in it together: selection and implementation of alma/primo as a consortial system ann miller...
Post on 01-Apr-2015
215 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
IN IT TOGETHER: SELECTION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF ALMA/PRIMO AS A CONSORTIAL SYSTEM
Ann MillerUniversity of OregonEugene, OregonUSA
Central Oregon Comm. College
Central Washington University
Chemeketa Community College
Clark College
Concordia University
Eastern Oregon University
Eastern Washington University
George Fox University
Lane Community College
Lewis & Clark College
Linfield College
Mt. Hood Community College
Oregon State University
Oregon Health & Science Univ.
Oregon Institute of Technology
Oregon State University
Pacific University
Portland Community College
Portland State University
Reed College
Saint Martin’s University
Seattle Pacific University
Seattle University
Southern Oregon University
The Evergreen State College
University of Idaho
University of Oregon
University of Portland
University of Puget Sound
University of Washington
Walla Walla College
Warner Pacific College
Washington State University
Western Oregon University
Western Washington University
Whitman College
Willamette University
MAP OF ORBIS CASCADE ALLIANCE
• 37 universities, colleges, and community colleges in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho
• 258,000 students• 9.2 million titles representing 28.7
million items• Group purchases of electronic resources
at a value of over $9 million annually.• Existing tradition of cooperation in
resource sharing and collection building.
• History of working in OCLC and using Worldcat Local
• Looking to explore how to collaborate more fully in technical services
THE ORBIS CASCADE ALLIANCEFIGURES AND VALUES
• Operational costs duplicated across the consortium
• Existing system operated on an outdated platform
• Interest in facilitating technical services collaboration
• Prediction that institutions could save money by sharing
WHY A CONSORTIAL PURCHASE?
• Shared ILS Groups formed to review the possibility each year from 2009-2011
• Shared ILS RFP in 2011-2012 (https://www.orbiscascade.org/rfp-for-shared-library-management/)
• Chose Ex Libris Alma/Primo in Spring 2012• 4 Cohorts between Jan. 2013-Dec. 2014
– First went live in June 2013– Six months each
• Libraries requested a cohort, record numbers were a factor, as well as confidential negotiation
TIMELINE OF REVIEW AND DECISION ON A SYSTEM
• Cohort 1 - Linfield College, Marylhurst University. Pacific University, University of Washington, Western Washington University, Willamette University
• Cohort 2 - Concordia University, Eastern Washington University, Evergreen State College, Lewis & Clark College, Portland Community College, Reed College, Saint Martin's University, Seattle Pacific University, University of Idaho, Warner Pacific College, Washington State University
• Cohort 3 - Clark College, Mt Hood Community College, Oregon Health & Science University, Oregon Institute of Technology, Portland State University, Southern Oregon University, University of Oregon, University of Portland, University of Puget Sound, Western Oregon University
• Cohort 4- Central Oregon Community College, Central Washington University, Chemeketa Community College, Eastern Oregon University, George Fox University, Lane Community College, Oregon State University, Seattle University, Walla Walla University, Whitman College
COHORTS
• Shared ILS Program Manager• Shared ILS Implementation Team – chairs
of:– Acquisitions WG– Cataloging WG– Circulation & Resource Sharing WG– Discovery WG– Serials/ERM WG– Systems WG– Training WG
• Implementation Leads grouped into Cohorts for communication
STRUCTURE OF IMPLEMENTATION
• Reviewed fulfillment policies• Reviewed location codes• Deleted order records based on
university record retention policy• Extracted bibliographic records for
withdrawn material• Reviewed and coded local bibliographic
data (unfinished)• Edited bibliographic, holdings and item
records to ensure a smooth migration
IMPLEMENTATION PREPARATION (UNIVERSITY OF OREGON)
1. Initial configuration and migration forms due 7 months out from go live.
2. Data sample to Ex Libris 6 months out3. Full data and test load (Alma) about 6 months
out (loaded by groups within the cohort)4. Primo configuration form 4 months out5. 3.5 months of data testing (Alma)6. Primo testing 2 months out (C3 had 6 weeks
due to Primo changes at the Alliance level which postponed it)
7. Technical freeze – Oregon’s lasted 4 weeks.8. Within a cohort we had rolling go live dates of
the course of one month
IMPLEMENTATION (C3 EXAMPLE)
• Functional workshops for Cohort 1 & 2 provided by Ex Libris
• Functional workshops for Cohort 3&4 provided by Cohort 1 & 2
• In Cohort 1 Alma and Primo certification provided after go live. Now provided earlier
• Webinars have varied in quality, but are improving
• Weekly functional calls started with Cohort 2
TRAINING
• Tab for NZ between IZ and CZ – search by all titles only (no inventory (as yet))
• Alma IZ local inventory, order and fulfillment data
• NZ formed of OCLC master records held by Alliance members.
• Loaded daily• Anytime the master record is updated a
record comes in. • Management presents a challenge, don’t
want to give everyone access
Let’s take a quick look
SHARED SETUP AND STRUCTURE – ALMA AND THE NETWORK ZONE
• Central Alliance installation at which some standard configuration is set for all
• Other than those there can be institutional branding and other configuration
• The 50 field display limit in Primo has been problematic
• Where and how local data displays has been a question
• One significant loss we perceive is the integration with Worldcat Local for identifying tangible resources outside the Alliance
SHARED SETUP AND STRUCTURES - PRIMO
• Summit pass through to NRE is working• The move to central publishing has been
problematic• Across the board productivity has slowed• Complexity makes diagnosis of problems
difficult• Monthly releases provide advantages and
disadvantages– Advantages -New functionality and fixes– Disadvantages-New functionality and fixes
• Difficult to keep up with necessary policies• Has strengthened ties between Alliance
institutions and staff
HOW IS THE SYSTEM WORKING?
• To early to truly assess• Center for Excellence• Definitely need continuing development in some
areas– Electronic resource management in the NZ– Summit 3 – consortial resource sharing– Ability to perform collection assessment
from the NZ• Alliance needs to develop its own support and
management models• Concern about “service exhaustion” among
Alliance staff
CONCLUSION
top related