SWAN Member’s Quarterly Meeting

March 7, 2013

SWAN Director’s Report

New SWAN staff Server Migration Projects completed Dec 2012 –

February 2013 Reporter & Decision Center Update

New SWAN Staff

Brande Redfield, Office Manager Lauren Peltier, Member Services

Support Analyst Diane Nickolaou, Bibliographic

Services Clerk Samantha Dietel, Member Services

Consultant

SWAN Organization

SWAN Infrastructure

Replace 3 Millennium ILS servers Production, Report, and Training/Test Move away from Oracle/Sun hardware Production server 5 years (purchased

2007) Servers showing age, higher cost to

support Target: complete replacement by end of

2012

New Servers: Smaller, Faster, Stronger

Complex Migration Red Hat Linux

replaces Solaris Unix

Virtualized VMware 32 CPUs vs. 4 CPU 64GB RAM vs. 32GBOur monitoring service of server

activity: now in 32 colors!

New Servers: Smaller, Faster, Stronger

Retiring… Production, Test, & Report servers

New! In the rack, ready… Production,

Test, & Report

Post-migration Issues

Post-migration Issues

1. Millennium Bib & Item Retrieval is SlowSolution: Millennium software patch coming

2. Patron Images & Digital Signatures Cause MilCirc to Run SlowSolution: network DNS fix, see memo details

3. Keyword Indexing: new records appear after 10 minutesSolution: will adjust timing of indexer

4. Printing Issues: hold slipsSolution: network DNS fix, see memo details

Projects completed Dec 2012 – February 2013

INNOPAC access ended (except for Lansing)

Time to Shelve “Black Friday” gift Go Green email sign-up Boopsie mobile Hinsdale project ILS Committee (4 SWAN staff, 5

library staff)

Projects Completed: Go Green

Message added to My Account within WebPAC

2,900 new email addresses collected

Boopsie Mobile: Breakthrough

Boopsie mobile app Hinsdale, Downers

Grove, Oak Pk Hinsdale project:

patron self-checkout on app

Technical success with SIP2 running in VPN to Boopsie servers

“BookCheck” not live yet, needs testing

Upcoming Projects March – May 2013

Reduce Millennium backup time Reporter implementation ILS Committee recommendation Complete new SWAN support

website

SWAN Reporter & Decision Center

Update: Decision Center

delayed by III Reporter v 2.2

possible now Upgrade Millennium

R2011 to get Decision Ctr & Reporter v 2.3

III will eventually merge both products

Reporter & Decision Center Update

What next? III answers Option 1: move forward with Reporter

v2.2 after new servers, wait on Decision Center

Option 2: Reporter v2.3 & Decision Center after R2011 upgrade

Other options: will be explored, bring to SWAN Board at 3/15 meeting

R2011 upgrade not set, prior to this news Q3 2013 was target for upgrade

SWAN Support Website

SWAN Member RFID Projects Libraries with RFID:

Oak Park, Flossmoor, Elmhurst, Prairie Trails, Homewood

Libraries underway:▪ Elmwood Park▪ Downers Grove▪ Oak Lawn

Goal: create an RFID “profile” for SWAN members

Consultants: Convergent, Galecia Group, Shawn Shafer @ Elmwood Pk

SWAN Password Change

Reminder: use the URL below http://204.120.131.105/director/

End of Executive Director report Look for this presentation here:

http://support.swanlibraries.net/gov/meetings

ILS Committee Report

Jeannie Dilger, La Grange Public Library

Aaron Skog, SWAN ED

Strategic Plan Goal #1

Recommend direction for SWAN integrated library system (ILS) platform Innovative Interface’s Inc. (III) Sierra: next ILS announced 2010 SWAN’s agreement with Innovative ends

May 18, 2013 How long do we stay on Millennium? Is Sierra our best choice?

ILS Committee Report

Strategic plan goal Nine reps: 4 SWAN staff, 5 member library

Jeannie Dilger & Aaron Skog, co-chairs Kate Boyle, SWAN Tony Siciliano , SWAN Mary Lou Coffman , SWAN Pilar Shaker, Hinsdale Ahren Sievers, Elmwood Park Vickie Totton, Cicero Rebecca Teasdale, Oak Park

Researched Vendor/Support/Developer

Alma Ex Libris Group

Evergreen Open-source (Equinox)

Koha Open-source (ByWater Solutions)

Kuali OLE Open-source (Kulali Foundation)

Polaris ILS Polaris

Sierra LMS Innovative Interfaces Inc.

Symphony SirsiDynix

WorldShare Management Services

OCLC

Virtua VTLS, Inc.

ILS Committee: January Research

ILS Committee Survey

All library staff Special section for

Administrators/Directors Purpose

Help the Committee narrow selection

Scalability, tiered services, deal breakers, suggestions

We received 515 responses to the survey from 71 member libraries

ILS Committee Survey

Patron Features1. Easier to use OPAC

70% rated this "very important" which was the highest within this section of the survey

2. E-Resources are downloadable/accessible via OPAC42% rated "very important" followed by a close second of "important" at 40%

3. Patrons can opt into a variety of online services (customize their experience)47% rated "important"

4. Mobile web interface for OPAC44% rated “important”

5. Patron ability to access and edit their own personal information (email address, etc)38% rated “very important” & 37% rated “important”

ILS Committee Survey

1st Consistent and reliable response time at peak hours

2nd Quality training and accessible documentation

3rd Strong support and ongoing development from the vendor

4thRobust bibliographic data tools allowing for easy manipulation by staff & vendors

5th Notifications via phone, email or text

6thCustomizable holds system designed for a multi-library group

7th Support for a variety of mobile devices

8th Staff and Patron screens are similar

9th Seamless and easy offline system

10th Operating system neutral

ILS Features – Ranked

ILS Committee Survey

If you could keep one thing about our current ILS, what would it be? 505 of response to the open-ended were categorized in this way: WebPAC                                50+ Holds functionality           40 Patron Ease of Use  34 Empowered patrons                      20 Staff screen display                         20 Cover art, book reviews, etc.  13 Rapid updating of records            10           Scoping of the catalog                    9

There were votes for linked patrons (4), reading history (9), patron entry (6), limiting (7), Encore (6), templates (4), patron images (3), E-Commerce (1), & hold wrappers (1). Then there were the “anything but Millennium” respondents (9).

ILS Committee Survey

If you could change one thing about our current ILS, what would it be? Staff client = 119

Staff client integration = 14 Staff client interface = 12 Staff client reports = 7 Staff client search = 21 Staff client other = 65

OPAC = 109 OPAC Interface = 29 OPAC Search = 33 OPAC e-Resource Integration = 12 OPAC Other = 35

Interface (general) = 56 Performance (speed, downtime, etc.) = 43 Flexibility = 9 Ports = 7 Other = 33

Director Responses

Administrator Question #1: Which of the following best describes your feelings about the size of SWAN’s membership? I would be open to adding new

members, to help spread out costs: 95% (55)

I think SWAN is big enough already, and should not grow: 5% (3)

Director Responses

Administrator Question #2: As a library director, if you were presented with the following, which would you chose? My library needs only the basics and would like

it at a lower cost: 10% (6) My library needs a lot of features and options;

we are willing to pay more than other libraries: 20% (12)

The SWAN consortia should have features for all its members to equally participate in the system, which will ease the overall software administration: 70% (42)

Director Responses

Administrator Question #3: When a consortium migrates to a new ILS, it is not uncommon for some libraries to decide to leave the consortium at that time. Which of the following might make your library consider leaving SWAN?  Large increase in fees. Note that SWAN does not

intend to increase fees, but this information will be helpful in our selection of an ILS: 40% (25)

Loss of specific functionality: 8% (5) When my library has to migrate the ILS we would

consider a stand-alone ILS option: 6% (4) My library would never leave SWAN: 46% (29)

Director Responses

1st Access to a Larger Collection2nd Economies of Scale3rd Patron Convenience4th Affordability5th Sharing My Library's Resources6th Technology Changes7th Networking

Administrator Question #4: RankingsLibrary directors asked to put into order the reasons their library belongs to SWAN

ILS Committee Survey Questions?

Discussion