Thursday, December 6, 2007
Sunday, November 18, 2007
My Flow Chart
For class, I had to make a Flowchart! How exciting is that? I made a flow chart of the process of externally booking an internet computer at the Toronto Public Library.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Facebook gets even creepier
Aaugh! According to this article, Facebook's gonna be watching me everywhere I go! I swear I'm going to close my profile now (after I finish that last game of Scrabulous...)
Beware Facebook's Siren Call
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
BEST COMIC EVER!
He's a librarian. He's a superhero. I'm pretty sure I know what I want to do when I grow up...
Click on the cover above to read an online issue of Rex Libris. Or click here to find out more about this AWESOME series...
Click on the cover above to read an online issue of Rex Libris. Or click here to find out more about this AWESOME series...
Software Evaluation Assignment - My conclusions
Hey all!
My software evaluation wasn't structured in that classic "hamburger" essay format, and so I'm providing a summary of my main points, rather than posting my conclusion.
Like many other people, I looked at Koha, and I created a scenario whereby I was evaluating Koha for the 6 branch Ludditeville Public Library (LPL).
Overall, I felt that Koha would be an excellent product for the LPL to adopt. In my imagined scenario, the LPL was coming up on the end of a contract with SirsiDynix, and so it was an ideal time to examine switching their ILS.
My evaluation of Koha was based on three criteria; Cost, Quality of software & ability to meet the LPL's needs, and Reliability & Availability of support.
1. Cost
I felt that Koha would provide a cheaper alternative to whatever ILS SirsiDynix could provide, based on the fact that there would be no initial purchase fee, nor yearly licensing fees to pay. I acknowledged that implementing Koha would require an initial investment (which could be quite high), to pay for the transfer of database information, the retraining of staff, and the related possible need of hiring an external consultant to get Koha up and running. After this however,
Koha would be much cheaper to run. Finally, on the topic of cost, I pointed out that since Koha was written in OS programming code, the LPL would not be reliant on a proprietary vendor for support, and rather could shop around and find the best and/or cheapest support agency. They could also try to do more of their own support, if they have someone with programming skills on staff.
2. Quality & Applicability of Koha
I felt that Koha was of a quality sufficient for use in the LPL. I quoted some authors who talked about how OS software avoids many of the problems and pitfalls of proprietary software due to the many eyes monitoring it, and the lack of a need to push unfinished software out the door in order to start making $$. I also quoted an author (Marshall Breeding) who in 2002 argued that Koha and other OSS ILS were not of a sufficient quality to be used in libraries, but who reversed his position in a couple of articles in 2007. I felt that this demonstrated how far Koha had come over the last five years.
In terms of applicability, I pointed out all kinds of necessary features that Koha has (MARC records, OPAC, etc etc). I also argued that Koha's flexibility was a huge asset in meeting the LPL's needs. I liked that a lot of its systems could be customized (if the LPL doesn't use Library of Congress Call numbers, you don't need to include them in the catalogue). I also argued that because Libraries are having to deal with major changes due to technology etc., OSS software that could be continuously upgraded in a timely fashion had a huge advantage over proprietary software that generally relies on large scale version upgrades every couple of years and is hence
less responsive.
I actually quoted Chad and Miller in this section, as a joke. I hope that Prof. Nickerson and the TA think its funny...
3. Reliability and Support
Again, I felt that Koha measured up well in this category. Liblime, the company that is the de facto manager of the Koha project right now has signed on the division of Katipo Communications that created Koha, as well as Index Data, a company specializing in OSS, and so it'd seem that they are planning on sticking around and running the Koha project for a while. Moreover, they've gotten some pretty high-profile clients (a UN agency, the Guggenheim Museum in New York), which provides an implicit suggestion of Koha's quality. UN agencies hopefully do some research when choosing ILS'!
There were a lot of paid and free support options for libraries like the LPL to choose from. I noted that Liblime, the main Koha company had a lower ratio of support staff to clients than SirsiDynix (1:9 versus 1:8.7), but I argued that this difference in support was shrunk by third party support, the availability of free support options, and the ability of LPL staff to find solutions to problems on their own, due to the open source code (see the "cost" section).
So that's it! I'd love to read your responses!
My software evaluation wasn't structured in that classic "hamburger" essay format, and so I'm providing a summary of my main points, rather than posting my conclusion.
Like many other people, I looked at Koha, and I created a scenario whereby I was evaluating Koha for the 6 branch Ludditeville Public Library (LPL).Overall, I felt that Koha would be an excellent product for the LPL to adopt. In my imagined scenario, the LPL was coming up on the end of a contract with SirsiDynix, and so it was an ideal time to examine switching their ILS.
My evaluation of Koha was based on three criteria; Cost, Quality of software & ability to meet the LPL's needs, and Reliability & Availability of support.
1. Cost
I felt that Koha would provide a cheaper alternative to whatever ILS SirsiDynix could provide, based on the fact that there would be no initial purchase fee, nor yearly licensing fees to pay. I acknowledged that implementing Koha would require an initial investment (which could be quite high), to pay for the transfer of database information, the retraining of staff, and the related possible need of hiring an external consultant to get Koha up and running. After this however,
Koha would be much cheaper to run. Finally, on the topic of cost, I pointed out that since Koha was written in OS programming code, the LPL would not be reliant on a proprietary vendor for support, and rather could shop around and find the best and/or cheapest support agency. They could also try to do more of their own support, if they have someone with programming skills on staff.
2. Quality & Applicability of Koha
I felt that Koha was of a quality sufficient for use in the LPL. I quoted some authors who talked about how OS software avoids many of the problems and pitfalls of proprietary software due to the many eyes monitoring it, and the lack of a need to push unfinished software out the door in order to start making $$. I also quoted an author (Marshall Breeding) who in 2002 argued that Koha and other OSS ILS were not of a sufficient quality to be used in libraries, but who reversed his position in a couple of articles in 2007. I felt that this demonstrated how far Koha had come over the last five years.
In terms of applicability, I pointed out all kinds of necessary features that Koha has (MARC records, OPAC, etc etc). I also argued that Koha's flexibility was a huge asset in meeting the LPL's needs. I liked that a lot of its systems could be customized (if the LPL doesn't use Library of Congress Call numbers, you don't need to include them in the catalogue). I also argued that because Libraries are having to deal with major changes due to technology etc., OSS software that could be continuously upgraded in a timely fashion had a huge advantage over proprietary software that generally relies on large scale version upgrades every couple of years and is hence
less responsive.I actually quoted Chad and Miller in this section, as a joke. I hope that Prof. Nickerson and the TA think its funny...
3. Reliability and Support
Again, I felt that Koha measured up well in this category. Liblime, the company that is the de facto manager of the Koha project right now has signed on the division of Katipo Communications that created Koha, as well as Index Data, a company specializing in OSS, and so it'd seem that they are planning on sticking around and running the Koha project for a while. Moreover, they've gotten some pretty high-profile clients (a UN agency, the Guggenheim Museum in New York), which provides an implicit suggestion of Koha's quality. UN agencies hopefully do some research when choosing ILS'!
There were a lot of paid and free support options for libraries like the LPL to choose from. I noted that Liblime, the main Koha company had a lower ratio of support staff to clients than SirsiDynix (1:9 versus 1:8.7), but I argued that this difference in support was shrunk by third party support, the availability of free support options, and the ability of LPL staff to find solutions to problems on their own, due to the open source code (see the "cost" section).
So that's it! I'd love to read your responses!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
