1 / 25

Orbis Cascade Alliance and WorldCat Navigator

Orbis Cascade Alliance and WorldCat Navigator. October 9, 2009 NISO Forum. Kyle Banerjee Digital Services Program Manager. Orbis Cascade Alliance. 36 institutions in Oregon & Washington Private & Public, 2-year & 4-year Colleges, Universities, Community colleges

darrius-echo
Download Presentation

Orbis Cascade Alliance and WorldCat Navigator

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Orbis Cascade Allianceand WorldCat Navigator October 9, 2009 NISO Forum Kyle Banerjee Digital Services Program Manager

  2. Orbis Cascade Alliance 36 institutions in Oregon & Washington Private & Public, 2-year & 4-year Colleges, Universities,Community colleges Members serving 600 – 42,000 students (FTE)

  3. Major Programs • Electronic Resources • 62 libraries in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Hawaii • Databases, ejournals, ebooks, etc. • Northwest Digital Archives • 31 libraries and archives in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, and Alaska • EAD finding aids, union database, digital content • Summit Resource Sharing System • 36 academic institutions in Oregon and Washington • 9.2 million unique titles, 28.7 million items • WorldCat Navigator 2009 + • INN-Reach 1993-2008 • All members use III Integrated Library System

  4. Major Programs • Conferences & Workshops • ARL/ACRL Institute on Scholarly Communication • Code4Lib Northwest • Cooperative Collection Development • YBP agreement • Distributed Print Repository • Courier Service • 280 libraries served through 80 dropsites in Oregon, Washington, & Idaho • 400,000 packages per year • Digital Services • Digital collections, institutional repositories, etc.

  5. Summit Fulfillments: FY03-08

  6. What do we care about? Satisfaction Training Service

  7. How do we get those things? Global • Work at the highest appropriate level Regional Local

  8. How do we get those things? (cont) • Identify common operations and redundancies • Leverage existing data (e.g. barcodes already on the piece) and systems (e.g. authentication mechanisms) • Standardize on well designed tools and processes (e.g. paging slips, physical processing, etc) • Simplify, streamline, and automate repetitive tasks • Avoid manual processes such as searching, keying information, or transcription wherever possible

  9. What is WorldCat Navigator? • A hosted resource sharing platform (not an ILS) • Discovery experience based on WorldCat Group (a multi library version of WorldCat Local) • Delivery based on Navigator Request Engine (NRE) • Circulation functions (paging, most alerting, billing, check in/out) currently handled by local ILS

  10. What makes Navigator special? • Consortial borrowing support • Much greater efficiency (42% better on lending side) • Based on trust and shared information • Requests based on real time availability • Interfaces with existing ILS • Load balancing • Patrons make local, consortial and ILL requests using a single process • Circulation Gateway allows NRE to “talk” to your local ILS when standards based protocols are not supported • Hosted at OCLC

  11. WorldCat LocalIndividual library catalog based on Worldcat.org discovery interface

  12. WorldCat GroupWorldCat Local instance that contains holdings of multiple libraries

  13. Navigator Request EngineStaff interface with resource sharing functionality

  14. Motivations for the migration • A better patron experience • More things that patrons need are not physically in the library, so improved discovery is needed • Patron shouldn’t need to know where something is before searching for it or ordering it. A patron who needs two books should use the same mechanism to request both • One set of credentials gets you everything • Strategic benefits • Move towards network level services and reduction of redundant systems and workflows • Standards based solution essential for long term viability and bringing disparate services together • Leadership opportunity • Partnership with OCLC

  15. Timeline • March 21, 2008 • Board decision to work with OCLC to develop Navigator • Implementation Team and workgroups formed • October 15 • WorldCat Navigator delivered • November • Work out bugs, get trainers and staff up to speed • December 1 • Showtime!

  16. How we spent our time • Holdings reclamation • WorldCat Local and Navigator depend on accurate holdings data • Configuration • In NRE: Request managing locations, shelf and pickup locations, notices, institutional patrons, paging slips, holds, etc • Hundreds, possibly thousands of parameters • At local sites (varies with ILS): network connectivity, indexing, reclamation, accounts, holds, paging slips, firewall, load tables, templates

  17. How we spent our time (continued) • Training/Communication • Hundreds of staff affected • Circ/ILL reconfiguration • Faculty and patrons need to be informed • Managing the jitters • Developing components • “Resolver Resolver” • ILL Resolver • Batch paging slips

  18. The “Resolver resolver”

  19. Paging slip

  20. Consortial workflow and fairness is important • Load balancing ensures all institutions benefit/contribute • Before automated load balancing, only 11% institutions have received/shipped ratio between 0.9 and 1.1. • Huge disparities. Worst ratio is 9.1 • After using automatic load balancing for two months • 86% of membership has shipped/received ratio between 0.9 and 1.1 • About 3/5 of libraries have ratio between 0.95 and 1.05 • Worst ratio is 1.1 (11 items received for every 10 lent) • Expect rates to improve with time

  21. Navigator resource sharing at a glance

  22. Side effects vary by institution • Consortial borrowing is down • ILL is up, particularly for nonreturnables. • Some institutions report increased use of electronic resources. • Staff workload manageable at all sites • Fulfillment rates down. Consortia wide since going live is 82%. Worst institution is 75%. • Fulfillment times are up • Relatively few complaints

  23. What lies ahead? • The network ILS • Do we really need to search, download, and catalog the same record 36 times? • Should authority control, serials publication patterns, vendor data, etc really be that different at different institutions? • Network circ allows easy formation of arbitrary groups • Shared catalog • Best level to deliver service may be at consortial rather than global level • Resource sharing requires compatibility • Standardization at service and protocol level • Must play well in mixed environments

  24. Transforming good ideas into reality Make it work, make it fast, make it slick (in that order) • Don’t get distracted by the small stuff Buy in is critical • Communication is key for having people take ownership of the process • Understanding pain points is essential to maintaining credibility with front line workers • Find ways to productively engage people Progress requires upsetting the status quo • Collaborative efforts cause discomfort and local change • Doing things halfway to appease those raise concerns can make the pain far worse…

  25. Questions? October 9, 2009 NISO Forum Kyle Banerjee Digital Services Program Manager

More Related