,EW CLOUD c LIBRARY MA - University of Washington · Communicate, communicate, communicate....

11
,EW CLOUD c LIBRARY MA * 6 JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2012 •• iv.'/iv idíotodav i

Transcript of ,EW CLOUD c LIBRARY MA - University of Washington · Communicate, communicate, communicate....

Page 1: ,EW CLOUD c LIBRARY MA - University of Washington · Communicate, communicate, communicate. Frequently, a library forms an implementa-tion team to manage the local migration activities,

,EW CLOUD cLIBRARY MA

*

6 JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2012 •• iv.'/iv idíotodav i

Page 2: ,EW CLOUD c LIBRARY MA - University of Washington · Communicate, communicate, communicate. Frequently, a library forms an implementa-tion team to manage the local migration activities,

Our experience with WMS has beenmore positive than we expected —and we expected a lot. Our patronsare happier, and we are saving timeand money.

PUTING

>ymbiotic ApproachBy

Michael Dula,

Lynne Jacobsen

TTII

Tyler Ferguson,

and

Rob Ross

This is the story of how Pepperdine Uni-

versity migrated its library management

functions to the cloud using what is now

known as OCLC's WorldShare Management

Services (WMS). The story of implementing this

new service is told from two vantage points: that

of the library and that of the service provider.

Authors Michael Dula and Lynne Jacobsen

of Pepperdine University Libraries and Tyler

Ferguson and Rob Ross of OCLC were the prin-

ciple collaborators for this pilot project, which

took place between June and December 2010.

In this article, the authors outline the stages of

adopting and deploying WMS. The process de-

scribed and the advice shared, however, apply to

the adoption of other systems as well.

BackgroundPepperdine University is an independent uni-

versity enrolling approximately 7,700 students in

five colleges and schools. Pepperdine has six

branch libraries, as well as a number of small

libraries at international programs. Michael and

Lynne are, respectively, director for digital initia-

tives and technology strategy and associate

university librarian for information resources,

collections, and scholarly communication.

OCLC is a nonprofit, membership, computer

library service and research organization dedicated

to the public purposes of furthering access to

the world's information and reducing the

rate of rise for library costs. OCLC and its

member libraries cooperatively produce

and maintain WorldCat, the world's largest

online database for discovery of library re-

sources. Rob and Tyler are, respectively, director

of implementation programs and senior imple-

mentation program manager at OCLC.

WMS is the first web-scale, cooperative set

of library management services. The aim was

to move core services such as circulation, ac-

quisitions, cataloging, and discovery to the net-

work or the cloud. By doing so, the goal was to

allow libraries to share hardware, services, and

data, as opposed to traditional library manage-

ment systems that offer individual libraries

hosted, but siloed, hardware, software, and

Pepperdine University, Maiibu, Caiif.

www.infolodav.corii « JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2012 7

Page 3: ,EW CLOUD c LIBRARY MA - University of Washington · Communicate, communicate, communicate. Frequently, a library forms an implementa-tion team to manage the local migration activities,

C O M P U T E R S IN l i B R A R i L S

implementing a new cloud computing library management service

A typical library topography WMS seeks to offer this topography

WMS aims to transform a traditional library systems topography such as this into a web-scale library topography such as this.

data storage. Because WMS is built ona common, open, and extensible soft-ware platform, libraries and third-party vendors can create and use ap-plications that extend the utility andefficiency of core library functions. Fi-nally, because WMS offers massivelyaggregated data, libraries reap bene-fits from the combined wisdom of theircommunity members.

Reporting on Our Experience

PEPPERDINE: Why WMS? At theoutset of what became the WMS

project, Pepperdine was running Ex Lib-ris Ltd.'s Voyager as our integrated li-brary system (ILS) on an internally man-aged Sun server. We were a couple ofreleases behind and facing the familiar,but always somewhat daunting, prospectof scheduling a system upgrade duringthe next available holiday break. Thiswould have involved several days of sys-tem downtime, the installation of newclient software on library computers atevery branch location, the reconnectionof the discovery interface, and a lot ofcrossed fingers. We had periodically con-sidered other system options, but nonehad appeared to us to offer an adequatereturn on investment for the trouble ofmigrating. When OCLC approached uswith the possibility of joining a pilot pro-gram for the development of a new sys-tem, we quickly jumped onboard.

There were three main reasonsdriving our adoption of WMS:

1. The technology. We were al-ready moving into outsourced hostingas a library and as a university. Withinthe OCLC product family, we were al-ready running hosted CONTENTdmfor managing digital collections and IL-Liad for interlibrary loan without ahitch, and we had successfully rolledout WorldCat Local (WCL) as our dis-covery platform the year before. Wewanted to get out of the server man-agement business. Our goal was tomanage information, not technology.

2. The features. The WMS featureroad map promised greater interoper-ability with our other systems (ILLiad,WorldCat Link Manager, EZproxy,CONTENTdm, etc.). The improved userinterface seemed likely to make moreefficient workflows possible for our tech-nical services staff, just as the adoptionof WorldCat Local had improved theuser experience for our patrons. Fur-ther down the road, we were looking for-ward to an array of social computingfeatures, shared data with vendors andpeer institutions, opportunities forthird-party integration, and better elec-tronic resource management.

3. ROI. The addition of WorldCat Lo-cal and ILLiad had already significantlyincreased circulation and ILL volume andmade our patrons happier. Our analysisshowed significant cost savings as soon aswe switched fi-om our old system to WMS,even without factoring in timesavings as

a result of a more efficient staff workflow.As a bonus, we would not need to worryabout replacing our old Sun servers thatwere nearing their end of lives.

Rob Ross Tyler Ferguson

Groundwork for Change

© OCLC: In working with approxi-mately 35 early adopters of WMS

to date, it has become clear that man-aging the change process is the mostunderestimated aspect of an implemen-tation. While Pepperdine UniversityLibraries is a model in how to preparestaff for change, some other librarieswe've worked with struggle in this area.

The most successful WMS adopterswe've worked with share a few com-mon traits:

• They can easily and compellinglyarticulate their goals for change.

• Library leaders are actively engagedin the implementation process.

• The library's implementation teamaccepts ownership for the success ofthe implementation.

8 JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2012

Page 4: ,EW CLOUD c LIBRARY MA - University of Washington · Communicate, communicate, communicate. Frequently, a library forms an implementa-tion team to manage the local migration activities,

COMPUTERS IN t IBRARIESimplementing a new cloud computing library management service

It should come as no surprise thatthese traits match those cited in changemanagement surveys conducted by pub-lications, such as McKinsey Quarterlyas the most predictive of success inchange initiatives.

In addition to the absence ofthe posi-tive traits noted earlier, we have observedthat our least successftil adopters sharea couple of attributes:

• They underestimate the gi'oundworknecessary for successful change.

• They fail to set up mtiltiplecommunication channels between thelibrary's implementation team andthe various groups of stakeholders.

Based on otir experience working withlibraries, we offer some practical tips forpreparing to migrate to a new technologyplatform in the sidebar to the right.

Michael Dula Lynne Jacobsen

PEPPERDINE: Changing to a newsystem is always a time of excite-

ment and challenge. Having the oppor-tunity to help design a new system wasa truly unique situation. Moving otir li-brary operations to the cloud took placeover many months, so it was fairly grad-ual. We migrated to WorldCat Local asour discovery interface while still usingour old ILS. The resounding success ofthe new discovery interface gave us theconfidence to move ahead with WMS al-most a year later. We discussed WMSwith staff at both department and all-staff meetings. Staff members heard fre-quent progress reports and over timelearned the nattire of this important li-brary project. OCLC staff visited for 2days about 6 months before we went live.They interviewed various staff membersand studied workflows in the areas ofacquisitions, cataloging, circulation,

resource sharing, collection manage-ment, and license management.

As WMS features were announcedwith projected delivery dates, we wereahle to start planning our implementa-tion schedule. We started having con-versations about what might changeand how we would cope with it. We knewwe had to function fully and not lose theability to provide core services to users,so we carefully considered the optionsavailable, potential workarounds, and

features we could live without. It wasimportant to understand otir current op-erations fully before being abh; to decidoconfidently how to do things differently.We had documented procedures on a de-partmental wiki page, which reallyhelped us know who was doing whatwhen. That allowed easier idetitiftcationof core functions and helped us avoidsurprises later.

One ofthe advantages of moving to anew system is the opportimity to review

How to Lay the Groundwork for Successful Platform MigrationBased on its experience working with libraries. OCLC offers these practical tips for laying

the groundwork for a successful technology Implementation,

Convey to all staff that your migration will be an opportunity to question everything abotrt

your current operations. Industry experts such as Marshall Breeding, the director for innovative tech-

nologies and research for Vanderbllt University Libraries, indicate that it is common for libraries to

have held on to their legacy systems for about 10 years, in some cases using the samo vendor for up

to 20 years. Because a systems change happens so infrequently, it is an opportune time for libraries

fo rethink current policies, processes, and staffing allocation. Think of migration as spring-cleaning;

It's an opportunity to take stock, clear out the old, and prepare for what's next.

Temper the anxiety caused by change. Reduce this fear by clearly and consistently re-

minding staff members of where they fit in the future, postmigration organization. So long as staff

members can visualize a future in which they have a role and are valued, the anxiety inherent to

change will be manageable.

Complete a stakeholder analysis. Many libraries don't take the time to complete a stakei-

holder analysis, which is simply a breakdown of everyone who will be impacted by the up-

coming migration, how significantly they will be impacted, and in what ways. These should in-

clude library staff, patron groups, campus technology staff, etc. Once completed, this document

can help the library executive or the library's implementation team determine how and with

whom they ought to spend their time and energy managing change.

Ensure that staff members are ready to take on new roles. WMS will create more capacity,

freeing staff members to take on new tasks. Sounds great, right? However, be sure that the staff mem-

bers you plan to move into new roles are equipped to succeed. Just as you wouldn't send a hiker

into the woods without food, water, and a compass, you wouldn't send a cataloger to the reference

desk without the appropriate training and toolset. The earlier in the change process you can oiier

training and skill-building opportunities to those impacted by the migration, helping them envision

themselves in the new, postmigration world, the more comfortable they will be with the change.

Match skills and Interests to roles as much as possible. It may sound obvious, but as

the distribution of staff changes as a result of implementing a new system, a simple one-to-one

redistribution of staff members may not be possible. Take this opportunity to reassess staff

skills and Interests. Then, put together a plan for the future where staff members are matched

to positions where they are most likely to be successful and happy.

Communicate, communicate, communicate. Frequently, a library forms an implementa-

tion team to manage the local migration activities, which is efficient and logical. However, twc-

way communication channels between the library's implementation team and other library stake-

holders are also necessary. Otherwise, there is a risk that important changes brought about by

the upcoming migration will not be communicated effectively to impacted staff members, and/or

important considerations and feedback will not be received by the implementation team from

these staff members. No one likes to be unnecessarily surprised by a setback at the 11th hour.

Better to communicate all relevant information widely, early, and often.

www.infotoday.com « JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2t)12 | 9

Page 5: ,EW CLOUD c LIBRARY MA - University of Washington · Communicate, communicate, communicate. Frequently, a library forms an implementa-tion team to manage the local migration activities,

C O M Í ' U T E R S I N L I B R A R i E S

implementing a new cloud computing library management service

library policies and make changes. Weheld a series of committee meetings to re-view our circulation policies, which werevaried and complex. The committee wasmade up of staff members from the mainlibrary and several branches. Throughdiscussion of true needs and a commit-ment to streamlining, we were able tosimplify the complexity of the previoussystem's configuration. We reduced thenumber of patron groups fi-om 14 to six.We also reduced the number of possibleloan periods. We decided to try to provideimproved service to faculty and studentsby lengthening loan periods and elimi-nating fines. Many changes were unani-mously recommended and would be im-plemented with the new system.

Breaking Ground

OCLC: The most time-consum-ing, intensive aspect of migrat-

ing to a new system is data migration.Most libraries are migrating to WMSafter many years of creating data in asystem that has its own uniquely de-fined data elements and data struc-tures. Migrating that data to a new sys-tem requires that a library know itsdata intimately. Libraries go through aprocess of data analysis before migrat-ing the first byte of information. Theanalysis seeks to define the following:

1. What data is in the system?

2. Why is it in the system?

3. How is it stored in the system?

These questions apply to all datatypes: bibliographic, item, patron, andcirculation. It is common when workingwith any software, web application, ortool to create data that meets the specificrequirements of the services accessingthe data. WMS is no different. Item datain a legacy ILS becomes Local Holdingsdata in WMS. This conversion trans-forms a significant amount of data intoa format and schema that will be used ina prescribed manner by WMS.

An interesting discovery many li-braries make during the process ofdata analysis is that the data created

in their legacy systems was created asit was in an attempt to preserve pre-existing workflows or reports from aprior system. In many cases, unques-tioningly carrying these workfiows intoWMS (a system in some cases 20 yearsremoved from those original work-flows) can yield ludicrous results. Soanswering the questions what and whybecomes very important. You need toknow what is in the system so that itcan be identified and accounted forduring migration. You need to knowwhy it is in the system so that there isan understanding of the specific work-fiow or process goal that this data ele-ment helps the library achieve. Finally,you need to know how data is stored inthe system so that the conversion map-ping process yields data that will be us-able by the new system.

Because staff members at Pepper-dine had implemented WorldCat Localonly a year prior to WMS, they were fa-miliar with the process of updating andmaintaining holdings (titles owned) inWorldCat. They spent a considerableamount of time sorting through the dif-ferent data types to optimize their datafor migration, identifjang data not to bemigrated, and working with OCLC totransform the data to be loaded in away that took full advantage of theWorldCat Local data display options.Where patron data was concerned, Pep-perdine sought to minimize the impactto patrons by preserving existing user-names. But data is not all that must betransformed to meet the requirementsof a new system. Policies, workflows,and business processes must all beevaluated and adjusted to ensure suc-cess in adopting a new system.

PEPPERDINE: Because we hadalready implemented WorldCat

Local, some of the data preparation workwas done. We had performed a datareclamation project with OCLC to ensurethat all of our records were representedin WorldCat and contained properly for-matted OCLC accession numbers.

We made a conscious decision tolimit data migration issues as much aspossible by not attempting to migrate

all of our historical circulation data.Only active records would be moved toWMS. Patron data would migrate fromVoyager, but the real source for almostall of our patron data is Pepperdine'senterprise PeopleSoft system. We knewthere would be plenty of data cleanupissues, so we wanted to simplify wher-ever possible. Our old data was far fromperfect anyway, so we did not want toagonize about achieving a perfect mi-gration of imperfect data. In the future,a better system will enable us to correctthe data more efficiently. For example,some of the data migrated from our pre-vious VTLS system never really mi-grated correctly to Voyager. We plannedto run historical reports from our oldsystem, such as weeding reports, beforeshutting it down.

We migrated samples of our datafirst, including bibliographic records,holdings records, item records, patronrecords, and circulation transactions,but not acquisitions data. OCLC wasable to extract the data it needed tobuild Local Holdings Records (LHRs).During this time, OCLC also created anew instance of WorldCat Local thatpointed to these LHRs. This allowed usto test WMS using our own data andreport on the results. Staff memberslearned how to be thorough testers bybeing specific in reporting exactly whatthey were doing, what they experiencedin the correct sequence, and what errormessages appeared. The library imple-mentation team had weekly 1-hourphone conferences with OCLC to dis-cuss issues and findings. We also ex-changed daily email messages with ourOCLC team and each other. OCLC wasvery quick to answer our questions, val-idate reported issues, resolve problems,and forward issues to the developmentteam when necessary.

Initial Inspection

OCLC: A library's initial inspec-tion of a new system is a water-

shed moment in the implementationprocess because it is the first opportu-nity for the library to see its own datawith its own policies applied. It is at

1 0 JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2012 > imw int(uc)üdy.i.o!

Page 6: ,EW CLOUD c LIBRARY MA - University of Washington · Communicate, communicate, communicate. Frequently, a library forms an implementa-tion team to manage the local migration activities,

C O M P U T E R ; i I N L I B R A R I E S

impiementing a new cloud computing library management service

this moment that a library can bepleasantly surprised or greatly disap-pointed in the result of its implemen-tation efforts. Adding to the drama ofthis unveiling is the fact that librariesoften face daunting time constraints.It may be that support for or access totheir legacy systems is ending, a newsemester or fiscal year is about to be-gin, or (and this is surprisingly com-mon in our experience) the legacy ILSserver is literally going to crash withina few weeks.

To forestall some of the hysteria thisunveiling can cause, several implemen-tation steps are completed far in advance:

• Agree upon minimal acceptancecriteria for launch.

WMS ImpUmantatkxi

f«. EM) Va.. fMM Fora

S I ' H T

•M DOMKtir «fw *«n0gn muM tw ueMM U OCLC ear an««« M mtst« >«ciM a« kr*« ««t

Screen shot from implementation spreadsheet (which ran to more than 175 rows)

• Familiarize library stafTwith WMSthrough training.

• Carefully review the WMS roadmap to understand futurefunctionality.

These steps help establish famihar-ity with the service in a safe, nonpro-duction environment, as well as ensureagreement on what is going to be de-livered. While considerable effort andtime is spent identifying critical func-tionality early in the implementationprocess, no system will be perfect fromthe moment of its inception. The suc-cessful library manages this evaluationperiod by diligently walking throughtheir workflows, noting the following:

• Those things that represent a changefrom the previous system or process

• Those things that can be improved(e.g., enhancements)

• Those things that meet theminimum required functionality

• Any workarounds needed toaccomplish goals until moreeloquent solutions are delivered

This evaluation process should yielda prioritized list of critical £ind noncrit-

ical problems and enhancement re-quests, as well as identify any signifi-cant changes to library workflows orprocesses. This list should be sharedwith the service provider and with li-brary stakeholders. Communication be-tween the library implementation teamand the service provider is important,but communication between the libraryteam and library stakeholders not im-mediately involved in the implementa-tion process is equally imjjortant.

O PEPPERDINE: As pilot adoptersof a system under development,

one of our critical decision points waswhen to go live, or launch, WMS. Wehad a pretty good idea of the productroad map, and we knew that a lot offeatures that we wanted might not beavailable for several months. But wealso did not want to delay implemen-tation and lose the momentum we hadbuilt up. We had to look very carefullyat our needs to make a determinationof when the "ready threshold" had beencrossed. It would have been all too easyto fall into an indefinite holding pat-tern, waiting for the next desirable fea-ture before implementing.

To keep track of all of these areas oftesting and development, we started aspreadsheet that documented all is-sues. The library implementation teamand the OCLC team had access to this

spreadsheet via Google Docs. The is-sues were categorized by area, such asacquisitions, circulation, and interfacedesign. The highest priority issues (fea-tures we couldn't live without) werehighlighted in red. The issues that wereof next highest importance were high-lighted in yellow. All of the remainingissues were left in white. All issues hada column to document the status andexpected resolution date. Wlien an is-sue was resolved, it was noted.

Much discussion by our four-personimplementation team led to discussionsabout how to prioritize these functions.We knew we could live without receiptprinters because they didn't currentlywork well with our old system. Weknew we could live without batch labelprinting by bar code because we couldhave more labeling done by vendors orby hand. So we proceeded to answerevery concern with a game plan. Formany priority items, we documentedworkarounds that we could live withuntil they could be addressed in WMS.The important thing was to be disci-plined about the distinction between"essential" and "highly desirable." Wemade hard decisions about what we ab-solutely had to have and kept the num-ber of high-priority items to a bare min-imum. Just because our old sj'stem hadFeature X didn't mean we had to haveFeature X to go live.

continued on page 37 »

<• JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2012 1 1

Page 7: ,EW CLOUD c LIBRARY MA - University of Washington · Communicate, communicate, communicate. Frequently, a library forms an implementa-tion team to manage the local migration activities,

C O M P U T E R S I N L I B R A R I E S

implementing a new cloud computing library management service

« continued from page 11

Our go-live date was postponeduntil we had what we felt were corefunctions. For example, course reservesand access to ebooks were the twohighest priorities. While OCLC workedon these issues, we completed config-uring our new, streamlined circulationpolicies, library branches, and shelflocations. OCLC sent trainers to cam-pus who provided hands-on trainingand suggested workflows. Catalogingstaff learned about the structure ofLHRs. They also started looking athow our data was displayed in WCL.For example, we noticed that circula-tion notes that were nonpublic in theold system were now displaying in WCL.We were unaware that these noteseven existed and decided they were nolonger needed and could be deleted.There were a few other small pocketsof data to clean up. Circulation staffpracticed checking out, checking in,and working with holds. Acquisitionsstaff started creating purchase ordersand receiving items. Thus, we begantesting the system fully. OCLC pre-sented a first-phase rollout of the re-serves system that used WCL lists. Itworked beautifully. Significant progresswas made with linking to ebooks, so weset our go-live date for mid-Decemberafter finals week.

Moving In

© OCLC: Excitement and a flurry ofactivities surround a go-live date.

For the WMS implementation team atOCLC, this activity centered on support.We agreed early in the implementationthat meeting once a week, combinedwith email communication, would pro-vide the right number of opportunities totouch base, answer questions, or addressemerging issues. After the major issueswere identified, Pepperdine entered aperiod of discovery with the new systemand set about making WMS its own be-fore going live. This discovery periodgenerally involved the library askingthree key questions: Where is it? Wheredid we put it? How do we do it? The ven-dor needs to respond accordingly withhand-holding, help, and documentation.

Project timeline

To-Do: 8-Day WMS Implementation Schedule at Pepperdine

Dec. 10-12 Dec. 13-16 Dec. 17 1

Pull data by 8 a.m.

No item entry Dec. 10-12

Use Voyager for all circulation

Run daily Voyager reports fortransactions and holds

Do not create purchase orders

Do not receive items

Print out bib records for items tobe received on Monday

Print out bib records for items tobe cataloged on Monday

Manually type labels to processitems

Postpone serials check-in untilMonday

Enter funds into WMS subtractingVoyager encumbrances

Create new purchase orders in WMS

Receive on both systems dependingon where the purchase order wascreated

Catalog in both systems

Continue to load bib records intoVoyager

Stop loading order records intoVoyager

Stop loading EDI invoices intoVoyager

Use Voyager for creating labels

Use Voyager for serials check-in

Use Voyager for all circulation

Run daily Voyager circ reports

Enter circ transactions and holds intoWMS (not reserves)

Check in returned items in bothsystems

Disable Voyager circ(not law school)

Turn on WMS WorldCat Local

Use WMS for all circulation

Create new purchase oWMS

Receive in both systemdepending on where thorder was created

rders in

se purchase

Catalog in WMS/Connexion only

Stop loading bib records intoVoyager

Stop PromptCat service (keep YBPLibrary Services for spme labelprocessing)

Type labels manually

Use Voyager for serials check-In

Enter remaining Voyager circtransactions

Run remaining Voyagertransaction reports

PEPPERDINE: We created an im-plementation schedule for WMS

that outlined what had to happen when.Tbgether we went over each step. As a re-sult of our discussion, staff membersfilled in the names of those responsiblefor each step and kept the to-do list chartnext to their desks. This exercise helpedus go live vnthout a problem.

We also used whiteboards to reviewand discuss issues that required staff

action. For example, we examined andmade decisions on how to handle callnumber and volume entry in WMS in theinterim before the serials proc£«sing wid-get was released. This way staffhad a sayin what happened and understood whatthe issues were, and everyone left themeeting knowing what was expected.

We discovered after a week or sothat our configuration needed adjust-ing, as some material types were not

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2012 3 7

Page 8: ,EW CLOUD c LIBRARY MA - University of Washington · Communicate, communicate, communicate. Frequently, a library forms an implementa-tion team to manage the local migration activities,

C O M P U T E R S I N L i B R A R i E S

implementing a new cloud computing library management service

checking out for the appropriate loanperiod. OCLC initially had a problemwith synchronizing some of the mate-rial types between WorldCat Local andWMS. This meant we had to add extralines to the circulation loan map to ac-commodate these variations from thenorm. But overall, our implementationwas very successful.

What Changed?

OCLC: The combined efforts andshared experiences of Pepperdine

University Libraries' staff and theOCLC implementation team uncoveredmany opportunities for incrementalchanges to aspects of WMS or Pepper-dine's own policies or procedures. Thestructure of the OCLC/Pepperdine col-laboration during implementation al-lowed for constant feedback betweenboth implementation teams. Opportu-nities for improvement were identified,communicated, and formalized aroundsome basic aspects of implementation.

Pepperdine focused its critique onworkflows, messaging, policies and pro-cedures, and bibliographic instruction.OCLC focused its response on workflowoptimization, documentation, commu-nication, and training methodology.

O PEPPERDINE: Many technicalservices functions changed as a

result of implementing WMS.We no longer create brief local records

for items on reserve. All items are fullycataloged in Connexion whether theyare laptops, markers, or a personal copyof a book.

Holds and course reserves are nowhandled differently in WMS. We now al-low the placement of holds for items thatare on the shelf, which our users find tobe a wonderful service. Circulation work-ers use the real-time pull list in WMS toidentify items on hold, pull items fh)m theshelf, and then check in items to deter-mine where to route them. This processautomatically initiates an email to pa-trons notifying them that their held itemis ready for pickup.

Our workflow for course reserveschanged significantly since circulation

4-K

]

Hi «^/ ^

CorA Co

arr

Ofshuf

*ll Off •.*

nd nw- '•"to

7

1

\

Pepperdine staff used whiteboards for mapping out issues, such as how best to enter call numbers uniformly in the new system.

How WMS Changed Library Protocol

Batch load bibliographic records into a local system

Maintain authority records locally and in OCLC

Log in to each module separately

Use only on computers with the client softwareloaded

Receive and bar code in acquisitions and cataioging,respectiveiy

Maintain holdings in locai system and OCLC

Type cali number into Voyager item record

Batch ioad vendor ebook bibiiographic records intoOCLC and local system

Change item status to in Process

Load vendor order records and automaticaiiy createpurchase orders

Batch ioad invoices through EDI

Batch print spine labels

No longer load bibliographic records into a localsystem

Only maintain authority records in OCLC

Log in once for all functions

Use WMS from any computer vi/ith an internetconnection

Receive and bar code at the same time inacquisitions

Maintain holdings in OCLC oniy. LHRs areautomatically created during receiving

Cail number from bibliographic record automaticallypopulates during receiving

Maintain ebook subscription information inknowledgebase

Check out items to In Process patron

Will be implemented soon

Planned, but not scheduled yet

Manually type spine labels/use vendorprocessing/use OCLC iabel program

workers now create searchable World-Cat Local lists to identify items on re-serve, entering metadata such as coursename, course number, and professor

name. This process is not only easier forstaff, but users experience improved on-line access to reserve items. Addition-ally, staff developed a LibGuide that

3 8 JANUARY/FFBRUARY 2012

Page 9: ,EW CLOUD c LIBRARY MA - University of Washington · Communicate, communicate, communicate. Frequently, a library forms an implementa-tion team to manage the local migration activities,

C(JIVII ' I I r i . R S IN I.I MR AH •

implementing a new cloud computing library management service

provides a welcome overview of itemson reserve. This application works wellin the cloud, connecting users from thereserves LibGuide directly to the re-serve items in WorldCat Local.

As we have changed, so has WMS.With quarterly updates, we have a newset of features to anticipate every fewmonths. We are looking forward to im-proved reporting, customizable noticesto patrons, and a host of other featuresthat have long been on our wish list.We also look forward to tighter inte-gration between WMS and our othersystems, such as ILLiad, PeopleSoft,and our Central Authentication Ser-vice (CAS) single sign-on system. Theopen nature ofthe WMS system makessuch integration possible.

If We Were to Do It All Again

PEPPERDINE: We are seeingtimesavings in many areas, and

we anticipate more as WMS develop-ment progresses. We have also experi-enced unexpected changes. For exam-ple, in the past we unpacked books andsorted them on carts by type of order(firm, approval, and collection develop-ment project). However, since we nolonger export WorldCat bibliographicrecords to our local system—WorldCatis our local system—and now have onevendor processing items, we no longerneed to sort books in this way. Re-eval-uating processes has become a way of

life for staff members, not just some-thing we do periodically. We will con-tinue to think about the best way to ac-complish tasks, up to and includingwhether it's necessary to do a task at all.

Our anticipated financial savingshave already started to kick in, and weexpect further improvements as con-tinued workflow enhancements areavailable. Happily, our patrons havehardly been aware of any change at all,since they were already used to World-Cat Local as our discovery interface.

As far as lessons learned, it's im-portant to provide more training forstaff. WMS itself changed from thetraining period to the time we actuallywent live. The 2-month gap also meantthat some staff members forgot specificprocedures. It's challenging to provideup-to-date training for all branch staff.What worked for us was being positiveand enthusiastic, communicating well,addressing issues promptly, and cele-brating often.

OCLC: After any implementa-tion, both the service provider

and the customer are likely to askthemselves what they would have donedifferently if they knew at the outsetwhat they know now. From OCLC'sperspective, the answer is "quite a lot."Because the Pepperdine implementa-tion was one of the first OCLC staffhandled, we erred on the side of cau-tion and managed their migration us-

The aim was to movecore services such ascirculation, acquisitions,cataloging, anddiscovery to thenetwork or the cloudaBy doing so, the goalwas to allow librariesto share hardware,services, and dataaing a traditional, high-touch, one-on-one implementation model.

However, even before Pepperdine'simplementation was completed, it wasobvious that a traditional implementa-tion model did not match the transfor-mative nature of WMS itself. Many ofthe questions posed during the imple-mentation process by Pepperdine andour other earliest adopters were bestanswered not by OCLC staff members,but by other librarians adopting WMS.Questions, such as how to extract datafrom legacy library systems or how bestto translate circulation policies fromthose systems to WMS, were ones theWMS community was best-suited toanswer. Also, our earliest adoptersfound the one-on-one model to be iso-lating. A budding WMS comtnunity ex-isted, but the structure of the imple-mentation program prevented themfrom engaging with that community.

The OCLC implementation teamquickly changed its approach for im-plementing WMS from a traditionalone-on-one model to a cohort model.We define a cohort as a group of like-minded libraries engaging in a sharedexperience (e.g., implementing WMS).The cohort model borrows from anacademic model where active learnersattend formal virtual class sessionswith fellow learners. By working throughthe implementation curriculum to-gether, learners benefit not only fromthe OCLC instructor, but from each

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2012 3 9

Page 10: ,EW CLOUD c LIBRARY MA - University of Washington · Communicate, communicate, communicate. Frequently, a library forms an implementa-tion team to manage the local migration activities,

I 1. OIVII 'UTI:K':, IN L I U R A i . J L j

I implementing a new cloud computing library management service

other. This peer learning aspect of thecohort implementation model has beennothing short of extraordinary.

To highlight one example, a smallgroup of libraries migrating from theSirsiDynix Symphony ILS systemformed a task force that had a missionto work together to determine how bestto extract serials data in a format thatcould be consumed by OCLC's existingdata load tools. Not only were they suc-cessful, but they volunteered to docu-ment their process for future WMSadopters facing the same difficulty. Ex-amples such as this highlight how thecohort implementation model can un-leash the power of cooperating libraries.

In addition to practical problem-solving, the cohort model builds com-munity among adopting WMS libraries.To help foster this, we have developeda community hub called the User Sup-port Center where WMS communitymembers can turn in their homeworkassignments, chat with classmates orOCLC staff, read documentation, watchtutorials or recorded class sessions,start a discussion thread, submit ideasfor new features, etc. This communityis led by three WMS Communitychairs, two of whom are our co-authors,Michael and Lynne.

Finally, as Pepperdine and otherearly adopters helped reveal, deter-mining the ideal time to deliver WMStraining in the overall implementationprogram is a tricky bit of business. Ifyou offer training too late in the process,the library doesn't have adequate timeto practice with WMS or adjust itsworkflows. If you offer training tooearly, many of the system's nuanceswill be forgotten by the time the librarygoes live. Rather than pick a poison, wedecided to offer training to adoptingWMS libraries on a "bus schedule." Weoffer training on all of the WMS mod-ules on a regular schedule so thatadopting WMS librarians can attendas early or late in the process as theyplease. What's more, they can repeatsessions as often as they like, and,when new staff members join the li-brary, they can attend these trainingsessions to learn WMS.

Conclusions

© OCLC: We are thrilled by thesuccess of Pepperdine and other

early adopters of WMS. It takes a spe-cial combination of attributes to be asuccessful early adopter:

• An innovative spirit

• An openness to change

• The willingness to questioneverything about current processes

• Patience

• Creativity

• The desire to help "raise" a newsystem

• The ability to maintain a calm andconstructive outlook when facedwith challenges or setbacks

Librarians who exhibit these traitsare nearly always successful in adopt-ing a new service. To their credit, thestaff at Pepperdine University exhib-ited all of these traits. Pepperdine re-minded us that how an organizationreacts to challenges is a much strongerpredictor of success than the nature ofthe challenges themselves. In manycases, Pepperdine and OCLC staffworked together to think of creative so-lutions to immediate problems. Thiswillingness to solve problems coopera-tively, rather than take sides, in-creased the level of mutual trust, help-ing us realize a successful outcome,

PEPPERDINE: Our experiencewith WMS has been more posi-

tive than we expected—and we ex-pected a lot. The implementation ofWorldCat Local increased our circula-tion and tripled our ILL volume almostovernight. Our patrons are happier,and we are saving time and money.That is a fundamental mission successthat cannot be overemphasized. It is alltoo easy to talk about the difficulty ofchange management, resistance to ma-

jor change, and the human tendency tonotice any new problems that comewith a new system, while forgetting allof the old problems that have goneaway. It is important to keep comingback to that bottom line and to com-municate it.

We held a party to send off the oldsystem and shut down the server. Per-haps the best thing we can say is thatwe are already focused on the next chal-lenges. WMS has already started to dowhat a successful system should do—fade into the background—but with theanticipation of a continuous parade ofnew features. Was this really the finaldata migration? We hope so, becausewe have a lot of more important thingsto do than migrate data. ^

Michael Dula ([email protected]), Ph.D., is the director fordigital initiatives and technology strat-egy at Pepperdine University Libraries.He oversees technology projects through-out the Pepperdine Libraries systemand serves on the university librarymanagement team.

Lynne Jacobsen (lynne.jacobsen®pepperdine.edu), M.L.LS., is the asso-ciate university librarian for informa-tion resources, collections and scholarlycommunication at Pepperdine Univer-sity Libraries. She oversees technicalservices, all collections including spe-cial collections, university archives,and electronic resources. She serves onthe university library management team.

Tyler Ferguson ([email protected]),M.L.LS., is a senior implementationprogram manager at OCLC. His workwith OCLC Member Libraries hasincluded implementation of WorldCatLocal, WorldCat Navigator and cur-rently WorldShare Management Ser-vices (WMS).

Rob Ross ([email protected]), M.F.A.,M.L.LS., is the director of implemen-tation programs at OCLC. His teamcreates and executes programs to en-sure the successful adoption of strate-gic services, such as WorldCat Local,WMS, and WorldCat Navigator atOCLC member libraries.

4 0 JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2012

Page 11: ,EW CLOUD c LIBRARY MA - University of Washington · Communicate, communicate, communicate. Frequently, a library forms an implementa-tion team to manage the local migration activities,

Copyright of Computers in Libraries is the property of Information Today Inc. and its content may not be

copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written

permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.