October 31, 2013

A Day in the Life of Alma: Analytics

The next in the "Day in the Life of Alma series is A Day in the Life of Alma Analytics on Monday, November 18th, 2013 @ noon.

Voyager Product Update

A Voyager product update will be  presented by Mike Dicus at ExLibris on Monday November 4 at 2:00 and 5:00.  Registration is on the Product Update series page.

October 28, 2013

GIL Next Generation Cataloging/Metadata Team Meeting
October 23, 2013

The Cataloging & Metadata Team met via Webex on October 23, 2013.  Members present were Erin Grant (team leader), Linda Jones, Amy Eklund, Adam Kubik, Guy Frost, Kathy Adams, Kelly Holt, Jenifer Marquardt, Neil Hughes, Andy Carter, Debra Skinner, Mary-Frances Hansard, Jin Guo, Britni Jones, Susan Wynne.  Some other catalogers from UGA joined the meeting as guests.

1.  Reports Wishlist

The team has been compiling a list of cataloging reports we would like to see available from the next system.  Erin Grant will send the complete list to the Reports team leader at the end of next week (11/1).  Team members should continue working on the shared list.  Erin will de-duplicate the list before submitting.  

2.  Survey
The team is planning a survey for any USG technical services librarians and staff to submit feedback on required and desired features or functionality in a future system.  Susan Wynne, Jenifer Marquardt, and Linda Jones drafted a survey, which the team is currently reviewing and editing.

Cathy Jeffrey’s Collaborative Technical Services Team is composing a few questions to add on to our survey.  We plan to distribute the survey broadly within the USG technical services community, and will encourage everyone who is interested to respond to the survey, and/or send comments to a member of the planning team.  The possibility of combining our survey with that of the Acquisitions/Serials group was raised; Erin will follow up with that team.

The survey should be launched no later than Oct. 31 to allow about 2 weeks to collect responses and incorporate them into our first assignment, due Nov. 30.

The Cataloging & Metadata Team and/or other USG groups will also consider ways to solicit feedback from public services and other non-technical services librarians and staff on their requirements later in this process.  

3.  Scenarios and the Introductory Description (initial version due Nov. 30)

The group reviewed the Instructions for the Introductory Description and discussed the level of depth or detail that is appropriate for this stage of the process. The introductory description should stay fairly broad, but we did not feel it was necessary to be as brief as in sample RFPs, as our text will likely be edited.  The background and details are critical to consider and gather, but may not be part of this initial document.

October 17, 2013

Collaborative Technical Services Team WebEx meeting minutes October 3, 2013

Collaborative Technical Services Team WebEx meeting minutes
October 3, 2013

Present at the meeting were:  Beth Burnett, Bill Walsh, Bob Trotter, Cathy Jeffrey, Chris Huff, Dave Evans, Donna Bennett, Guy Frost, Hallie Pritchett, Jacquiline Vickers, Jeff Carrico, Sherrida Crawford, 

Cathy Jeffrey welcomed everyone to the meeting and spent a few minutes introducing some of the WebEx functionality.  Cathy polled the group to see if they preferred polls to reflect percentage responses only or if they wanted to see the response of each individual as well.  The majority voted to see the responses from individuals.

Cathy mentioned that this was a meeting rather than a presentation and encouraged everyone to participate fully in the discussion.

Cathy suggested that the group begin their discussion by focusing on issues related to collaborative technical services that would impact the proposed rfp for a next generation system.  To kick start the discussion Cathy asked the group to  answer two questions.  Results of the poll were:
Question 1: Do you believe that having a single catalog rather than 30+ individual catalogs would be a good thing?
Answer:         yes                  36%
no                   55%
no answer     9%
Question 2:  Do you believe that it is POSSIBLE that a single catalog rather than 30+ catalogs may be in the USG Library consortia future?
Answer:         yes                  91%
no                   9%
David Evans summarized the results describing them as the majority of members believe it would be a bad idea but most believe it could happen.  Discussion continued on the subject of what functionality a single catalog would need.  Cathy Jeffrey brought up a document where team members could record ideas as part of the discussion.  Following are the ideas that were listed and/or discussed.

In her initial document Cathy suggested that a single catalog should be able to default to a one institution and be able to be limited to two or more institutions if desired. Sherrida Crawford wrote: “Not sure if you could see just your own local entries on a bib.”   Bob Trotter responded to these comments saying “I mean you would see all local entries, not just your own.  I would think that you would be able to limit by institution or a group of institutions.  In our current UC we have a hierarchy that determines which record replaces another.”

Sherrida went on to discuss her concern that a single catalog would result in the loss of local customization.  Guy Frost concurred and indicated that the bibliographic record enhancements that Valdosta State adds are used by patrons to identify specific materials.  As an example he mentioned that they routinely add information about award winning books.  Patrons use this information to determine which ones are available at Valdosta State. Guy also mentioned that some libraries like UGA had spent decades enhancing records.  Sherrida referenced the table of contents enhancements to which some libraries have committed significant effort.  She suggested that it would be unfortunate to loose these enhancements.  Someone suggested “protecting designated fields from overlay.”  Cathy asked if a single catalog could somehow capture these enhancements if that would make a single catalog more palatable.  Guy and Sherrida agreed that it would and that was added to the list.
Bill Walsh suggested that robust batch loading and batch editing capabilities should be included.  Jeff Carrico emphatically agreed.

Jeff Carrico also suggested developing “Best practices” which he described as “A general agreement that ‘this is good enough’”

Authority control and database management for a single catalog environment were discussed briefly.  Several comments were added to the list as follows:
Bill Walsh is hoping that we will not have to rely on 3rd parties to process locally.
Cathy Jeffrey suggested that multiple users should be authorized to update the database.
Hallie Pritchett suggested the ability to centralize authority work – i.e. have one library or department responsible for authority work and allowed to work on all records in the system.
Guy Frost stated that this might be too large a job for one library to handle.
Bob Trotter wrote that “Authority control would be in the cloud (according to the vendors).  We will probably be looking [at] a mixture of databases, some with single institutions and some with multiple.” 

Hallie Pritchett brought up government documents.  She described the current way in which depositories receive bib records with links to online content and pointed out that each depository in the system had its own criteria for which documents they would receive.  The group discussed whether the USG libraries might have a single government documents profile and receive one record that everyone could use.  Cathy asked if it might be possible for the online government documents to have their own location in the system.

Dave Evans mentioned a recent Kennesaw State acquisition with a large number of records which they had not yet loaded into the system because of their concern about the impact of such a large file of records.

Cathy closed the meeting with a request that the group select a regular meeting day and time.  Most members of the group liked the 12:00 pm Thursday meeting time and selected the first and third Thursday of each month for the meeting schedule.

The meeting was adjourned.
Submitted by
Cathy Jeffrey

After the meeting, Chris Huff wrote to say that he had some difficulty getting into the shared annotation tool.  He made notes of some of his observations during the meeting and forwarded to me.  Chris’ comments are copied below.

Area of Concern:  A single catalog/database shared across all institutions appears likely, but many are concerned that this will be a problem.

Needed answers:

1) Definitions:
a. Single Catalog
b. Single Database

2)What are the benefits of a single catalog/database?  What is the value in choosing this approach?

3)What are the disadvantages or limitations of a single catalog/database?  What would we loose by choosing this approach?

-Loss of legacy, local-level data?
-Inability to have a separate, local record?
-Method to preserve individual customization?

Area of Concern: Authority Control...
-who will be tasked with maintaining this for the system.
-work of authority control will need to be distributed across the system because the workload is heavy -there may be value in concentrating staff expertise in authority control and allow this staff to have access to other library records.
-already moving toward OCLC-hosted authority control as source

Government Documents
-opportunity to reduce redundant marcive processing -would we have just one selecting institution/entity?
-how would we handle things like readex serial set?

Here's a link to the Orbis Cascade Alliance/ Collaborative Technical Services Team

October 11, 2013

Next Generation Library System RFP Template

This is the template the GIL Next Generation Planning teams are using to develop an RFP.

Next Generation Library Systems

Here is a list of the primary next generation library system websites. If you are aware of others not listed, please add a comment.

Ex Libris Alma  (library management services)

Innovative Interfaces Inc. Sierra  (services platform)

Kuali Foundation Open Library Environment (OLE)

OCLC WorldShare Management Services (WMS)

Serials Solutions Intota  (web-scale management solution)

SirsiDynix BLUEcloud Suite  (next generation solutions for Horizon and Symphony)

VTLS, Inc. Open Skies  (library services platform)

October 10, 2013

Webinar: So you're thinking of upgrading your ILS

From California State University:

The first of two CARL webinars, “So you’re thinking of upgrading your ILS” that took place yesterday, October 9, has been archived. To view the archived session, please click here, http://tinyurl.com/kr33t6w. Once you have clicked on the link, you will need to enter your name, email address, screen name and organization. If your organization is not listed on the drop down menu, you can choose any of the organizations listed.

October 7, 2013

OCLC WorldShare Webinar

Streamlining management, discovery and access of print collections with OCLC WorldShare Management Services
During this live, one-hour demonstration, you’ll see how OCLC WorldShare® Management Services simplify library management workflows and improve discovery and access of your library’s physical collections, including print materials, journals and serials. Q&A will follow the demonstration.
October 16, 2:00-3:00
November 19, 2:00-3:00
December 10, 2:00-3:00

Ex Libris Alma Webinars

For those who are interested in exploring some of the next gen offerings, below are some webinars being offered by Ex Libris:

Alma 101
60-minute live overview and demonstration of Alma
 Tuesday, October 8th, 2013 @ 1pm Eastern
 Monday, November 4th, 2013 @ 1pm Eastern

A Day in the Life of Alma Series
Each webinar in this series will feature a different area within Alma. We recommend that you watch an Alma 101 before attending one.

E-Resource Management
Join this session to gain an understanding of e-Resource Management in Alma through a live demonstration of  workflows for electronic content, from selection through fulfillment to the end user. Read more about what we'll cover and register below:
 Monday, October 21st, 2013 @ 3pm Eastern

Join this session to gain an understanding of how Alma integrates analytics and reporting into everyday workflows, assisting staff in maximizing the investment in its collections, ensuring the effectiveness and productivity of its staff and ultimately enabling staff to make informed decisions regarding library operations. Read more about what we'll cover and register below:
 Monday, November 18th, 2013 @ 12pm Eastern

ACQ/SER/ERM subcommittee minutes 10/4/13

NGL ACQ/Serials/ERM Meeting
Friday, October 4, 2013; 1:30 pm, WebEx
Present: Kat Hart, Dana Walker, Agnes Muriuki, Courtney Mcgough, Elizabeth Winter, Jacqueline Vickers, Ken Smith, Olga Russov, Sandra Bandy, and Charlie Sicignano
Absent: Jim Garner, and Ben Davis
The meeting had no written agenda. Our purpose was to do a test of the WebEx technology, and see if it is a feasible way to meet in the future. We also wanted to check if folks had questions about the progress of the subcommittee, or about how we would be proceeding.
We had a sound and mic check.
Dana gave an overview of the team leaders’ recent meeting. Everyone is essentially in the same position: not sure what our charge is and what our deliverables should be. Merryll hopes that, by the December date listed in the meeting notes from the Macon meeting, we have some form of a document that would express what kinds of functionality we want in a next generation library system. No specific guidelines for the December deliverable were given, but a narrative with or without a wish list would be fine, according to Merryll. These subcommittees are to be the foundation for our work reviewing the next generation systems over the next two years.
The group will produce a narrative of general requirements. A spreadsheet has been posted on Google Docs for people to post ideas. As people find useful supporting documentation, these may be posted to Google as well. If the structure of the spreadsheet needs to be edited, we can add more categories as the need arises. We determined that by December 1st, we will begin to synthesize and digest the points posted in the spreadsheet into a final document that could be delivered to Merryll by December 23rd.
We decided that subcommittee members will not be required to post ideas to the spreadsheet, but we strongly encourage everyone to ask their staff and colleagues for thoughts on what to add. Dana suggested everyone use opportunities, such as GaCOMO, to network and get input. Some teams are using surveys and other instruments to gather ideas. Dana was unaware of an active Acquisitions-specific GIL listserv.
It was determined that at the very least, we don’t want any loss in functionality from what we have now, and we don’t want to lose data we have already put into our current ILS.
The team decided to work aggressively developing the list until November 15th.  At that time we will distill the list into a generalized narrative. Team members can still add to the spreadsheet after that date, though. We may meet every two weeks after that to work on the narrative, and schedule more WebEx meetings if needed.
Dana will schedule more of meetings if anything comes of the team leader meetings that should be discussed among the subcommittee. She encouraged everyone to email or call her if we had questions or ideas.
It was pointed out that we really needed everyone to have a mic in order to make the most of the WebEx meeting format. Anyone on the team needs the technology to support WebEx.
With no further agenda, the meeting was adjourned.

October 3, 2013

Cataloging Metadata Team Update

The Cataloging/MetadataTeam met on September 13, 2013.

Present: Erin Grant, Amy Eklund, Kathy Adams, Jenifer Marquardt, Kelly Holt, Jin Guo, Adam Kubik, Guy Frost, Linda Jones, Debra Skinner, Susan Wynne, Neil Hughes, Cynthia Ragin.

Group Structure: Team Leader: Erin Grant (Southern Polytechnic), Alternate: Linda Jones (Columbus State), Note-taker: Susan Wynne (Georgia State). Amy Eklund (GPC) and Debra Skinner (GA Southern) will be our liaisons to the Discovery team. Guy Frost (Valdosta) will step in as the GIL Functional Cataloging Committee Chair, replacing Bonnie Parker (Gordon State), who has recently taken a position outside the USG. Cynthia Ragan will be our GIL liaison. Amanda McKenzie will be our liaison to the GIL Next Gen System Communications Committee.

Working process: The group decided to use Google Docs to internally share documents and primarily conduct its business via a listserv set up and maintained by Neil Hughes (UGA). Meetings via WebEx will be scheduled on an as-needed basis; the next meeting is scheduled for Oct. 23.
General Goals:

  • Develop functional list of cataloging-related requirements we need and want in a system (due December 2013)
  • Determine which functions are non-negotiable and which are desirable but not critical
  • Create a list of things we dislike about the current system to inform our needs and wants for a new system
 Near Term Tasks:

  • Create “starting-point” collaborative and individual wish lists for a next gen system
  • Determine how to best to communicate with the larger USG cataloging community and integrate the resulting input and views into our group’s work
  • Look at RFPs and functional requirements for next gen systems from other consortia as examples of deliverables
  • Explore the capabilities of systems currently available, not to limit us to present system constraints, but point to general possibilities and “what-ifs” – we’ve been charged to “think big”
  • Consider the future of the MARC format (BIBFRAME) as well as non-MARC records and their implications for and impact on next-gen systems
  • Coordinate with other teams to discuss overlapping concerns (particularly the Assessment/Reports Team and Collaborative Technical Services Team)
Please stay tuned as our group works to complete our near team tasks and general goals, and feel free to contact any team member with questions, comments, or concerns.

October 1, 2013

ACQ/SER/ERM subcommittee minutes 9/13/13


The purpose of the ACQ/ERM/Serials Team is to develop set of requirements in our area of expertise for the Request for Proposal (RFP).

NGP-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU is the planning committee’s listserv address. GA-G2ALL will go to anyone in the USG subscribed to the G2ALL list, so be aware of who your audience will be when posting to the lists.

Kat Hart agreed to be the team recorder. Charlie Sicignano agreed to the team alternate. The team tentatively agreed to set regular meetings online every 2 weeks, starting the first week in October. Dana will have WebEx training on September 24. Subsequent meetings will be via WebEx.

We discussed the need to set up a listserv for the group. Dana will see what the committee has already done in this regard and get back with us. Dana will also set up a Google Drive account for the group.

As far as professional knowledge is concerned, the team determined that we are well covered. It was noted that the ACQ rep on the GIL coordinating committee is Miriam Nauenburg from West Georgia.

The question arose if the larger committee will give us some kind of scope for the RFP. Dana pulled the Orbis Cascade RFP, and will post it to the Google Drive.

Marlee Givens is the blog rep. Once approved by the group, the official minutes of each group should be communicated on the blog.

The group brought up the following initial thoughts…

We need strong long term dependable support from the vendor.

Are there any specs out there that compare the currently available systems?

Merryll Penson sat in on the meeting for a few minutes. She indicated that we can by start discussing a wish list.

The question arose if we want smaller sub groups within the team (i.e. acq, serials, erm). It was agreed that this might be beneficial on a temporary basis.

The group retired to join the larger committee.

A Comparative Analysis on the Effect of the Chosen ILSes on Systems and Technical Services Staffing Models

The latest issue of Information Technology and Libraries has a timely article -

A Comparative Analysis on the Effect of the Chosen ILSes on Systems and Technical Services Staffing Models by Ping Fu and Moira Fitzgerald


This analysis compares how the traditional ILS and the next-generation ILS impact systems and technical services staffing models at academic libraries. The method used in this analysis is to select two categories of ILSes—two well-established traditional ILSes and three leading next-generation ILSes—and compare them by focusing on two aspects: (1) software architecture, and (2) workflows and functionality. The results of the analysis show that the next-generation ILS will have substantial implications for library systems and technical staffing models in particular, suggesting that library staffing models should be redesigned and key librarian and staff positions be redefined to meet the opportunities and challenges brought on by the next-generation ILS.