 Hello, my name is Hannah Rosen. I'm here to talk with you about the Lyricist 2021 open source software survey report. I am a strategist for research and scholarly communication at Lyricist. Here's a pretty picture of me so you can put a face to this faceless presentation, regrettable earrings, but deep enthusiasm for understanding trends in the field of cultural heritage and scholarly communication. So we put together this survey in the spring of 2021 to understand the current major trends surrounding open source software and support and use for libraries, archives, and museums within the United States. Survey questions were designed with input from Lyricist members. The topic was actually also chosen by Lyricist members. So this is really a practitioner driven survey and they were keenly interested in understanding how their peers support and advocate for open source software programs. So we wanted to specifically understand how institutions support OSS software through financial contributions, through staff contributions, how OSS adoption or support is justified within institutions, and understand how OSS is evaluated for adoption. So here is a picture of the cover of the report. It's very pretty. Here's the DOI. Please check out the slides afterwards and check on the report. It's completely open access. For the purposes of this report and for the purposes of the survey, open source software programs are defined as community based programs specifically designed for Glam institutions that stands for galleries, libraries, archives, and museums, such as Folio or Archive Space or Omega. There are a lot of other OSS programs that are used within those institutions, but they're designed for a more universal use such as Ubuntu or Apache Tomcat. And it's just a little too difficult to figure out how to put those into the scope of our survey. So we really wanted to focus on software specifically designed for this community. We had 92 cleaned up responses. We were pretty pleased with that. Half of all respondents represented doctoral universities. So we definitely had the data definitely skewed R1 and R2. But 16% were from master's colleges and universities. 8% were from bachelor's and associate's colleges. 9% were from academic institutions outside of the US and 15% were from non-academic institutions. The non-academic institutions included independent archives, museums, public libraries, library consortia, national libraries, and private libraries. So still very much within the range of institutions using these kinds of softwares and being part of these software communities. And institutions from outside of the United States included primarily multiple responses from Canada, but also individual responses from universities in Columbia, El Salvador, Italy, and South Africa. So the first question we really asked once we got through all the demographics was how does your institution interact with GLAM open source software? And we gave people a bunch of different options and they could choose as many of these options as they wanted in their answers. Were you a founding member of a program? Were you on a governing board? Do you financially contribute to one or more as part of a membership? Do you provide technical contributions to an OSS program or non-technical contributions? Do you use OSS through external hosting services? Or just advocate or even prohibit the use of OSS? When we looked at the findings, sort of the most popular forms of use were internally using OSS or externally using OSS through hosted services. The majority of respondents 73% are internally using and externally hosting OSS software. So 73% of institutions are internally using it and that's an overlap with 55% of institutions hosting. The results definitely indicate a disparity between use and support. Only 41% of respondents said they financially contribute to OSS. Although it is important to note that the question specifically mentioned memberships as an example of external support. So respondents, to be fair, may have had different interpretations of financially contribute which could have fallen under other categories such as external hosting. When we asked in what areas of your institution do you use OSS, the top three areas were archival management, digital exhibits, and institutional repositories. These all appear to promote the use of unique materials within an institution. Under other service you can see that everything else coming behind it was digital asset management, digital preservation, discovery layers, library services platforms, and collections management. And there could be multiple reasons for the top three areas appearing to promote the use of unique materials. We learned in a previous survey about accessibility that there appeared to be more experimentation with systems where we, as institutions, controlled the content. But it could also be that these communities just have better open source software offerings. We didn't explore too deeply so that might be something to investigate at a later time. Under other services there were a bunch of different ones including learning management systems, content management systems, journal publishing systems, researcher management, and other small apps and tools. So we also asked in instances where you choose not to use GLAM OSS programs, could you please indicate the reasons why? And we gave a few sort of broad reasons. The biggest reason, the biggest barrier to OSS adoption reported in the survey is the lack of technical expertise within an institution. And this makes sense, but it was interesting to see that this ranked higher than cost or the quality of proprietary software. Staff time and knowledge is fundamental for successful adoption and many institutions do not have the funding available for the crucial human resources needed to support OSS. OSS communities provide a level of support, but such support can differ significantly from the help and training framework offered by proprietary vendors for one time or ongoing fees. So we asked how much money does your institution directly financially contribute to OSS programs? And we broke this down into institution types. For each institution type, bachelor's, master's, doctoral, et cetera, the majority of institutions do not financially contribute to OSS programs. And due to the dominance of doctoral universities within the survey responses, it's difficult to draw many conclusions about non-doctoral universities. However, the graph does demonstrate that this highest tier of library funding, doctoral universities, provides a really wide array of financial contributions with no apparent dominant financial bracket. Respondents were asked where the sources for OSS funds came from. And there were many different responses, but the most frequently mentioned sources were the operations budget and the collections budget, followed by IT and general library budgets. Oftentimes respondents mentioned that more than one of these areas was responsible for paying for OSS. So OSS does not have one dominant place in an institution. It's often coming from different areas. We also asked respondents who is in charge of making decisions regarding OSS budgeting. And the majority of respondents said that the university librarian slash dean of the libraries was responsible for managing budgetary decisions around OSS. Others mentioned senior AULs and other higher level administration. So this is really a very top level decision. We also asked about non-monetary supporting OSS. We asked on the left, you can see how much staff time do you allocate to technical contributions, such as coding, software testing, or technical team meetings. And on the right hand side, you'll see the graph for how much staff time do you allocate to non-technical contributions, such as governance meetings, community feedback voting, or user testing. Now, there appears to be a fairly even split between those institutions that do allocate staff time and those that do not. The majority of survey respondents that do allocate staff time don't allocate very much time, typically less than one FTE. And so you can see here that the majority of respondents on either side don't allocate staff time. But the biggest chunk of staff time is usually less than half an FTE, since only 5% of both technical and non-technical contributions is a full FTE. You can see, though, that the right side of the slide is better than the left hand side. Respondents are more likely to allocate staff time to non-technical contributions than technical contributions. And we asked respondents, if you went from only using OSS to actively supporting OSS, what motivated you to start contributing money or resources to external OSS efforts? And this is a quote from one of our respondents. OSS works if we all contribute. It is in our own interest to contribute and we gain expertise. But we are more proactive and with OSS and we can influence or request or support the development of specific features. So there was a lot of sort of altruistic goodwill that we saw in the responses, but goodwill was more often combined with an institutional need, such as product sustainability, custom features, or desired development. So the second portion of this survey was devoted to justifying OSS, which focuses on how institutions justify investing these funds or resources in OSS programs. We asked, what considerations are most important to your institution in terms of supporting OSS? And one of the most important considerations appears to be the sustainability of programs and services. Respondents ranked that as more important in considering supporting OSS than financial advantages or benefits for end users. So that really showed us that the value proposition for OSS is not a financial savings, and it's not necessarily even about features, but there seems to be an understanding of long-term sustainability for OSS programs. We also wanted to know how does your institutional mission affect OSS adoption? We wanted to see if it was a barrier, if it was actually a way to encourage OSS use, or if it was just neutral. And the majority of respondents said that our institutional mission does not affect OSS decision-making at all. But the second largest group of respondents, a little under 30%, said our institutional mission is actually structured in a way that encourages the use of OSS and or open infrastructure. And only 5% said that the institutional mission discourages the use of OSS and open infrastructure. So we took that as a good sign. And in the survey report, you'll actually find a few examples of phrasing that encourages the use of OSS. The third section of the report, evaluating OSS, covers the ways that Glam institutions determine the qualifications for OSS, their evaluation tactics, and their decision-making about long-term OSS maintenance. So we asked about seven features, user experience, community relationships, preservation of digital content, digital workflows, yada, yada, yada. And we said, which do you think is better addressed by OSS versus proprietary software? Now, one of these was basically a tie, digital workflows. Users tended to think that OSS and proprietary were fairly even. But other than that, institutions appear to prefer OSS in all categories except for user experience and speed of upgrade releases. So we're definitely hoping that this information helps both our internal lyricist communities make decisions about priorities in terms of development, but also any other OSS communities trying to figure out their strategic pathways forward. So we also wanted to know if there were any barriers in terms of IT criteria. We said, are the IT criteria used to evaluate Glam OSS different from those used to evaluate proprietary software? 77% said no. So you'd think that would be an easy one to dismiss. But several open-ended responses revealed that there are more concerns over privacy and security in OSS. When purchasing a proprietary system of any sort, privacy and security concerns can be addressed and negotiated in contracts. And many registered service providers of OSS can also provide contracts that address these kinds of concerns. But the ability to internally adopt OSS without any legal barriers could affect how privacy and security concerns are perceived by IT staff or other stakeholders needed to buy into these programs. We asked what factors related to OSS product maturity affect your decision-making? And the majority of survey respondents see the size of an OSS community as the most important factor related to OSS product maturity with the remaining factors clustered fairly close together underneath. So what are the takeaways for this report? If you only remember a few things from this asynchronous report that you're watching on your own time, there's a disparity between OSS use and financial support. About half of institutions are allocating small amounts of staff time to OSS work, and they lean more towards non-technical contributions. OSS outperformed proprietary software in all provided categories, but two, user experience and speed of upgrades. And the biggest barrier to OSS adoption reported in the survey is the lack of technical expertise within an institution. We are using all of these insights to guide decision-making at lyricists. We are figuring out how this can be applied to our own open-source software communities. We're using it to explore different forms of sustainability in our grant applications and in some of the research that we're doing through the Catalyst Fund. So we definitely hope that this information has been helpful for you. It was certainly helpful for us. And as I said, please, please read the report. It is open access and available to anyone who is interested in reading it. So thank you so much. Have a great morning, afternoon, or whatever time you are watching this.