Cloudy in Malibu:Pepperdine Libraries’ Migration to OCLC’s Webscale Management System
Michael W. Dula, Ph.D. Gan(Grace) YeDirector for Digital Initiatives & Digital Systems Librarian Technology Strategy Pepperdine University LibrariesPepperdine University Libraries [email protected]@pepperdine.edu
WMS Features
WorldCat (242,757,082 records)WorldCat Local
CatalogingCirculation
Acquisitions KnowledgeBaseLicenseManager
Cooperative Intelligence and Reporting (pending)
Where We Started
• 521,000 records in Voyager, many of which had been migrated from an earlier system.
• Upgrades always somewhat difficult to fit into academic calendar. Usually have to do over Christmas break. Time-consuming and risky.
• Complex needs to support multiple branches, separate School of Law database, overseas programs.
• Getting systems to talk to each other always difficult: Voyager, EZproxy, Syndetics Solutions, link manager, website, e-reserves, interlibrary loan, patron management, suppliers, etc.
Phase 1: WorldCat Local, Fall 2009• Preceded decision to pilot WMS.• Looking for a better search interface for
our patrons• Wanted to implement Web 2.0 features• Looking for a long term federated
search strategy• Wanted to expand access to collections
outside our own
WorldCat Local: The Big Data Cleanup
• Required substantial batch load project to bring our WorldCat holdings up to date.
• Also required a data cleanup of our Voyager database to bring records up to date with accurate, properly formatted OCLC numbers.
• Ongoing cleanup efforts underway to ensure that records display accurately in WCL.
Voyager Search Interface vs. WCL
Search Results
Easy to Access E-Resources
Easy to Request Item via ILL
Easy to Request Item via ILL
• Combination of WCL and ILLiad yielded increased searching (64% more searches) and borrowing. ILL volume tripled.
• Feedback from students and faculty was very positive.
• BUT...
• Patrons still had to access Voyager system to renew books, see pending orders, and view their account information.
• Library staff had to be familiar with two systems.
• Duplication of labor in cataloging and acquisitions among Voyager, WorldCat, and our PeopleSoft accounting system.
• Can we provide a Web 2.0 user experience for our staff as well as our patrons?
Initial Results
• We got our first look at about the same time WCL went live at the end of last summer.
• Moving the ILS to the cloud fit our technology goals.
• A number of our technical services and circulation librarians tried out and commented on the first prototype Circulation interface.
• Goal is to bring efficiencies to Circulation and Acquisitions processes and reduce TCO.
Phase 2: Implementing WMS
• Outsourced hosting: Library already using for iTunes U, CONTENTdm. University using for Blackboard, Sakai.
• In past year, Library had also added hosted ILLiad, WorldCat Link Manager.
• Web server moved in December from Library Sun server to central Pepperdine servers.
• We want to get out of the server management business and manage information, not technology.
Why WMS? Cloud Technology
• Web 2.0 features like tagging, RSS feeds.• User interface that makes life much easier for our staff.• OCLC’s plans for integration with ILLiad, WorldCat Link
Manager, ezProxy, CONTENTdm, etc.• Shared data—vendor management, license
management, statistics.• Opportunities for 3rd party integration: widgets galore!
Why WMS? The Features
• The addition of WorldCat Local and ILLiad has already increased circulation, tripled our ILL volume, and made our patrons happier.
• Our total system costs would drop significantly as soon as we made the transition.
• Our Acquisitions and Cataloging workflow become markedly more efficient.
• We won’t have to worry about replacing our near end-of-life Sun servers or upgrading software every year or two.
• Our Systems Librarian will actually have time to work on other projects besides the care and feeding of the ILS.
Why WMS? Cost/Benefit
Data Migration
Our holdings in WorldCat should be complete and up to date. We need to send following data to OCLC:
• Bibliographic Records: OCLC#s, Local system IDs. Each bib record should have a unique bib ID.
• Local Holding and Item Records• Patron Data: unique bar code and patron type for each patron• Circulation Transaction Data: Items checked out, bills/fines, holds
WMS System Data Requirements
Local Holding Records•Our OCLC symbol •OCLC Holding Location Code•Shelving Location•Call Number, and Item Barcode•856 field for electronic records, and holdings information for serials (enumeration levels, chronology, frequency, numbering schemes, etc.) is also stored in the Local Holdings Record.
WMS System Data Requirements
Voyager Data
•Bibliographic Records: 542,601•Holding Records: 568,684•Item Records: 405,433•Patron Records: 14,620•Circulation Transactions: around 500,000
Data Migration ProcessFirst Step: Updating our current holdings in WorldCat.
Batchload Projects:•We exported our bibliographic records and sent to OCLC•OCLC matched our bibliographic records to WorldCat records•OCLC added our OCLC symbol to indicate we hold the items.•OCLC generated cross reference files including our records’ Voyager system IDs and corresponding OCLC#s. •We added/updated OCLC#s in our records
Data Migration Process
Second Step: •Local holding and item records •Patron data•Circulation transactions data
Problems and Challenges
Problems and Challenges
Item public/non-public note field
Problems and Challenges We found the note was put to 876$z field in our LHR records
at the Connexion site:
Problems and Challenges Patron Group/Type
In Voyager, one patron can have multiple patron groups.
In WMS, one patron can have only one patron group
Problems and Challenges Patron Group/Type
VoyagerPATRON_GROUP_NAME
AlumniCrest AssociatesDependents of fac/staffFacultyGSBM distance learnersGSBM studentsGSEP distance learnersGSEP studentsGraduating seniorsInst. of Dispute ResolutnLaw FacultyLaw studentsPublic policy studentsSeaver graduate students
Summer high school stdntUndergraduate studentsothers
WMS
Patron Type Borrow PriorityFaculty 5Staff 4Graduate 3Undergraduate 2Other 1
Phase 3: E-Resource Management in WMS
E-Serials:PubGet WorldCat Knowledge Base
E-Books:Package: WorldCat Knowledge BaseSingle Title Purchase:
WorldCat Knowledge Base or Create LHR (Local Holding Record)
Set up Our Vendor Logins
Check Our Logins
Check Our Holdings Update
WorldCat Knowledge Base
WorldCat Local Site
Connexion Site
Updating e-Book Holdings WorkflowBefore Dec. 2010:
Downloaded records from vendors’ sitesUpdated 856 links in the recordsLoaded records into VoyagerExported records from Voyager Sent records to OCLC to update our holdings in WorldCat
Jan. 2011-Jul. 2011Downloaded records from vendors’ sitesSent records to OCLC to update our holdings in WorldCatSearched and Marked the collection/records as owned via the Knowledge Base
Aug. 2011-Searched and Marked the collection/records as owned at the KB (OCLC has monthly update to synchronize KB data with vendors’ data.)
E-book Collection
E-book Collection
E-book Collection
E-book Collection
Single e-Book Purchase Order
Add Our Holding at the KB
Holding Appears in WMS
Holding Appears in WCL
Outcomes
• No longer have clients, servers, or updates to manage
• Can work from a laptop from anywhere (in the stacks, at home, overseas)
• Logins are person-specific—no longer have department logins
• No longer log into specific modules—you are given all of the permissions you need to do your job
Some Advantages of Being in the Cloud
• Look and usability of WMS is great• Having Pull list and Cancel Hold Shelf
list in real time is fabulous• Reserves system has worked very well• Holds are still being improved—item
level holds are due in November
Impact on Library Workflows: Circulation
• Specify shelf location at time of order• Scan barcodes into WMS during receiving
(which receives item, attaches a Bib record, and creates LHR in Connexion)
• Check items out to internal “in process” patron rather than changing status (temporary)
• No longer load YBP EDI invoices (temporary)
Impact on Library Workflows: Acquisitions
• No longer export bib records into local system• No longer update holdings in OCLC• No longer edit records in local system• Catalog all items in Connexion including laptops
and white board markers• Had to learn about Local Holdings Records (LHRs)• Check displays in WorldCat Local• No longer attach barcodes to items
Impact on Library Workflows: Cataloging
• Most e-resources now discoverable through same interface (WCL) as everything else
• Most vendor subscriptions now updated automatically via PubGet and KB
• Don’t need separate federated search product• No local system needed to store vendor records• Vendor authentication in KB, works with ezProxy• Centralized management of ILL rights for e-
resources
Impact on Library Workflows: E-Resource Management
The Path Ahead• Single sign-on support• Custom reporting and notifications• Implementation of License Manager for
improved license management• New apps and widgets yet to be conceived• Increased use of shared data such as serial
publishing pattern data and peer institution comparison data
• Integration with PeopleSoft accounting system
Questions?
Michael W. Dula, Ph.D. Gan(Grace) YeDirector for Digital Initiatives & Digital Systems Librarian Technology Strategy Pepperdine University LibrariesPepperdine University Libraries [email protected]@pepperdine.edu