Pros Cons
RM
- Record loads into III - requires considerable attention for week every month. wear and tear on body and soul. Impact on patrons (updated holdings, public display inaccurate and slow), staff (stress and ability to focus on other work) 10-20 hours per month. Some of the time saved could be spent handling more frequent Serials Solutions MARC updates loads, keepy Voyager and the ERM in closer sync.
- License, resource, contacts information already in knowledgebase for many resources - III system is all hand entry for resource and license records.
Selectors will be able to access the system with relatively little training to view title lists, license terms, contact information. As a web based tool, this will be possible remotely (during a conference). III system has limited simultaneous connections and requires considerable training to get new users up to speed.
COUNTER
- Annual harvesting of usage statistics - This will be mostly automated - SUSHI compliant resources each month, Non-SUSHI resources 2x yearly. System alerts us when changes are coming, usage harvesting data is out of date, - Sally Lockwood currently spends 12 weeks at about 75% of her time to harvest. If we can recover 50-70% of this time to handle only the more complicated issues and updating the system, considerable effort is recovered.
- Selectors will be able to access the system and make custom consolidated reports. This is possible, but complicated in the current "system"
RM-CE
- Platform changes and other resource maintenance - One person/process can make the changes for both institutions when both CULs have content in the same collections.
- Alerts monitoring
- Comparison of e-collections will be considerably easier. This will help with collection development decisions, shared workflow.
Make a specific recommendation on whether to implement the Consortial Version of Serials Solutions at both institutions or hold off on integrating e-resource management and data migration until we have a shared LMS;
...
I am so sorry about this delay (Joyce – got your vm today). I was on vacation for two weeks and am just returning. I checked with Ashley on your notes below and her comments are below. If this makes sense to you, we can set up the pilot project. To do that, we would want Cornell to subscribe to RM with the pricing that I sent Jesse earlier and then we would ask for an "upcharge" “upcharge” for the consortial version. Standard pricing is about 20k for you all but since this is a pilot (and you all are good PQ customers), we can cut that to 8K for the year of the pilot and see how it goes. There is also an implementation fee of $2,000 and a consulting fee of $3995. We can create a statement of work to be sure we are aware of what the implementation looks like. This will allow you to take time to work on the project without limitations and see how it works for you.
...