ERM Showcase @ EGL-IUG 2010

A Sample of How OhioLINK Libraries Utilize Electronic Resource

Management Systems

EGL-IUG Panel PresentationOverview

• OhioLINK 2.0 Task Force

• Introduce panelists

• Brief overview of ERMs at selected OhioLINK sites

• Future work

• Questions and Discussion

10/15/2010 2

Task Force – who are we?

• Fall 2009 – task force suggested by OhioLINK Database Management and Standards Committee

• Fall / Winter – OhioLINK 2.0 Strategic Planning - committee structure formed

• ERM Task Force folded into 2.0

• Spring 2010 – O/L 2.0 ERM Task Force began work

10/15/2010 3

Co-Chair : Susan M. Banoun, University of Cincinnati

Co-Chair : Emily A. Hicks, University of Dayton

Frank J. Bove, University of Akron Amy Fry, Bowling Green State University

Cherie Bronkar, Muskingum University Sharon K. Hackett, Kent State University

Anita Cook, OhioLINK Kristine Kinzer, Ohio Wesleyan University

Kay Downey, Kent State University Jeanne M. Langendorfer, Bowling Green State Univ

Barbara Dunham, The Ohio State University .Joseph Payne, The Ohio State University, Health Science Library

Deberah England, Wright State University

OhioLINK 2.0 ERM Task Force

10/15/2010 4

Task Force Charge

• critical examination of local needs

• ensure a consistent and capable approach for user and staff access across OhioLINK institutions to ERM data.

• collaboration and sharing of best practices

• will enable individual sites to share experiences and develop standards

10/15/2010 5

Task Force Charge•Explore and document ERM system issues and best practices including record structures, codes and specifications, standards, and workflows

•Explore and document how the ERM module is used to provide user access to electronic resources

•Explore and document how the ERM module is used by staff to manage electronic resources.

•Develop functional requirements and processes that will fully integrate ERM records and functions to into the design of the OhioLINK 2.0 system

10/15/2010 6

Work to Date

• Website set up at OhioLINK for task force

• Survey OhioLINK sites on ERM use

• Bibliography of resources for ERMs

• Glossary (in progress)

• Showcase of ERM sites

10/15/2010 7

Support Documents

• ERM Survey

• ERM Coverage Load Clean Up of CSV file Procedure

• ASU ERM Task Group Report

• Loading Serials Solutions Marc records into Millennium

10/15/2010 8

Survey Results• Survey announcement distributed to the OhioLINK

Library Advisory Council (LAC)– One survey response per institution, unless institution has

multiple branches and/or multiple ERM systems.

– The survey has two tracks - one for institutions with a vendor’s ERM and one for those without a vendor’s ERM.

– Includes questions that ask for demographics and materials budget spent on electronic resources

– The survey asks for the primary contact person at your institution for electronic resources management

– The survey will close on September 3, 2010 extended until September 24th

10/15/2010 9

Institution type

10/15/2010 10

14.5%0.0%

32.7%

52.7%

2-year, public

2-year, private

4-year, public

4-year, private

Institution size (FTE)

10/15/2010 11

63.6%12.7%

23.6%

Small (Under 5,000)

Medium (5,000-10,000)

Large (over 10,000)

Annual materials budget allocation

• Total Annual Materials Budget Allocation

– Range: $25,000 to $100,00,000

– Average: $1,413,451

• % of Materials Budget for E-resources?

– Range: 0% to 90%

– Average: 45.24%

10/15/2010 12

Does your library have an ERM system?

10/15/2010 13

30.9%

69.1%

Yes

No

What ERM system does your institution use?

10/15/2010 14

76.50%

5.90% 5.90%0.00%

11.80% 11.80%

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

III ERM Serials Solutions 360 Resource Manager E-

Resource Management Service

EBSCONet ERM Essentials

Verde (Ex Libris) Homegrown Solutions Other

Functions currently used in your ERM?

10/15/2010 15

100.0%

45.5%

18.2%

100.0%

0.0%

63.6%

27.3%

45.5% 45.5%

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

120.0%

Use vendor-supplied coverage loads?

• YES:

– EBSCO

– Serial Solutions

10/15/2010 16

38.5%

61.5%

Yes

No

Load MARC records in OPAC for collections of e-resources?

• Sources:

– OhioLINK

– Serials Solutions

– EBSCO

– OCLC’s WorldCAT/Connexion

– Vendor/publisher supplied

• i.e. - ebrary, IGI-Global, Knovel (OCLC), Lexis-Nexis, Credo, EEBO (ProQuest/Chadwyck-Healey), ECCO (Gale), and many others…

10/15/2010 17

Is your library's approach to e-resource management sufficient?

10/15/2010 18

14.3%

64.3%

21.4%

Yes

No

Not sure

Areas of e-resource management where you need assistance

• Keeping ERM updated

• Automated system for loading serials info

• Better workflows

• More staff

• More training

• More time

• Trouble-shooting help

10/15/2010 19

The Why’s of No ERM

10/15/2010 20

25.0%

80.0%

52.5%47.5%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

Not needed Cost prohibitive No staff to implement No time to implement

The Why Not? Comments

10/15/2010 21

• We just finished a year with a 35% enrollment increase. Enrollment for this coming term is up 40%. We don't have time to do anything extra.

• At first, I thought I didn't really need one. But as more and more titles go electronic (non-OhioLINK), I am starting to see a need for one.

• Not sure it is needed, especially with competing demands for money.

• Not aware of any product that will work for a consortia.• We've been small enough that we managed without one,

but are seeing the need to develop or find one.

Is your library's approach to e-resource management sufficient?

Without ERM With ERM

10/15/2010 22

14.3%

64.3%

21.4%

Yes

No

Not sure

15.8%

42.1%

34.2%

7.9%

Yes

No

Somewhat

Do not know

Areas of e-resource management where you need assistance

• It would be helpful to have a system that kept better track of license arrangements, costs, and renewal dates (especially for non-OhioLINK and OHIONET subscriptions).

• Consulting to determine the cost of adding an ERM to our operation in terms of initial costs, annual costs, personnel time needs, etc.

• An ERMS would be ideal rather than relying on paper checklists, filed materials, e-mails, and memory.

• We know what's needed but the time resource required is not available.

10/15/2010 23

Area of the library responsible for management of e-resources

Primary Responsibility for ERM

19.5%

17.1%

9.8%17.1%

12.2%

9.8%

14.6%

Electronic Resources

Collection Development/Management

Cataloging

Acquisitions

Serials

Reference

Systems

Other Areas Involved

10/15/2010 24

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

50.0%

How many library workers does it take to…

Staff Student Assistants

10/15/2010 25

52.1%35.4%

12.5%

0.0% 0.0%

1-2

3-5

5-10

10-15

15 or more

87.0%

8.7%

4.3% 0.0% 0.0%

1-2

3-5

5-10

10-15

15 or more

Averaged reported estimates of personnel devoted to e-resource management = 2.31 FTE

ERM at UC

• ERM installed November 2008

• Bib record conversion of databases instead of III Quick Start,600+ resource records, III training

• ERM Implementation Task Force 2008-2009

• Reorganized and created ER Department

10/15/2010 26

2010 Status

• Resource records suppressed from public display

• Review of records (in progress)

• Linked order records from ILS

• Adding Serials Solutions tracking information, provider and platform information, ticklers,

• Contact records created

10/15/2010 27

License records

• Updated codes and fields in license records

• Scanning paper licenses to store electronically and link to resource records

• Goal – scan all paper licenses, link to ERM records

10/15/2010 28

Resource record for an OhioLINK database

10/15/2010 29

Resource record for GPO database (EDGAR)

10/15/2010 30

Ticklernotification

Suppressed

10/15/2010 31

License record

10/15/2010 32

License Record with link to scanned copy linked in record

10/15/2010 33

Contact record

10/15/2010 34

Future

• Coverage loads

• Public display

• Import statistics for cost per use data

• Use ERM to manage ebook records, including MARC record loads for ebook collections

10/15/2010 35

ERM at UAkron

• Resource records for full-text aggregator databases display to public

• Before III Quick Start – built resource, contact and license records from scratch

• Experimented with coverage load

• ERM Task Force & ERAMS Subcommittee (UAL TSSC) – constantly reviews & revises workflow

10/15/2010 36

Trial/Preview Link in Resource Record

10/15/2010 37

Trial database information

10/15/2010 38

Evaluation form for faculty, students, & librarians

10/15/2010 39

10/15/2010 40

10/15/2010 41

10/15/2010 42

10/15/2010 43

Future of ERM at UAkron

• Fully implement coverage load.

• Implement import/harvest of use statistics via vendor supplied COUNTER statistics and SUSHI

• Manage more than the full-text aggregator databases. i.e. – local single journals, ebooks, etc.

• Usability testing & WebPAC/ERM redesign.

• Integrate workflow and trial/preview data into ERM

10/15/2010 44

ERM at BGSU

10/15/2010 45

old

new

Databases-by-Subject lists: changes implemented summer 2009

10/15/2010 46

new

old

BGSU resource records: changes

implemented summer 2009

10/15/2010 47

Linda Rich

Reference Coordinator, Bowling Green State University Libraries, and co-investigator for our

usability study.

10/15/2010 48

Task: Find scholarly articles on a topic in your major.

• 12 out of 15 used the link to EBSCO on our home page

• Only 2 went to the All Databases landing page

10/15/2010 49

Task: find a second source for scholarly articles.

• Eight students used the All Databases page.

• Only 2 used the databases-by-subject lists to choose another database.

10/15/2010 50

Task: find a named database.

• Ten students used the All Databases page.

• Only 2 tried the catalog first instead.

10/15/2010 51

BGSU’s “All Research Databases” Landing Page

10/15/2010 52

BGSU’s Databases A-Z List

10/15/2010 53

Business “Databases-by-Subject” List

10/15/2010 54

Resource Record for Business Source Complete

10/15/2010 55

“I try to avoid this page.”-- graduate student

10/15/2010 56

“I’m not sure what these are. I feel like I should know this.”

-- graduate student

“I’d probably quit after I got this.”

-- undergraduate student

10/15/2010 57

“If I were a business major, I would definitely use this

page.”-- undergraduate student

10/15/2010 58

Resource Record for Business Source Complete

10/15/2010 59

a: authorb: resource formatc: tickler logd: subjecte: descriptionf: public noteg: user supporth: coveragei: incident logj: access informationk: resource advisoryl: usage statisticsm: administrationn: noteo: connect button (“additional contact”)p: resource idq: not usedr: local contacts: pricing and paymentt: resource nameu: trial or trial informationv: resource typew: resource containsx: alt. resource namey: resource urlz: resource management tickler

Variable-length fields

10/15/2010 60

In ERM #

Databases 13

Resource descriptions 13

License information for permissions/prohibitions

13

Electronic journals 11

Vendor/contact information 11

License information for ILL/fair use

10

Login/passwords 10

Trial information 8

Renewal information 8

Electronic books 7

Coverage dates 7

Resource advisories 7

Tutorials/user guides 5

Purchase approval information

4

Payment history 4

Display to public #

Databases 8

Resource descriptions 7

Coverage dates 6

License information for permissions/prohibitions

6

Electronic journals 5

Resource advisories 5

Electronic books 4

License information for ILL/fair use

4

Trial information 2

Tutorials/user guides 2

Vendor/contact information 0

Purchase approval information

0

Payment history 0

Renewal information 0

Login/passwords 0

Display to staff #

Databases 13

License information for permissions/prohibitions

13

Resource descriptions 12

Electronic journals 11

Vendor/contact information 10

License information for ILL/fair use

10

Login/passwords 9

Trial information 8

Renewal information 8

Electronic books 7

Coverage dates 7

Resource advisories 7

Tutorials/user guides 5

Purchase approval information

4

Payment history 4

10/15/2010 61

Other responses #

Usage statistics access data 6

Subjects 4

Record of problems/ troubleshooting information

3

IPs, authentication, and other access information

3

Origin of MARC records/loads 3

Publisher information 2

License negotiation information 2

OhioLINK/consortial information 2

10/15/2010 62

10/15/2010 63

10/15/2010 64

Important fields #

Description 14

Dates 10

Full text 7

License information 6

Subjects 6

Title (resource name) 5

Local contact 4

Coverage load 2

Resource format 2

User support 2

Five other fields chosen once each

Confusing fields #

Mobile access 10

Coverage load 6

On-campus access 4

Index to journal articles 3

License information 2

Subjects 2

User support 2

Three other fields chosen once each

Unimportant fields #

User support 3

Local contact 2

Public note 2

Title (resource name) 2

Authorized users 1

Coverage load 1

Description (long) 1

Index to journal articles 1

“MIS” (in record) 1

Mobile access 1

Subject 1

“I usually pay attention to dates and descriptions.”

“Do I do all this down here, too?” (about coverage load)

“I don't pay attention to certain things but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be in there.”

10/15/2010 65

10/15/2010 66

We continue to make improvements to individual resource records.

10/15/2010 67

Thank you! & Questions?

Visit the OhioLINK 2.0 ERM Task Force

website for more information and resources at

https://www.ohiolink.edu/ostaff/OL2/ERM.html

10/15/2010 68