364
edits
Changes
As sent to potential consultants
* Based on your experience and/or knowledge The topic of open source software adoption, are there other tools or techniques that would be useful the Tool from the statement of work to document be covered* An overview of your expertise in this area (between 400 and make available?600 words)* Do you have suggestions for consultants to approach A firm price to complete the work of creating these described (note that the tools?will not require an equal amount of effort, and consequently an equal price, to complete)* A writing sample on a similar topic
Consultants may submit responses for more than one Tool; only one Tool per consultant will be awarded. Incomplete responses may not be considered, and selection criteria will include cost, review of experience and review of the writing sample. Selected consultants will be notified on or before Wednesday, September 9. I will be the contact for this project (Peter.Murray@lyrasis.org; 678-235-2955). I am looking forward to reviewing your proposal. Sincerely, PETER E MURRAY == Appendix A: Statement of Work and Fee Schedule ===== Objective === The objective of this work is providing to libraries whitepapers, self-guided assessments, and worksheets (collectively “Tools”) to guide them in determining whether open source software is right for their environments. The completed Tools will be turned into web pages and published for libraries to use royalty-free along with the open source software registry now under development. === Activities ===* Submit a draft outline by Friday, September 23, 2011.* Submit final version by Friday, October 14, 2011.* Review posted HTML version between October 31 and November 4 (estimated). === Fees ===In responding to this statement of work, consultants should supply a fixed cost to complete the creation of the Tool. Payment will be made on this schedule:{|| 15%||Signature of contract|-| 60%||Receipt of final version|-| 25%||Completion of review of HTML version as posted on the website|} === Intellectual Property ===In accordance with the Mellon Foundation Intellectual Property Agreement, consultants must assign LYRASIS the copyright of all works created under contract. LYRASIS must in turn publish the tools on a website with a royalty-free license. Consultants may elect to identify themselves in the text of the document (e.g. “Prepared for LYRASIS with funding from the 2011-2012 Mellon Foundation Open Source Support Grant by ''name of consultant''.”) === Resources ===The Tools will be converted to HTML and stored on a Drupal-based website (the same website that will host the open source software registry). If there are Drupal 7 modules that would enhance the use of the Tool, please contact LYRASIS early in the writing process to ensure the modules can be supported. Consultants are not expected to work from LYRASIS’ offices in Atlanta, GA. Office space and network connections can be provided in LYRASIS’ Atlanta offices after negotiation with LYRASIS. Key LYRASIS staff on this project will be available via Skype video conferencing or regular phone conferencing. Discussions and knowledge transfer can occur using LYRASIS’ Centra Saba or Adobe Connect online meeting service. == Description of Tool Topics ===== Control versus Responsibility ===
In a [http://www.motionbuzz.com/blog/control-vs-responsibility blog post on Motionbuzz.com], Thomas Gapinski describes a two dimensional matrix into which he places self-hosted and closed/open-source solutions to determine where an organization places its technology systems.
Along one axis is a “Responsibility” gauge, with organizations that desire more flexibility trending towards self-hosted systems and organizations that do not tending towards Software as a Service installations.
This tool will ask questions of the library to determine where on these two axes it wants to place the desired system and show graphically the quadrant its answers place it.
This tool can be used to determine an organization’s desire to adopt an open source software system and whether they have the capabilities of running it in-house or whether the services of a hosting provider will be needed.
=== Questions for Parent IT Organization ===
A library may not have the inherent capabilities to run its own systems and may rely on an external information technology organization (e.g., campus IT, city government IT, contracted service provider).
This document tool would contain questions to ask that parent/external organization, such as: * The desired system depends on a community of users for support and bug fixes. Resolving issues may result in extended interactions with volunteers running the same software. How with will the parent IT organization ensure sufficient community engagement to resolve issues?
* The open source software that end-users use usually depends on other open source components. For example, a content management system will use MySQL or PostgreSQL as a database rather than Oracle or DB/2. The known dependencies are xxx, yyy and zzz. Will the parent IT organization support these open source dependencies or will it try to make it work with proprietary counterparts (and understand that such a configuration may be out of the community support mainstream)?
Although intended as a tool for libraries to explore general requirements for open source software with a parent IT organization, it may also be useful as a self-examination tool for libraries that will host/support their own systems.
Open source software is not free.
While there will not be costs to license and use the code, costs shift to other areas – typically to areas where open source software is weaker as compared to proprietary offerings.
* Opportunity costs. The decision to choose open source instead of proprietary solutions might miss the benefits of some offerings in proprietary systems.
This document tool will be a spreadsheet worksheet that has columns for costs specific to proprietary solutions (e.g. software licensing), costs specific to open source solutions, and costs in common.
It will also include a way to account for costs of self-hosting and Software as a Service.
Along with a companion guide that gives definitions and sample benchmarks for each cost item, a library can use the spreadsheet to estimate the total cost of ownership of various options it is considering.
=== Technology Use Skills Matrix ===As a library decides to how and when to bring in new hosted software, one important factor to consider is the underlying technologies used by the software and how those technologies mesh with the skills of the library staff.
At LYRASIS we have used a “technology skills matrix” tool where on one dimension is the array of possible technologies and on the other is the software packages under consideration.
At a glance, one can see what technologies are used in common across all packages.
Another version of this tool can list individual staff members rather than software packages to gain a visual understanding of how skills are distributed among the library staff.
Each additional option added to the library’s environment across the horizontal dimension brings more complexity and a higher cost to retain staff with these multiple talents.
Another version of this tool can list individual staff members rather than software packages to gain a visual understanding of how skills are distributed among the library staff. This matrix helps a library identify its strengths and position new projects as having strong or weak synergies with existing skills within the library.
This tool will contain questions needed for a library’s self-assessment of available skills and needed skills. It will prompt libraries to think about all aspects of hosting open source software – including dependencies that may be hidden from view === Software Selection ===The grant text lists a number of criteria that can be used to select the software that is right for a particular library’s desires and circumstances(features, usability, scalability, documentation, upgrade frequency, customization, maintenance requirements, community adoption levels, system support needs, and security).
They are similar to the [http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/tips.xml informal Top tips for selecting open source software] from the U.K. Open Source Software Advisory Service.
Tristan Müller suggests a more formal methodology in "How to Choose an Free and Open Source Integrated Library System" (published on OCLC Systems & Services: International digital library perspectives. Vol. 27, no. 1, 2011, pp. 57- 78).
Wikipedia also lists [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_software_assessment_methodologies several open source software assessment methodologies] for consideration.
Given all of these options, we this tool will commission be a consultant to create document describing a software evaluation methodology that takes into account unique aspects of the library sector and the need to review the sustainability of open source software projects.
