IN IT TOGETHER: SELECTION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF ALMA/PRIMO AS A CONSORTIAL SYSTEM

Ann MillerUniversity of OregonEugene, OregonUSA

Central Oregon Comm. College

Central Washington University

Chemeketa Community College

Clark College

Concordia University

Eastern Oregon University

Eastern Washington University

George Fox University

Lane Community College

Lewis & Clark College

Linfield College

Mt. Hood Community College

Oregon State University

Oregon Health & Science Univ.

Oregon Institute of Technology

Oregon State University

Pacific University

Portland Community College

Portland State University

Reed College

Saint Martin’s University

Seattle Pacific University

Seattle University

Southern Oregon University

The Evergreen State College

University of Idaho

University of Oregon

University of Portland

University of Puget Sound

University of Washington

Walla Walla College

Warner Pacific College

Washington State University

Western Oregon University

Western Washington University

Whitman College

Willamette University

MAP OF ORBIS CASCADE ALLIANCE

• 37 universities, colleges, and community colleges in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho

• 258,000 students• 9.2 million titles representing 28.7

million items• Group purchases of electronic resources

at a value of over $9 million annually.• Existing tradition of cooperation in

resource sharing and collection building.

• History of working in OCLC and using Worldcat Local

• Looking to explore how to collaborate more fully in technical services

THE ORBIS CASCADE ALLIANCEFIGURES AND VALUES

• Operational costs duplicated across the consortium

• Existing system operated on an outdated platform

• Interest in facilitating technical services collaboration

• Prediction that institutions could save money by sharing

WHY A CONSORTIAL PURCHASE?

• Shared ILS Groups formed to review the possibility each year from 2009-2011

• Shared ILS RFP in 2011-2012 (https://www.orbiscascade.org/rfp-for-shared-library-management/)

• Chose Ex Libris Alma/Primo in Spring 2012• 4 Cohorts between Jan. 2013-Dec. 2014

– First went live in June 2013– Six months each

• Libraries requested a cohort, record numbers were a factor, as well as confidential negotiation

TIMELINE OF REVIEW AND DECISION ON A SYSTEM

• Cohort 1 - Linfield College, Marylhurst University. Pacific University, University of Washington, Western Washington University, Willamette University

• Cohort 2 - Concordia University, Eastern Washington University, Evergreen State College, Lewis & Clark College, Portland Community College, Reed College, Saint Martin's University, Seattle Pacific University, University of Idaho, Warner Pacific College, Washington State University

• Cohort 3 - Clark College, Mt Hood Community College, Oregon Health & Science University, Oregon Institute of Technology, Portland State University, Southern Oregon University, University of Oregon, University of Portland, University of Puget Sound, Western Oregon University

• Cohort 4- Central Oregon Community College, Central Washington University, Chemeketa Community College, Eastern Oregon University, George Fox University, Lane Community College, Oregon State University, Seattle University, Walla Walla University, Whitman College

COHORTS

• Shared ILS Program Manager• Shared ILS Implementation Team – chairs

of:– Acquisitions WG– Cataloging WG– Circulation & Resource Sharing WG– Discovery WG– Serials/ERM WG– Systems WG– Training WG

• Implementation Leads grouped into Cohorts for communication

STRUCTURE OF IMPLEMENTATION

• Reviewed fulfillment policies• Reviewed location codes• Deleted order records based on

university record retention policy• Extracted bibliographic records for

withdrawn material• Reviewed and coded local bibliographic

data (unfinished)• Edited bibliographic, holdings and item

records to ensure a smooth migration

IMPLEMENTATION PREPARATION (UNIVERSITY OF OREGON)

1. Initial configuration and migration forms due 7 months out from go live.

2. Data sample to Ex Libris 6 months out3. Full data and test load (Alma) about 6 months

out (loaded by groups within the cohort)4. Primo configuration form 4 months out5. 3.5 months of data testing (Alma)6. Primo testing 2 months out (C3 had 6 weeks

due to Primo changes at the Alliance level which postponed it)

7. Technical freeze – Oregon’s lasted 4 weeks.8. Within a cohort we had rolling go live dates of

the course of one month

IMPLEMENTATION (C3 EXAMPLE)

• Functional workshops for Cohort 1 & 2 provided by Ex Libris

• Functional workshops for Cohort 3&4 provided by Cohort 1 & 2

• In Cohort 1 Alma and Primo certification provided after go live. Now provided earlier

• Webinars have varied in quality, but are improving

• Weekly functional calls started with Cohort 2

TRAINING

• Tab for NZ between IZ and CZ – search by all titles only (no inventory (as yet))

• Alma IZ local inventory, order and fulfillment data

• NZ formed of OCLC master records held by Alliance members.

• Loaded daily• Anytime the master record is updated a

record comes in. • Management presents a challenge, don’t

want to give everyone access

Let’s take a quick look

SHARED SETUP AND STRUCTURE – ALMA AND THE NETWORK ZONE

• Central Alliance installation at which some standard configuration is set for all

• Other than those there can be institutional branding and other configuration

• The 50 field display limit in Primo has been problematic

• Where and how local data displays has been a question

• One significant loss we perceive is the integration with Worldcat Local for identifying tangible resources outside the Alliance

SHARED SETUP AND STRUCTURES - PRIMO

• Summit pass through to NRE is working• The move to central publishing has been

problematic• Across the board productivity has slowed• Complexity makes diagnosis of problems

difficult• Monthly releases provide advantages and

disadvantages– Advantages -New functionality and fixes– Disadvantages-New functionality and fixes

• Difficult to keep up with necessary policies• Has strengthened ties between Alliance

institutions and staff

HOW IS THE SYSTEM WORKING?

• To early to truly assess• Center for Excellence• Definitely need continuing development in some

areas– Electronic resource management in the NZ– Summit 3 – consortial resource sharing– Ability to perform collection assessment

from the NZ• Alliance needs to develop its own support and

management models• Concern about “service exhaustion” among

Alliance staff

CONCLUSION