SirsiDynix

When I was writing code for a living, I loved working with open source products. I loved being able to download a tool and get it running without having to lobby for a purchase order. I loved the fact that when I encountered an error using one of those tools, I could step through the code and see where the problem started. I was fascinated by the proliferation of open source projects and by the communities of developers that emerged around these projects. What made some projects succeed and others dwindle? Who was finding the time and incentive to build them? When I started spending more time with business (as opposed to technical) questions, open source posed new intriguing questions. What does open source mean for my employer, SirsiDynix? Many have suggested that open source ILS systems are a disruptive innovation that will transform the library automation industry. Will it? If so, how? My business cards say “Director of Product Strategy”, should I be pushing SirsiDynix towards an open source business model?

Some thoughts in progress: The open source projects that really take wing seem to have one of two things in common—thousands of dependent developers, or big audiences that will support an advertising funding model. PostgreSQL and Eclipse, for example, are successful open source products that many thousands of developers rely on every day to do their basic work. Of those thousands, a relative few actually get invested in solving problems and contributing time and code. Software engineers have various incentives to pitch in. It may build their resumes, they may feel good by contributing, or they may just need the product to do something it doesn’t, so they get in and fix it themselves. It takes the many thousands, though, to percolate out a critical few that will move the product forward. Mozilla Firefox is a successful open source product that survives on advertizing revenue. 85% of that revenue comes from Google. Stay tuned, though, now that Google has its own web browser.

Library automation is a niche community. We have a smattering of solid developers in our midst, but the thousands who rely on the ILS to do their daily work are nerds of a different feather. I don’t see us percolating out a critical mass of invested contributors. The advertising model seems culturally at odds with the library world. True, there are lots of patron eyes out there, but hitting them with adverts in the OPAC feels a bit like shouting at the study table, or mud wrestling in the archives room.

I have not seen products really fly when funding comes from support and implementation fees. This model assumes that the product is hard to install and configure. The incentive structure leans to support and documentation, but not really new development. Innovation and strategic planning has to come from developers outside the business model. Outside developers, though, are incented to solve their own particular problems, not build the product of the future. There is a difference.

For now, then, the incentives for innovation seem rightly aligned in a business model based on proprietary code. Support is a cost in this model so SirsiDynix does better when the product is easier to deploy, configure, and maintain. We’re working hard on that right now. SirsiDynix is openly profit driven and will only succeed if it solves problems that competitive offerings don’t. SirsiDynix is not a side project. Our survival depends on being ahead of the change curve in the industry. That’s my take. For now. But I’m open to other arguments.

Jared Oates
Director of Product Strategy, Engineering