alma migration at the orbis cascade alliance joseph kiegel

Alma Migration at the Orbis Cascade Alliance

Joseph Kiegel

A Few Words About the Orbis Cascade Alliance

> 37 academic institutions in Oregon, Washington and Idaho

> Public and private institutions of a variety of sizes– Community colleges– Four year colleges– Regional universities– ARL universities

> Governed by a Council of 37 library deans and directors

Deciding to Migrate to a Shared ILS

Alliance Goals for a Shared ILS

> Continue the core mission of managing, building and sharing a combined collection and offering first-rate service

> Advance future collaborative work– Collaborative technical systems initiative

> “A new kind of system and a new way of operating”– To create new services, integrate with other systems, create new

workflows and extract data

First Step: RFI

> To aid in planning, the Alliance sought information from organizations on their ability to provide library management services in a consortial environment

> RFI Timeline– Released: February 2011– Responses due: March 2011– Alliance determines next steps: May 2011 +

Results of the RFI

> A study team analyzed and summarized RFI responses

> It concluded:– Market is mature enough, although products are new– Several vendors have a vision that is consistent with the Alliance’s– Vendors are mature and experienced– Core functionality is present, but familiar features of the old system

may be lacking– Alliance will need to commit to a high degree of collaboration with a

vendor to get the best results

Next Step: RFP

> The RFI study team recommended that the Alliance proceed with an RFP

> Council approved it in July 2011

> Since the Alliance expected to consider new approaches, the RFP was intentionally broad and focused on outcomes rather than detailed functional requirements

RFP Timeline

> RFP was schedule-driven rather than results-driven

> Timeline:– RFP released: January 2012– Proposals due: February 2012– Product demonstrations: April 2012– Negotiation phase: May-June 2012

Opportunities for Staff Comments

> December 2011 – comments on a draft RFP

> February 2012 – draft scripts for product demonstrations

> April 2012 – comments on product demonstrations

Result of the RFP

> April 2012 – Innovative Interfaces and Ex Libris were invited to the negotiation phase

> July 2012 – Alliance Council chose Ex Libris– “Ex Libris was a clear standout and judged to be the preferred option”

> December 2012 – contract signed with Ex Libris

Organizing for Implementation

Implementation Timeline

> Implementation started in January 2013– Schedule driven rather than results driven

> Four cohorts of libraries, with six months each– Cohort 1: six libraries, live in June 2013– Cohort 2: eleven libraries, live in December 2013– Cohort 3: ten libraries, live in June 2014– Cohort 4: ten libraries, live in December 2014

> Cohorts were based on institution size and readiness

Alliance Staffing for Migration

> Shared ILS Program Manager– Hired a temporary manager, and then recruited for a permanent one

> Shared ILS Implementation Team– Chaired by the Program Manager– Staffed by chairs of working groups– Working groups were organized on the model of the former ILS:

Acquisitions, Cataloging, Serials/ERM, Circulation and Resource Sharing, Discovery, Systems, and Training

Functions of the Working Groups

> Assisted each cohort with migration

> Organized Alliance reporting of problems and enhancements

> Provided a means of communication– Peer to peer– From the Implementation Team out to libraries

> Developed some Alliance-wide procedures

Working Group Methods

> 6-8 members and 37 institutional representatives

> Worked by e-mail and regular telephone meetings– In-person meetings were rare

> As migration proceeded, institutional representatives were added to the phone calls– 20-30 participants on a call was normal

Written Communication

> Regular e-mail updates from the Program Manager

> Periodic e-mail from the Implementation Team

> Alliance Web site for shared documentation– Organized by working groups

> In reality, Google Drive was used most by working groups

Training Plan

> Vendor provided training for Cohort 1

> Expectation that Cohort 1 would train Cohort 2 was not met– Vendor provided training for Cohort 2

> Alliance provided the greater part of the training for Cohorts 3 and 4– Cohort 1 trained 3, and Cohort 2 trained 4

Training Methods

> Training model was train-the-trainer– Those trained were expected to repeat this training in their libraries

> Most training was online via webinars– Webinars were recorded and available later

> “Functional Workshop” was used for each cohort– 2-3 days of in-person training– Workflow specific training

Additional Teams and Programs

> Collaborative Technical Services Team

> Center of Excellence

Collaborative Technical Services Team

> Charged with exploring and implementing shared practices in technical services

> In fact, it spent most of its time on ILS migration– Focused on policy rather than ILS implementation

> Also organized by working groups: Acquisitions, Cataloging, Serials/ERM, and Training

Center of Excellence

> Meant as a development partnership with the vendor

> Focused on the development and enhancement of Alma and Primo and best practices for consortia

> Relatively slow to get off the ground and did not have a significant impact on the migration itself

Challenges: Organizational and Technical

Training Did Not Meet Expectations

> Often demonstration rather than instruction

> Done in sandboxes that were not fully configured or functional

> Manuals showed how to push buttons, not how to accomplish tasks

> Little explanation was given on how Alma really works

Documentation Was Hard to Manage

> Alliance established a passworded Web site for migration documentation, organized by working group

> But the goal of broad access and semi-decentralized control was never met

> Working groups used more convenient alternatives, such as Google Drive

Details of the Migration Process Changed

> Migration procedures and data forms changed from cohort to cohort

> Each cohort was advised by the one before it– Earlier cohorts were no longer up to date

Production Systems Not Ready at Go-Live

> Libraries were not given full access to configuration menus until after go-live

> As a result, some functions did not work immediately, e.g. EDI

Some Functions Were Not Fully Working

> Import profiles (loaders) did not work reliably

> Shared database (Network Zone) was new and not fully functional– Local bib fields were not available for Cohort 1– Bound-withs were unreliable– OCLC loading was not working well– Some import profiles did not work with the Network Zone

Organizing for the Post-Migration Period

Organization Structure

> Alliance is now organized by programs

– Collaborative Workforce– Content Creation & Dissemination– Resource Sharing– Shared Content– Discovery & Delivery– Systems

> Responsibility for Alma and Primo is divided among teams

– Acquisitions and Resource Management: Collaborative Workforce

– Primo and Alma Fulfillment: Discovery & Delivery

– Management of vendor relations: Systems

Lessons To Be Learned

> Communication is King

> Provide some detail in your vision

> If there is system functionality you want, include it in the RFP

> Give yourself a realistic amount of time for implementation

> Organize committees on the model of the new system rather than the old one

> Provide a document management system that is flexible and easy to use

> Provide backup for staff working intensively at the consortial level

More Information Available

https://www.orbiscascade.org/shared-ils-1