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:
Timeline: Ideally, we require a decision to move forward with this by mid-March in order to be able to migrate to the new 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:
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?
Costs (More details in appendix 1: Costs, and in draft Cornell order form):
Summary:
Breakdown:
RM at Cornell
License fees - $11,693/year plus one time set up $1969 (includes data population services) and a onetime consultation fee of $3990
Cost recovery opportunities:
Benefits and potential savings:
360 COUNTER at Cornell
License fees $10,450/year plus onetime set up $688
Benefits and potential savings:
RM-CE for 2CUL
License fees - $14,000 total, split between CULs for first year. $20,000 total years 2+.
Benefits and potential savings:
Implementation Impact (more details in Appendix 2: Implementation Details): We plan to implement the system over a two month period, ending during the summer 2014. To replace Cornell's Innovative ERM, work will be required in several specific areas beyond the 2CUL e-resources units:
Batch loading - Cornell batch processing and IT staff will need to review batch loads that involve the current Innovative ERM system to address any changes. The group has concluded that any necessary changes will be minimal and should not require major time commitments.
Public Interfaces - The Discovery & Access Team will need to implement new discovery solutions for Cornell's Database Names and E-Journal searches. The team is currently investigating solutions during their February sprint. All of the data required to replicate these services is available outside of the Innovative System. In particular:
Estimated time commitments during 2 month implementation period (itemized in more detail in Appendix 2):
Below are the primary areas of focus during the implementation process. Where possible, time estimates are provided. These are expected to be covered by a combination of the open Columbia position and/or absorbed by existing staff in the indicated areas.
Cornell Database Names - Responsible parties - Discovery & Access Team (interface design and implementation), E-Resource Staff (Record management and license entry). The D&A team was preparing to investigate these alternatives as part of their project.
Cornell eJournals - There is potential to use the Serials Solutions journal A-Z list to provide this service. If not, the Discovery & Access team will have to decide if this is essential and how to implement it. The data to produce it is available in the relevant Voyager records and via the License Data API from RM. Currently, 899 codes are used in Voyager to match journals in a collection to their parent collection.
Batch Loading - Responsible parties - Pete Hoyt, Chris Manly, Gary Branch, Heather Shipman, Jesse Koennecke - This group will address any issues that arise related to batch loads between Serials Solutions, Voyager, and the Innovative ERM. We expect the required changes to be minimal although there may be potential to overhaul the processes more thoroughly in the future. Time Estimate: 10-20 hours from CUL IT and Batch processing staff
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. Time Estimate: 40 hours testing across e-resources staff. This is expected to continue to take some time from existing e-resource staff as we ideinfy and implement best practices.
To be tested:
Data entry and matching collections - These aspects of migration from Innovative to RM, and connecting Cornell and Columbia's RM collections to the parent RM-CE records to be the most labor intensive aspects of implementation. Most of this work can be accomplished by e-resource staff. The goal is to sync as much as possible between the 2CUL collections records. The following staff will be essential for making this work smoothly and quickly (Time Estimate: 150+ hours during implementation from Columbia staff member and/or existing e-resources staff to match data records across collections and migrate information from Innovative ERM system) :
License Record Entry - Cornell staff will need to enter license data to match at least what is currently entered in the Innovative system. Some of this will be able to be migrated, but there will also be some manual entry and updating required. Time Estimate: 25-40 hours from e-resources staff during implementation to match current level of completion.
Batch loading cost data - This is not necessary during implementation, but should be started as early as possible to have resource cost data included in the system. This data can then be examined across 2CUL collections and utilized by the 360 COUNTER Service to estimate cost-per-use. Time Estimate: 20-30 hours from e-resources and batch loading staff to investigate and develop workflow.