Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Soaring Into The Cloud
Soaring Into The Cloud
Soaring Into The Cloud
Soaring Into The Cloud
Soaring Into The Cloud
Soaring Into The Cloud
Soaring Into The Cloud
Soaring Into The Cloud
Soaring Into The Cloud
Soaring Into The Cloud
Soaring Into The Cloud
Soaring Into The Cloud
Soaring Into The Cloud
Soaring Into The Cloud
Soaring Into The Cloud
Soaring Into The Cloud
Soaring Into The Cloud
Soaring Into The Cloud
Soaring Into The Cloud
Soaring Into The Cloud
Soaring Into The Cloud
Soaring Into The Cloud
Soaring Into The Cloud
Soaring Into The Cloud
Soaring Into The Cloud
Soaring Into The Cloud
Soaring Into The Cloud
Soaring Into The Cloud
Soaring Into The Cloud
Soaring Into The Cloud
Soaring Into The Cloud
Soaring Into The Cloud
Soaring Into The Cloud
Soaring Into The Cloud
Soaring Into The Cloud
Soaring Into The Cloud
Soaring Into The Cloud
Soaring Into The Cloud
Soaring Into The Cloud
Soaring Into The Cloud
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

Soaring Into The Cloud

99

Published on

This presentation was given at the Nebraska Library Association Annual Meeting in Kearney, NE during October 2013. Presenters were; Rene J. Erlandson and Rob Ross. The program outlines the migration …

This presentation was given at the Nebraska Library Association Annual Meeting in Kearney, NE during October 2013. Presenters were; Rene J. Erlandson and Rob Ross. The program outlines the migration from a traditional integrated library system to OCLC's cloud-based WMS/WCL platform.

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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
99
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
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
  • How many of you are considering migrating to a new discovery platform?How many of you have been through a system migration before?
  • Forward positioned systemA system designed with an eye to the future – both in terms of “collections” and also services.A system that allows us to give patrons what they are looking for today, but is also flexible enough to accommodate what libraries will be doing 5-10 years from now.Not a system designed for the past—where print was the predominate material managed by libraries and a library’s primary function was to check out books.Patrons first:Breakdown the barriers between materials found in traditional ILSs and metasearch systems *systems that combine results from multiple databases into a single interfaceUser friendly – patrons no longer have to know where to go to look for something (the ILS, A-Z list, federated search) See what other libraries own at-a-glanceAccess to global community – via WorldCat. Users may access pre-existing Worldcat account within the WorldCat Local interface.Staff side:Streamline processesImprove e-resource controlFlexible system with an open API which would allow us develop components/apps locallyWe wanted a system where we felt we were more of a partner with the “vendor”We wanted a system where we paid for one fee upfront and all future improvements/development would be included in the “one fee”.
  • And these are just some of the faces and libraries that make up the WMS community. Community collaboration is central to the development of the WS platform. The WMS libraries are our key partners in many of beta launches and pilots which this past year have included: WS Record manager (our new cataloging interface to create new and enrich WC records and maintain institutional holdings) WS Analytics /WC Collection Analysis WS ILL & the new soon-to-be launched FirstSearch interface.
  • Initial bibliographic data loads >50 records thrown out as errors.Active change management is critical to successful implementation of ANY initiative. We knew 2 things we wanted out of the implementation were:To take a hard look at our current workflows andTo be able to quantify the return on investment for a migration
  • Easy to say ‘nothing,’ but that wouldn’t be honest.Most people assume the technical aspects (configuration or data migration) will be most painful.OCLC assumed that for a while.However, having implemented WMS for 35 customers and counting, the most painful aspect of implementation is managing the human change process.
  • When the Dean initially asked the Associate Dean and myself to investigate WMS/WCL, we quickly saw it was going to be a significantly different platform. The legacy system had been in place for 20+ years, therefore the administration knew just migrating to a new ILS would be a huge change and we were talking about moving beyond the ILS to a cloud-based web-scale management system. Because WMS positions libraries as members of a global “network/partnership”—something akin to a consortia——we all knew this was going to be a MONUMENTAL change. Once the decision was made by the administration to move forward with experimenting/exploring WMS we immediately began talking about how we could involve everyone in the migration—all levels of library staff.I was named the Project Manager for the migration/implementation. The Associate Dean was “The Communicator”. I would handle the details and Audrey would communicate across all levels of the Library what was going on. Working with the UNO Library administrative team we identified all the internal stakeholders. It became obvious moving to this type of system was going to challenge us on every level. No one would be immune or isolated from the changes WMS/WCL would enable us to make. After identifying internal stakeholders, the administrative team drafted a list of talking points. We wanted to make sure every member of the leadership team understood (as much as we could at that point), why we were investigating WMS/WCL and what we hoped to gain from exploring migrating to a new system. Essentially the talking points were the “Looking for” list on the earlier last slide—all the reasons we thought we needed to look beyond our legacy system.Having been involved in more than 5 system migrations at large to very large research libraries during my career, I feel strongly that the success of a migration is directly linked to planning and involvement of people who do the day-to-day work within the system/library. Our Dean agreed and allowed me to form an implementation team made up almost exclusively of library staff members. I chose people who I knew had a detailed understanding of specific aspects of the legacy system and who were willing to learn new things and would bring different perspectives and opinions to the implementation team. We had at least one person from each unit of the library; acquisitions, administration, cataloging, circulation, interlibrary loan, reference and virtual services.An advisory board made up of faculty members from each unit of the library was also formed – Audrey brought this group together every 2-4 weeks (or as needed) to communicate the work being done by the implementation team and the various working groups.
  • One of the most successful aspects of our communication strategy was emphasizing, “We are all in the together. None of us has all the answers. We will figure it out as a group.”
  • Use the migration as a time to begin to build a culture of change. Frame the transition as an OPPORTUNITY!!!Encourage everyone to constantly question “Why do we do it this way?”, “How does what we are talking about right now, intersect with other workflows/processes/aspects of the system”?As I mentioned earlier, at UNO we quickly saw that WMS was going to significantly impact our processes. So, we immediately began talking to staff about what we could foresee some of the changes might be. We asked their opinions about what they were seeing during training sessions and how the “new” system compared to the old, etc. Because we started the training and discussions very early in the migration process, staff quickly saw workflows were going to be affected and were instrumental in developing “test” work-flows. They also could see that with the streamlined processes, adjustments were going to need to be made to staffing levels in the affected areas. So, we challenged them to think about projects they would like to have worked on in the past but didn’t have time for, or skills they would like to learn and other areas of the library they might like to work in.
  • A schedule will provide you with framework of deadlines and training.UNO had the option to do 1) a traditional implementation, where OCLC would have worked only with UNO to migrate our legacy system or 2) a cohort implementation where we were 1 of 8-10 libraries coming up at about the same time.We opted for the cohort implementation, which was still customized for us. Going in, plan on meeting all the deadlines!!!Not all systems have the same structure, so carefully consider the type of information stored in the legacy system and find out how/if that information will be represented in the new system.Order records (WMS doesn’t have order records, so NO historical order data was transferred)Status information and item records—WMS does not have status information (a combination of shelving location and loan matrix = kind of the same info), item records are holdings records with similar information in a different format.Most systems have minimum record requirements, find out what those are for the new platform and compare the new system requirements to the legacy system requirements.Do as much clean-up as possible before the migration. It is always easier to clean up data at the start, than to locate problems and clean them up in a system you are unfamiliar with.Be proactive, if you have a question ask it. Also, look for a support network.
  • Traditional Implementation Model There is a tradition of ILS implementations that libraries remember from their past migrations. This generally involves a high-touch, one-on-one approach between the provider and the library. It also involves on-site elements like a product demo, configuration, and training sessions on the various ILS components. This model has worked for years and because implementing an ILS - let alone one which is the first of its kind - was a new endeavor for OCLC’s US Implementation Team, we erred on the side of caution and adopted this traditional implementation model. We used the model because it was low risk and we knew we’d better learn to walk before we attempted to run. OCLC staff in Europe and Australia, who have years of experience implementing ILSs using a traditional model, were instrumental in helping us design an initial beta implementation model for early adopters like Pepperdine University Libraries.  While this traditional model is effective, it is not efficient and it does not allow libraries to learn from or help one another. Without a community of implementing libraries at hand, libraries are not provided opportunities to rethink their current workflows or policies alongside other, similar libraries. What’s more, if problems or barriers arise during an implementation, there are only two parties to overcome them: the library and the service provider. Neither is always the most qualified to find a solution. This insularity is the aspect of the traditional implementation model that we found to be most frustrating. During our earliest WMS implementations, we would quite literally run from conference room to conference room to have conversations with libraries about the same topics and the same challenges. When one library would come up with a particularly clever solution, other libraries struggling with the same challenge were not present to hear and make use of it. What we heard again and again in those conference rooms was: “We wish we knew what other libraries were doing.”
  • Traditional Implementation Model There is a tradition of ILS implementations that libraries remember from their past migrations. This generally involves a high-touch, one-on-one approach between the provider and the library. It also involves on-site elements like a product demo, configuration, and training sessions on the various ILS components. This model has worked for years and because implementing an ILS - let alone one which is the first of its kind - was a new endeavor for OCLC’s US Implementation Team, we erred on the side of caution and adopted this traditional implementation model. We used the model because it was low risk and we knew we’d better learn to walk before we attempted to run. OCLC staff in Europe and Australia, who have years of experience implementing ILSs using a traditional model, were instrumental in helping us design an initial beta implementation model for early adopters like Pepperdine University Libraries.  While this traditional model is effective, it is not efficient and it does not allow libraries to learn from or help one another. Without a community of implementing libraries at hand, libraries are not provided opportunities to rethink their current workflows or policies alongside other, similar libraries. What’s more, if problems or barriers arise during an implementation, there are only two parties to overcome them: the library and the service provider. Neither is always the most qualified to find a solution. This insularity is the aspect of the traditional implementation model that we found to be most frustrating. During our earliest WMS implementations, we would quite literally run from conference room to conference room to have conversations with libraries about the same topics and the same challenges. When one library would come up with a particularly clever solution, other libraries struggling with the same challenge were not present to hear and make use of it. What we heard again and again in those conference rooms was: “We wish we knew what other libraries were doing.”
  • Over 1300 registered users Community is 2 years oldCurrent subscriptions = 3,660Active discussion boards: 361 topics and 1272 posts
  • Workflow and Organizational Changes:Previous ILS reflected paper ACQ processes of 20 years agoThis system is a global systemBib records, vendor records, license records exist within a global database some of which have locally customizable fields.Cataloging is done at the point of orderA record has to exist to place an order
  • The migration itself is done by the vendor.The heaviest bulk of your work will be done before and after the actual migration.Before:Questionnaires : You will need to be able to fully articulate the structure of the legacy system (What fields of bibliographic data do you want to migrate?Does your current ILS support MFHD?Do you have LHRs in WorldCat?What field contains call numbers?What subfield(s) are prefixes and suffixes contained in?Where is the item barcode stored (record type/field/subfield)What authentication method do you use?How many patron records are in your current system?Will you migrate expired patron data?Can your eResources be separated from your other bib data?A table of every shelving location (current codes and new verbiage) where this info is found (record type/field/subfield – bib, 008, 20)
  • In March the community held it’s first User Group meeting. Hosted by Davidson College (in collaboration with Planning leadership from UN Greensboro and HighPoint University) An just three weeks ago, libraries in the northeast regional area gathered at Bucknell University in Lewisburg, PA for a day and half of gathering sharing workflows, best practices and providing valuable insights into the WMS roadmap. With a fast growing community, as you might guess there’s a lot of interest in increasing collaboration. In Sept Univ of Nebraska – Omaha will be hosting a Midwest WMS gathering and with another west coast gathering in CA also being planned for later this year.
  • Communicate clearly and often throughout the migration/implementation process
  • Communicate clearly and often throughout the migration/implementation process
  • Transcript

    • 1. Rene J Erlandson (UNO – Director, Virtual Services) Rob Ross (OCLC – Director, Implementation Programs) Nebraska Library Association Annual Conference Kearney, NE Oct. 4, 2013
    • 2. Things to think about when considering a migration: •Change Management •Migration Process •ROI •Tips / Best Practices
    • 3. University of Nebraska Omaha • • • • Metropolitan University 15,000+ students Criss Library and UNO-Kaneko Library 1.2M volumes
    • 4. Looking for? • Forward positioned system • Patrons first • Full material integration • User friendly • No more ―where do I go‖ • Other libraries • Access to global community • Staff side • Increase efficiencies • Improve e-resource control • Improve staff opportunities • Flexible/Open system • Partnership • Buffet vs. A la Carte
    • 5. OCLC’s purpose… ―We will work together to improve access to the information held in libraries around the globe, and find ways to reduce costs for libraries through collaboration.‖
    • 6. WMS’s goals… • To save libraries time. • To save libraries money. • To increase satisfaction of library patrons and staff. • To offer an open platform on which libraries can create and share the Apps they need.
    • 7. A growing community with shared commitment to library cooperation. Over 150 libraries live
    • 8. WMS libraries by the numbers… Libraries Implemented Globally 13 3 AMERICAS ANZ EMEA 138
    • 9. Implementation Cycle Order Welcome Ongoing Support Annual Service Check 1-month Check-In Institution Setup 6-month Effective Use Assessment 3-month Check-In Success Planning Effective Use / ROI Assessment Training Product Implementation
    • 10. Implementation Cycle = 24-month care cycle
    • 11. Process? • August 2012, ―Live‖ March 1, 2013 • Migrated around 1M records • > 50 ―errors‖ • Active Change Management • Workflows • ROI
    • 12. Change is hard 72% of change efforts fail due to a combination of staff resistance and ineffective management behavior Adopting WMS is a huge change for libraries • Tools (WMS) • People (new roles) • Processes (new workflows) Keller, Scott and Aiken, Carolynn, ―The inconvenient truth about change management‖, ―The McKinsey Quarterly, 2009
    • 13. Some perspective 1. On average, libraries change systems every 10 years. 2. Workflows are often, literally, ingrained. 3. These systems impact virtually every staff member— • • • • • Technical Services Access Services Systems Librarian Reference Services Administration = This is a big deal!
    • 14. Change curve Source: Duck, J. D. (2001). The change monster: The human forces that fuel or foil corporate transformation and change. New York: Crown Business. , pgs. 16-17
    • 15. Plan for Change • Who will organize & communicate? • Stakeholders? • Communicate & Listen • Talking points • Implementation Team • Working Groups • Advisory Board • Does the vendor have change management/workflow consulting service?
    • 16. Communication Strategy • One person disseminating information • Sending out meeting announcements, updates etc • Talking points • Update as needed • We are in this together • Regular meetings • • • • All staff Departmental Implementation Team Advisory Board
    • 17. Build a Culture of Change ***OPPORTUNITY: • • • • Processes Workflows Interests Job Descriptions
    • 18. Migration • Schedule • What needs/can be migrated? • Record requirements • Bib, Patron, etc • Do as much clean-up as possible BEFORE creating migration files • Be proactive!!!
    • 19. Migration • Who is already using the system? • Who is migrating about the same time as you? • Anyone else migrating from (or has already migrated from) your legacy platform? • Make some contacts.
    • 20. Traditional implementation model • 1-on-1 projects • Lack community (isolating) • Take a long time • Costly • No opportunity for peer learning
    • 21. Cohort model for implementation • Group projects • Built on community (inclusive) • Do not take a long time • Less costly • Harness the wisdom of the community
    • 22. How cohorts work Cohort Members— • Attend scheduled, virtual class sessions • Complete homework assignments • Participate in class discussions • Chat with OCLC ‗Professors‘ during ‗Office Hours‘ • Graduate
    • 23. Current cohort curriculum Sessions— 9. Circulation Workflows, pt. 1 10. Circulation Policies 1. Welcome session 2. Data Migration (3 sessions) 3. Your Goals for WMS 11. Circulation Workflows, pt. 2 12. Acquisitions Workflows, pt. 1 4. Effective Use – Achieving Goals 13. Acquisitions Workflows, pt. 2 5. Change Management 14. WorldCat Local, pt. 1 6. WMS Staff Training (unlimited!) 15. WorldCat Local, pt. 2 7. kb and ILR 16. Authentication 8. Return on Investment 17. Testing/Validating Data 18. Preparing go live/Marketing/WMS Community
    • 24. Migration: Training • Everyone!! • Early and often • Group and individual • Find counterparts at similar system institutions • Discuss if/how processes & workflows will need to change
    • 25. Breaking free from the workflow rut http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101201092200AAXpc9E
    • 26. Migration: Workflow Changes • Previous ILS reflected paper processes of 20 years ago • WMS/WCL is a global system • Cataloging is done at point of order • Hard look at ―why‖ • Implemented DDA/PDA at the same time. • Seamless • Highly successful
    • 27. Migration: Before / After • Before • Welcome Questionnaire • Data Migration Questionnaire • Translation Table • Scope Statement • Clean up bib and patron records/data • Training / Education After • TEST, TEST, TE ST • Clean up errors • Clean up bib data • Education
    • 28. What we‘ve observed… The degree to which libraries are ready to creatively re-think how they can achieve their goals, are open to trying new approaches, and are willing to question everything about their library‘s current operations is the degree to which they will be successful.
    • 29. ROI Survey Method • Surveyed WMS libraries live for more than 6 months • 13 survey questions • 36 out of 86 contacted have responded as of 9/26/13 • Both quantitative and qualitative questions • Aggregated results
    • 30. ROI Survey Format
    • 31. ROI : UNO • $186,655 staff salaries re-allocated to priority projects • Acquisitions/Cataloging 7 to 3 • Annual Charges/Maintenance Fee savings $43,565
    • 32. ROI: Indirect Outcomes of the Migration • Established a culture of change • Enabled staff to reconceptualize/redefine positions • Encouraged staff learn new skills
    • 33. Community Collaborations
    • 34. Community Inputs
    • 35. 100TH WMS CELEBRATION at UNO
    • 36. Tips from Rene • Communicate • Clean-up data BEFORE • Figure out a way to get Reference involved early on
    • 37. Tips from Rob • Embrace the journey • Stewards of the past; pioneers of the future • Celebrate often!
    • 38. Rene Erlandson University of Nebraska Omaha rerlandson@unomaha.e du Rob Ross OCLC rossr@OCLC.org

    ×