Susan Davis, Editor Serials Spoken Here

SERIALS

REPORTS ON

INSTITUTES

SPOKEN HERE:

CONFERENCES,

AND SEMINARS

Susan Davis, Column Editor with contributions from

Cynthia Clark, Darcy L. Jones, Jill Hackenberg, Linda Smith Griffin, Linda Dugger and Alison C. Roth

It has been a busy year for meetings, as evidenced by the half dozen reports which follow. The pace of change and the need to keep up with more and more developments on the serials front are well documented in this column. The reports discuss many things which are new or changing rapidly-for example, systems, publication formats, cataloging models, collaborative projects and even the definition of a serial. The prolif- eration of electronic serials has already made a signifi- cant impact on the day-to-day workload in acquisitions, collection development and cataloging activities; many libraries are moving toward their second or third gener- ation of integrated library system; and Web tools are being used more and more to improve our effective- ness. Change has become the expected way of life in the library, and these reports provide an intriguing look into the state of serials in 1997.

Davis is Head, Periodicals, at the State University of New York at Buffalo, Lockwood Library Bldg., Buf- falao, NY 14260-2200, <unlsdb@acsu.buffalo.edu>.

72 SERIALSREVIEW - SUSAN DAVIS -

ALCTS HEADS OF ‘DXHNICAL SERVICES OF

MEDIUM-SIZED ACADEMIC LIBRARIES DISCUSSION

GROUP, MIDWINTER CONFERENCE,

FEBRUARY 1997, WASHINGTON, DC

Cynthia Clark

The “Medium Heads” Discussion Group prides itself on being able to present topics of current interest for audience discussion, led by two to three “practitio- ners.” The goal of the group is to enable the exchange of ideas on issues that many of us are concerned with in our daily operations.

The primary focus of this conference’s discussion group, chaired by Patricia Kantner of Purdue Univer- sity, was migration to the next generation of automated library systems. Most libraries have had experience with implementing at least one system, and many are now shopping for a new system. Client-server technol- ogy and other technological advances, a desire to move to a fully integrated library system, and inability of our current systems to meet changing needs drive this move. As evidenced by the packed meeting room, this topic struck a chord with many librarians.

The experiences of three libraries were presented by Carol Pfeiffer, Associate University Librarian, Univer- sity of Virginia, Charlottesville (NOTIS to SIRSI); Michael Somers, Head of Technical Services, Kansas State University (NOTIS to ENDEAVOR); and Tia Gozzi, Director of Library Services, University of North Carolina, Charlotte (VTLS and Innovative). The presenters described what went right, what went wrong, and gave advice to the audience. A question and answer session followed the three brief presentations. The emphasis of the presentations and discussion was on the decision-making and implementation processes, not on the merits of the systems selected by each cam- pus.

The University of Virginia (UVA) and Kansas State University (KSU) libraries made decisions based on responses to Requests for Proposals (RFPs) and imple- mented their new systems within a relatively short time frame. Carol Pfeiffer reported that UVA received four responses to their RIP. Rather than write their own RFP as originally planned, UVA’s main library chose to piggyback on the campus Health Sciences Library’s RFP. The RFP was issued in March 1995; SIRS1 was selected in June of the same year. The contract was signed in December, and UVA’s new SIRS1 Unicorn system went “live” to users at the end of August 1996.

- SERIALS SPOKEN HERE -

Michael Somers noted that one-time funds available from the state drove KSU’s speedy decision and imple- mentation process. An RFP was written late 1994/early 1995. Two vendors responded, and Endeavor was selected early in 1995. KSU purchased the OPAC, acquisitions and cataloging clients and made its new system available to users in November of that same year.

WHAT WENT RIGHT AND WHAT WENT

WRONG-THE UVA EXPERIENCE

UVA and the vendor were able to meet the short implementation schedule. The OPAC went live within one week of the scheduled date, and new hardware was installed on time.

Staff were more flexible and capable of handling this change than during earlier system migrations. They “rolled with the punches,” despite the stress.

The data migration was extremely successful. UVA chose not to migrate order, receipt and pay data, and used a manual process to migrate circu- lation status information.

The SIRS1 programmer and key contact worked well with library staff.

SIRS1 has been adding staff to help keep up with the pace of bringing up new sites.

Faculty were mouse-challenged-many had not used a mouse before.

Users were not happy with the GUI (Graphical User Interface) at first; they were used to a charac- ter-based system and were most comfortable with it.

Staff (administrators, system implementation team, all staff) did not fully recognize the techni- cal services functionality that was lost. SIRS1 was quite different from the NOTIS system used previ- ously. Staff worked heroically to “make it work.” It will take twelve to eighteen months to resume (pre)implementation speed.

There was not enough time to de-bug the release before opening the system to the public.

The UVA Library located the servers in the cam- pus computing center. It was the first large produc- tion-oriented client-server system to be housed the facility and had different stresses and needs from the servers used by other academic units.

VOL. 23, No. 3 (FALL 1997) 73

. SIRS1 had limited experience with installation in large research libraries, but they hired someone with an academic background to serve as a liaison to academic sites.

l UVA underestimated migration costs, particularly for a barcoding project.

WHAT WENT RIGHT AND WHAT WENT WRONG- THE KSU EXPERIENCE

Michael Somers described KSU’s ongoing relationship with Endeavor as a development partnership. As a result of the partnership, KSU’s library staff has beta- tested every release of the Endeavor software, and many of its products and features, since 1995, His com- ments about what went right and what went wrong reflect the intensive nature of this relationship.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Endeavor is easy to customize.

KSU created a scholar’s workstation using the 239.50 capabilities.

KSU upgraded equipment/hardware for staff and public as a result of the migration and worked out compatibility issues for hardware and software.

Endeavor’s staff are working well with KSU staff to develop a quality product.

Endeavor staff are acquainted with academic libraries. They were conscientious about helping KSU along in its implementation and continue to maintain a close working relationship even while bringing up other libraries.

KSU switched over to the new system without a transition period-without running parallel sys- tems. They experienced a great deal of downtime initially.

As in the case of UVA, the KSU faculty was used to a command-driven, character-based system. They did not like the GUI system but are now beginning to see the advantages.

KSU is not yet able to get collection management reports from the system, as this feature is still in development.

The public services staff do not want to learn mod- ules/clients other than the OPAC.

Staff had some difficulty in adapting. It was hard for them to see where they could take advantage of

the system features to be innovate regarding work- flow.

ADVICE FROM CAROL PFEIFFER AND MICHAEL SOMERS

Allow ample time for implementation-at least several months from the date the contract is signed.

Allow time for testing after the initial dataload.

Involve users in screen design and possibly in sys- tem selection.

Test for vendor’s understanding of what you want.

Don’t put old workflow into a new system. Perse- vere in taking full advantage of system functional- ity and features to improve workflow.

Expect to do lots of training. Customize the train- ing to meet local needs. Do not rely solely on the vendor’s training.

Prepare for a difficult, stressful experience; but aim for an “esprit de corps” to see you through.

THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, CHARLOTTE (UNCC) EXPERIENCE

UNCC’s experience was distinctly different from KSU and UVA. Tia Gozzi described UNCC as a dual system environment, using VTLS and INNOPAC for different functions. Library administration considered migrating to a single system to concentrate resources but did not initiate a formal RFP process. Like KSU, UNCC accepted an invitation to enter into a development part- ner agreement with a vendor-VTLS. This serendipi- tous agreement was viewed as desirable because its approach was evolutionary instead of revolutionary. The system and vendor were already known to library staff. Top library administrators, in consultation with the a few library staff, made the decision to become a development partner. Ultimately, UNCC decided to end its role as a co-developer, but continues to use the VTLS system. Tia’s advice relates to becoming a sys- tem development partner and selecting a new system.

BEFORE You BECOME A DEVELOPMENT PARTNER

. Be clear about why your library should enter such an agreement. Are you committing the library to develop the product to use it or not?

74 SERIALSREVIE w - SUSAN DAVIS -

Find out what the vendor thinks the advantages and disadvantages of being a development partner are.

Find out what the minimum requirements are for being a library partner. Hardware needs? Staff- time commitment?

Visit other sites where the operating system question is being used.

in

Consider that the relationship could change, so that eventually the library’s role evolves into a tester or quality control agent.

Document your agreement-it’s not a “living arrangement.” Include a fully developed definition of the relationship between library and vendor in the agreement.

Include an “escape hatch’ in the agreement, in case the partnership does not work for either party. Consider what penalties, if any, may apply.

Be sure responsibility and schedules for deliver- ables are clearly articulated in the contractjagree- ment.

Run parallel systems for awhile. Make sure all vendors and systems staff are prepared to do major hand-holding.

Consider regular conference calls to maintain good communication. If there are other develop- ment partners, consider meetings between all par- ties.

Be sure responsibility for project-related commu- nication and decision-making authority are clearly articulated within the library.

Select appropriate library contacts to work with vendors, especially staff who are flexible and have good knowledge of workflow.

Avoid having too many library contacts to reduce confusion for the vendor and within the library. Avoid involving too many staff in the project.

Document change requests and request documen- tation of action taken.

Be up front if requests from either party are off- base.

Include updates and documentation that show what is working and what is not in the partnership agreement.

-SERIALS SPOKEN HERE-

Try to predict future capacity needs. It is hard to know if planning is accurate, but do begin the pro- cess.

Find out if a new feature has been tested to handle your data load.

Be sure the vendor-partner understands the mixed operational/R&D environment within the library.

Expect that the experience will provide learning and training opportunities for library staff.

Manage the expectations of administration, staff, and vendors. Avoid making lots of promises for products that are still in development. Manage expectations around which enhancements will be part of the current or future releases.

Expect that some things will go wrong.

The audience’s response to the presentations and words of advice was very positive. Each presenter was successful in delivering essential information in con- cise form and a lively style. Everyone in the audience was the beneficiary of colleagues’ lessons learned and guiding words as we contemplate and plan our next system migration.

Clark is Assistant University Librarian for Technical Services, University of California, Irvine, PO Box 19556, Irvine, CA 92623-9556, (714) 824-7221, <cclark@uci.edu>.

TWELFTHANNUAL CONFERENCE OF THENORTH

AMERICAN SERIALS GROUP(NASIG), MAY 29,1997 - JUNE 1,1997

Darcy L. Jones

NASIG celebrated its twelfth annual conference this year on the campus of the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor. Although this conference was marked by almost continuous rainfall, no one let the weather dampen their spirits (admittedly, having President Bev- erly Geer-Butler make all attendees solemnly swear to not complain about the rain could have been a mitigat- ing factor). The attendees instead focused their atten- tions on the beautiful Michigan campus and the learning opportunities awaiting them in the conference. Following the opening session, a wonderful opening night dinner was served at the Michigan League, caus- ing one person at my table to declare, “This dinner is wonderful! It certainly Isn’t your typical rubber

V0~.23,No.3 (FAIL 1997) 75