Open Source vs. Standard Software – Impacts on Library Infrastructures Prof. Dr.-Ing. Matthias L. Hemmje Faculty for Mathematics and Computer Science,

Open Source vs. Standard Software –

Impacts on Library Infrastructures

Prof. Dr.-Ing. Matthias L. HemmjeFaculty for Mathematics and Computer Science, Chair for Multimedia and Internet Applications, University of Hagen and Scientific and Technical Advisor of InConTec GmbH

Prague, 10th of May 2010

About the Speaker

Prof. Dr.-Ing. Matthias L. Hemmje

University of HagenFaculty of Mathematics and Computer ScienceChair for Multimedia and Internet Applicationshttp://www.lgmmia.fernuni-hagen.de

• 18 years of experience in IT R&D on national and international level, >100 Publications• Senior Expert Consultant for BMBF, EC, and R&D spin-offs• 15 years at Fraunhofer IPSI, Darmstadt• Former University Professorships at Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich and University of Duisburg• Areas of Expertise: HCI, Information Systems, Digital Libraries, Multimedia Archives, Long Term Archival, and Digital Preservation

http://www.lgmmia.fernuni-hagen.de/

3

Outline

Open Source vs. Standard Software - What is the difference?

Introduction to Open Source Free and Open Source Initiatives Open Source History and Exmples

Potential Benefits, Disadvantages, & Riscs Make or Buy? Selection & Success Criteria An exemplar approach in the Library Domain Concluding Remarks

Open Source vs. Commercial Software Impacts on Library Infrastructures – Amsterdam, 5 th of October 2009

4

Open Source vs. Standard Software - What is the difference?

Standard Software is sold and supported commercially

However, Open Source Software can be sold and/or supported commercially, too.

Perhaps, the term Proprietary Software is more correct


Definitions of Open Source Software (I)

Open source is an approach to the design, development, and distribution of software, offering practical accessibility to a software's source code.

5 Open Source vs. Commercial Software Impacts on Library Infrastructures – Amsterdam, 5 th of October 2009

6

Definitions of Open Source Software (II)

Some consider Open Source as one of various possible design approaches, while others consider it a critical strategic element of their operations. [1]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source Open Source vs. Commercial Software Impacts on Library Infrastructures – Amsterdam, 5 th of October 2009

7

What is the difference? (I)

Usually the question of Open Source vs. Standard Software is framed as Linux vs. Microsoft Innovation vs. Security etc.


8

What is the difference? (II)

However, this is just a simplification from a Marketing Point of view, because …


9

Free & Open Source Initiatives …

… have been there for ages and… have produced various licensing

schemes… are responsible for some of the

most radical ICT innovations that man kind has seen so far!


10

Public domain Shareware, freeware Copyrighted but free to use GNU Public License (GPL) Creative Commons, Open Source Other licensing: BSD, Q License, etc.

Free & Open Source Initiatives …


Open Source History (I)

Very similar to open standards, researchers with access to the Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANET) used a process called Request for Comments to develop telecommunication network protocols.



Open Source History (II)

Characterized by contemporary open source work, this 1960s' collaborative process led to the birth of the Internet in 1969. [1]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source

Open Source History (III)

There are earlier instances of open source and free software such as IBM's source releases of its operating systems and other programs in the 1950s, 60s, and the SHARE user group that was formed to facilitate the exchange of software. [2][3]

[2] Fisher, Franklin M.; James W. McKie, Richard B. Mancke (1983). IBM and the U.S. Data Processing Industry: An Economic History. Praeger. ISBN 0-03-063059-2. pages 172-179 IBM unbundled (began charging for) software June 23, 1969

[3] Dave Pitts' IBM 7090 support – An example of distrbuted source: Page contains a link to IBM 7090/94 IBSYS source, including COBOL and FORTRAN compilers.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0030630592

http://www.cozx.com/~dpitts/ibm7090.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_7090/94_IBSYS

Open Source History (IV)

Before the term Open Source became widely adopted, developers and producers used a variety of phrases to describe the concept.



Open Source History (V)

The term Open Source gained popularity with the rise of the Internet, which provided access to diverse production models, communication paths, and, last but not least interactive communities.

[1]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source

Open Source History (VI)

The decision by some people in the free software movement to use the label “open source” came out of a strategy session[4]

held at Palo Alto, California, in reaction to Netscape's January 1998 announcement of a source code release for Navigator.

[4] a b Tiemann, Michael (September 19, 2006). "History of the OSI". Open Source Initiative. http://www.opensource.org/history. Retrieved on August 23, 2008.


Open Source History (VII)

They used the opportunity before the release of Navigator's source code to free themselves of the ideological and confrontational connotations of the term free software. Netscape licensed and released its code as open source under the Netscape Public License and subsequently under the Mozilla Public License.[5]

[5] Muffatto, Moreno (2006). Open Source: A Multidisciplinary Approach. Imperial College Press. ISBN 1860946658.


18

Open Source History (VIII)


Examples in both Categories

OpenSource

Operating Systems Linux

Word Processing and Office Applications

openOffice

Software Development Eclipse JDK

Multimedia Content Creation Gimp

Web Page Design Typo 3

19

Proprietory

Operating Systems MS Windows, XP, Vista ; SUN

Solaris

Word Processing and Office Applications

MS Office, Adobe Framemaker

Software Development .net MS Visual Studio

Multimedia Content Creation Adobe Photoshop

Web Page Design MS Frontpage Adobe Flash, DreamweaverOpen Source vs. Commercial Software Impacts on Library Infrastructures – Amsterdam, 5 th of October 2009

20

Potential Benefits of Standard Software

Potential Benefits of deploying to standard software in an application solution: Understand and comply with the

business & technological models of commercial software engineering in a professional environment

Support of standard software / solutions, including services

Compliance with industrial standardsOpen Source vs. Commercial Software Impacts on Library Infrastructures – Amsterdam, 5 th of October 2009

21

Potential Benefits of Open Source Software (I)

Availability of source code Source code to understand and learn

from Do not have to re-invent the wheel Free as in “freedom” And sometimes:

free as in “gratis”


22

Potential Benefits of Open Source Software (II)

Does not depend on vendor Can choose additional support Can fix bugs and adapt to change in

requirements as well as technology


23

Potential Disadvantages and Riscs of Standard Software (I)

Dependent upon a single vendor What if …

… the vendor disappears from the market? … the vendor charges too much?… bug fixing and enhancements not sufficient? etc.

Monopoly?Open Source vs. Commercial Software Impacts on Library Infrastructures – Amsterdam, 5 th of October 2009

24

Potential Disadvantages and Riscs of Standard Software (II)

Too much Intellectual Property can be bad for innovation …


25

Potential Disadvantages and Riscs of Open Source SW (I)

If source code is not looked at, there is no need to have Open Source SW

There are also bad codes, unqualified persons which use it, etc.


26

Potential Disadvantages and Riscs of Open Source SW (II)

Software quality assurance process is widely not transparent

etc.


27

Make or Buy? (I)Overall Challenges in the Library Domain

1st Source Search-Engines (Google) 2 Clicks

Fast Responseindependend

„Recommender“

Personalisation

New User Demands

Open Access

Cost PressureOutsourcing/

ASP Cooperations

Consolidation„Buy instead

of Make“

Standardisation

Productivity

Competition

Dynamic ContentCentral Catalogue Virt. Catalogue

Digitisation

eBookseJournals

eLearningInternet

High Volume Information

Streams

more e-only

InformationSharing

Open SystemsFederated

Search Mobil

Integration

Single sign On

Quality

ComfortableGUI

Library

Ranking

Web 2.0

Colloborative

Open Source?


28

Make or Buy? (II) Decision Making Dimensions

CostQualityTimeRessource AvailabilityFlexibilityService-Strategy


29

Make or Buy? (III) Generic Enterprize Experiences

IT has become a Commodity and is therefore expected to support almost any kind of Enterprize Application like a Service-Center

Significant Cost Pressure requires new

positioning: Which are Core Competences? Which are Competences that can be supported

economically?

Investments „only“ in Core Competences Increasing Deployment of Standard Software Implementation of Sourcing-Strategies (ASP,

Outsourcing, Cooperations etc.)


30

Make or Buy? (IV)Open Source – an Alternative for Libraries?Potential Advantages

of building on Open Source

Software is „free of cost“ Sourcecode is freely

available High Flexibility Own Requirements can be

mapped very detailled to Features

Open Standards Independency of Providers

Potential Disadvantages of building Open Source

Full Deployment Risk W.r.t. Completeness and Robustness of

Functional Features Development-Know How is bound to human

resoures

Total Cost of Ownership High Follow-up Cost for Maintenance of

Application Features and Interfaces Need for own Support Infrastructure Höhere Schulungskosten

No secured follow-up development strategy

Need for own Development Resources and Strategy

„Time to Market“ pressure


31

Make or Buy? (V) There is now Standard Answer ...

... but a set of questions to be systematically analysed and answered as a decision support:

Is IT application developement a Core Competence of the Library?

Does the Library win a Strategic Advantage by means of own IT Developements?

How big is the Functional Delta to features of Standard Software?

Economic Analysis? Total Cost of Ownership (TCO)?

Time to Market – How long until Production? How are the chances for follow-up funding of

necessary further Evolution of the Solution? Is there a Funding Basis/Community?


32

Make or Buy? (VI) Economic Criteria and Planning of TCO

Deployment Costs Production Costs Strategic Aspects

Human Resource Costs Human Resource Cost

Which are Core Competences

Consultancy Costs Maintenance/Support

What is the Future Service-Offering?

Licensing Costs Hardware Costs Integration into a Solution Architecture

Migration Costs Training Cost Openness/Standards

Training Costs Update Cost Stability/Security

Installation Costs Further Development

Budgeting Focus

Start-up Overhead Costs

Usability


Summary of Selection and Success CriteriaCost Categories Design Cost Specification Cost Implementation Cost Production Cost Maintenance/Service

Cost Update/Migration Cost

∑Total Cost of Ownership

Flexibility Dimensions

Expressiveness of the Solution

Granularity of Adaptation to Initial Requirements

Managing Change Persistency of the

Solution


An Exemplar Approach in the Library Domain:

Feature&Demand Profiling and Gap Analysis of Search Platforms used in Library Institutions

SHAMAN Project Profile •Large-Scale

Integrated Project

•48 months Duration

•1.300 PM effort by a Team of 60

R&D Specialists

•18 Partners from 9 Countries

Application Context

Welcome to the future. Welcome to

SHAMAN.

www.shaman-ip.eu

Feature & Demand Profiling Methodology applied in SHAMAN

1. Creation of a Multidimensional Decision Support Questionnaire about Features, Demands and other Properties of the solution

2. Production of a Multidimensional Feature Profile Scoring and Ranking Schema

3. Desk-based Research (R&D publications, white papers, marketing material) revealed RTD Feature Space for Open Source and Standard Software systems to be profiled

4. Pre-testing and Adjustment of the Profiling method5. Interviews on-site or by phone, documentation and

crosscheck with interviewees6. Calculation and Visualization of Profile Scoring and

Ranking


Feature&Demand-Categories used in the Profiling

38

Categories #

Integration in ILS Systems 1

Format & Migration Support 2

Management & Administration Features for Existing Standard Functions

3

Personalization Functions 4

Collaboration Support Features 5

Efficency of Search Functions 6

Quality and Efficency of Result Presentation 7

Openess and Customizing Support 8

Usability, User Support Functions and „Ease of Use“ 9

Scoring of the Interviewees during the Survey 0


Feature-Category Priorities from Customers’ Point of View


Excerpt of the Feature-Profiling Questionnaire

40

F3.0 Browsing functions (simple and advanced search modus)

Which browsing function can be influenced by the user Yes No

1 Can you browse in predefined lists, hosted by the system itself?

Yes facets

2 Can you browse in predefined lists or documents hosted on o global base?

No

3 Can you sort these lists to your favor (alphabetic, theme oriented, …)

No

4 In Browsing lists are there the most important information resource prioritized on top of the lists

No

5 Is alphabetic browsing in different fields e.g. Authors, Magazine title, …) possible

Yes

6 Can the theme oriented structure of lists easy get adapted or changed?

don’t know

7 Can you browse in newspapers to reach articles? No I would imagine that these are not functionalities of an integrated search solution per se but more of the underlying (remote) databases.

8 Can you brows in Magazines to reach articles? No

9 Can you browse in Conferences to reach articles? No

10 Can the user return each time to the search mode?

Yes


Result Scoring used for Findings

41

Answer of interviewee Points

Standard functionality delivered with the product

3

Functionality that can be reached with customization

1,5

Functionality that is provided by the core search engine and requires configuration

2

Not covered by the system 0

Will be brought in the next upcoming release 1

Planned for future foreseeable release 0,5

Out of scope or other solution gets used 0

Partly delivered with the standard solution 1,5

Not part of the questionnaire 0


General Demand-Category Ranking

42

Question ranking Scoring

Questioned function is essential 2Questioned function is important 1,5Questioned function is “nice to have” 1Questioned function is not important 0,5Question does not influence the scoring of the systems

0


Requirements-based Demand Ranking of Prospective Users

43

# Requirement of interviewee Points

1 Yes, this is a “MUST HAVE” functionality 3

3 Yes, if no better solution available 1,5

2 Yes, this is expected 2

4 This is a not necessary function 0

6 Nice to have 1

7 Neutral 0,5

5, 8 Don’t Know / Need to investigate 0

9 On the wish list 1,5

0 Not part of the questionnaire 0Open Source vs. Commercial Software Impacts on Library Infrastructures – Amsterdam, 5 th of October 2009

Calculation of Scoring Schema

The calculation of the following spider diagrams has been made by the use of the following formula:

Answer of the interviewee (points) * Importance of the question (factor) = Volume of points

The volume of points has been summarized in Feature Categories

The maximum possible feature set represents 100%

The results are presented as percentage of the maximum possible feature sets in each category


Feature Profiling Results of reviewed Search Platforms


Commercial 1

Commercial 1

Open Source 1

Open Source 2

Open Source 3

Demand Profiling UNI Hagen based on Requirements

Requirements measured with the SHAMAN requirements and scoring

Commercial systemsthat have been reviewed


Methodology applied for the FU Hagen Library Project

1. Creation of a base questionnaire within the SHAMAN project for digital preservation with the focus on library institutions

2. Review of the current situation in Hagen (as is)3. Prioritization of the future demanded features4. Generation of a Ranking Schema related to the

Hagen Library Requirements (new 100% axis)5. Mapping of the SHAMAN System Feature-Pr0filing

results to the new Ranking Schema

47


Requirements measured against System Landscape


Requirements measured against Commercial System 1






Requirements measured against different Open Source Systems


Gap analysis for all (combined) Open Source Systems

53

Gap to be filled in the project with programming resources


Gap analysis Commercial versus Open Source


Analysis Dimensions Total Cost of Ownership (I)

Commercial system of choice Cost of investment Cost of customization and consulting

activities to fill the gap Cost of maintenance for a period of time

(maintenance fees) Cost of migration of customization to the

next following releases (number of releases in the defined period of time

Cost of own administration resources Hosting cost if applicable


Analysis Dimensions Total Cost of Ownership (II)

Open Source system(s) of choice Cost of API learning with function review Cost of development and quality assurance to fill the

gap Cost of documentation to bring the own source code

in the source code community Cost of own administration and of keeping

development resources (plus eventually additionally API learning cost of fluctuation appears)

Cost of quality control for new Open source releases to participate in community bug fixing related to the own installation

Hosting cost if applicable


Other Decision Criteria provided by Users/Customers

Importance


58

Concluding Remarks

There are pros and cons to selecting Open Source and Standard Software

SW should be selected and used only after Careful Needs and Requirements Analysis

including Profiles of own Competences vs. available

Open Source Profiles and Standard Software Profiles

Thorough Definition of Success Criteria Systematic Evaluation of Potential Benefits

versus Riscs including Total Cost of Ownership


Fine.

Thank you very much for your attention.

59

Prof. Dr.-Ing. Matthias L. Hemmje

Phone (InConTec): +49-9552-931494Phone (Uni. Hagen): +49-2331-987-304

E-Mail: [email protected]. [email protected]


Documents

Open Source vs. Standard Software – Impacts on Library Infrastructures Prof. Dr.-Ing. Matthias L. Hemmje Faculty for Mathematics and Computer Science,