How to choose an free and open source integrated library system

Müller, Tristan How to choose an free and open source integrated library system., 2011 [Preprint]

How to choose an open source ILS.pdf

Download (883kB) | Preview

English abstract

Purpose: This paper presents the results of an analysis of 20 free and open source ILS platforms offered to the library community. These software platforms were subjected to a three step analysis, whereby the results aim to assist librarians and decision makers in selecting an open source ILS, based on objective criteria. Methodology: The methodology applied involves three broad steps. The first step consists of evaluating all the available ILS and keeping only those that qualify as truly open source or freely licensed software. During this step, we measured the correlation between the practices within the community and the terms associated to the free or open software license. The second step involves evaluating the community behind each open source or free ILS project, according to a set of 40 criteria in order to determine the attractiveness and sustainability of each project. The third step entails subjecting the remaining ILS to an analysis of almost 800 functions and features to determine which ILS are most suited to the needs of libraries. The final score is used to identify strengths, weaknesses and differentiating or similar features of each ILS. Findings: More than 20 open source ILS’s were submitted to this methodology but only 3 passed all the steps: Evergreen, Koha, and PMB. The main goal is not to identify the best open source ILS, but rather to highlight which, from the batch of dozen open source ILS, librarians and decision makers can choose from without worrying about how perennial or sustainable each open or free project is, as well as understanding which ILS provides them with the functionalities to meet the needs of their institutions. Practical implications: This paper offers a basic model so that librarians and decision makers can make their own analysis and adapt it to the needs of their libraries. Originality/value: This methodology meets the best practices in technology selection, with a multiple criteria decision analysis. It can also be easily adapted to the needs of all libraries.

Item type: Preprint
Keywords: Free and Open Source ILS, software evaluation, computer software, Evergreen, Koha, PMB
Subjects: G. Industry, profession and education. > GB. Software industry.
H. Information sources, supports, channels. > HM. OPACs.
I. Information treatment for information services
J. Technical services in libraries, archives, museum.
L. Information technology and library technology
L. Information technology and library technology > LQ. Library automation systems.
Depositing user: Tristan Muller
Date deposited: 22 Feb 2011
Last modified: 02 Oct 2014 12:18


Free Software Foundation, available at: (accessed 22 March 2008).

Open Source Initiative, available at: (accessed 22 March 2008).

St. Laurent, A.M. (2004), Understanding Open Source and Free Software Licensing, O'Reilly, Cambridge, available at: (accessed 25 March 2008).

van den Berg, K. (2005), Finding Open options. An Open Source software evaluation model with a case study on Course management Systems, Thesis, Tilburg University, Tilburg, Netherlands, available at: (accessed 18 March 2008).

Cornu, J-M. (2004), “La coopération, nouvelles approches”, available at: (accessed 26 December 2008).

Druel, F. (2007), Évaluation de la valeur à l’ère du Web : Proposition de modèle de valorisation des projets non marchands, Thesis, Institut des Sciences et Techniques de l'Ingénieur d'Angers, Angers, France, available at: (accessed 19 April 2009).

English, R. and Schweik, C.M. (2007), “Identifying Success and Tragedy of FLOSS Commons: A Preliminary Classification of Projects”, paper presented at the First International Workshop on Emerging Trends in FLOSS Research and Development in conjunction with 29th International Conference on Software Engineering, May 20-26, Minneapolis, MN, available at: (accessed 24 March 2008).

Fogel, K. (2005), Producing Open Source Software: How to Run a Successful Free Software Project, O'Reilly, Cambridge, available at: (accessed 24 March 2008).

Golden, B. (2004), Succeeding with Open Source: An Overview, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

Gottlieb, S. (2006), “Evaluating a Community”, available at: (accessed 18 March 2008).

Halloran, T.J. and Scherlis, W.L. (2003), High Quality and Open Source Software Practices, available at: (accessed 24 March 2008).

Kraft, B. and Hinderink, D. (2006), “Evaluating Open Source Communities. Why Open Source is more than Code - and why you should care”, paper presented at Transformation and Innovation Conference 2006, May 22-24, Washington DC, available at: (accessed 18 March 2008).

Mockus, A., Fielding, R.T. and Herbsleb, J. (2002), “Two case studies of open source software development: Apache and Mozilla”, ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 309-346.

Stürmer, M. (2005), Open Source Community Building, Thesis, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland, available at: (accessed 17 March 2008).

Waugh Partners et al. (2008), “The Foundations of Openness: Evaluating aspects of openness in software projects”,available at: (accessed 27 March 2009).

Kaiser, S., “”, available at: (accessed 28 April 2008).

National Institute of Standards and Technology (2007), Common Industry Specification for Usability – Requirements (NISTIR 7432), available at: (accessed 3 May 2008).

Nielsen, J. and Mack, R. (1994), Usability inspection methods, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.

Nielson, J., “ Jakob Nielsen on Usability and Web Design”, available at: (accessed 22 April 2008).

Library of Congress (1997), “Request for Proposal for an Integrated Library System”, available at: (accessed 4 February 2007).

Minnesota Library Information Network (1997), “Request for Proposal. Components Relating to an Integrated Library Management System”, available at: (accessed 4 February 2007).

State University of New York (1999), “Integrated Library Management System. Request for Proposals”, available at: (accessed 4 February 2007).

State University System of Florida (2000), “Integrated Library Management System. Invitation to Negotiate”, available at: (accessed 4 February 2007).

Riewe, L.M. (2008), Survey of Open Source Integrated Library Systems, Thesis, San José State University, San José, CA, available at: (accessed 1 October 2008).

Müller, T. (2009), “Étude comparative des principaux SIGB libres”, in Savard R. and Gazo D. (Ed.), Actes du premier congrès de l’Association Internationale Francophone des Bibliothécaires et Documentalistes et satellite IFLA Montréal, 3 - 6 août 2008, AIFBD, Montréal, pp. 77-91.

Emilda, available at: (accessed 15 May 2009).

EspaBiblio, available at: (accessed 10 January 2010).

GNUTECA, available at: (accessed 19 April 2008).

INFOCID, available at: (accessed 22 June 2009)., available at: (accessed 19 September 2009).

Koha, available at: (accessed 21 March 2008).

NewGenLib, available at: (accessed 1 April 2008).

OPALS, available at: (accessed 27 September 2009).

OpenAmapthèque, available at: (accessed 2 September 2009).

OpenBiblio, available at: (accessed 27 September 2009).

OpenBiblio, available at: (accessed 27 September 2009).

Evergreen ILS, available at: (accessed 9 March 2008).

phpMyLibrary, available at: (accessed 27 September 2009).

PMB, available at: (accessed 21 March 2008).

Senayan, available at: (accessed 16 July 2009).

Weblis, available at: (accessed 21 March 2008).

Borysowich, C. (2006), “Constructing a Weighted Matrix”, available at: (accessed 21 September 2008).

Brown, R. (2005), Rational choice and judgment: decision analysis for the decider, Wiley-Interscience, Hoboken, NJ.

International Society on Multiple Criteria Decision Making, available at: (accessed 1 July 2009).

Rahman, M.F. (2006), “What is a Decision Matrix?”, available at: (accessed 21 September 2008).

Tague, N.R. (2004), The Quality Toolbox, ASQ Quality Press, Milwaukee, WI.

Triantaphyllou, E. (2000), Multi-criteria decision making methods: a comparative study, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA.


Downloads per month over past year

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item