Proposal to license and implement Serials Solutions Resource Manager - Consortial Edition and related services

Submitted to 2CUL TSI Steering Committee by the 2CUL TSI E-Resources Team

In response to our Phase 1 objective: Make a specific recommendation on whether to implement the Consortial Version of Serials Solutions at both institutions or hold off on integrating e-resource management and data migration until we have a shared LMS, the 2CUL TSI E-Resources Team proposes that 2CUL implement a common e-resource management system in order to facilitate collaboration across the range of e-resource activities. We believe that the most effective path to take is with the suite of tools provided by the Serials Solutions (a ProQuest company) Resource Manager system as both partners are already using some or all of the Serials Solutions system in their day to day work, minimizing the implementation effort required to be up and running together quickly.  The transition will require that:

1. Cornell license and implement the Resource Manager (RM) system. This will replace Cornell's Innovative Interfaces ERM system.
2. Cornell license and implement the Serials Solutions 360 COUNTER usage statistics service.  This will effectively take the place of Cornell's current usage stats wiki updating process.
3. 2CUL license and implement the Resource Manager Consortial Edition (RM-CE). 

Timeline: Ideally, we require a decision to move forward with this by mid-March in order to be able to migrate systems by the summer 2014. 

1.       What is the problem we need to address?

Our team has identified that having different systems in place for managing our electronic resource collections is a significantly greater barrier to successful collaboration than simply having different workflows. E-resources work relies heavily on Electronic Resource Management systems and currently, Cornell and Columbia have different systems.  The official delay of Alma implementation has highlighted the need to find an interim solution that will allow us to develop more common workflows, identify and perform shared work, and be better able to troubleshoot and solve e-resource problems across 2CUL. 

2.       How will the product address this problem?

RM - Both 2CUL partners currently have different ERM systems, increasing the number of complex systems staff across institutions will need to be skilled in using, and making common workflows significantly difficult to envision and implement.  Resource Manager is a robust e-resource management system, providing libraries with the ability to manage e-resource collections, record information about providers, licenses, and other data that is not easily handled by Voyager, and to easily include our holdings in various other Serials Solutions services such as Summon and 360 Link.  The implementation of RM in particular should be relatively low impact compared to what we would expect if we implemented an entirely different ERM system across 2CUL as both partners maintain most of their electronic holdings in the Serials Solutions knowledgebase and staff from both CULs are already familiar with the system.

360 COUNTER - Implementing 360 COUNTER at Cornell will maximize the common systems used in e-resource management across 2CUL.  Cornell currently harvests COUNTER usage data manually from over 100 providers annually, posting the individual reports on a wiki space for selectors and assessment staff to use.  Gathering this data is currently a time-consuming process (~.15 FTE/year to gather and maintain the reports and administrative information) and the current system provides no added functionality to merge or analyze reports (Cornell should expect to be able to save significant time in this area).  Among the features of 360 COUNTER are usage report harvesting, and consolidated reporting.  Finally, having data from both Cornell and Columbia gathered and stored in a common system will allow for more joint data analysis, potential shared maintenance, and to take advantage of future enhancements in the Serials Solutions assessment systems.

RM-CE -  Adding the consortial level service to RM will set a foundation for much greater collaboration in the areas of E-resource troubleshooting, accounts management, and common workflows.  As we integrate RM-CE features into our workflow, we will identify areas to reduce duplication of effort, reconcile holdings between partners, and gain valuable experience working together. 

If 2CUL moves ahead with Alma or another joint management system in the future, our work in all of these systems will help us migrate to a new system with a common vision.

3.       Has a trial taken place? What were the results?

Columbia has been using RM and 360 COUNTER systems in production since 2007 and 2009 respectively.  Several Cornell staff have had read access to Columbia's systems for six months.

Cornell has had an active trial to RM since September 2013 and 360 COUNTER since mid-January 2014.  Reports from various stakeholder groups are below:

• E-Resources Unit (Liisa Mobley, Rebecca Utz, Sally Lockwood, Heather Shipman, Jesse Koennecke) - Tested the general functionality, workflow features, and data management aspects of the RM system from a Cornell specific perspective.  The e-resources staff are already familiar with the Serials Solutions staff interface while working with the currently subscribed Serials Solutions services (MARC Updates, 360 Link, and Summon).  Adding ERM features to this existing workflow, rather than in a completely different system will likely show some increased efficiency in some areas of e-resources work.   Members of the unit have reported overall satisfaction with the system and they have unanimously expressed a desire to make the change.  The response from this team suggests that Cornell would consider migrating the the Resource Manager system even if 2CUL were not a factor.
• Discovery & Access Team - Two public interfaces at Cornell rely on the Innovative ERM system currently.  D&A has been considering updating these services to utilize the Integration Layer data or other systems, rather than Innovative.  They are examining this in depth during their February sprint.  It is likely that they will be able to replicate these services using a combination of Voyager data incorporated into the integration layer, the License Term API provided by RM, and the RM journal A-Z list interface.  More detail about this can be found in Appendix 2: Implementation Details.
• Technical and Data loading group (Gary Branch, Heather Shipman, Peter Martinez, Pete Hoyt, Chris Manly) -
  • Record loads - The group discussed how the current processes for updating Voyager, Innovative, and Serials Solutions will be affected by the transition.  They raised no concerns about making the change to RM and feel that any changes that are required in scripts or processes will be minimal.  Heather feels that the record loads into the Innovative ERM currently account for up to 24 hours every month.  This time can potentially be recouped, or used to manage more frequent updates from RM to Voyager.  Either way, we save some time or keep systems in better sync.
  • System hosting (Chris Manly) - The Innovative ERM system is locally hosted on a Cornell IT server.  This requires regular maintenance and updates in addition to a $2000/year fee.  RM and 360 COUNTER are cloud-hosted systems, managed by Serials Solutions.  The cost for this service is included in the annual fee structure for the services.
• Usage Statistics group (Rich Entlich, Sally Lockwood) - Looked at the 360 COUNTER product.  Cornell Trial began 1/22.  Detailed feedback may not come until Feb 7 or later.  The initial assumption is that it will benefit 2CUL to have the COUNTER data from both partners in the same system.  The testing team is determining if there are any show-stopper issues that would impact operations.
• 2CUL TSI E-Resources Team - Our team concentrated on the overall picture and have been impressed with the potential we see for our TSI work.  We particularly focused on articulating how the RM-CE layer will be initially populated and workflow issues that arise from working in a consortial system. 2CUL has not had an opportunity to trial the consortial aspects of RM-CE, the pricing offer provided by Serials Solutions (see pricing below) assumes that the first year of work in the consortial environment will be a pilot.  We have worked out an implementation model with Serials Solutions and will test various use cases in a sandbox version before going live.

4.       Is the product needed at both institutions?

Yes. Resource Manager and 360 COUNTER are already in place at Columbia.  Both products are needed at Cornell to maximize common systems.  Additionally, adding the RM-CE layer requires that both partners be operating on the RM system.

5.       What staff will use the product?

• E-Resources - Extensively for workflow, resource management, troubleshooting
• Selectors - View usage stats and resource information for collection decisions
• Batch processing - Perform batch loads from RM to Voyager and other systems
• Assessment - Access and process usage stats and package information
• Public Services (particularly Interlibrary Loan and E-Reserve) - To look up license permissions and available holdings

Costs (More details in appendix 1: Costs): 

• Cornell -
  • Annual: $11,693 (RM) + $10,450 (360 COUNTER)  - ~$10,000 (Innovative ERM cost recovery) = ~$12,000
  • One-time: $1969 + $3,990 (RM set-up) + $688 (360 COUNTER set-up) = $6,647
• Columbia - No change beyond 2CUL costs summarized below.
• 2CUL - Our team assumes these fees would be split evenly, but felt it was useful to single them out.
  • Annual:  $8,000 first year pilot, $20,000 future years (RM-CE)
  • One-time: $2,000 + $3,995 (RM-CE Implementation) = $5,995

Implementation Impact (more details in Appendix 2:):  To replace Cornell's Innovative ERM, work will be required in several areas:

Batch loading - Cornell batch processing and IT staff will need to review batch loads that involve the current ERM system

Public Interfaces

Staff time for migration - estimations

Data entry and matching:

• Columbia position - Columbia has offered to contribute the services of a full-time staff position to assist Cornell in making the transition to RM.  This position will assist in the move to the Consortial version of RM as well.  The position is at the same level as the current staff in Electronic Resources at Columbia.
• Various other E-Resources staff

License Entry - need to enter at least what Cornell currently has in III. Develop checklist for license record entry and maintenance.

Batch loading cost data - not necessary during implementation, but should be started

Expectations

• Get the partner libraries onto a common e-resource management system as soon as possible to:
  • Develop and implement joint workflows
  • Organize data for future transition to Alma

Cornell Resource Manager and 360 COUNTER Implementation plan:

• Public Interfaces - Cornell's Database Name and EJournal searches are currently utilizing the Innovative ERM.  These will need to be updated as described in appendix ???.
• Data Migration - Assistance from Columbia staff member

Appendix 1: Costs

Licensing the products:

RM at Cornell - 11,693/year plus one time set up $1969 (includes data population services) and a onetime consultation fee of $3990

360 COUNTER at Cornell - 10,450/year plus onetime set up 688

Consortial -~$14,000 total, split between CULs for first year.  $20,000 total years 2 and on. 

• Standard pricing is about 20k for you all but since this is a pilot (and you all are good PQ customers), we can cut that to 8K for the year of the pilot and see how it goes.  There is also an implementation fee of $2,000 and a consulting fee of $3995.  We can create a statement of work to be sure we are aware of what the implementation looks like.  This will allow you to take time to work on the project without limitations and see how it works for you.

Cost recovery opportunities:

• Innovative ERM License fee - currently approximately $7,500-$8,000/year.  This is paid until September 31, 2014.
• Innovative ERM server - Once we get through the migration to the linux VM, our server cost for the III ERM will be about $2000/year as the server is currently spec'd.  (We may need to adjust its provisioning depending on actual performance once it's up and running in production.)  The support contract with III is in the ballpark of $10K/year.  Let me know if you need more specific numbers than that - chris

Appendix 2: Implementation Details

Database Names - 948 field: webfeatdb - subject fields to facilitate browsability by curated subjects.  DRC curates the list.  License terms to be held in SSRM, linked to from appropriate records.

Responsible parties - Discovery & Access Team (interface design and implementation), E-Resource Staff (Record management and license entry)

****eJournals - D&A or Serials Solutions A-Z list?

Batch Loading (Pete Hoyt, Chris Manly), Gary Branch, Heather Shipman, Jesse Koennecke)

Serials Solutions / Voyager / ERM interaction

899 Codes

Consortial System Implementation - The specific details are still being worked out.  The current plan is to replicate Columbia's Resource Manager data to populate the Consortial layer's "parent" 2CUL database, then linking that to the two "child" databases for Cornell and Columbia.  Many resources will match up relatively easily after this first pass as the 2CUL partners have significant overlap in collections.  We will identify project work to match other resources as appropriate.  This may be a great area for Columbia's proposed staff member to work on.

To be tested (can we test the sandbox over a relatively short period?   2 weeks?):

• MARCIVE records?  How do these fit in?  Other sources of records?
• Does Columbia data as "parent" help or hinder?
• Workflow - what goes in CE layer, what goes in local?  Are there one or more clear scenarios for this?