Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Making the Big Move: Moving to Cloud-Based OCLC’s WorldShare Management Services (WMS)
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Making the Big Move: Moving to Cloud-Based OCLC’s WorldShare Management Services (WMS)

549

Published on

Brad Spry (speaker), Michael Winecoff (speaker), Shoko Toroko (speaker)

Brad Spry (speaker), Michael Winecoff (speaker), Shoko Toroko (speaker)

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
549
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
15
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Making the Big Move: Moving to Cloud-Based OCLC’s WorldShare Management Services (WMS) November 8, 2013 Brad Spry Library Webmaster Shoko Tokoro Electronic & Continuing Resources Coordinator Michael Winecoff Associate University Librarian for Technical Services
  • 2. UNC Charlotte Atkins Library • FTE: 23,975 • Member of the Association of Southeastern Research Libraries (ASERL) • Material budget (FY13): $3.7 M (base budget) + $1M to $2M one time funds • Library staff: 59 SPAs, 29 EPAs • 3 library locations: Main Library, Architecture Library & Center City – no physical materials • Library Collections: 1,598,300 physical volumes, 438,500 eBooks, 66,451 paid eJournals, 11,000 streaming videos, 350 databases
  • 3. Why did we switch? • Search results: Our previous search infrastructure is outdated in ways that seriously underrepresent the extent of our holdings, and the material we can make available to patrons. Further, it did not allow for quick/powerful refinement of search results or facets. Search in WMS is better on all these scores.
  • 4. Why did we switch? • Reducing the cost and complexity of our search infrastructure: WMS will reduce the number of systems currently required to do search. This will simplify the task of maintaining and integrating search systems, and it will radically reduce their cost. • Possible servers/services no longer needed: – ILS, EDS, Syndetics, Eres, Serials Solutions, Marcive
  • 5. Why did we switch? • Management reporting: In an environment that relies increasingly on data to drive decisions our previous system was incapable of meeting our needs. WMS will allow us to derive critical managerial data to inform collection building, staffing, and resource allocation decisions.
  • 6. Overall Migration • Preparation and implementation took 6 months (October 2012-March 2013). We’re still migrating! • Over 850,000 monographs and 32,000 serials • Had a fulltime project manager – very helpful! • Staff participated in webinars and used the sandbox to learn WMS • July 3, 2013 – Go live date
  • 7. WMS and WCL Pluses • Web-based -- no client to install – Works with Chrome and Firefox • Shared vendor file • Shared serial check-in • Patrons like faceted results and access to ILL
  • 8. Migration Overview • Goal: migrate the search, circulation and catalog infrastructure • No MARC holdings in our serial records – ARG! • FTP file limits were restrictive – 90,000 character limit in MARC records – 90,000 MARC bibliographic records per file – 100 MB file size limit • Different formats need to sent separately • OCLC does not migrate acquisitions or authority data • Local bibliographic data preserved sometimes in different fields
  • 9. Migration Steps • Complete the data migration questionnaire • Prepare translation tables • Prepare for batchload project (s) – Approve Scope Statement – Extract bibliographic records from ILS and send to Batch Services • Maintain holdings during migration • Extract and send circulation transaction data • Send gap file for monographs and serials
  • 10. Acquisitions Workflow • • • • We order in YBP GOBIs system as previously Orders are ftp’d to encumber the funds in WMS Must have a record in WorldCat for ordering Catalogers must select either monograph, serial or multipart monograph to receive item • Catalogers add the barcode (link the item) • Pseudo records for laptops must be in the system in order to check out • Electronic invoices/EDIFACT will be supported the 3rd quarter of next year
  • 11. Technical Services – Workarounds • Refunds/credits – [December 2013] • Bound-with materials – [3rd qrt 2014] • Shadow system necessary for call numbers – [Planned, but unscheduled] • Bulk item update for location, status, etc [Planned, but unscheduled] • Paying an item costing more than $99,999.99 • Printing of serial checkin labels
  • 12. Collections Development & Electronic Resources Unit Before – 2 librarians, 4 staff + 2 students • Collection development librarian (AUL) • Electronic & Continuing Resources Librarian • 4 staff – – – – • Electronic & serials cataloging Usage statistics Gifts & Course development Serials Solutions & EZproxy 2 students – Check access & journal projects Changes – 3 librarians, 2 staff + 4 students • Combined and upgraded to a position for Non-Serials Electronic Resources Librarian Will be added for ER management & licensing • Upgraded to an advanced-level staff position Will be added soon for KB maintenance, EZproxy, usage statistics • Added 2 more students Mainly assuring access Temporary personnel solution Two staff from TechServ pitched in for 6 months (April - Oct.) to add customized collections to the OCLCKnowledge Base (KB)
  • 13. E-Resources Migration 1. Building collection in OCLC Knowledge Base (April – June, 2013) • E-journals (Pubget) / E-books / Streaming videos Choose collections in OCLC KB Customize Serials Solutions reports, orCustomize vendors records or reports 350 collections (45% customized collections & 55% selected from KB) Free e-resources excluded for now 2. Exporting Local Holding Records (LHRs) (completed in August) • 300+ database-level titles (EBSCOhost dbs, JSTOR, ProQuest dbs, etc) - Maintained manually one by one Connexion Client - batch processes Connexion Browser - LHRs maintenance
  • 14. Workflows Creating customized collection into KBART (Knowledge Base And Related Tools) format Correcting existing collection Contact data provider to update information in collections in OCLC KB
  • 15. OCLC KBART Format – Cheat sheet
  • 16. OCLC Algorithm/Indexing/FRBRization Matching points: 1. OCLC# availability 2. Identifier (ISSN/ISBN) 3. Title (# of words in TI > 3) Records # in KB eJournals Missing ISSN/ISBN # of words in title ≤ 3 Streaming videos 10,985 12,561 4,792 18.9% 7.2% 88,919 80,651 11,346 20% 438,444 23,854 35.9% eBooks 66,451 Missing OCLC# 18.4%↑ 3%↑ 1,586 Lack of ID 584 14.4% - 5.3%
  • 17. Workaround – Streaming Video
  • 18. Suggestions to OCLC to Improve • • • • • • • • • • • • OCLC systems, Service Configuration, Connexion, Usage Statistics, and FirstSearch, etc. require different usernames and passwords, logging in is very inconvenient. Improve slow processing time in WMS. Diacritics in online holdings don’t display correctly, so they don’t match a title from a master record. Need a way to know when a collection is updated in the KB. The date in a properties page can be any date processed by the system, a library, or OCLC. Only one ISBN can be listed in KBART format currently. Add query reporting tools to the KB. Add a URL checker. Shorten a process time for indexing. A 6-8 hour window is too long for fixing access problems for large collections. Also, a 5-10 day window is too long to add holdings set on titles in a collection in WorldCat for both selecting and removing collections. Add back button function in WMS. It breaks a session and we have to start over. Create a database to store OCLC’s documentation and manuals in one place. Many of them are scattered on their site and some of them are outdated or lack detailed information. OCLC’s idea to share resources in the KB is often not working well. All institutions have slightly different title selections in a package. Selecting existing collections are not updated well and OCLC waits until data providers send updated records. Improve linkscheme process. Linkschme is not available for some collections that means no articlelevel linking available.
  • 19. Existing Patron Account Management Workflow • Patron Data Operations – Data Sources – Comparison – Scrubbing – Manipulation – Ingest – Reporting
  • 20. Existing Patron Data Sources and Workflows • Existing feed from Banner/Webfocus – Manual export/import process every weekday • Ran five (5) days per week, not seven (7) – No weekend import operations • Existing data fields – Patron_type, name, primary_address, secondary_address, phone_1, phone_2, university_id, “barcode”, dept_major, email
  • 21. Trust and Perception of Authoritative Data Source
  • 22. Trust and Perception of Authoritative Patron Data Source •Banner Data Stinks!
  • 23. Why does Banner Data Stink? • Data problems begin upstream – How does the University actually operate? – Sources of data? Departments? Who? – Eschewing the past and starting anew on working relationships and partnerships – Working together effectively is the hard part, not technology – WMS is an enterprise-grade system, you must engage your entire enterprise. There are experts within your organization waiting for your call.
  • 24. UNC Charlotte Affiliated Patron Data Sources • Central IT Enterprise Information Group – Banner • Human Resources (employees) • Admissions (students) – WebFOCUS • Central IT Security – Active Directory • Authentication (LDAP) – University Firewall • Auxiliary Services – Blackboard Transact • University ID Card Office • “Barcode” • Academic Affairs – Adjunct faculty* – Emeritus faculty
  • 25. Discovery of Existing Circulation Data Workflows • Interview employees who are part of the process • OMG Moment – Discovered Circulation Supervisor conducting strenuous patron data comparisons using Microsoft Excel • Multitude of Manual Maintenance Operations • Identifying Arriving Patrons • Departing Patrons (manually setting circulation expiration date, deleting graduates with reconciled accounts) • Updating Patrons (updating within local ILS, not at authoritative source) – Circulation Supervisor Retirement Announcement…….
  • 26. Bonnie Stuart
  • 27. Stuart.uncc.edu Daily Delta, XML Transformation, Secure Sync
  • 28. Trust and Perception of Authoritative Patron Data Source •Banner Data Stinks! •Best Available Data
  • 29. Previous ILS Patron Record Import Data  WMS Patron Persona Record Import
  • 30. Real World Circulation Desk Performance • Performance Issues – Metrics • Circulation Desk Checkout Line • Fingernails Tapping on Circulation Desk • Employee Frustration – Blood, sweat, tears – Local or Remote Issue? • Local issues are our responsibility, not OCLC’s • Point the finger at yourself first
  • 31. Local Performance Issues • Computer – Hardware • CPU, Memory, Disk – Software • OS • Browsers • Java • Network • Devices – Printers – Scanners  Pointing the finger at ourselves first 
  • 32. Remote Performance Issues • After eliminating local issues, UNC Charlotte could identify remote performance issues with confidence • OCLC received our deep research findings and have identified performance bottlenecks • OCLC really is working on it • Fruits of our labor in next two releases
  • 33. WMS Is Better Because of Us • WMS is better because we fully engaged OCLC, got in the game, not sitting on sidelines • OCLC is not a vendor, we are not a customer • OCLC is a consortium, we are a member • WMS belongs to us, it’s our system now, we took ownership • Result: UNC Charlotte has the most advanced WMS implementation in the world
  • 34. Thank You! Brad Spry dbspry@uncc.edu Shoko Tokoro stokoro@uncc.edu Michael Winecoff mkwineco@uncc.edu

×