Library technology funding, planning, and deployment

The project co-chairs decided to recommend a structure similar to Orbis Cascade of a Steering Committee and several working groups devoted to a particular set of functional specification

Trang 1

A volume in the Advances

in Library and Information

Science (ALIS) Book Series

Trang 2

Published in the United States of America by

Web site: http://www.igi-global.com

reproduced, stored or distributed in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, without written permission from the publisher.

Product or company names used in this set are for identification purposes only Inclusion of the names of the products or companies does not indicate a claim of ownership by IGI Global of the trademark or registered trademark.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

British Cataloguing in Publication Data

A Cataloguing in Publication record for this book is available from the British Library.

All work contributed to this book is new, previously-unpublished material The views expressed in this book are those of the authors, but not necessarily of the publisher.

Names: Iglesias, Edward G., 1966- editor.

Title: Library technology funding, planning, and deployment / Edward

Iglesias, editor.

Description: Hershey PA : Information Science Reference, [2017] | Includes

bibliographical references and index.

Identifiers: LCCN 2016044778| ISBN 9781522517351 (hardcover) | ISBN

9781522517368 (ebook)

Subjects: LCSH: Libraries Information technology | Libraries Information

technology Purchasing | Academic libraries United States Case studies.

Classification: LCC Z678.9 L5187 2017 | DDC 025/.02 dc23 LC record available at https://lccn loc.gov/2016044778

This book is published in the IGI Global book series Advances in Library and Information Science (ALIS) (ISSN: 2326-4136; eISSN: 2326-4144)

Trang 3

Advances in Library and Information Science (ALIS) Book Series

IGI Global is currently accepting manuscripts for publication within this series To submit a proposal for a volume in this series, please contact our Acquisition Editors at Acquisitions@igi-global.com or visit: http://www.igi-global.com/publish/

Mission

ISSN:2326-4136 EISSN:2326-4144

The Advances in Library and Information Science (ALIS) Book Series is

com-prised of high quality, research-oriented publications on the continuing developments and trends affecting the public, school, and academic fields, as well as specialized libraries and librarians globally These discussions on professional and organizational considerations in library and information resource development and management assist in showcasing the latest methodologies and tools in the field

The ALIS Book Series aims to expand the body of library science literature

by covering a wide range of topics affecting the profession and field at large The series also seeks to provide readers with an essential resource for uncovering the latest research in library and information science management, development, and technologies

• Social networking technologies

• Future of Computing in Libraries

• Digitization Centers

• Research Habits of Students and Faculty

• University Libraries in Developing

Coun-tries

• Partnerships in Library Communities

• Semantic Web and Libraries

• Patents/Trademark Services

• Storage Facilities

• Conservation

Trang 4

Titles in this Series

For a list of additional titles in this series, please visit: www.igi-global.com

Academic Library Development and Administration in China

Lian Ruan (Illinois Fire Service Institute at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA) Qiang Zhu (Peking University, China) and Ying Ye (Nanjing University, China) Information Science Reference • copyright 2017 • 391pp • H/C (ISBN: 9781522505501)

Information Seeking Behavior and Challenges in Digital Libraries

Adeyinka Tella (University of Ilorin, Nigeria)

• US $185.00 (our price)

E-Discovery Tools and Applications in Modern Libraries

Egbert de Smet (University of Antwerp, Belgium) and Sangeeta Dhamdhere (Modern lege of Arts, Science and Commerce, India)

Technology-Centered Academic Library Partnerships and Collaborations

Brian Doherty (New College of Florida, USA)

Space and Organizational Considerations in Academic Library Partnerships and laborations

Col-Brian Doherty (New College of Florida, USA)

Trang 5

Acknowledgment; xiii;

Don’t.Make.Us.Use.the.“Get.Along.Shirt”:.Communication.and.Consensus.Building.in.an.RFP.Process; 1;

Veronica Kenausis;, Western Connecticut State University, USA;

Debbie Herman;, Manchester Community College, USA;

Moving.from.Local.to.Global.via.the.Integrated.Library.System:.Cost-Savings,.ILS.Management,.Teams,.and.End-Users; 23;

Laura Kohl;, Bryant University, USA;

Patricia Lombardi;, Bryant University, USA;

Mary Moroney;, Bryant University, USA;

Lee Sochay;, Michigan State University Libraries, USA;

Ranti Junus;, Michigan State University Libraries, USA;

Table of Contents

Trang 6

Chapter 6;

Funding.a.Gamification.Machine; 99;

Jason Bengtson;, Kansas State University Libraries, USA; Chapter 7; Insourcing.and.Outsourcing.of.Library.Technology; 113;

Edward Iglesias;, Stephen F Austin State University, USA; Chapter 8; Funding.a.Makerspace:.Making.It.Up.as.You.Go.Along; 124;

Edward Iglesias;, Stephen F Austin University, USA; Related References; 136;

Compilation of References; 192;

About the Contributors; 252;

Index; 255;

Trang 7

Acknowledgment; xiii;

Don’t.Make.Us.Use.the.“Get.Along.Shirt”:.Communication.and.Consensus.Building.in.an.RFP.Process; 1;

Veronica Kenausis;, Western Connecticut State University, USA;

Debbie Herman;, Manchester Community College, USA;

A.request.for.proposal.(RFP).process.is.daunting.and.fraught.with.the.potential.for.misunderstandings,.disagreements,.and.the.pursuit.of.individual.agendas An.RFP.process.for.a.new,.large,.and.loosely.connected.state.consortium.is.all.of.that.and.more This.is.the.story.of.how.the.Connecticut.State.Colleges.and.Universities.(CSCU).embarked.upon.the.journey.of.contracting.for.a.joint.integrated.library.system.and.discovery.layer The.authors.describe.in.detail.how.the.project.began.and.how.a.successful.conclusion.was.reached,.while.offering.practical.advice.gleaned.from.these.experiences.for.institutions.and.consortia.who.may.be.considering.a.similar.project.;

Moving.from.Local.to.Global.via.the.Integrated.Library.System:.Cost-Savings,.ILS.Management,.Teams,.and.End-Users; 23;

Laura Kohl;, Bryant University, USA;

Patricia Lombardi;, Bryant University, USA;

Mary Moroney;, Bryant University, USA;

In.an.era.of.budget.constraints.as.well.as.next.generation.technologies.-.moving.from.a.consortium.based.and.administrated.shared.ILS.(integrated.library.system).to.one.that.can.be.managed.in-house.allows.for.substantial.cost.savings,.team.oriented.opportunities.for.training.and.growth,.and.service.improvements.for.library.patrons This.chapter.will.provide.background.on.one.university.library’s.decision.to.move.Detailed Table of Contents

Trang 8

When.Sales.Talk.Meets.Reality:.Implementing.a.Self-Checkout.Kiosk; 36;

DeeAnn Allison;, University of Nebraska – Lincoln, USA;

Implementing new technology can be challenging when it involves multiple.departments across an institution and relies on interoperability with more than.one.vendor.partner This.chapter.discusses.the.implementation.of.a.self-checkout.kiosk.in.the.University.of.Nebraska-Lincoln.(UNL).Libraries.that.also.collects.fine.payments.via.credit.cards The.process.took.eight.months.to.complete.and.was.interrupted.because.of.several.issues.caused.by.miscommunication.between.vendors,.the.University.departments,.and.Library.staff,.and.it.became.further.complicated.by.changes.in.credit.card.regulations This.chapter.explores.the.issues.that.arose.from.kiosk.purchase.through.implementation.and.provides.recommendations.that.will.help.other.libraries.implementing.new.technologies.;

Selection.Process.for.Free.Open.Source.Software; 55;

David William Schuster;, Texas Woman’s University, USA;

This.chapter.will.discuss.concerns.a.library.may.consider.in.selecting.Open.Source.software The.author.will.review.all.aspects.of.a.needs.assessment,.along.with.considerations.for.the.sustainability.of.an.open.source.project Discussions.about.technical.abilities,.identify.options.a.library.might.consider,.installation.and.usability.issues,.and.getting.involved.with.an.open.source.community There.are.ways.a.library.can.get.involved.with.open.source.software.and.contribute.to.a.community.without.providing.programming Going.with.open.source.can.help.save.money,.but.also.help.the.library.decide.the.direction.it.wants.to.keep.its.community.engaged.;

From.Summon.to.SearchPlus:.The.RFP.Process.for.a.Discovery.Tool.at.the.MSU.Libraries; 72;

Lee Sochay;, Michigan State University Libraries, USA;

Ranti Junus;, Michigan State University Libraries, USA;

This.chapter.examines.and.details.the.RFP.process.that.the.MSU.Libraries.undertook.for.the.implementation.of.a.discovery.tool The.chapter.will.look.at.each.step.in.the.process.and.focus.on.the.tasks.involved,.the.reasons.for.those.tasks,.how.they.fit.the.overall.objective,.and.how.they.were.used.to.build.consensus Funding.and

Trang 9

sustainability.are.implied.as.this.project.came.as.a.directive.from.library.administration.and sustainability is dependent on the performance of the discovery tool The.evaluation.of.performance.is.part.of.an.ongoing.project.in.which.two.reports.have.been.generated.pointing.to.the.success.in.the.usage.goals.of.the.discovery.tool Issues.and.planning.techniques.will.be.expanded.in.each.of.the.proposed.sections.of.the.chapter.;

Funding.a.Gamification.Machine; 99;

Jason Bengtson;, Kansas State University Libraries, USA;

The.most.intractable.problems.demand.the.most.creative.solutions This.chapter.describes the process of funding a presentation machine designed to improve.engagement at library events such as health fairs It details the considerations.that.went.into.budgeting,.funding.and.designing.the.hardware.itself.as.well.as.the.original.game.that.ran.on.the.machine The.chapter.includes.recommended.points.of.particular.attention.for.the.reader,.with.the.aim.of.assisting.other.information.professionals.in.successfully.pursuing.similar.projects.;

Insourcing.and.Outsourcing.of.Library.Technology; 113;

Edward Iglesias;, Stephen F Austin State University, USA;

This.article.traces.the.movement.of.library.technology.from.in-house.systems.created.and.maintained.by.library.personnel.to.outsourced.products.bought.from.and.largely.controlled.by.vendors As.well.as.documenting.these.changes.observations.will.be.made.concerning.strategic.advantages.and.disadvantages.of.this.move Focus.will.be.limited.to.six.areas.of.library.technology:.OPAC,.Discovery.Layer,.MARC.Records,.Bindery,.Acquisitions.and.ERM.(Electronic.Resources.Management) Some.may.argue.that.these.are.all.components.of.a.central.ILS.that.are.created.and.available This.is.true.in.some.cases.but.not.others For.example,.Innovative.Interfaces.has.always.had.an.Acquisitions.module.whereas.other.ILSs.have.not Many.libraries.still.use.a.spreadsheet.or.other.method.to.keep.track.of.serials.where.others.have.migrated.to.an.ERM Individual.use.cases.will.be.covered.to.demonstrate.the.benefits.and.shortcomings.of.each.system.;

Funding.a.Makerspace:.Making.It.Up.as.You.Go.Along; 124;

Edward Iglesias;, Stephen F Austin University, USA;

The.current.methods.for.procuring.funding.for.makerspaces.are.varied.and.haphazard This.chapter.discusses.what.those.in.the.field.are.doing.to.get.makerspaces.funded.and.their.plans.for.continued.funding

Trang 10

Related References; 136;

Compilation of References; 192;

About the Contributors; 252;

Index; 255;

Trang 11

xi

Preface

The origin of this book came from the author’s personal experiences, detailed in the chapter “Funding a Makerspace,” with the lessons learned when trying to acquire new technology in a library Libraries are conservative institutions of necessity, being traditionally in the business of securing books and journals for access in perpetuity When the shift is made to a digital collection model and the libraries mission is expanded to meet the needs of its community there will be stumbles as new roads are explored For many libraries the zenith of technological complexity was the ILS or Integrated Library System This system allowed for cataloging, circulation and discovery of items among other activities As a result, a model was built where a vendor would present a product that would more or less fill the needs

of the library This process of going out to bid with a Request for Proposal was so onerous that most libraries dreaded the thought of changing ILS vendors even when the product was clearly lacking Over time this became the status quo for libraries, first one would choose a vendor, second one would stick with that vendor unless there was drastic need for change For their part vendors worked with libraries fo-cusing more on customer relation than research After all, librarians liked stability,

if the product changed too much there would be complaints

We are in a different world now With the domination of electronic resources over print, and the ILS being unable to address this change, libraries have been forced

to seek other solutions Often this solution comes in the form of a discovery layer The chapters “Don’t Make Us Wear the Get Along Shirt,” “Moving from Local to Global via the Integrated Library System: Cost-Savings, ILS Management, Teams, and End-Users,” and “From Summon to Search Plus” focus on two very different approaches taken to acquiring and implementing this technology Another great trend has been the adoption of Open Source software and its use in creating infor-mation products The chapters “Selection Process for Free Open Source Software,”

“Funding a Gamification Machine,” and “Insourcing and Outsourcing of Library Technology” all touch on this topic Finally, there is my short chapter on “Funding

a Makerspace.” This goes into detail about how acquiring really new technology

Trang 12

xii

The purpose of this book is a call to libraries that their way of doing business

is hopelessly antiquated New technologies do not lend themselves to old vendor models and there is a need for more agility and speed in the purchasing process As libraries struggle to find relevancy those who are leading those changes will need help from those that hold the purse strings and understand how business has been done in the past They must not be held back from trying something new by those comfortable with systems now obsolete

Trang 13

xiii

This book would not have been possible without the help and encouragement of the members of the Editorial Advisory Board Their work in seeking out chapters, re-viewing, and editing has been invaluable They are Arianna Schlegel, Jenny Innes, Laura Kohl, Marshall Breeding, and Ranti Junus

Thank you so much for your hard work

Edward Iglesias

Stephen F Austin University, USA

Trang 14

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-1735-1.ch001

Chapter 1

1

Don’t Make Us Use the

“Get Along Shirt”:

Communication and Consensus Building in an RFP Process

ABSTRACT

A request for proposal (RFP) process is daunting and fraught with the potential for misunderstandings, disagreements, and the pursuit of individual agendas An RFP process for a new, large, and loosely connected state consortium is all of that and more This is the story of how the Connecticut State Colleges and Universities (CSCU) embarked upon the journey of contracting for a joint integrated library system and discovery layer The authors describe in detail how the project began and how a successful conclusion was reached, while offering practical advice gleaned from these experiences for institutions and consortia who may be considering a similar project.

Trang 15

Don’t Make Us Use the “Get Along Shirt”

PHASE 1: GEARING UP

2012 through November 2014

SETTING THE SCENE

Across the country, state supported higher education has undergone major changes over the last 10 years After decades of steady growth in student enrollment, the trend began to reverse itself, ironically, in 2011, the year a merger of two of the three systems of public higher education in Connecticut took place (National Center for Education Statistics, 2016) College enrollment numbers have been falling nation-ally since 2011 The oft cited reasons for this include a decline in the number of traditional college-aged students and an improving job market (Thomason, 2015) This downward enrollment trend combined with a steady decline in state funding

of higher education over the past 25 years led the administrations of public colleges and universities as well as state governments to seek efficiencies and cost savings to address budget shortfalls (Carlson, 2016; Berrett, 2015; 25 years of declining state support for public colleges, 2014) Public systems of higher education that relied too heavily perhaps on enrollment growth and tuition increases as a means to offset declining state support found themselves in a difficult bind

This was indeed the case in Connecticut Prior to 2011, there were four distinct entities in the state:

1 The University of Connecticut (UConn): The state’s flagship land grant

uni-versity, consisting of a main campus and several branch campuses, governed

by its own Board of Trustees;

2 The Connecticut State University System (CSUS): Consisting of four regional

independent universities (Central, Eastern, Southern, and Western), governed

by a separate Board of Trustees;

3 The Connecticut Community Colleges system (CCC): Including 12

inde-pendent institutions scattered all over the state, and also governed by a separate Board; and, finally,

4 Charter Oak State College: “ the state’s only public, online, degree-granting

institution, [that] provides affordable, diverse and alternative opportunities for adults to earn undergraduate and graduate degrees and certificates The College’s mission is to validate learning acquired through traditional and nontraditional experiences, including its own courses” (Charter Oak State College, 2016)

Trang 16

3

The State of Connecticut felt the full effects of the Great Recession somewhat later than most other states and was thus slower to begin its recovery The budget-ary pressures exerted upon the state due to high unemployment, poor stock market performance, and a sagging real estate market made for a particularly contentious

2011 biennial budget cycle (Keating, 2011) Therefore, in an attempt to address an ongoing budget crisis and management issues, the Connecticut General Assembly reformed the higher education system by disbanding the Boards of Trustees for the CSUS and CCC, and in their place established one Board of Regents (BOR) via Public Act 11-48 (Connecticut General Assembly, 2011a) as amended by Public Act 11-61 (Connecticut General Assembly, 2011b), thereby bringing together the governance structure for the two previously independent systems, including Charter Oak State College (Connecticut State Colleges and Universities, 2015) to form the Connecticut State Colleges and Universities System (CSCU) UConn remained a separate entity As might be imagined, the decision to reorganize the governance structure was met with deep concern for the quality and future of the state’s higher education environment Opposition rallies were held, editorials were published, impassioned letters were written to legislators In the end, the merger went through

as designed (Thomas, 2011a; Thomas, 2011b; Thomas, 2014)

The librarians employed by the two systems were also concerned, but librarians

in general tend to be a practical bunch, a of-lemons group So it was no great surprise when one CSU library director, sensing

roll-up-your-sleeves-make-lemonade-out-a collroll-up-your-sleeves-make-lemonade-out-aborroll-up-your-sleeves-make-lemonade-out-ation opportunity, controll-up-your-sleeves-make-lemonade-out-acted her colleroll-up-your-sleeves-make-lemonade-out-agues roll-up-your-sleeves-make-lemonade-out-at roll-up-your-sleeves-make-lemonade-out-all the CSCU institutions and founded the CSCU Council of Library Directors (CoLD) CoLD began to meet and discuss projects, ideas, resources, and support services that might provide a seamless library experience across institutions to better serve the students of CSCU

At the time of the merger, the CSUS and the Connecticut State Library shared

a single instance of III’s Millennium ILS The twelve institutions that made up the CCC system had twelve (12) separate instances of Ex Libris’ Voyager ILS Charter Oak did not have a library system at all Coincidentally, both Millennium and Voy-ager were approaching end-of-life Understandably, then, the conversation among the directors soon centered on the possibility of migrating to a single, combined ILS for the entire CSCU

Initially, the directors considered that the “pain” of a formal bid process might

be avoided by selecting a next generation Library Management Services platform from one of the two vendors with which the libraries had existing contracts, III and

Ex Libris The Council of Library Directors obtained refreshed quotes from each vendor to extend the contracts and include the additional libraries The authors - both being relatively new to their positions and very vocal about the process - were tasked with leading this exercise Full day vendor demonstrations were organized during the summer of 2014, the goal of which was to provide all Library staff throughout

Trang 17

the system with an opportunity to evaluate both vendors’ offerings It was a disaster Institutional affiliation was largely predictive of how strenuously staff members either proclaimed the benefits of a particular system or disparaged it It became clear that putting the two vendors in a position of competing head to head would not

be the way forward as many staff had too much invested in their current systems.Ultimately, in November 2014, after several years of discussion and the failed attempt at extending an existing contract, CoLD passed a resolution to issue an RFP for an integrated library system for all 17 institutions The committee charge established that the process would be managed by a steering committee that would:

1 Create the scope of services,

2 Analyze and score vendor responses, and

3 Make a final recommendation to the Council which would be delivered to the Board of Regents of the Connecticut State Colleges and Universities

The two directors who were involved in managing the preview process for the existing vendors as was described earlier were the natural choice to serve as co-chairs for the formal RFP process Providentially, one was the director of a com-munity college library, the other of one of the state universities Work commenced

in earnest on November 21, 2014 It soon became clear that the task would require dedication, resilience, determination, and humor to shepherd the project through

to a successful conclusion

YOU’VE GOT A FRIEND

Spending the better part of nine months on this undertaking, which both authors will attest is not wholly dissimilar from pregnancy, labor, and delivery, reaffirmed the importance of:

1 Appointing co-chairs to share the load on a project of this size and scope and, more importantly,

2 Appointing co-chairs with an established rapport and abiding trust in one another

The authors were extremely fortunate to have been system colleagues for more than a decade who worked together routinely on technology projects within the CONSULS consortium (CONSULS is the Millennium ILS system that is shared by the four Connecticut State University campuses and the Connecticut State Library.) The authors benefited tremendously from a longstanding experience of maintaining

Trang 18

to work together productively with a shared sense of purpose In any competitive bid process, the RFP Steering Committee co-chairs will serve as both a sounding board and sanity keeper to one another, so choosing the right ones for the task may possibly be the most important decision made during the process

SOME ASSEMBLY REQUIRED

Determining both a process and a structure for accomplishing the project goals were among the first issues the authors grappled with as co-chairs of the Steering Committee From the outset, communication, transparency, and providing ample opportunities for colleagues to provide input were the guiding principles for the project While it was suggested that the process could be greatly expedited by hav-ing fewer staff with direct involvement in the preparation and evaluation of the RFP document (i.e., the RFP document prepared by a small committee of Library and Board of Regents staff), the authors felt this approach would jeopardize the project’s goals and discourage the buy-in among colleagues so necessary for the success of a system migration of this scale Both sides of the newly merged consortium, (CSUS and CCC), had made significant investments in legacy systems (III Millennium and Ex Libris Voyager respectively) and those systems had been in use for more than a decade Accordingly, a significant percentage of library staff manifested particularly strong feelings of affinity for the vendor/system with which they had the most familiarity This is a completely natural human response to change and something that should absolutely be taken into consideration when moving away from a legacy system

Fortuitously, this project benefited from the fact that a larger, heterogeneous consortium, the Orbis Cascade Alliance, comprised of a nonprofit group of 37 colleges and universities in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho, had recently issued

an RFP for a shared Library Management Services platform Information about their processes and committee structure, which was generously posted on their website became a working model for this project (Orbis Cascade Alliance, 2014) The project co-chairs decided to recommend a structure similar to Orbis Cascade

of a Steering Committee and several working groups devoted to a particular set of functional specifications Like Orbis Cascade, the chair (in our case, co-chairs) of each functional Working Group would also serve on the Steering Committee This

Trang 19

provided a vital communication link between the core Steering Committee and Working Groups whose membership possessed expertise in a particular functional area (e.g., cataloging) and were thus uniquely suited to develop the functional specifications and evaluate the responses

Having established (borrowed) the structure, the project co-chairs decided on six functional Working Groups (acquisitions, cataloging, circulation, discovery, serials, and systems) and set about assembling a group of dedicated, open, collegial, and productive people to serve as co-chairs of each group and as members of the project Steering Committee Therefore, with respect to the stated dedication to transparency and inclusivity, the authors put out a call for volunteers to the CSUS librarians and the CCC librarians Once nominations were received, participants were selected according to the following criteria - in order of importance:

Trang 20

7

In many cases, the criteria were clearly met by several possible volunteers, but

in a few instances it was decided that selecting people to serve in these pivotal roles required intervention and consultation with the people who knew the library staff best: the library directors Following brief negotiation, a final list that met all the criteria was completed and forwarded to CoLD for final review

Once membership of the Steering Committee was finalized, the names were municated to all library staff members in an inaugural project email that included the following clarification: “Please note that one of the key roles of the Steering Committee members is to communicate with their colleagues to be sure that all voices are heard in this process.”

com-With the Steering Committee assembled, the project co-chairs assigned each committee member a functional Working Group to co-lead and an initial kick-off meeting of the entire Steering Committee was scheduled Simultaneously, the proj-ect co-chairs deliberated on how to direct the Working Groups to conduct their business After considering several options, it was decided the project co-chairs would take a “hands-off” approach and that the functional Working Group co-chairs would be allowed to form their own committees, carry out their work on the project

in a manner that worked best for their members, and establish communication terns that fit their own styles and comfort levels Accordingly, at the initial kick-off meeting in January 2015, the project co-chairs tasked the Working Group co-chairs with recruiting their own committee members and, as the first test of the “hands off” approach, the project co-chairs were quite pleased with the results: the Work-ing Group co-chairs formed six high performing groups that became the basis for the entire project’s success

pat-Once the Working Groups were assembled, the project co-chairs also allowed the Working Groups to organize their own communication methods, with one ca-

Figure 2 Email message sent to all library staff outlining the duties and obligations

of the Steering Committee

Trang 21

veat: that the Working Group co-chairs would share back results of any meeting

or deliberation with the libraries at large through an online sharing mechanism, and would avoid - at all costs - emailing Word and Excel documents Both having systems backgrounds, the project co-chairs were quite comfortable with most forms

of technology, but tried to choose something that was simple enough for even the least “techie” among the library staff members to navigate After considering several options, a free cloud-based program called Basecamp (https://basecamp.com/) was selected for its relative simplicity However, the version at the time did not allow for intuitive organization and quite soon the site became unwieldy and difficult to manage The steering committee pushed through, but once the time came for general feedback collection, the project co-chairs found it necessary to transition to another solution, as will be discussed in the next section

With the Working Groups assembled and the online sharing site established, the project co-chairs were ready to move the project forward to the specifications preparation stage As mentioned earlier, the project co-chairs borrowed heavily from the Orbis Cascade experience and documentation Each Working Group was seeded with an initial set of specifications for its functional area to use as a model

or as a starting document, thereby greatly expediting the process of preparing the RFP document, and thus emboldening the project co-chairs to pursue an aggressive timeline while remaining were respectful of participants’ and institutions’ schedules and demands However, balancing this aggressive timeline with preserving the Working Groups’ autonomy became one of the most contentious issues that arose throughout the process

Table 1 RFP completion timeline (fall 2015)

April 3, 2015 Completion of work on RFP by Steering Committee.

Trang 22

9

PHASE 2: RFP PREPARATION

January 15 through May 18, 2015

During which the RFP was written and published, and evaluation materials were prepared

PUSHING THE ENVELOPE

Managing a large group of individuals on a deadline is always challenging, and the authors struggled with competing priorities on all levels Foundational to the success

of the project was anticipating how to provide enough time to prepare while ensuring that the timeline is not so protracted that interest is sacrificed In other words, would

it be better to compact the schedule to maintain momentum? Or better to spread it out and risk having to start from scratch every couple of months? A decision was made to follow the former approach (compacted), for the following reasons:

1 The project co-chairs were library directors and did not relish the idea of continuing to work on this project indefinitely,

2 Pushing decisions off could impact the availability of funding, and

3 Why wait? All the libraries can be described as understaffed and the authors could not identify any periods of time that would be less stressful

To ease the tension, the authors tried to be as proactive and responsive as sible Weekly WebEx “check-ins” were held with the Steering Committee in order

pos-to assess progress, suss out stress points, provide guidance, and report out pos-to the Executive Committee of CoLD Notes from each meeting were posted immediately

so everyone could stay on the same page As the Working Groups moved closer to the RFP specifications completion deadline - set for March 6, 2015 - anxiety was heightened In some of the cases, the authors were able to step in and alleviate the stress by making a contribution to the discussion, by taking on a particular sticky task for one of the Working Groups, or by simply talking the group through a challenge This did not work for all groups, however, and unfortunately one of the Working Group co-chairs found it necessary to resign her duties due to time constraints The project co-chairs discussed the possibility of replacing this librarian with another functional expert, but ultimately decided that the process was too far along to plug

in someone who had not been previously involved Therefore, one of the project co-chairs stepped in to help guide this Working Group to completion

Although this one project “casualty” was disappointing, the authors were tremely gratified that the Working Groups were dedicated, productive, responsive,

Trang 23

ex-Don’t Make Us Use the “Get Along Shirt”

and expedient One of the authors has described this experience as one of the best

of her professional career due mostly to the performance of consortium colleagues who co-chaired the Working Groups The first milestone was met without incident when each working group submitted a draft RFP specification for their functional area by the announced deadline of March 3, 2015 - less than two months after the initial kick off The project co-chairs celebrated for brief moment and then moved

on to opening up the drafts to the library staffs at large for the public comment phase, March 6-20, 2015

Any library staff member theoretically had the opportunity to review and ment on any specification draft during this time period In reality, the authors real-ized that most people “stayed in their lane” and reviewed the portions that most affected their work The authors allowed two full work weeks for the public com-ment phase and an additional week for the working groups to incorporate any ap-propriate feedback into the drafts Once that deadline was met, the project co-chairs took on the responsibility of assembling all sections into one cohesive RFP docu-ment This turned out to be an arduous process that may have been the one unfor-tunate result of the autonomy granted to the Working Groups: it was soon discovered that each group wrote in a different style and there was significant overlap between certain functional areas The project co-chairs spent long hours essentially de-du-plicating the specifications and editing the document for style and voice, but even-tually met the next stated deadline and a complete final draft of the RFP was circu-lated by April 3, 2015, approved by CoLD, and submitted to the BOR for review and public posting on April 17, 2015, with a vendor response deadline of May 18, 2015

com-There was little time to enjoy this significant victory, however, and the Working Groups immediately turned to creating evaluation rubrics to score vendor responses For this phase of the project, the authors leaned on their UConn colleagues who had recently been through a similar RFP process The Working Groups were provided a copy (with permission) of the UConn evaluation rubric to work from to help speed

Table 2 Specific milestones related to finalizing the RFP document (proposed)

Date Milestone

March 6 - 20, 2015 Public comment phase.

March 21 - 27, 2015 Section drafts edited and finalized.

March 28 - April 2, 2015 Steering committee assembles sections into cohesive RFP document April 3, 2015 Completed RFP delivered to the Board of Regents.

Trang 24

11

the process It was important to work through this portion as quickly as possible since the evaluation rubrics were required to be finalized and notarized prior to the opening of the bids (scheduled for May 21, 2015) Once again, the authors were grateful that the Working Groups rose to the occasion and completed their work on time All rubrics were submitted and notarized just prior to the bid deadline

PHASE 3: WRITTEN BID EVALUATION

May 21, 2015 through June 12, 2015

During which the vendor bids were reviewed and finalists were notified

LET THE SUN SHINE

Given the complexity and bureaucracy of the institutions, and the stated dedication

to inclusiveness and transparency, some early decisions had to be made regarding what to share, with whom, and how While there is no airtight way to ensure all constituents are kept informed, it was important to be satisfied that updates and information were being provided as openly and as often as possible As was men-tioned previously, the steering committee adopted Basecamp, a popular web-based project management tool, not only to help keep the Steering Committee and Work-ing Groups on track but to provide library colleagues with a discussion forum, and discuss they did! The original Basecamp site had 100 discussions that took place between January and June of 2015 While it is no surprise that the people who were most engaged in the discussions that took place via Basecamp were those who were actively involved on one of the RFP committees, providing all library staff with the ability to participate from an early stage was deemed essential

Invitations were sent to all Library staff to join this original Basecamp site While most of the site’s content was available to anyone with an invitation to join (i.e., all staff), access to most functional specification draft documents was restricted to members of the Steering Committee and Working Groups Restricting access to draft documents until they were ready for review by all interested staff balanced the need for transparency with supporting the committee’s ability to complete its charge in a timely fashion No one seemed to object to the access restrictions, though it is quite likely that staff outside the project’s circle did not realize what they were missing since the documents could not be viewed

However, as work progressed it was a struggle to decide how much information

to share and how much input to solicit The more that was shared, the more criticism and scrutiny were invited This was especially true as two project milestones grew

Trang 25

closer: the opening/review of vendor bids and preparation for system tions A couple of library director colleagues were quite vocal in expressing their displeasure that one of their preferred vendors had not submitted a bid This vendor, along with another, had asked for an extension to the May 18, 2015 submission deadline that was not granted by the Board of Regents given our project’s goal of

demonstra-a fdemonstra-all 2016 implementdemonstra-ation Since the other vendor thdemonstra-at requested demonstra-an extension ultimately wound up submitting a bid by the deadline, the company’s decision not

to submit a bid appeared to be a business one

Similarly, the proposed timeline for vendor demonstrations (discussed in the next section) was questioned by a few At this point a conference call with the Council

of Library Directors’ Executive Committee was scheduled to clear the air and avoid potential misunderstandings This meeting was arranged at the request of a member

of the Executive Committee, who felt the workload involved in preparing a onstration script and attending the demonstrations would be too much for his staff involved on Working Groups to handle Although this may have been a legitimate concern, the criticism belied a larger bone of contention, namely the perception that library staff somehow lost control over the process and had thus ceded power to the Board of Regents representatives While it was true that the Board of Regents liaison assigned to the project took the lead on the legal and process requirements

dem-of publishing and opening the bids, an entirely appropriate role since the bid was issued by the Board, the content of the functional specifications and forthcoming evaluation of the bids remained steadfastly under the control of the RFP Steering Committee Ultimately, the Executive Committee concluded that a delay could jeopardize the implementation target date, but, more importantly, the funding al-located to the project

While it was hard not to take such criticism to heart, the authors realized that

it was symptomatic of a larger lack of trust between individual institutions and the CSCU System Office Perhaps not enough time had elapsed after the merger of the two systems to establish the requisite trust needed for a project of this complexity and scope, but it is also true that libraries and librarians have been often marginalized within academia Thus, the fear of having control of the project’s outcome snatched away at any moment was certainly a reasonable one However, the authors will at-test that our experiences working with Board of Regents staff were very positive, and their expertise in state bid processes, project management, and enterprise-level technology solutions proved invaluable Indeed, the authors are hopeful that the working relationships developed with the BOR IT staff during this project will pave the way for more fruitful collaboration in the future

Trang 26

13

IF YOU POST IT, WILL THEY COME? OR COMPLAIN?

Managing documents and posting them openly turned out to be quite challenging While we believed we were providing all relevant information, we learned that con-stituents were beginning to feel overwhelmed and confused As alluded to earlier, Basecamp, while simple to use in the abstract, became quite difficult to navigate in practice All information and discussion was lumped into one big area and many staff members who were not involved from the beginning were struggling to find the appropriate materials to review

As the project approached the vendor demonstration phase, it became apparent that a different posting mechanism was required, along with an organized feedback mechanism The project co-chairs had to decide - on the fly - how to quickly create

a space where we could post documentation and links to feedback forms for staff members to continue to feel part of the decision making process There was little time to reflect and deliberate, so the authors decided to fall back on a familiar library web-publishing environment: SpringShare’s LibGuides platform Nearly all the libraries were comfortable with the software and it enabled the project co-chairs to neatly categorize and organize all the pertinent information The authors coupled LibGuides with simple Google forms using a combination of Likert scales and open-ended questions Staff members were directed to the site where they were able to find one page for each vendor that included the RFP specification section for each working group, the vendor response to that specification, the recorded demonstra-tions, and a link to the feedback form for that vendor/functional area However, in solving the information organization problem created by using Basecamp, a new problem was inadvertently created: assurance of privacy

Librarians who use LibGuides know that there are three settings for a guide: unpublished (available to no one except the author), published (available to anyone), and private (available only to those who have the URL) The project co-chairs de-cided to use a private guide, distribute the URL to all library staff members, and proceed accordingly Vendors, however, were not as confident as the authors were that their proprietary materials would not be inappropriately - or even unwittingly

- shared with others Concerns regarding privacy became yet another obstacle to overcome, and attempts to assuage these concerns further confused the library staff members: new passwords and access restrictions appeared and had to be dissemi-nated by email or through Basecamp (which was considered more secure) Briefly, frustrations spiked and the authors felt some harsh and bitter pushback But each time that happened the project co-chairs took the time to regroup, recalibrate, and move forward with confidence

Trang 27

Figure 3 Screenshot of LibGuide created to ease staff access to vendor tion and system demonstration surveys

documenta-Figure 4 Screenshot of Google form used to collect feedback from staff

Trang 28

15

REGROUPING

As the self-imposed deadline approached, conversations began to happen about how to negotiate a mutually acceptable recommendation Qualitative and quantita-tive approaches to evaluating each proposal were considered, both methodologies offering distinct advantages and disadvantages The Steering Committee worked to reach a shared understanding of how each proposal would be evaluated and what the final recommendation would include While it is true that some selection com-mittees opt for a purely quantitative approach when evaluating vendor responses, after some discussion, the Steering Committee concluded the best decision, one that fulfilled the project’s stated goals and priorities, would be reached by taking a qualitative approach since the specifications themselves were both descriptive and qualitative in nature As one member of the Steering Committee pointed out, there

is a risk that in relying solely on numerical scores one vendor’s solution would be declared the winner by the slightest margin, thus leading to a decision that is not particularly satisfying to anyone

For each of the six functional areas of the RFP, as well as the security, technical, and business requirements, a scoresheet and rubric was developed by each of the working groups As previously stated, all scoresheets and evaluation rubrics had

to be notarized before the opening of the bids The scoresheets were to indicate the importance of each specification along with a rating of “acceptable”, “unac-ceptable” or “superior” according to the rubric The bids were opened on May 21,

2015, and the files were posted internally The Working Groups then proceeded to the evaluation phase with the same independent spirit and diligence exercised in the development of the functional specifications Some Working Groups opted to completed a single, ranked scoresheet as a group while others decided it would be best for each member to undertake this independently at first and come together later to prepare a final scoresheet that represented the group consensus The original intent of these rankings was to narrow the field of bidders that would proceed to the demonstration phase However, given the relatively few bids that were submitted (three combined bids and one standalone Discovery bid), the Steering Committee ultimately agreed to invite all bidders to demonstrate their solutions Preparing of final scoresheets and short narrative assessments would be deferred until after the demonstrations Instead, the rubrics and scoresheets were used to collect questions and clarifications that were communicated to the vendors Responses to those ques-tions were also posted for all library staff to read

Trang 29

PHASE 4: VENDOR DEMONSTRATIONS

June 15 through July 31, 2015

During which vendor demonstrations were conducted and feedback was collected

SHOW AND TELL

Once the bids were examined and questions and answers were exchanged between CSCU and each vendor, it was time for the Working Groups to perform their next task: preparation of the demonstration scripts For one of the project co-chairs, this was a completely new concept, requiring her to take some time to get up to speed

on the practice Fortunately, there were many great examples posted on the web and the authors were able to provide additional guidance and assistance to the Work-ing Groups for this phase For the purposes of this project, it was decided that the demonstration scripts should be written to elucidate or clarify certain processes or functionality that was not immediately apparent from the bid responses The authors diligently tried to avoid the online demonstrations becoming simple sales pitches, although at least one of the vendors took that approach despite the carefully crafted scripts Once again, each group applied their unique perspective to this task with some groups preparing “scenarios” for the vendors to work through, while others focused

on step-by-step descriptions of certain aspects of the solution Both approaches were successful in eliciting important distinguishing characteristics of each system

Figure 5 Screenshot of the Acquisitions and Collection Development Working Group’s evaluation rubric

Trang 30

17

Aggressive is a word that has been used to describe the timeline for this entire project, and the demonstration schedule was no different A total of 19 online (We-bEx, mostly) two hour demonstrations were scheduled in the span of three weeks Interested library staff members were invited to view from wherever they chose, either individually or as a group The sessions were recorded and saved for those people who could not participate in real time Links to the recordings were added to the LibGuide (described earlier) as they became available so all relevant information was posted in one location As dedicated as the project co-chairs were to maintaining the project timetable, there was some slippage during this phase Library directors expressed concern that due to vacation schedules and other commitments, the staff members at large did not have enough time to view and provide feedback However, even though the deadline for feedback was extended for a week, feedback response rates remained woefully low

With the demonstrations completed, it was time for the Working Groups to start

on their final task, selecting the vendor/solution that made the most sense for the functional area The Working Groups were instructed to provide a final narrative assessment that included ranking of vendor solutions (most desirable to least), and identification of strengths and weaknesses for each solution demonstrated using the written bid responses, the information gleaned from the demonstrations, and, theo-retically, the feedback provided through the Google response forms filled out by library staff members The authors say “theoretically” because the response rate was so low as to be negligible and therefore unusable The few responses received turned out to be clear endorsements of one vendor over another or simply rants The only information the Working Groups did not have - purposefully - was the cost information The authors decided early in the process to keep the bid cost informa-tion confidential until the final deliberations in order for the selection process to be based on the merits of the solution and not the low bid as can sometimes happen with big ticket purchases

While the process that was laid out and agreed upon seemed egalitarian and relatively straightforward at the time, some fissures began with appear within some

Figure 6 Vendor demonstration schedule, July 2015

Trang 31

of the Working Groups Even though some of this dissention can most certainly be attributed to “personality issues” or two alphas going mano a mano, some members had real differences of opinion concerning the perceived functionality of a particular vendor’s solution that obviously needed to be resolved In the case of the former (personality issues), one was inadvertently resolved by the resignation of one of the co-chairs (as was described earlier), though the reason for the co-chair’s departure had more to do with timeline and process concerns than not getting along with a colleague In the case of the latter, failure to adjudicate differences of opinion, can be the death knell of even the largest project Therefore, the ability to reach consensus despite varying opinions and put one’s ego aside for the good of the project were leadership qualities the authors tried to model, but also witnessed in the actions of system colleagues time and again

This was particularly true within the Discovery Working Group After this group had met to prepare its final scoresheet and rankings, one member sent a lengthy email message to the others that contained some rather harshly-worded criticism

of the scoring deliberations and final recommendation Although this member was the only one who articulated these concerns, the group’s co-chairs decided that it was more important for everyone to be comfortable with the decisions made They contacted the aggrieved member and recommended the group meet again to review the sections of concern, though doing so required an extension to the deadline for submitting final recommendations to the Steering Committee An in-person meeting was scheduled, and although the second review did not affect the original scoring in

a significant way, at least all members of the Working Group completed their work with a sense that their voices were heard and mattered In most cases it is better to take a deep breath and preserve a positive working relationship with a colleague rather than resorting to the instant, but short-lived, gratification of retaliation or assertion of positional dominance

It is important to acknowledge that librarianship has a culture that places great value on resource sharing and cooperation While these values are in many respects

a cornerstone of our profession, efforts to “play nice” can often lead to the type

of groupthink that results in poor decision-making Groupthink, a term coined by psychologist Irving Janis, may stem from a variety of causes including a desire to

be liked or part of a team as well as pressures to conform to institutional mandates (Katopol, 2015) These factors combined with a natural human tendency to cling to the familiar and fear the unknown led to a phenomenon the authors affectionately referred to as “punting,” or the inability of some Working Groups to establish a clear hierarchy of the proposals received This behavior was manifested by a few

of the functional Working Groups that opted to recommend two systems that were, unsurprisingly, proffered by the vendors with whom we had existing contracts In some cases, even though the scoresheets established a clear “winner”, it was not by

Trang 32

19

big enough of a margin for members of the group to feel comfortable declaring a frontrunner While it may be true that old allegiances die hard, many group mem-bers also seemed to consciously sidestep any potential dissention, similar to that experienced by the Discovery Working Group, by “punting” their decision to the Steering Committee Acknowledging, understanding, and addressing these natural biases, as well as creating the conditions in which group members are free to express opinions without fear of reprisal, should be a component of any selection process Lastly, those who serve as members of a Steering Committee should be prepared

to make a difficult call in these situations when needed

PHASE 5: DELIBERATION AND RECOMMENDATION

August 1 through August 21, 2015

During which costs are reviewed and a final vendor is selected

BRINGING IT ACROSS THE FINISH LINE

Up until this point, the project co-chairs conducted most meetings and tions remotely via WebEx But when it came time to complete the project with a final recommendation, it was clear the entire Steering Committee needed to meet

communica-in person The project co-chairs had lengthy discussions as to how to work out the final recommendation Would it be acceptable to have a simple majority be in agreement? Or would it be preferable to achieve true consensus? In the end, it was decided that the process would resemble jury deliberations Each Working Group would be allowed an opportunity to defend their first choice and discussion would ensue At this point, the cost information was revealed to the Steering Committee members only Once again, the authors were gratified to find the Steering Commit-tee members listening attentively and absorbing information from their colleagues Finally, after deep and productive discussion, the project co-chairs took an anonymous paper vote - again, jury style Members of the Steering Committee were instructed to write down the name of the vendor they preferred The intention was to find where the inconsistencies were and address each one until consensus was reached Instead,

at the end of the very first vote, the selection was unanimous It appeared that ing each member of the Steering Committee opportunities to process, reflect, and voice the misgivings of their respective Working Groups throughout the selection process enabled the group to reach a consensus on the solution that is best able to support the project’s goals The fact that the selected solution was also the most cost-effective was a bonus for the consortium

Trang 33

giv-Don’t Make Us Use the “Get Along Shirt”

The project co-chairs performed their final task: writing and submitting a final, unanimous recommendation to the Council of Library Directors who would then accept or reject it and forward it on to the Board of Regents for awarding of the contract The authors were pleased with the outcome, and although they remain confident that the process was fair, transparent, and collaborative, concerns that the decision was predetermined by a select group of administrators in a back-room deal were apparently unavoidable and bubbled to the surface via some of the library directors during the final decision making meeting Fortunately, CoLD was able

to work through these issues and the co-authors were able to produce evidence to defend the selection The Council approved the recommendation, the Board of Re-gents agreed with the decision, and the contract was awarded after several months

of negotiating and legal wordsmithing Unfortunately, the authors were not able to control this portion of the timeline and slow maneuvering of the Connecticut state bureaucracy pushed back the implementation target date by an entire semester

PHASE 6: THE AFTERMATH

August 2015 through present

During which the consortium starts to ponder implementation

LESSONS LEARNED

The co-authors discovered a great deal about project management, transparency, consensus building, and communication throughout this experience Some lessons were learned the hard way, but were learned nonetheless A commitment to inclu-sivity, while sometimes messy, served the project well as the implementation phase now begins The Steering Committee structure was key to a successful outcome,

as it allowed for flexibility for the Working Group co-chairs Open documentation, while extremely important for transparency, was somewhat overwhelming and could have been managed better with more anticipatory planning rather than scrambling

to address issues Throughout the project, the co-chairs tried to anticipate questions and points of contention, to model civility and patience, and to proactively engage in productive debate This strategy ultimately did not provide immunity against harsh and bitter push back as is so often the case when staff confront change, but it did engender confidence that the process was fair and egalitarian Finally, balancing the perception of building consensus vs controlling the outcome was a delicate propo-sition indeed and that some of the discomfort might have been alleviated earlier in the process through additional upfront conversation

Trang 34

21

REFERENCES

Berrett, D (2015, October 28) How a 40-year-old idea became higher education’s

next big thing Chronicle of Higher Education Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/

article/How-a-40-Year-Old-Idea-Became/233976

Carlson, S (2016, February 29) The outsourced college Chronicle of Higher

Edu-cation Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/The-Outsourced-College/235445

Charter Oak State College (2016) Charter Oak State College official catalog

Retrieved from http://www.charteroak.edu/catalog/current/general-information

Connecticut General Assembly (2011a, June 13) Public Act No 11-48 Retrieved

from https://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/act/pa/2011PA-00048-R00HB-06651-PA.htm

Connecticut General Assembly (2011b, June 21) Public Act No 11-61 Retrieved

from https://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/ACT/PA/2011PA-00061-R00HB-06652-PA.htm

Connecticut State College and Universities (2015, September 17) Bylaws of the

Connecticut Board of Regents Retrieved from http://www.ct.edu/files/pdfs/bylaws.pdf

Katopol, P F (2015) Groupthink: Group dynamics and the decision-making process

Library Leadership and Management, 30(1), 1–6.

Keating, C (2011, July 17) Heading for layoffs no one wants: State faces budget

balancing heartache Hartford Courant Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/

docview/877937387?accountid=39196

National Center for Education Statistics (2016) College enrollment in the United

States from 1965 to 2014 and projections up to 2025 for public and private colleges (in millions) Retrieved May 23, 2016, from http://www.statista.com/statistics/183995/

us-college-enrollment-and-projections-in-public-and-private-institutions/

Orbis Cascade Alliance (2014, March 1) Shared ILS implementation Retrieved

May 23, 2016, from https://oldsite.orbiscascade.org/index/shared-ils-implementationThomas, J R (2011a, May 12) Higher education leaders anxious over lack of

merger specifics Connecticut Mirror Retrieved from http://ctmirror.org/2011/05/12/

higher-education-leaders-anxious-over-lack-merger-specifics/

Thomas, J R (2011b, June 30) On eve of higher ed merger, Meotti named interim

president Connecticut Mirror Retrieved from

http://ctmirror.org/2011/06/30/eve-higher-ed-merger-meotti-named-interim-president/

Trang 35

Thomas, J R (2014, November 11) Faculty push back on president’s plans for

Connecticut State Universities Connecticut Mirror Retrieved from

http://ctmir-universities/

ror.org/2014/11/11/faculty-push-back-on-presidents-plans-for-connecticut-state-Thomason, A (2015, December 16) College enrollment declines for 4th straight

year [Web log post] Retrieved from

http://chronicle.com/blogs/ticker/college-enrollment-declines-for-4th-straight-year/107458

25 years of declining state support for public colleges (2014, March 3) Retrieved May 23, 2016, from http://chronicle.com/interactives/statesupport

Trang 36

Cost-Savings, ILS Management,

Teams, and End-Users

ori-to move from a local consortium based catalog with a shared and centrally istered back-end to a global catalog with the ability to personalize administration for a single library Background on institutional culture, key stakeholders, benefits for library staff and end-user will be discussed.

Trang 37

Moving from Local to Global via the Integrated Library System

INTRODUCTION

The Integrated Library System (ILS) is the beating heart of libraries that allows organization, access, and information about library resources Without an effective and user-friendly ILS the books, audiovisual materials, and other resources held

by libraries would not be findable It is imperative to keep a keen eye on current trends and developments in the ILS industry so that libraries can continue to be

at the forefront of organization and access to materials within and outside of the library’s walls

The library where the authors are employed joined a consortium in 2002, at a time when the institution was expanding its offerings and was in need of growing its available collections through collaboration Consortium membership was by yearly fee and meant that member libraries belonged to a shared ILS and catalog with a central office assisting and acting on behalf of the member libraries In recent years, operating costs continued to increase and adding features and systems meant further expenditures, thus consortium membership costs continued to rise The library determined that with system and staff permission limitations, slow technological growth, and increasing overall costs we would need to explore other library systems

In an era of budget constraints, yearly increases to subscribed content, and new programs of study - moving from a shared system to one that was managed in-house allowed for substantial cost savings This cost savings translated to providing better services for the library staff and for the community of users served by the library The new ILS streamlines the library systems and processes while providing next generation technology Some examples include- automated daily updates to patron records, providing users a single sign on, allowing for the addition of patron driven acquisitions, demand driven acquisition records to be discoverable in the library catalog, responsive front-end web design, interlibrary loan hold records and item barcodes that are system generated The library catalog is no longer limited by local membership, rather it provides the ability to request and access a breath of global materials, so important to the current library patron in higher education

Trang 38

25

two years have accelerated this growth and innovation Today, Bryant University occupies 450 acres and has over 3,500 students (82% residential) and even boasts

a campus in Zhuhai, China

Bryant’s mission statement, “Educate and inspire students to discover their sion and become innovative leaders with character around the world” has adopted various renditions over the years such as, “empower students to be their best in their chosen profession and in their personal lives,” “the character of success,” and the “character of leadership” (Bryant University, 2012) These mantras are embed-ded in Bryant’s tightly-knitted, student centered community Together, they have resulted in a transformational culture at all levels; thus, creating the unique Bryant experience not only for students but for faculty and staff as well Woven within the fabric of the institution is the constant desire to innovate while planning for the strategic future of the university This overarching culture trickles down and creates

pas-a lpas-asting effect on this smpas-all school The librpas-ary, in ppas-articulpas-ar, hpas-as embrpas-aced this culture and has used much of it to implement its own vision and strategy

One guiding theme of Bryant’s strategic plan incorporates innovation into the way we prepare the institution and our students for success Another emphasizes differentiation in the way we develop and deliver education and use technology

to promote creative collaboration among faculty and students These themes help many of Bryant’s departments to operate in a “constant state of beta.” The culture

of innovation empowers us to always consider what the next phase might be for our services, offerings and systems

Another of Bryant’s guiding themes is “internationalization of our campus via initiatives at home and abroad” (Bryant University, 2012) The library is a solution-driven body and we embrace the global perspective put forth by our institution’s mission We focus on ways to offer services that are not restricted by the borders of a continent, be they physical or virtual Ensuring that each student has an appreciation

of the interconnectedness of cultures and economies so they are fully prepared to succeed and make a difference in an age of unlimited global opportunity is paramount

ILS HISTORY

Bryant’s library has aligned itself with the university culture by continuously hibiting and contributing to change and innovation Bryant’s library joined OCLC

ex-in 1978, shortly after the bibliographic utility expanded its membership options

to include libraries beyond Ohio In 1983, then Bryant College installed its first integrated library system (ILS) (CLSI LIBS 100 System) becoming the first Rhode Island institution to automate circulation functions and present users with an online catalog Bryant remained a stand-alone turnkey site for nearly twenty years upgrad-

Trang 39

ing to second and third generation systems which also included a migration to an ILS from a different vendor (Innovative Interfaces Inc.) Each upgrade came with new features and additional modules, for example, electronic reserves which were implemented in 1999

Meanwhile, a consortium of college and university libraries was acquiring new members and its ILS was becoming more “state of the art.” By 2001 the in-state, higher education consortium had a robust ILS with the latest capabilities, including

an electronic reserves module and patron-initiated borrowing for print books and videos It was at this time that Bryant University decided to upgrade their stand-alone ILS and become a part of this dynamic and collaborative resource sharing system.When Bryant joined the in-state academic library ILS consortium in fiscal year

2001, membership fees comprised six percent of the Krupp library’s operational budget A substantial one time membership fee was a prerequisite to membership

In turn, these fees from new members became invested in future hardware and software upgrades for the consortium

In 2002, the Bryant library moved into a newly constructed cutting-edge facility; namely, the George E Bello Center for Information and Technology In addition to the move to its extraordinary location, the library was absorbed by a recently cre-ated Information Services division which also included the technology help desk, classrooms, labs, audio visual and administrative offices The library no longer reported to the Vice President for Academic Affairs In this same year Bryant be-came a “laptop campus,” full time undergraduates receive a Bryant issued laptop

in their freshman year with a trade-in upgrade in their junior year These changes marked the beginning of a greater collaborative exchange of ideas, more supportive relationships and the development of mutual partnering toward our common goals.Over the next several years we embraced the shared consortia ILS and found that it worked extremely well for the library and our patrons We enjoyed the same benefits that others involved in various consortia have reported in the 2007 ALA Library Networks, Cooperatives, and Consortia Survey: “Resource sharing/interli-brary loan, communication, professional development/continuing education” were

at the top of our list (Horton, 2013, p 151)

With quick resource sharing turnaround time and a community of nearby fessionals to collaborate with we found it difficult when we began to contemplate making a change; but as costs began to creep up for online resources, so too did costs for the consortia membership Additionally, the ILS was one that we now considered

pro-to be a legacy system and it didn’t seem pro-to be innovating and moving forward with the times as much as other systems were As we discovered and researched other ILS options, it became clear that a change might help us to achieve some of our institutional goals such as adding more online and global resources, making them more easily discoverable to our constituents and streamlining our processes

Trang 40

27

COLLABORATIVE LIBRARY DECISION MAKING

The aforementioned culture of the community at Bryant embraces and encourages all to be leaders in their field through innovation, embracing technology and pilot-ing programs The mission of the Douglas and Judith Krupp Library is to “collect, organize, and provide access to information resources and library services that are central to the University’s academic mission” (Douglas and Judith Krupp Library) With the borrowing and lending of print materials across libraries decreasing, and the existing consortium system incapable of borrowing and lending journal articles, the library began exploring future options to best serve our community

Because the library falls under the Information Services division, which houses Information Technology (IT) along with the library, we had a clear advantage when

we conducted an analysis of our stakeholders for the project; “a breakdown of eryone who will be impacted by the upcoming migration, how significantly they will be impacted, and in what ways” (Dula, Jacobsen, Ferguson, & Ross, 2012, p 9) The library has implemented smaller technologies in the past and needed as-sistance to do so from various IT departments Our organizational structure is such that the library management meets often and regularly with managers across the Information Services Division allowing for an open dialogue regarding technology change management Additionally, we are able to take advantage of the technology implementation expertise that is available through this somewhat unique structure.The culture of the Douglas and Judith Krupp Library is clearly one that reflects the larger culture of the University but, additionally, the internal library structure is one of collaboration and cross-training in projects and processes across all library departments We do our best not to create silos but, rather, to share the concerns and needs of each library department, while in turn, considering the needs of other departments within our organization The size of our library staff is conducive to this type of culture, as we only have sixteen members, and we can easily work as a team M Sue Baughman says that “teams allow libraries to involve employees in the full spectrum of work processes from conceptualization, goal creation, design, implementation, and evaluation” (2008, p.294) Because of our team-based history

ev-of decision making within the library, collaboratively investigating other ILS ev-ferings was natural to our processes The idea of changing systems was initiated a couple of years prior to actually making any decisions, and mentioned multiple times

of-at all-staff meetings The hope was to plant the seed thof-at these changes may come and to help the entire staff feel comfortable- even excited- that not all systems and processes are set in stone and that the future will always bring change We wanted

to ensure that the individual library team members could “visualize a future in which they have a role and are valued, the anxiety inherent to change [would] be manageable” (Dula, Jacobsen, Ferguson, & Ross, 2012, p 9)

Định dạng
Số trang	270
Dung lượng	3,33 MB