march 7 2013 n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
SWAN Member’s Quarterly Meeting PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
SWAN Member’s Quarterly Meeting

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 33

SWAN Member’s Quarterly Meeting - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 166 Views
  • Uploaded on

March 7, 2013. SWAN Member’s Quarterly Meeting. 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

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'SWAN Member’s Quarterly Meeting' - abril


Download Now 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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
swan director s report
SWAN Director’s Report
  • New SWAN staff
  • Server Migration
  • Projects completed Dec 2012 – February 2013
  • Reporter & Decision Center Update
new swan staff
New SWAN Staff
  • Brande Redfield, Office Manager
  • Lauren Peltier, Member Services Support Analyst
  • Diane Nickolaou, Bibliographic Services Clerk
  • Samantha Dietel, Member Services Consultant
swan infrastructure
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
New Servers: Smaller, Faster, Stronger
  • Complex Migration
    • Red Hat Linux replaces Solaris Unix
    • Virtualized VMware
    • 32 CPUs vs. 4 CPU
    • 64GB RAM vs. 32GB

Our monitoring service of server activity: now in 32 colors!

new servers smaller faster stronger1
New Servers: Smaller, Faster, Stronger

Retiring… Production, Test, & Report servers

New! In the rack, ready… Production, Test, & Report

post migration issues1
Post-migration Issues
  • Millennium Bib & Item Retrieval is SlowSolution: Millennium software patch coming
  • Patron Images & Digital Signatures Cause MilCirc to Run SlowSolution: network DNS fix, see memo details
  • Keyword Indexing: new records appear after 10 minutesSolution: will adjust timing of indexer
  • Printing Issues: hold slipsSolution: network DNS fix, see memo details
projects completed dec 2012 february 2013
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
Projects Completed: Go Green
  • Message added to My Account within WebPAC
  • 2,900 new email addresses collected
boopsie mobile breakthrough
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
Upcoming Projects March – May 2013
  • Reduce Millennium backup time
  • Reporter implementation
  • ILS Committee recommendation
  • Complete new SWAN support website
swan reporter decision center
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
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 member rfid projects
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
SWAN Password Change
  • Reminder: use the URL below
  • http://204.120.131.105/director/
slide19

End of Executive Director report

  • Look for this presentation here:http://support.swanlibraries.net/gov/meetings
ils committee report
ILS Committee Report
  • Jeannie Dilger, La Grange Public Library
  • Aaron Skog, SWAN ED
strategic plan goal 1
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 report1
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
ils committee survey
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 survey1
ILS Committee Survey

Patron Features

  • Easier to use OPAC70% rated this "very important" which was the highest within this section of the survey
  • E-Resources are downloadable/accessible via OPAC42% rated "very important" followed by a close second of "important" at 40%
  • Patrons can opt into a variety of online services (customize their experience)47% rated "important"
  • Mobile web interface for OPAC44% rated “important”
  • Patron ability to access and edit their own personal information (email address, etc)38% rated “very important” & 37% rated “important”
ils committee survey2
ILS Committee Survey

ILS Features – Ranked

ils committee survey3
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 survey4
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
    • OPACe-Resource Integration = 12
    • OPAC Other = 35
  • Interface (general) = 56
  • Performance (speed, downtime, etc.) = 43
  • Flexibility = 9
  • Ports = 7
  • Other = 33
director responses
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 responses1
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 responses2
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 responses3
Director Responses

Administrator Question #4: Rankings

Library directors asked to put into order the reasons their library belongs to SWAN