ERM Showcase @ EGL-IUG 2010 · Credo, EEBO (ProQuest/Chadwyck-Healey), ECCO ... •We just finished...
Transcript of ERM Showcase @ EGL-IUG 2010 · Credo, EEBO (ProQuest/Chadwyck-Healey), ECCO ... •We just finished...
ERM Showcase @ EGL-IUG 2010
A Sample of How OhioLINK Libraries Utilize Electronic Resource
Management Systems
EGL-IUG Panel PresentationOverview
• OhioLINK 2.0 Task Force
• Introduce panelists
• Brief overview of ERMs at selected OhioLINK sites
• Future work
• Questions and Discussion
10/15/2010 2
Task Force – who are we?
• Fall 2009 – task force suggested by OhioLINK Database Management and Standards Committee
• Fall / Winter – OhioLINK 2.0 Strategic Planning - committee structure formed
• ERM Task Force folded into 2.0
• Spring 2010 – O/L 2.0 ERM Task Force began work
10/15/2010 3
Co-Chair : Susan M. Banoun, University of Cincinnati
Co-Chair : Emily A. Hicks, University of Dayton
Frank J. Bove, University of Akron Amy Fry, Bowling Green State University
Cherie Bronkar, Muskingum University Sharon K. Hackett, Kent State University
Anita Cook, OhioLINK Kristine Kinzer, Ohio Wesleyan University
Kay Downey, Kent State University Jeanne M. Langendorfer, Bowling Green State Univ
Barbara Dunham, The Ohio State University .Joseph Payne, The Ohio State University, Health Science Library
Deberah England, Wright State University
OhioLINK 2.0 ERM Task Force
10/15/2010 4
Task Force Charge
• critical examination of local needs
• ensure a consistent and capable approach for user and staff access across OhioLINK institutions to ERM data.
• collaboration and sharing of best practices
• will enable individual sites to share experiences and develop standards
10/15/2010 5
Task Force Charge•Explore and document ERM system issues and best practices including record structures, codes and specifications, standards, and workflows
•Explore and document how the ERM module is used to provide user access to electronic resources
•Explore and document how the ERM module is used by staff to manage electronic resources.
•Develop functional requirements and processes that will fully integrate ERM records and functions to into the design of the OhioLINK 2.0 system
10/15/2010 6
Work to Date
• Website set up at OhioLINK for task force
• Survey OhioLINK sites on ERM use
• Bibliography of resources for ERMs
• Glossary (in progress)
• Showcase of ERM sites
10/15/2010 7
Support Documents
• ERM Survey
• ERM Coverage Load Clean Up of CSV file Procedure
• ASU ERM Task Group Report
• Loading Serials Solutions Marc records into Millennium
10/15/2010 8
Survey Results• Survey announcement distributed to the OhioLINK
Library Advisory Council (LAC)– One survey response per institution, unless institution has
multiple branches and/or multiple ERM systems.
– The survey has two tracks - one for institutions with a vendor’s ERM and one for those without a vendor’s ERM.
– Includes questions that ask for demographics and materials budget spent on electronic resources
– The survey asks for the primary contact person at your institution for electronic resources management
– The survey will close on September 3, 2010 extended until September 24th
10/15/2010 9
Institution type
10/15/2010 10
14.5%0.0%
32.7%
52.7%
2-year, public
2-year, private
4-year, public
4-year, private
Institution size (FTE)
10/15/2010 11
63.6%12.7%
23.6%
Small (Under 5,000)
Medium (5,000-10,000)
Large (over 10,000)
Annual materials budget allocation
• Total Annual Materials Budget Allocation
– Range: $25,000 to $100,00,000
– Average: $1,413,451
• % of Materials Budget for E-resources?
– Range: 0% to 90%
– Average: 45.24%
10/15/2010 12
Does your library have an ERM system?
10/15/2010 13
30.9%
69.1%
Yes
No
What ERM system does your institution use?
10/15/2010 14
76.50%
5.90% 5.90%0.00%
11.80% 11.80%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
III ERM Serials Solutions 360 Resource Manager E-
Resource Management Service
EBSCONet ERM Essentials
Verde (Ex Libris) Homegrown Solutions Other
Functions currently used in your ERM?
10/15/2010 15
100.0%
45.5%
18.2%
100.0%
0.0%
63.6%
27.3%
45.5% 45.5%
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
120.0%
Use vendor-supplied coverage loads?
• YES:
– EBSCO
– Serial Solutions
10/15/2010 16
38.5%
61.5%
Yes
No
Load MARC records in OPAC for collections of e-resources?
• Sources:
– OhioLINK
– Serials Solutions
– EBSCO
– OCLC’s WorldCAT/Connexion
– Vendor/publisher supplied
• i.e. - ebrary, IGI-Global, Knovel (OCLC), Lexis-Nexis, Credo, EEBO (ProQuest/Chadwyck-Healey), ECCO (Gale), and many others…
10/15/2010 17
Is your library's approach to e-resource management sufficient?
10/15/2010 18
14.3%
64.3%
21.4%
Yes
No
Not sure
Areas of e-resource management where you need assistance
• Keeping ERM updated
• Automated system for loading serials info
• Better workflows
• More staff
• More training
• More time
• Trouble-shooting help
10/15/2010 19
The Why’s of No ERM
10/15/2010 20
25.0%
80.0%
52.5%47.5%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
Not needed Cost prohibitive No staff to implement No time to implement
The Why Not? Comments
10/15/2010 21
• We just finished a year with a 35% enrollment increase. Enrollment for this coming term is up 40%. We don't have time to do anything extra.
• At first, I thought I didn't really need one. But as more and more titles go electronic (non-OhioLINK), I am starting to see a need for one.
• Not sure it is needed, especially with competing demands for money.
• Not aware of any product that will work for a consortia.• We've been small enough that we managed without one,
but are seeing the need to develop or find one.
Is your library's approach to e-resource management sufficient?
Without ERM With ERM
10/15/2010 22
14.3%
64.3%
21.4%
Yes
No
Not sure
15.8%
42.1%
34.2%
7.9%
Yes
No
Somewhat
Do not know
Areas of e-resource management where you need assistance
• It would be helpful to have a system that kept better track of license arrangements, costs, and renewal dates (especially for non-OhioLINK and OHIONET subscriptions).
• Consulting to determine the cost of adding an ERM to our operation in terms of initial costs, annual costs, personnel time needs, etc.
• An ERMS would be ideal rather than relying on paper checklists, filed materials, e-mails, and memory.
• We know what's needed but the time resource required is not available.
10/15/2010 23
Area of the library responsible for management of e-resources
Primary Responsibility for ERM
19.5%
17.1%
9.8%17.1%
12.2%
9.8%
14.6%
Electronic Resources
Collection Development/Management
Cataloging
Acquisitions
Serials
Reference
Systems
Other Areas Involved
10/15/2010 24
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
45.0%
50.0%
How many library workers does it take to…
Staff Student Assistants
10/15/2010 25
52.1%35.4%
12.5%
0.0% 0.0%
1-2
3-5
5-10
10-15
15 or more
87.0%
8.7%
4.3% 0.0% 0.0%
1-2
3-5
5-10
10-15
15 or more
Averaged reported estimates of personnel devoted to e-resource management = 2.31 FTE
ERM at UC
• ERM installed November 2008
• Bib record conversion of databases instead of III Quick Start,600+ resource records, III training
• ERM Implementation Task Force 2008-2009
• Reorganized and created ER Department
10/15/2010 26
2010 Status
• Resource records suppressed from public display
• Review of records (in progress)
• Linked order records from ILS
• Adding Serials Solutions tracking information, provider and platform information, ticklers,
• Contact records created
10/15/2010 27
License records
• Updated codes and fields in license records
• Scanning paper licenses to store electronically and link to resource records
• Goal – scan all paper licenses, link to ERM records
10/15/2010 28
Resource record for an OhioLINK database
10/15/2010 29
Resource record for GPO database (EDGAR)
10/15/2010 30
Ticklernotification
Suppressed
10/15/2010 31
License record
10/15/2010 32
License Record with link to scanned copy linked in record
10/15/2010 33
Contact record
10/15/2010 34
Future
• Coverage loads
• Public display
• Import statistics for cost per use data
• Use ERM to manage ebook records, including MARC record loads for ebook collections
10/15/2010 35
ERM at UAkron
• Resource records for full-text aggregator databases display to public
• Before III Quick Start – built resource, contact and license records from scratch
• Experimented with coverage load
• ERM Task Force & ERAMS Subcommittee (UAL TSSC) – constantly reviews & revises workflow
10/15/2010 36
Trial/Preview Link in Resource Record
10/15/2010 37
Trial database information
10/15/2010 38
Evaluation form for faculty, students, & librarians
10/15/2010 39
10/15/2010 40
10/15/2010 41
10/15/2010 42
10/15/2010 43
Future of ERM at UAkron
• Fully implement coverage load.
• Implement import/harvest of use statistics via vendor supplied COUNTER statistics and SUSHI
• Manage more than the full-text aggregator databases. i.e. – local single journals, ebooks, etc.
• Usability testing & WebPAC/ERM redesign.
• Integrate workflow and trial/preview data into ERM
10/15/2010 44
ERM at BGSU
10/15/2010 45
old
new
Databases-by-Subject lists: changes implemented summer 2009
10/15/2010 46
new
old
BGSU resource records: changes
implemented summer 2009
10/15/2010 47
Linda Rich
Reference Coordinator, Bowling Green State University Libraries, and co-investigator for our
usability study.
10/15/2010 48
Task: Find scholarly articles on a topic in your major.
• 12 out of 15 used the link to EBSCO on our home page
• Only 2 went to the All Databases landing page
10/15/2010 49
Task: find a second source for scholarly articles.
• Eight students used the All Databases page.
• Only 2 used the databases-by-subject lists to choose another database.
10/15/2010 50
Task: find a named database.
• Ten students used the All Databases page.
• Only 2 tried the catalog first instead.
10/15/2010 51
BGSU’s “All Research Databases” Landing Page
10/15/2010 52
BGSU’s Databases A-Z List
10/15/2010 53
Business “Databases-by-Subject” List
10/15/2010 54
Resource Record for Business Source Complete
10/15/2010 55
“I try to avoid this page.”-- graduate student
10/15/2010 56
“I’m not sure what these are. I feel like I should know this.”
-- graduate student
“I’d probably quit after I got this.”
-- undergraduate student
10/15/2010 57
“If I were a business major, I would definitely use this
page.”-- undergraduate student
10/15/2010 58
Resource Record for Business Source Complete
10/15/2010 59
a: authorb: resource formatc: tickler logd: subjecte: descriptionf: public noteg: user supporth: coveragei: incident logj: access informationk: resource advisoryl: usage statisticsm: administrationn: noteo: connect button (“additional contact”)p: resource idq: not usedr: local contacts: pricing and paymentt: resource nameu: trial or trial informationv: resource typew: resource containsx: alt. resource namey: resource urlz: resource management tickler
Variable-length fields
10/15/2010 60
In ERM #
Databases 13
Resource descriptions 13
License information for permissions/prohibitions
13
Electronic journals 11
Vendor/contact information 11
License information for ILL/fair use
10
Login/passwords 10
Trial information 8
Renewal information 8
Electronic books 7
Coverage dates 7
Resource advisories 7
Tutorials/user guides 5
Purchase approval information
4
Payment history 4
Display to public #
Databases 8
Resource descriptions 7
Coverage dates 6
License information for permissions/prohibitions
6
Electronic journals 5
Resource advisories 5
Electronic books 4
License information for ILL/fair use
4
Trial information 2
Tutorials/user guides 2
Vendor/contact information 0
Purchase approval information
0
Payment history 0
Renewal information 0
Login/passwords 0
Display to staff #
Databases 13
License information for permissions/prohibitions
13
Resource descriptions 12
Electronic journals 11
Vendor/contact information 10
License information for ILL/fair use
10
Login/passwords 9
Trial information 8
Renewal information 8
Electronic books 7
Coverage dates 7
Resource advisories 7
Tutorials/user guides 5
Purchase approval information
4
Payment history 4
10/15/2010 61
Other responses #
Usage statistics access data 6
Subjects 4
Record of problems/ troubleshooting information
3
IPs, authentication, and other access information
3
Origin of MARC records/loads 3
Publisher information 2
License negotiation information 2
OhioLINK/consortial information 2
10/15/2010 62
10/15/2010 63
10/15/2010 64
Important fields #
Description 14
Dates 10
Full text 7
License information 6
Subjects 6
Title (resource name) 5
Local contact 4
Coverage load 2
Resource format 2
User support 2
Five other fields chosen once each
Confusing fields #
Mobile access 10
Coverage load 6
On-campus access 4
Index to journal articles 3
License information 2
Subjects 2
User support 2
Three other fields chosen once each
Unimportant fields #
User support 3
Local contact 2
Public note 2
Title (resource name) 2
Authorized users 1
Coverage load 1
Description (long) 1
Index to journal articles 1
“MIS” (in record) 1
Mobile access 1
Subject 1
“I usually pay attention to dates and descriptions.”
“Do I do all this down here, too?” (about coverage load)
“I don't pay attention to certain things but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be in there.”
10/15/2010 65
10/15/2010 66
We continue to make improvements to individual resource records.
10/15/2010 67
Thank you! & Questions?
Visit the OhioLINK 2.0 ERM Task Force
website for more information and resources at
https://www.ohiolink.edu/ostaff/OL2/ERM.html
10/15/2010 68