The Open Library Environment Project: Building an ILS for Service Oriented Architecture Integration
McCormick Place West, Room: W-196a
Beth Forrest-Warner, University of Kansas
John Little, Duke University
Robert H. McDonald – Indiana University
Carlen Ruschoff – University of Maryland
What is the OLE Project?
Community source alternative to current ILS
International participation from libraries and consortia
100+ institutions, 350+ individuals
Planning phase: September 2008 – July 2009
The goal is to have a reference implementation model available in 2011
Why OLE?
"Our current library business technologies cost too much and deliver too little. We need to rethink our services and workflows, and to use technology that enables innovation rather than locking us into the status quo."
There is a growing need for library systems to integrate with other enterprise systems: Financial, identity management, course management, content management
Library technology systems have not kept pace with changing users and a changing information environment.
OLE Campus
Manages locations
Manages resource subscriptions
Integrated into: course/learning management system, accounting, student/HR, consortia
Flexibility
Community Ownership
Service oriented architecture
Enterprise-level integration
Efficiency
Sustainability
Audience poll: What do you think is most critical to the future of your library? (From above list)
Respondents ranked Flexibility as being much more important than Sustainability.
Why OLE now?
Current ILS products are inadequate
Growing need for library systems to interact with other enterprise systems
Vendor consolidation
Community Source Projects
A group of institutions sign an agreement to contribute specific resources. Under this model there is an established level of buy-in as opposed to open source in which a community may or may not develop. The Community Source participants have an ongoing commitment to participation and support.
Have sustainability over the course of the product development
Invest in the community of practice for long-term support and development
Fosters innovation and shared knowledge
Coordinates institutional goals rather than individual goals
Looking at better integration and interoperability with campus enterprise systems – not just "tacking on". Why are we looking at our own patron databases? Those are campuswide functions. This will ultimately result in more efficient processes and better use of campus investments.
From Theory to Reality
Approximately 30 months build time.
The project will build on existing pieces.
RICE – Enterprise level middleware
Kuali Nervous System
Kuali System Bus
Kuali Enterpise Workflow
Kuali Enterprice Notification
Kuali Identity Management
Use Existing systems
Existing data feeds
Open ERM data
Shared database feeds
Two Year Timeline
Year 1 Deliverables (will focus on one of these)
Management of Electronic Resources Services
Leased and owned eContent
Peer Resource Sharing Services
Sharing content – peer to peer
Sharing workflow – consortial
Acquisitions
CRM
Year 2 Deliverables
Integrations
Orchestrations
Functional Scope
Risks of Participation
No CS project has yet failed, but . . .
Achieve consensus
Acquire sufficient resources
Deliver software of adequate functionality
Problems could arise with contract software
Adoption
Build sufficiently large vendor services community
Benefits of Participation
Cost savings
Access to emerging technologies
Use monetary resources in a productive and directly influential fashion
Leverage ROI on campus for enterprise systems
Build partners are agreeing to put some portion of OLE into production. At the end of the 30-month build cycle, it will be possible to close out at least one module from the legacy ILS in favor of an OLE module.
Cash Contributions Needed
$5.2 million total partner contribution
7 partners – $185k per year
6 partners – $216k per year
5 partners – $260k per year
