Page History

...

1. Cornell license and implement the Resource Manager (RM) system. This will replace Cornell's Innovative Interfaces ERM system.  Columbia already licenses this product.
2. Cornell license and implement the Serials Solutions 360 COUNTER usage statistics service.  This will effectively take the place of Cornell's current usage stats wiki updating process.  Columbia already licences licenses this product.
3. 2CUL license and implement the Resource Manager Consortial Edition (RM-CE).
4. We effectively communicate with key stakeholders before, during, and after the transition.

Cost / Savings (detail provided in Costs section below): SUMMARY We estimate that the overall costs of implementing these systems across 2CUL will be amortized over the first two years, mostly in the form of opportunity saving from staff time that can be dedicated to other e-resource efforts.

Costs to Cornell: Cornell

• $33$26,749143 year one license fees, $XXXX $7,651 implementation fees, $8, $XXXX 200 implementation staff time (250 hours)
• $26,143 year two+ license fees

...

• $4,000 year one license fees$10, $6,000 implementation staff time
• $10,000 year two+ license fees

Savings to Cornell:

• $10,000 annually for Innovative contract and server maintenance fees
• $XXXX $37,600 annual opportunity cost savings by freeing staff time with RM efficiencies, usage stats and management efficienciesefficiency, and 2CUL collaborative efforts.  This could potentially be greater.

Savings to Columbia:

• $XXXX $12,000 annual opportunity cost savings by freeing staff time with 2CUL collaborative efforts

Timeline: Ideally, we require a decision to move forward with this by mid-March in order to be able to migrate to the new systems by the summer 2014. 

Proposal Details

1.       What is the problem we need to address?

Our team has identified that having different systems in place for managing our electronic resource collections is a significantly greater barrier to successful collaboration than simply having different workflows. E-Resources work relies heavily on Electronic Resource Management systems and currently, Cornell and Columbia have different systems.  The official delay of Alma implementation has highlighted the need to find an interim solution that will allow us to develop more common workflows, identify and perform shared work, and be better able to troubleshoot and solve e-resource problems across 2CUL. 

2.       How will the product address this problem?

RM - Both 2CUL partners currently have different ERM systems, increasing the number of complex systems staff across institutions will need to be skilled in using, and making common workflows significantly difficult to envision and implement.  Resource Manager is a robust e-resource management system, providing libraries with the ability to manage e-resource collections, record information about providers, licenses, and other data that is not easily handled by Voyager, and to easily include our holdings in various other Serials Solutions services such as Summon and 360 Link.  The implementation of RM in particular should be relatively low impact compared to what we would expect if we implemented an entirely different ERM system across 2CUL as both partners maintain most of their electronic holdings in the Serials Solutions knowledge base and staff from both CULs are already familiar with the system.

360 COUNTER - Implementing 360 COUNTER at Cornell will maximize the common systems used in e-resource management across 2CUL.  Cornell currently harvests COUNTER usage data manually from over 100 providers annually, posting the individual reports on a wiki space for selectors and assessment staff to use.  Gathering this data is currently a time-consuming process (~.15 FTE/year to gather and maintain the reports and administrative information) and the current system provides no added functionality to merge or analyze reports (Cornell should expect to be able to save significant time in this area).  Among the features of 360 COUNTER are usage report harvesting, and consolidated reporting.  Finally, having data from both Cornell and Columbia gathered and stored in a common system will allow for more joint data analysis, potential shared maintenance, and to take advantage of future enhancements in the Serials Solutions assessment systems.

RM-CE - Adding the consortial level service to RM will set a foundation for much greater collaboration in the areas of E-resource troubleshooting, accounts management, and common workflows.  As we integrate RM-CE features into our workflow, we will identify areas to reduce duplication of effort, reconcile holdings between partners, and gain valuable experience working together. 

If 2CUL moves ahead with Alma or another joint management system in the future, our work in all of these systems will help us migrate to a new system with a common vision.

3.       Has a trial taken place? What were the results?

Columbia has been using RM and 360 COUNTER systems in production since 2007 and 2009 respectively.  Several Cornell staff have had read access to Columbia's systems for six months.

Cornell has had an active trial to RM since September 2013 and 360 COUNTER since mid-January 2014.  Reports from various stakeholder groups are below:

• E-Resources Unit (Liisa Mobley, Rebecca Utz, Sally Lockwood, Heather Shipman, Jesse Koennecke) - Tested the general functionality, workflow features, and data management aspects of the RM system from a Cornell specific perspective.  The e-resources staff are already familiar with the Serials Solutions staff interface while working with the currently subscribed Serials Solutions services (MARC Updates, 360 Link, and Summon).  Adding ERM features to this existing workflow, rather than in a completely different system will likely show some increased efficiency in some areas of e-resources work.   Members of the unit have reported overall satisfaction with the system and they have unanimously expressed a desire to make the change.  The response from this team suggests that Cornell would consider migrating the the Resource Manager system even if 2CUL were not a factor.
• Discovery & Access Team - Two public interfaces at Cornell rely on the Innovative ERM system currently.  D&A has been considering updating these services to utilize the Integration Layer data or other systems, rather than Innovative.  They are examining this in depth during their February sprint.  It is likely that they will be able to replicate these services using a combination of Voyager data incorporated into the integration layer, the License Term API provided by RM, and the RM journal A-Z list interface.  More detail about this can be found in Appendix 1: Implementation Details.
• Technical and Data loading group (Gary Branch, Heather Shipman, Peter Martinez, Pete Hoyt, Chris Manly) -
  • Record loads - The group discussed how the current processes for updating Voyager, Innovative, and Serials Solutions will be affected by the transition.  They raised no concerns about making the change to RM and feel that any changes that are required in scripts or processes will be minimal.  Heather feels that the record loads into the Innovative ERM currently account for up to 24 hours every month.  This time can potentially be recouped, or used to manage more frequent updates from RM to Voyager.  Either way, we save some time or keep systems in better sync.
  • System hosting (Chris Manly) - The Innovative ERM system is locally hosted on a Cornell IT server.  This requires regular maintenance and updates in addition to a $2000/year fee.  RM and 360 COUNTER are cloud-hosted systems, managed by Serials Solutions.  The cost for this service is included in the annual fee structure for the services.
• Usage Statistics group (Rich Entlich, Sally Lockwood) - Looked at the 360 COUNTER product.  Cornell Trial began 1/22.  Detailed feedback may not come until Feb 7 or later.  The initial assumption is that it will benefit 2CUL to have the COUNTER data from both partners in the same system.  The testing team is determining if there are any show-stopper issues that would impact operations.
• 2CUL TSI E-Resources Team - Our team concentrated on the overall picture and has been impressed with the potential we see for our TSI work.  We particularly focused on articulating how the RM-CE layer will be initially populated and workflow issues that arise from working in a consortial system. 2CUL has not had an opportunity to trial the consortial aspects of RM-CE, the pricing offer provided by Serials Solutions (see pricing below) assumes that the first year of work in the consortial environment will be a pilot.  We have worked out an implementation model with Serials Solutions and will test various use cases in a sandbox version before going live.

4.       Is the product needed at both institutions?

Yes. Resource Manager and 360 COUNTER are already in place at Columbia.  Both products are needed at Cornell to maximize common systems.  Additionally, adding the RM-CE layer requires that both partners be operating on the RM system.

5.       What staff will use the product?

• E-Resources - Extensively for workflow, resource management, troubleshooting
• Selectors - View usage stats and resource information for collection decisions
• Batch processing - Perform batch loads from RM to Voyager and other systems
• Assessment - Access and process usage stats and package information
• Public Services (particularly Interlibrary Loan and E-Reserve) - To look up license permissions and available holdings

Costs and benefits (Cornell costs itemized in draft Cornell order form): 

Summary:

• Cornell - $33,749 year one, $26,143 year two+ less ~$10,000 annually for Innovative contract
• Columbia - $4,000 year one, $10,000 year two+

Breakdown:

• Cornell -
  • Annual: $11,693 (RM) + $10,450 (360 COUNTER)  - ~$10,000 (Innovative ERM cost recovery) = ~$12,000
  • One-time: $1969 + $3,990 (RM set-up) + $688 (360 COUNTER set-up) = $6,647
• Columbia - No change beyond 2CUL costs summarized below.
• 2CUL - Our team assumes these fees would be split evenly, but felt it was useful to single them out.
  • Annual:  $8,000 first year pilot, $20,000 future years (RM-CE)
  • One-time: $2,000 + $3,995 (RM-CE Implementation) = $5,995

RM for Cornell (Columbia already subscribes to RM)

...

• .  This could potentially be greater.

In addition, we feel that the following benefits are very important for our work together as 2CUL, but are difficult to assign dollar value to at this time:

• System migration costs will be lower if we are migrating together from a shared system to Alma.
• The acquisitions migration in general will be less rocky if we have worked together toward a common goal.  Acquisitions has been the most difficult function to migrate and it should not be compounded by needing to learn how to work with each other and understand each others' different systems and workflows.
• It will be easier to collaborate on purchasing and trouble shooting.
• There will be substantial costs in staff morale and buy-in if we delay deep collaboration in this area.  We have critical staff support right now.
• A shared system develops a common vision for e-resource work. This saves time in cross training and project planning.
• We have Serials Solutions staff on board right now to help and there is a price break.  Delay might change this landscape.
• We would be able to provide better service to our users. Shared problem solving, expertise and staff freed from some manual tasks will make response to problems more timely and efficient.
• Running reports would be simplified, allowing ready access to data for further cost saving initiatives.

Timeline: Ideally, we require a decision to move forward with this by mid-March in order to be able to migrate to the new systems by the summer 2014. 

Proposal Details

1.       What is the problem we need to address?

Our team has identified that having different systems in place for managing our electronic resource collections is a significantly greater barrier to successful collaboration than simply having different workflows. E-Resources work relies heavily on Electronic Resource Management systems and currently, Cornell and Columbia have different systems.  The official delay of Alma implementation has highlighted the need to find an interim solution that will allow us to develop more common workflows, identify and perform shared work, and be better able to troubleshoot and solve e-resource problems across 2CUL. 

2.       How will the product address this problem?

RM - Both 2CUL partners currently have different ERM systems, increasing the number of complex systems staff across institutions will need to be skilled in using, and making common workflows significantly difficult to envision and implement.  Resource Manager is a robust e-resource management system, providing libraries with the ability to manage e-resource collections, record information about providers, licenses, and other data that is not easily handled by Voyager, and to easily include our holdings in various other Serials Solutions services such as Summon and 360 Link.  The implementation of RM in particular should be relatively low impact compared to what we would expect if we implemented an entirely different ERM system across 2CUL as both partners maintain most of their electronic holdings in the Serials Solutions knowledge base and staff from both CULs are already familiar with the system.

360 COUNTER - Implementing 360 COUNTER at Cornell will maximize the common systems used in e-resource management across 2CUL.  Cornell currently harvests COUNTER usage data manually from over 100 providers annually, posting the individual reports on a wiki space for selectors and assessment staff to use.  Gathering this data is currently a time-consuming process (~.15 FTE/year to gather and maintain the reports and administrative information) and the current system provides no added functionality to merge or analyze reports (Cornell should expect to be able to save significant time in this area).  Among the features of 360 COUNTER are usage report harvesting, and consolidated reporting.  Finally, having data from both Cornell and Columbia gathered and stored in a common system will allow for more joint data analysis, potential shared maintenance, and to take advantage of future enhancements in the Serials Solutions assessment systems.

RM-CE - Adding the consortial level service to RM will set a foundation for much greater collaboration in the areas of E-resource troubleshooting, accounts management, and common workflows.  As we integrate RM-CE features into our workflow, we will identify areas to reduce duplication of effort, reconcile holdings between partners, and gain valuable experience working together. 

If 2CUL moves ahead with Alma or another joint management system in the future, our work in all of these systems will help us migrate to a new system with a common vision.

3.       Has a trial taken place? What were the results?

Columbia has been using RM and 360 COUNTER systems in production since 2007 and 2009 respectively.  Several Cornell staff have had read access to Columbia's systems for six months.

Cornell has had an active trial to RM since September 2013 and 360 COUNTER since mid-January 2014.  Reports from various stakeholder groups are below:

• E-Resources Unit (Liisa Mobley, Rebecca Utz, Sally Lockwood, Heather Shipman, Jesse Koennecke) - Tested the general functionality, workflow features, and data management aspects of the RM system from a Cornell specific perspective.  The e-resources staff are already familiar with the Serials Solutions staff interface while working with the currently subscribed Serials Solutions services (MARC Updates, 360 Link, and Summon).  Adding ERM features to this existing workflow, rather than in a completely different system will likely show some increased efficiency in some areas of e-resources work.   Members of the unit have reported overall satisfaction with the system and they have unanimously expressed a desire to make the change.  The response from this team suggests that Cornell would consider migrating the the Resource Manager system even if 2CUL were not a factor.
• Discovery & Access Team - Two public interfaces at Cornell rely on the Innovative ERM system currently.  D&A has been considering updating these services to utilize the Integration Layer data or other systems, rather than Innovative.  They are examining this in depth during their February sprint.  It is likely that they will be able to replicate these services using a combination of Voyager data incorporated into the integration layer, the License Term API provided by RM, and the RM journal A-Z list interface.  More detail about this can be found in Appendix 1: Implementation Details.
• Technical and Data loading group (Gary Branch, Heather Shipman, Peter Martinez, Pete Hoyt, Chris Manly) -
  • Record loads - The group discussed how the current processes for updating Voyager, Innovative, and Serials Solutions will be affected by the transition.  They raised no concerns about making the change to RM and feel that any changes that are required in scripts or processes will be minimal.  Heather feels that the record loads into the Innovative ERM currently account for up to 24 hours every month.  This time can potentially be recouped, or used to manage more frequent updates from RM to Voyager.  Either way, we save some time or keep systems in better sync.
  • System hosting (Chris Manly) - The Innovative ERM system is locally hosted on a Cornell IT server.  This requires regular maintenance and updates in addition to a $2000/year fee.  RM and 360 COUNTER are cloud-hosted systems, managed by Serials Solutions.  The cost for this service is included in the annual fee structure for the services.
• Usage Statistics group (Rich Entlich, Sally Lockwood) - Looked at the 360 COUNTER product.  Cornell Trial began 1/22.  Detailed feedback may not come until Feb 7 or later.  The initial assumption is that it will benefit 2CUL to have the COUNTER data from both partners in the same system.  The testing team is determining if there are any show-stopper issues that would impact operations.
• 2CUL TSI E-Resources Team - Our team concentrated on the overall picture and has been impressed with the potential we see for our TSI work.  We particularly focused on articulating how the RM-CE layer will be initially populated and workflow issues that arise from working in a consortial system. 2CUL has not had an opportunity to trial the consortial aspects of RM-CE, the pricing offer provided by Serials Solutions (see pricing below) assumes that the first year of work in the consortial environment will be a pilot.  We have worked out an implementation model with Serials Solutions and will test various use cases in a sandbox version before going live.

4.       Is the product needed at both institutions?

Yes. Resource Manager and 360 COUNTER are already in place at Columbia.  Both products are needed at Cornell to maximize common systems.  Additionally, adding the RM-CE layer requires that both partners be operating on the RM system.

5.       What staff will use the product?

• E-Resources - Extensively for workflow, resource management, troubleshooting
• Selectors - View usage stats and resource information for collection decisions
• Batch processing - Perform batch loads from RM to Voyager and other systems
• Assessment - Access and process usage stats and package information
• Public Services (particularly Interlibrary Loan and E-Reserve) - To look up license permissions and available holdings

Costs and benefits (Cornell costs itemized in draft Cornell order form): 

RM for Cornell (Columbia already subscribes to RM)

...

License fees: $11,693/year plus one time set up $1969 (includes data population services) and a onetime consultation fee of $3990

...

• Record loads to update the Innovative ERM require considerable attention for one week every month.  During this time there is impact on patrons (non-updated holdings, public display inaccurate, and slower response times) and staff time of 10-20 hours per month.  Some of the time saved could be spent handling more frequent Serials Solutions MARC updates loads, keeping Voyager and Blacklight more in sync with our electronic holdings managed in RM.  This will reduce delays between purchasing content and having that content appear in discovery various discovery tools. (est. $9,200 annual opportunity savings, effective as soon as implemented)
• The RM knowledge base comes populated with some license, resource, and provider information.  This must all be manually entered into the Innovative ERM system.  The E-Resources and Cataloging units should save a few hours per week in data entry. (est. $10,600 annually effective as soon as implemented)
• 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 (such as during a conference).  Innovative ERM system has limited simultaneous connections and requires considerable training to get new users up to speed.
• Cornell staff are already using the Serials Solutions system for maintaining MARC record updates, Summon, and the OpenURL resolver.  This has significant impact on training time, procedure retention, and ease of use by reducing the number of systems involved in e-resource management without loss of functionality or access to information.
• Cleaner matching of resources between management and discovery systems.  This has significant impact on our ability to effectively troubleshoot resource access issues.
• Knowledge base Notifications alert us to changes in platforms, database titles, and other important maintenance issues.  This will allow for more pro-active work to reduce access problems.

...

License fees: $10,450/year plus onetime set up $688

Funding sources:  Collection Development and Research & Assessment will benefit the most from 360 COUNTER.

Benefits and potential savings: 

• 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 non-COUNTER resources, more complicated issues and updating the system, considerable effort is recovered.  This amounts to approximately $4,800 in annual opportunity savings.
• Selectors will be able to access the system and make customized consolidated reports.  This is possible, but complicated and labor intensive in our current wiki-based environment.
• There is potential for 2CUL collaboration regarding how to handle non-COUNTER compliant resources, uploading cost data, and troubleshooting SUSHI problems.

...

License fees: $14,000 total, split between CULs for first year.  $20,000 total years 2+.

• 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. - Kate Howe, Serials Solutions

Benefits and potential savings:  We estimate that starting with year 2, 2CUL will begin to see opportunity savings in the form of staff time freed to perform other activities.  There are many opportunities to put this time to better use on other e-resource activities that have been unachievable previously.  The initial areas listed below will be the first priorities to tackle as 2CUL work, and we estimate approximately 125+ hours per year (5 hours per week) of savings from these efforts for each partner totaling approximately $25,000 across 2CUL.

• 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. - Kate Howe, Serials Solutions

Benefits and potential savings:

• Platform changes and other resource maintenance can often be time intensive projects. We can handle these tasks collaboratively and can make the changes for both institutions when both CULs have content in the same collections. 
• Collaborative monitoring of Knowledge base Notifications will be possible, thereby reducing duplicate effort.
• Comparison of e-collections will be considerably easier.  This will set us up to engage in cooperative collection development decisions and shared workflow.

...

• 2CUL E-Resources Unit staff:  ~250 hours across 2CUL staff including open Columbia position .(split evenly across partners in the cost estimates)
• 2CUL Batch processing: 20 hours
• Cornell Library IT: 10 hours+. Does not yet include estimate for Discovery & Access related work

...

• 948 field: webfeatdb indicates that it is part of the list curated by the Database Review Committee
• 653 subject fields used to facilitate browsability by curated subjects.
• Various other subject, alternate titles, and description fields used for broader searching capabilities
• License terms to be held in RM, linked to from appropriate records . using License Data API

Cornell eJournals - There is potential to use the Serials Solutions journal A-Z list to provide this service.  If not, the Discovery & Access team will have to decide if this is essential and how to implement it.  The data to produce it is available in the relevant Voyager records and via the License Data API from RM.  Currently, 899 codes are used in Voyager to match journals in a collection to their parent collection.

...

Consortial System Implementation - The specific details are still being worked out.  The current plan is to replicate Columbia's Resource Manager data to populate the Consortial layer's "parent" 2CUL database, then linking that to the two "child" databases for Cornell and Columbia.  Many resources will match up relatively easily after this first pass as the 2CUL partners have significant overlap in collections.  We will identify project work to match other resources as appropriate.  This may be a great area for Columbia's proposed staff member to work on. Time Estimate: 40 hours testing across e-resources staff.  This is expected to continue to take some time from existing e-resource staff as we ideinfy identify and implement best practices.

...