Post on 11-Jan-2016
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