March 7 2013 SWAN Members Quarterly Meeting SWAN

March 7, 2013 SWAN Member’s Quarterly Meeting

SWAN Director’s Report �New SWAN staff �Server Migration �Projects completed Dec 2012 – February 2013 �Reporter & Decision Center Update

New SWAN Staff �Brande Redfield, Office Manager �Lauren Peltier, Member Services Support Analyst �Diane Nickolaou, Bibliographic Services Clerk �Samantha Dietel, Member Services Consultant

SWAN Organization

SWAN Infrastructure �Replace 3 Millennium ILS servers Production, Report, and Training/Test Move away from Oracle/Sun hardware Production server 5 years (purchased 2007) Servers showing age, higher cost to support Target: complete replacement by end of 2012

New Servers: Smaller, Faster, Stronger � Complex Migration Red Hat Linux replaces Solaris Unix Virtualized VMware 32 CPUs vs. 4 CPU 64 GB RAM vs. 32 GB Our monitoring service of server activity: now in 32 colors!

New Servers: Smaller, Faster, Stronger Retiring… Production, Test, & Report servers New! In the rack, ready… Production, Test, & Report

Post-migration Issues

Post-migration Issues Millennium Bib & Item Retrieval is Slow Solution: Millennium software patch coming 2. Patron Images & Digital Signatures Cause Mil. Circ to Run Slow Solution: network DNS fix, see memo details 3. Keyword Indexing: new records appear after 10 minutes Solution: will adjust timing of indexer 4. Printing Issues: hold slips Solution: network DNS fix, see memo details 1.

Projects completed Dec 2012 – February 2013 �INNOPAC access ended (except for Lansing) �Time to Shelve “Black Friday” gift �Go Green email sign-up �Boopsie mobile Hinsdale project �ILS Committee (4 SWAN staff, 5 library staff)

Projects Completed: Go Green � Message added to My Account within Web. PAC � 2, 900 new email addresses collected

Boopsie Mobile: Breakthrough � Boopsie mobile app Hinsdale, Downers Grove, Oak Pk � Hinsdale project: patron self-checkout on app � Technical success with SIP 2 running in VPN to Boopsie servers � “Book. Check” not live yet, needs testing

Upcoming Projects March – May 2013 �Reduce Millennium backup time �Reporter implementation �ILS Committee recommendation �Complete new SWAN support website

SWAN Reporter & Decision Center Update: � Decision Center delayed by III � Reporter v 2. 2 possible now � Upgrade Millennium R 2011 to get Decision Ctr & Reporter v 2. 3 � III will eventually merge both products

Reporter & Decision Center Update �What next? III answers Option 1: move forward with Reporter v 2. 2 after new servers, wait on Decision Center Option 2: Reporter v 2. 3 & Decision Center after R 2011 upgrade Other options: will be explored, bring to SWAN Board at 3/15 meeting R 2011 upgrade not set, prior to this news Q 3 2013 was target for upgrade

SWAN Support Website

SWAN Member RFID Projects �Libraries with RFID: Oak Park, Flossmoor, Elmhurst, Prairie Trails, Homewood Libraries underway: ▪ Elmwood Park ▪ Downers Grove ▪ Oak Lawn �Goal: create an RFID “profile” for SWAN members �Consultants: Convergent, Galecia Group, Shawn Shafer @ Elmwood Pk

SWAN Password Change �Reminder: use the URL below �http: //204. 120. 131. 105/director/

�End of Executive Director report �Look for this presentation here: http: //support. swanlibraries. net/gov/meetings

ILS Committee Report � Jeannie Dilger, La Grange Public Library � Aaron Skog, SWAN ED

Strategic Plan Goal #1 �Recommend direction for SWAN integrated library system (ILS) platform Innovative Interface’s Inc. (III) Sierra: next ILS announced 2010 SWAN’s agreement with Innovative ends May 18, 2013 �How long do we stay on Millennium? �Is Sierra our best choice?

ILS Committee Report �Strategic plan goal �Nine reps: 4 SWAN staff, 5 member library Jeannie Dilger & Aaron Skog, co-chairs Kate Boyle, SWAN Tony Siciliano , SWAN Mary Lou Coffman , SWAN Pilar Shaker, Hinsdale Ahren Sievers, Elmwood Park Vickie Totton, Cicero Rebecca Teasdale, Oak Park

ILS Committee: January Researched Vendor/Support/Developer Alma Ex Libris Group Evergreen Open-source (Equinox) Koha Open-source (By. Water Solutions) Kuali OLE Open-source (Kulali Foundation) Polaris ILS Polaris Sierra LMS Innovative Interfaces Inc. Symphony Sirsi. Dynix World. Share Management Services OCLC Virtua VTLS, Inc.

ILS Committee Survey �All library staff �Special section for Administrators/Directors �Purpose Help the Committee narrow selection Scalability, tiered services, deal breakers, suggestions �We received 515 responses to the survey from 71 member libraries

ILS Committee Survey Patron Features 1. Easier to use OPAC 70% rated this "very important" which was the highest within this section of the survey 2. E-Resources are downloadable/accessible via OPAC 42% rated "very important" followed by a close second of "important" at 40% 3. Patrons can opt into a variety of online services (customize their experience) 47% rated "important" 4. Mobile web interface for OPAC 44% rated “important” 5. Patron ability to access and edit their own personal information (email address, etc) 38% rated “very important” & 37% rated “important”

ILS Committee Survey ILS Features – Ranked 1 st Consistent and reliable response time at peak hours 2 nd Quality training and accessible documentation 3 rd 4 th Strong support and ongoing development from the vendor Robust bibliographic data tools allowing for easy manipulation by staff & vendors 5 th Notifications via phone, email or text 6 th Customizable holds system designed for a multi-library group 7 th Support for a variety of mobile devices 8 th Staff and Patron screens are similar 9 th Seamless and easy offline system 10 th Operating system neutral

ILS Committee Survey If you could keep one thing about our current ILS, what would it be? 505 of response to the open-ended were categorized in this way: � Web. PAC 50+ � Holds functionality 40 � Patron Ease of Use 34 � Empowered patrons 20 � Staff screen display 20 � Cover art, book reviews, etc. 13 � Rapid updating of records 10 � Scoping of the catalog 9 There were votes for linked patrons (4), reading history (9), patron entry (6), limiting (7), Encore (6), templates (4), patron images (3), ECommerce (1), & hold wrappers (1). Then there were the “anything but Millennium” respondents (9).

ILS Committee Survey If you could change one thing about our current ILS, what would it be? � Staff client = 119 � � � Staff client integration = 14 Staff client interface = 12 Staff client reports = 7 Staff client search = 21 Staff client other = 65 OPAC Interface = 29 OPAC Search = 33 OPAC e-Resource Integration = 12 OPAC Other = 35 OPAC = 109 Interface (general) = 56 Performance (speed, downtime, etc. ) = 43 Flexibility = 9 Ports = 7 Other = 33

Director Responses Administrator Question #1: Which of the following best describes your feelings about the size of SWAN’s membership? �I would be open to adding new members, to help spread out costs: 95% (55) �I think SWAN is big enough already, and should not grow: 5% (3)

Director Responses Administrator Question #2: As a library director, if you were presented with the following, which would you chose? �My library needs only the basics and would like it at a lower cost: 10% (6) �My library needs a lot of features and options; we are willing to pay more than other libraries: 20% (12) �The SWAN consortia should have features for all its members to equally participate in the system, which will ease the overall software administration: 70% (42)

Director Responses Administrator Question #3: When a consortium migrates to a new ILS, it is not uncommon for some libraries to decide to leave the consortium at that time. Which of the following might make your library consider leaving SWAN? � Large increase in fees. Note that SWAN does not intend to increase fees, but this information will be helpful in our selection of an ILS: 40% (25) �Loss of specific functionality: 8% (5) �When my library has to migrate the ILS we would consider a stand-alone ILS option: 6% (4) �My library would never leave SWAN: 46% (29)

Director Responses Administrator Question #4: Rankings Library directors asked to put into order the reasons their library belongs to SWAN 1 st 2 nd 3 rd 4 th 5 th 6 th 7 th Access to a Larger Collection Economies of Scale Patron Convenience Affordability Sharing My Library's Resources Technology Changes Networking

ILS Committee Survey Questions? �Discussion