of free, open community resources including Higher Education Library Technology (HELibTech).
LinkedIn profile: www.linkedin.com/in/kenchad
ORCID ID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5502-6898
Research Gate profile: www.researchgate.net/profile/Ken_Chad