From MH: Consider it done. I do think there's a wider audience for the knowledge we hope to gain from the trip (Coming from a public library background I have numerous old contacts who are following our work in this area with interest & we are starting to explore potential cross-sectoral ways forward for the future), so I do intend to deliver something open to audiences other than just HE

There was a huge amount of interest in the OSS at the UKeIG event this week (check the tweets on twapper keeper for ukeigopen for a flavour of the day), and its sparked a bit of a debate on a couple of senior manager's mailing lists I'm on, so from timing point of view I think we're spot on with this one.

site visit date set.

Site Visit to Swansea University

Swansea University:

• Student total 18,445 (Undergraduates 11,730 / Postgraduates 2,145 / FE & Other students 4,570) Staff 2,500)
• More of a postgraduate research focused institution than other Welsh Universities (esp. life sciences, engineering)
• Library is a converged service w/ IT and Careers
• Library staff is split into back office (administrative) and front office service provision

Project update

• MH and PJ Have recently visited States and Canada to examine working instances of Evergreen
• MH working on making a case for a consortium wide HEFCE shared services bid for use of Evergreen
• MH has started to examine United Kingdom Core Specification (UKCS) so as to map Evergreen to it.
• PJ will post blog posts detailing the visit along with contacts, experiences and overall value of Evergreen community for UK HE/FE
• LO will launch local evergreen instance soon to do screencasts of acquisitions interfaces to test with librarian/catalouger acquisition process

ISSUES - Open Source Library System:

Current perceptions and future ambitions:

• MH: The organisation need to strategically push forward resource discovery of specialised subject resources.
• MH: Library sector perception of Open Source is as 'high risk amateur applications' in contrast to proprietary model which is seen as software that can be fixed by just picking up the phone; libraries need to realise that these assumption are incorrect and that "we need to take responsibility and control of our own systems"
• PJ: libraries inherently don't trust things that are organised outside of their sector, hence open source development appears to be trying to control a chaotic community; however open source systems such as evergreen and vufind were initiated by trusted institutions and maintain control of the system.
• PJ: having previously worked at a proprietary vendor (PJ) found it frustrating that when they wanted to change something he couldn't easily just go into the system and change it (which he could do when part of the company). Open source gives him that control and ability to change the system in the NOW to meet the users needs.
• LO: Open Source not only means immediate reaction to the end users needs to fix the system in the NOW, but also provides the larger community by which solutions for those bugs can be solved quickly <- example: bug found, solved with the help of community on email the same day (would have taken months if not years if a request had been made to a vendor system).
• LO: Libraries have yet to realise that open source is everywhere, in fact most libraries are most likely using open source without even realising it, e.g. apache, linux, mysql, etc.
• PJ: Many open source projects are university driven, ideas are often started off in universities not by teenage hackers in their bedroom.
• LO: Libraries need to realise the speed by which problems can be solved with open source software, i.e. the community code correction process: problem arises > request some people on the listserv to get involved > share some ideas and post some code for other to look at > get feedback on the code and have it optimised by several peer reviews > incorporate code > test code > problem solved; this entire process often happens on the same day the problem has arisen.
• MH: Things have continued to change (and will continue to change), OPACs have NOT changed with the times. Libraries have suffered because they have not been able to change with the times and this is why users do not see them as viable solutions in comparison to Amazon and Google.
• MH: People feel safe with OPACs because they feel safe with the business models that vendors offer, it is the new business model of open source that libraries must come to understand and utilise if they are going to reclaim ownership of their systems and content.
• MH: Everyone is paying support and development costs for Library systems, they are just paying them to centralised vendors who are making a one-size-fits all system that are pre-historic in terms of fit.
• MH: New business models must be utilised that increase the value for individual specialised users, not increase the value for centralised monolithic vendor systems.
• LO: the primary change needed is in supporting the change of business models: libraries need to either invest in house or utilise in the cloud support provision and stop relying on the single current business model for proprietary library software.
• MH: It is no longer acceptable that there is a year or two year lag when bugs or enhancements are requested, the changes must be reactionary; things must be fixed the same day they are realised.
• A minor bug sitting in the system for long periods of time is unacceptable to users, we can no longer wait for the next version, we need the fixes in the NOW.
• MH: There is a cost in both pump-priming and developing an OSS Lib system - you must OWN the system and be responsible for it (it is roughly equivalent to the vendor costs for what it costs to RENT a library system)
• However, the cost of owning a system is significantly reduced (in comparison to proprietary systems) if likeminded partners can jointly contribute to the upkeep and maintenance of the open source library system
• LO: the web changes dramatically and OPACs are still stuck in the early nineties. People will not use products that look old in comparison to the modern Web e.g. library systems must be as functional and as good looking as play.com

ACTIONS

Action arising from SiteVisitAgenda:

• DFF to feedback comment to SMT: "JISC should push forward and advocate open source software across the sector in a more focused and supportive way"
• DFF to request OSSwatch read over and advise on final recommendations / product from project.
• DFF to introduce more JISC dev to LO via twitter
• PJ/MH to decide on final project outputs (products) and inform DFF on what audience those products will be aimed at and how they will be delivered.
• PJ to finish off project plan posts and assure ProjectDocumentationInstructions are met in full.
• LO to put more small developer wins up on blog post related to OSS successes/advantages
• MH to further explain trip to US/CA and what contact they met along with their value in the community
• MH to post further posts that can act as supporting evidence to HEFCE shared services bid.

Couple of quick comments / corrections:

1) "Library is a converged service w/ IT and Careers " - note, we are in process of merging that structure again with Academic Computing service 2) "MH working on making a case for a consortium wide HEFCE shared services bid for use of Evergreen " should refer to HEFCW not HEFCE, and bis is for shared services inc LMS - Evergreen is not specified directly as that will depend on further work to assess viability 3) "PJ will post blog posts detailing the visit along with contacts, experiences and overall value of Evergreen community for UK HE/FE" should be MH & PJ 4) "MH to post further posts that can act as supporting evidence to HEFCE shared services bid." - again, should refer to HEFCW 5) Shared Services bid is work in progress, and details of content cannot be discussed in wider forum at the moment, so we can refer to possible bid, but prob should not go into detail on content at this stage