Why WMS? - ALA Connect

Report
Cloudy in Malibu:
Pepperdine Libraries’ Migration to OCLC’s
Webscale Management System
Michael W. Dula, Ph.D.
Gan(Grace) Ye
Director for Digital Initiatives &
Technology Strategy
Pepperdine University Libraries
[email protected]
Digital Systems Librarian
Pepperdine University Libraries
[email protected]
WMS Features
WorldCat (242,757,082 records)
WorldCat Local
Cataloging
Circulation
Acquisitions
KnowledgeBase
LicenseManager
Cooperative Intelligence and Reporting
(pending)
Where We Started
• 521,000 records in Voyager, many of which had been migrated
from an earlier system.
• Upgrades always somewhat difficult to fit into academic calendar.
Usually have to do over Christmas break. Time-consuming and
risky.
• Complex needs to support multiple branches, separate School of
Law database, overseas programs.
• Getting systems to talk to each other always difficult: Voyager,
EZproxy, Syndetics Solutions, link manager, website, e-reserves,
interlibrary loan, patron management, suppliers, etc.
Phase 1: WorldCat Local, Fall 2009
• Preceded decision to pilot WMS.
• Looking for a better search interface for
our patrons
• Wanted to implement Web 2.0 features
• Looking for a long term federated
search strategy
• Wanted to expand access to collections
outside our own
WorldCat Local: The Big Data
Cleanup
• Required substantial batch load project to bring
our WorldCat holdings up to date.
• Also required a data cleanup of our Voyager
database to bring records up to date with
accurate, properly formatted OCLC numbers.
• Ongoing cleanup efforts underway to ensure
that records display accurately in WCL.
Voyager Search Interface vs. WCL
Search Results
Easy to Access E-Resources
Easy to Request Item via ILL
Easy to Request Item via ILL
Initial Results
•
Combination of WCL and ILLiad yielded increased searching (64% more
searches) and borrowing. ILL volume tripled.
•
Feedback from students and faculty was very positive.
•
BUT...
•
Patrons still had to access Voyager system to renew books, see pending
orders, and view their account information.
•
Library staff had to be familiar with two systems.
•
Duplication of labor in cataloging and acquisitions among Voyager,
WorldCat, and our PeopleSoft accounting system.
•
Can we provide a Web 2.0 user experience for our staff as well as our
patrons?
Phase 2: Implementing WMS
•
We got our first look at about the same time WCL went live at
the end of last summer.
•
Moving the ILS to the cloud fit our technology goals.
•
A number of our technical services and circulation librarians
tried out and commented on the first prototype Circulation
interface.
•
Goal is to bring efficiencies to Circulation and Acquisitions
processes and reduce TCO.
Why WMS? Cloud Technology
•
•
•
•
Outsourced hosting: Library already using for iTunes U,
CONTENTdm. University using for Blackboard, Sakai.
In past year, Library had also added hosted ILLiad, WorldCat
Link Manager.
Web server moved in December from Library Sun server to
central Pepperdine servers.
We want to get out of the server management business and
manage information, not technology.
Why WMS? The Features
• Web 2.0 features like tagging, RSS feeds.
• User interface that makes life much easier for our staff.
• OCLC’s plans for integration with ILLiad, WorldCat Link
Manager, ezProxy, CONTENTdm, etc.
• Shared data—vendor management, license
management, statistics.
• Opportunities for 3rd party integration: widgets galore!
Why WMS? Cost/Benefit
•
•
•
•
•
The addition of WorldCat Local and ILLiad has already
increased circulation, tripled our ILL volume, and made our
patrons happier.
Our total system costs would drop significantly as soon as we
made the transition.
Our Acquisitions and Cataloging workflow become markedly
more efficient.
We won’t have to worry about replacing our near end-of-life
Sun servers or upgrading software every year or two.
Our Systems Librarian will actually have time to work on other
projects besides the care and feeding of the ILS.
Data Migration
WMS System Data Requirements
Our holdings in WorldCat should be complete and up to
date.
We need to send following data to OCLC:
•
•
•
•
Bibliographic Records: OCLC#s, Local system IDs. Each bib
record should have a unique bib ID.
Local Holding and Item Records
Patron Data: unique bar code and patron type for each patron
Circulation Transaction Data: Items checked out, bills/fines,
holds
WMS System Data Requirements
Local Holding Records
•Our OCLC symbol
•OCLC Holding Location Code
•Shelving Location
•Call Number, and Item Barcode
•856 field for electronic records, and holdings information
for serials (enumeration levels, chronology, frequency,
numbering schemes, etc.) is also stored in the Local Holdings
Record.
Voyager Data
•Bibliographic Records: 542,601
•Holding Records: 568,684
•Item Records: 405,433
•Patron Records: 14,620
•Circulation Transactions: around 500,000
Data Migration Process
First Step:
Updating our current holdings in WorldCat.
Batchload Projects:
•We exported our bibliographic records and sent to OCLC
•OCLC matched our bibliographic records to WorldCat records
•OCLC added our OCLC symbol to indicate we hold the items.
•OCLC generated cross reference files including our records’
Voyager system IDs and corresponding OCLC#s.
•We added/updated OCLC#s in our records
Data Migration Process
Second Step:
•Local holding and item records
•Patron data
•Circulation transactions data
Problems and Challenges
Problems and Challenges
Item public/non-public note field
Problems and Challenges
We found the note was put to 876$z field in our LHR
records at the Connexion site:
Problems and Challenges
Patron Group/Type
In Voyager, one patron can
have multiple patron
groups.
In WMS, one patron can
have only one patron
group
Problems and Challenges
Patron Group/Type
Voyager
PATRON_GROUP_NAME
WMS
Alumni
Crest Associates
Dependents of fac/staff
Faculty
GSBM distance learners
GSBM students
GSEP distance learners
GSEP students
Graduating seniors
Inst. of Dispute Resolutn
Law Faculty
Law students
Public policy students
Seaver graduate students
Summer high school stdnt
Undergraduate students
others
Patron Type
Faculty
Staff
Graduate
Undergraduate
Other
Borrow Priority
5
4
3
2
1
Phase 3: E-Resource Management
in WMS
E-Serials:
PubGet  WorldCat Knowledge Base
E-Books:
Package: WorldCat Knowledge Base
Single Title Purchase:
WorldCat Knowledge Base or
Create LHR (Local Holding Record)
Set up Our Vendor Logins
Check Our Logins
Check Our Holdings Update
WorldCat Knowledge Base
WorldCat Local Site
Connexion Site
Updating e-Book Holdings Workflow
Before Dec. 2010:
Downloaded records from vendors’ sites
Updated 856 links in the records
Loaded records into Voyager
Exported records from Voyager
Sent records to OCLC to update our holdings in WorldCat
Jan. 2011-Jul. 2011
Downloaded records from vendors’ sites
Sent records to OCLC to update our holdings in WorldCat
Searched and Marked the collection/records as owned via
the Knowledge Base
Aug. 2011Searched and Marked the collection/records as owned at
the KB (OCLC has monthly update to synchronize KB data with vendors’ data.)
E-book Collection
E-book Collection
E-book Collection
E-book Collection
Single e-Book Purchase Order
Add Our Holding at the KB
Holding Appears in WMS
Holding Appears in WCL
Outcomes
Some Advantages of Being in the
Cloud
•
•
•
•
No longer have clients, servers, or updates to
manage
Can work from a laptop from anywhere (in
the stacks, at home, overseas)
Logins are person-specific—no longer have
department logins
No longer log into specific modules—you are
given all of the permissions you need to do
your job
Impact on Library Workflows:
Circulation
• Look and usability of WMS is great
• Having Pull list and Cancel Hold Shelf
list in real time is fabulous
• Reserves system has worked very well
• Holds are still being improved—item
level holds are due in November
Impact on Library Workflows:
Acquisitions
• Specify shelf location at time of order
• Scan barcodes into WMS during receiving
(which receives item, attaches a Bib record,
and creates LHR in Connexion)
• Check items out to internal “in process”
patron rather than changing status
(temporary)
• No longer load YBP EDI invoices (temporary)
Impact on Library Workflows:
Cataloging
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
No longer export bib records into local system
No longer update holdings in OCLC
No longer edit records in local system
Catalog all items in Connexion including
laptops and white board markers
Had to learn about Local Holdings Records
(LHRs)
Check displays in WorldCat Local
No longer attach barcodes to items
Impact on Library Workflows:
E-Resource Management
•
•
•
•
•
•
Most e-resources now discoverable through
same interface (WCL) as everything else
Most vendor subscriptions now updated
automatically via PubGet and KB
Don’t need separate federated search product
No local system needed to store vendor records
Vendor authentication in KB, works with ezProxy
Centralized management of ILL rights for eresources
The Path Ahead
•
•
•
•
•
•
Single sign-on support
Custom reporting and notifications
Implementation of License Manager for
improved license management
New apps and widgets yet to be conceived
Increased use of shared data such as serial
publishing pattern data and peer
institution comparison data
Integration with PeopleSoft accounting
system
Questions?
Michael W. Dula, Ph.D.
Director for Digital Initiatives &
Technology Strategy
Pepperdine University Libraries
[email protected]
Gan(Grace) Ye
Digital Systems Librarian
Pepperdine University Libraries
[email protected]

similar documents