Today was the OCUL URM Summit at UofT. These are a bit more sparse than usual. The survey results in particular were done quickly so I only included the higher numbers, not all of them.
Survey Results
ILS Systems
- Voyager: 5
- SirsiDynix: 5
- Millenium: 4
- average years ILS in use = 11
ERM Systems
- None: 6
- Verde: 5
- III: 5
- In House: 4
- 3 schools more than one ERM
Link Resolver
- SFX: 16
Knowledge Base
- SFX: 12
- 360: 6
Discovery Layers
- Summon: 5
- None: 5
- Primo: 3
- EDS: 3
- 2 schools more than one
System Integration
- 1 vendor for most systems: 5
- 2-3 vendors for most systems: 5
- separate for most systems: 3
- streamlined system management: rest
Migrations
- only 2 schools no migration from 1992
- most had activity of some sort around 2009
- 11 considering significant migration to new system
- considering: URM/next gen: 7; discovery layer: 6; ILS: 4
- motivating factors:
- too much work in managing current systems: 8;
- advances in technology: 8;
- new product available: 6;
- unsatisfied with current: 5;
- current not interoperable: 5
- when plan to migrate?
- this year: 4
- next year: 1
- 2 years: 4
- why not?
- just beginning to investigate: 10
The Role of Technology in Extending the Value of Librarianship in Today’s University
- Carl Grant – President/Consultant of Care
Context
- e-resources spending above 60%
- % of university budget dropped to ~2%
- number of librarians decreasing
- yet have more data online
- growth of mobile touchscreens, higher use than desktops
What’s Our Path Forward?
- Blue Ocean Strategy (book) – how to make your users value your services
- “The key mission of libraries is to define, support and extend the knowledge and culture of our community” -missed who wrote this
How Do We Turn Mission into Vision?
- built a lot of silos
- need to move to ‘cloud’ and user generated metadata/information (I’m actually skeptical of this)
- move to next generation, cloud-based ILS (not sure about this either)
- need to ask about APIs: ability, usage, documentation, test; and need it in writing
- need to standardize them
- need to collaborate
- need a brand for libraries, while allowing differentiation
- The Filter Bubble (book) by Eli Pariser – can tell libraries how they are better than Google
- discovery system should be a knowledge creation platform where users can access existing knowledge and launch into creating new knowledge
Breakout Session Reports
- enabling new and exciting things
- lowering costs
- what’s going to be different? the PeopleSoft of the library world? – will we be in the same situation in 5 years? Solving the problems of today, not tomorrow? – ILSs have failed us
- should we do this together? consortium? 3 main factors: timing, money, options
- reintegrating the disintegrated systems consortially
- value in looking consortially, may have opportunity, more clout – many challenges involved
- necessity of vision – needs to come from directors, if working from ground up, will spend too much time on details
- benefits of collaboration – experiences, expertise, content – all saves time
- need to be clear on problems trying to solve/trying to accomplish
- disparity between vision and details
- don’t need a perfect solution, just good enough to get moving – is there a solution right now?
- another Evergreen scenario?
- standard user interfaces
- trusting all our content into one system? who owns that data? can we get it back?
- integration, interoperability is key not necessarily one big system
- people – workflow, etc.
Adventures in Sharing: Consortial Challenges of a Shared ILS
- John Helmer, Orbis Cascade Alliance
Vision
- academic
- broad set of core services
- strategic agenda: depth of collaboration, single collection, shared HR/services, web-scale opportunities
Shared ILS
- existing: legacy systems, lagging functionality, hard to innovate and integrate, total cost
- future: better services, improved resource sharing and staff tools, enable collaborative tech services and one collection, new options available
- three big projects: legacy to next gen (Alma, Primo), 37 -> 1 system, acting as 1
- replacing ILS, discovery, link resolver, knowledge base, proxy, ERM, servers, workflows, language, concepts
- people > technology: culture, shared vision, partners, leadership (starts at top), communication (get everyone moving together), bold (something people can be excited about)
Kuali OLE Overview
James Mouw, University of Chicago
- Highly centralized with a large print collection that circulates a lot.
- replacing many existing old system from the 90s by 1-2 systems (OLE, VuFind)
- ILS should be open source, enterprise caliber, scales, service-oriented architecture, flexible
- Kuali OLE community: aligned vision, shared resources and commitment, strategic collaboration (risk mitigation, knowledge, effort, intentional, international), agile approach
- Organization: Board with each partner has one rep, council, project manager, development team, coordinator, subject matter experts
- commercial affiliates for those who can’t do in-house
- most current version will have prototype instance in cloud to test
- first public release (Oct 2011), second (May 2012), develop Gokb, ver 0.8 (June 2013), 1.0 (Q4 2013) – production implementation ready version
- no user interface: own discovery decision, e.g. VuFind; develop “plug and play” interface options
- will standalone
- all about community. Also real, flexible, supported, governed, standards, enterprise level, and more
- support different formats?: document store: marc record, finding aid, emails, i.e. format agnostic stored side by side
Alma at University of Manitoba Libraries
Lisa O’Hara
- dis-integration. Different vendors: ILS, Resolver + ERMS, discovery layer, proxy, ILL, guides, etc.
- priorities: improve student experience, convenience use and security, greater efficiency, streamline workflow
- process: info gathering (2010-2013), product comparisons (2012), discussion + decision (2012)
- privacy concerns: security of personal info – using storage in Amsterdam, Privacy Impact Assessment completed – gather minimal information, notify users foreign storage, own customer data, regular record maintenance
- Integration: Primo (Oct 2012), Alma team just formed, data clean-up, workflow mapping, implementation June-Dec
Heads in the Clouds, Feet on the Ground: UNB’s Move to a Cloud-Based ILS
Stephen Rosenfeld, Merle Steeves, Steve Lelievre
- concerns: Unicorn/Symphony in 1995 – getting stale, high cost, changes in leadership
- Direction changing: moving to OCLC, access to online resources was area of growth
- Reviewed: OSS (Evergreen, Koha, …), WMS, no change
- Full report: lib.unb.ca/wordcat/ILS_Replacement.pdf (March 2011)
- Decisions: no point moving to another proprietary ILS, OSS too simple for environment, most advantages with OCLC at the time
- Requirements: multiple campuses, Canadian server
- Originally 2012 date, but needed group functionality – needed to merge all three systems, which is proving to be a bit of trouble in getting consensus
- now plan to go live April, 2013
- about half way through migration process
- time saving by not having multiple knowledge bases, streamlined workflow
- make sure you know who has the final say
- reporting through mirror SQL database
- have to shut down acquisitions for a few weeks – longer than anticipated
- data cleanup and export took longer than expected
- staff more willing to accept changes and workarounds than anticipated
- promised API, but not there
- still expect to meet target date
Quick Thoughts
Based on the presentations today and previous demos and what not, I don’t think any of the new systems are ready yet. In particular, the lack of API is a problem. The most promising one on a cursory, superficial look actually seems to be Kuali OLE, or perhaps Evergreen, which I haven’t been keeping up with but I’ve heard has improved leaps and bounds.
I think we need to wait just a little longer or commit ourselves to an open source project.