Posts
Now Comes the Hard Part for Fond du Lac Public Library: Convincing Their Customers They Made the Right Move
Letter: FdL Public Library shortsighted. (Fond du Lac Reporter, 7/19/2011)
I have written the following letter to the Fond du Lac Public Library:
“I am deeply disappointed and disturbed to learn that the Fond du Lac Public Library no longer will be part of the Winnefox System. [Specifically, FDLPL is leaving the Winnefox Automated Library Services shared computer system, not the public library system itself.]
“This is, quite frankly, a stupid, short-sighted move that I believe the library will regret, I suspect sooner rather than later.
“Times of economic troubles are when libraries need to step up to the plate and hit a home run for their communities. It is my opinion that the Fond du Lac Public Library has failed to do so up until now (by not expanding hours, etc.), and with this move the library has struck out.”
As I'm sure the FDLPL board and staff are aware, a successful public relations effort will require more than this passive approach.
Monday, July 25, 2011
Thursday, July 21, 2011
More on SkyRiver
*****************************************************
Jane Richard, from WiLS, has this to add:
LLS had a huge cut in materials budget; last year she was processing 2000/month, this year it's 200/month
That, along with key retirement in cataloging (Mary Lou Norstrom), brought this decision to drop OCLC and switch to SkyRiver.
Steve Ohs said that admin is THRILLED because OCLC was $43,000/year and SR is $11,500. This is an annual fee. There is no obligation to add holdings. SR is also very attentive to their feedback (better than OCLC). they were unsure how much volume this represented (i.e. how much cataloging they do or records they download)
LSS has a formula to pass the costs/divvy the costs among libraries
LSS will use WisCat for ILL; still some questions, tho
There are different levels of authorization, which I think are set up by the library, not SR
There is a SR listserv
They can make labels pretty easily
LSS batching catalog to SR and holdings will be added and SR#s attached to records
LSS will use those as the local control number
They have not addressed holdings cancellations
can't see which library owns titles, but you can see how many [I found that part of the display confusing, but I came in late and maybe missed the explanation]
the Sirsi-Dynix Z39.50 interface (SmartPort) works with SR
Database:
• new items often lack bib records
• you can request that SR find and/or add a record for a particular item-- there's a form to fill out and send. They contact you "in a few days"
• you can also create a record that goes to SR for review. You can create it at any level of cataloging
• There are few or no records for realia/toys, tho there are video games
• I thought there were a fair number of duplicate records, but I didn't study
• OCLC numbers are retained in the records when present
• 040 is retained too
Interface:
• Ann feels that it's easier to use than Connexion, less cluttered; she's frustrated by the lack of current records
• She likes that you can specify that certain fields are highlighted in records-- for instance, 245, 260, 300 so clerks doing the searching can focus on those to determine matches
• has its own macro language
• the faceted searching looks like WorldCat.org
• validates fields
• MARC help is available
• New advanced search:
• Au-Ti-kw
• boolean
• format
• language
Someone asked about the SkyRiver-OCLC lawsuit, and it seems to be in the paper-chase stage; follow it HERE.
Jane's comments: Like Alison, I came away thinking that SkyRiver is the most serious competitor to OCLC around. It's really hard to beat the price, and if a library only needs bib records, then it probably is a good choice.
OCLC's cost is getting to be beyond the budget of typical public libraries, even CatExpress is about $1/record and it looks like SR is more like $.30-$.50? but I have big reservations--
1) time spent looking for, requesting and/or creating records for new items, tied in with
2) locally edited catalogs.
3) Sharable holdings and inter-library loan. I have to defer to others in this discussion though
************************************************************************
Jane Richard, from WiLS, has this to add:
LLS had a huge cut in materials budget; last year she was processing 2000/month, this year it's 200/month
That, along with key retirement in cataloging (Mary Lou Norstrom), brought this decision to drop OCLC and switch to SkyRiver.
Steve Ohs said that admin is THRILLED because OCLC was $43,000/year and SR is $11,500. This is an annual fee. There is no obligation to add holdings. SR is also very attentive to their feedback (better than OCLC). they were unsure how much volume this represented (i.e. how much cataloging they do or records they download)
LSS has a formula to pass the costs/divvy the costs among libraries
LSS will use WisCat for ILL; still some questions, tho
There are different levels of authorization, which I think are set up by the library, not SR
There is a SR listserv
They can make labels pretty easily
LSS batching catalog to SR and holdings will be added and SR#s attached to records
LSS will use those as the local control number
They have not addressed holdings cancellations
can't see which library owns titles, but you can see how many [I found that part of the display confusing, but I came in late and maybe missed the explanation]
the Sirsi-Dynix Z39.50 interface (SmartPort) works with SR
Database:
• new items often lack bib records
• you can request that SR find and/or add a record for a particular item-- there's a form to fill out and send. They contact you "in a few days"
• you can also create a record that goes to SR for review. You can create it at any level of cataloging
• There are few or no records for realia/toys, tho there are video games
• I thought there were a fair number of duplicate records, but I didn't study
• OCLC numbers are retained in the records when present
• 040 is retained too
Interface:
• Ann feels that it's easier to use than Connexion, less cluttered; she's frustrated by the lack of current records
• She likes that you can specify that certain fields are highlighted in records-- for instance, 245, 260, 300 so clerks doing the searching can focus on those to determine matches
• has its own macro language
• the faceted searching looks like WorldCat.org
• validates fields
• MARC help is available
• New advanced search:
• Au-Ti-kw
• boolean
• format
• language
Someone asked about the SkyRiver-OCLC lawsuit, and it seems to be in the paper-chase stage; follow it HERE.
Jane's comments: Like Alison, I came away thinking that SkyRiver is the most serious competitor to OCLC around. It's really hard to beat the price, and if a library only needs bib records, then it probably is a good choice.
OCLC's cost is getting to be beyond the budget of typical public libraries, even CatExpress is about $1/record and it looks like SR is more like $.30-$.50? but I have big reservations--
1) time spent looking for, requesting and/or creating records for new items, tied in with
2) locally edited catalogs.
3) Sharable holdings and inter-library loan. I have to defer to others in this discussion though
************************************************************************
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Skyriver vs. OCLC
Alison Ross, the Cataloguing Librarian for ESLS, and Jane Richard from WiLS, recently visited the Racine Public Library to see how their switch from OCLC to Skyriver is going. Alison gave me permission to share her insights with you:
The SkyRiver demo was very interesting. In addition to Jane [Richard] from WiLS, there were staff from Fond du Lac Public Library and Hedburg in Janesville. After viewing the product and searching for a couple of items, I agreed with the staff from Hedburg - it's definitely not perfect, but it's the first product I've seen that could be a viable alternative to OCLC.
I currently have things set up in Polaris to allow my member libraries to use a Z39.50 connection to search OCLC from Polaris - using the search interface they're accustomed to. I and my assistants here use the Connexion client for final cataloging of everything.
It sounds as though SkyRiver could also allow for the Z39.50 connection for my libraries. It's a smaller database than OCLC, of course, so there's the potential they'd find fewer matches and would have to more often manually fill in brief templates for new items, but at least their interface would be the same. And I try to keep the templates as simple as possible. (when we were in Horizon, the only way they could add new items was filling in templates, so Polaris and the ability to provide the Z39.50 connection was quite a step up and a time saver)
On my side of things, I have to say I think I'd be frustrated. The cataloging interface looks a lot like the Connexion client (though I've changed my color scheme, so I don't see the lines and boxes - it's probably just me, but I find that annoying - I'd be stuck with the lines and boxes in SkyRiver, but oh well). The main difference is the fixed fields have drop down windows listing all options for a particular spot.
However, the search interface is MUCH more simplistic. The main search window is basically a Google-like search box - no ability to do command line searching as there is in Connexion. After Lakeshores joined up in January, they and some other libraries asked for more search power, so a simplistic "advanced" search has been added. But it's simple and only uses drop down windows to select options. (I'm a command line user in Connexion, so that would feel very slow and clunky to me) There's also no browse search capability. (I'm someone who still finds a very important use for browse searching, so it bothers me that it seems to be disappearing ...)
SkyRiver has an authority database populated with LC records - that allows for at least some ability to "control" authority fields in a bib record when edited - or at least check whether they match an existing authority.
Jane said it reminded her of OCLC in the early, baby stages. Ann Lininger, the cataloger for Racine Public Library, said SkyRiver seems to be responsive to customer feedback when requests come in for changes to the product. Oh, SkyRiver does allow for Macros and Constant data.
Though there's no spell checker.
Ann said their materials budget was cut $100,000 - and their average number of new adds per month has dropped from about 2000 to 300 ... I keep hoping I misheard, because those numbers still seem hard to fathom ... despite that, she said the amount of original cataloging has increased quite a bit for her. Ann said that Lakeshores saved about $30,000 by 1. moving to SkyRiver for cataloging + 2. the few libraries that were using WorldCat Resource Sharing for ILL moving to Wiscat.
Regardless of my concerns, our budget situation is tenuous, so I think we have to pursue it to at least get some numbers. My coworker Paul is hoping to hear back from SkyRiver today with a quote. The cataloger from Fond du Lac mentioned some numbers they got from OCLC, and, if she was remembering correctly, it sounds as though we're paying quite a bit more per item than they were quoted. I mentioned that at the demo and suggested we should perhaps also be going back to OCLC to ask about renegotiating. Ann said, "funny you should mention that." She said OCLC had contacted them the previous week about the possibility of Lakeshores renegotiating and coming back to OCLC ... that lends more support to the idea we should at least try to get OCLC to come down in price. After Paul gets a quote from SkyRiver, he and I will talk to our boss, David, to fill him in and to ask him to talk to Shirley at WiLS about possibly renegotiating.
So, from my perspective, at least, SkyRiver isn't anywhere near a great alternative - but it would probably be doable - and one could only hope it will continue to grow and get better. And if push comes to shove budget-wise, we need to have the Plan Bs in place ...
It's good to note, I think that in addition to Lakeshores, the 01/07/11 SkyRiver Press release mentioned two additional recent additions to
SkyRiver:
*Founded in 1961, the Suffolk Cooperative Library System is an association of autonomous libraries and serves a population of over 1.4 million.
*The Library Network, created in 1978, is the largest library cooperative in Michigan, serving 2.4 million residents.
Alison:
From what Ann Lininger said, SkyRiver is currently in the process of loading and deduping Lakeshore's database into the general SkyRiver database. If they're doing the same with the above two consortia, that could go a long way toward increasing the size of the overall pool of available records.
Jane Richard also mentioned Mid-Wisconsin has dropped OCLC. (apparently a more recent decision than Lakeshores') When I asked if they, too, are moving to SkyRiver, she said she wasn't sure but thought that may be the case.
Additional comments from Alison:
I just remembered some additional differences to the SkyRiver search interface, so I thought I'd pass them along.
After you complete a search, in addition to the list of results in the middle of your screen, there are various tag cloud groups on the left and right side of the screen to provide further limiting options.
Personally, as I mentioned, I prefer Connexion's command line - or at least up front control of searching and limits. Tag clouds are great for exploration, but if I know exactly what I want and know that a bit of this title and that author and that date and that format will get me right where I need to go, the idea of having to drill down click by click to reach the same destination just leaves me feeling frustrated.
But, again, that's just me - and it's still likely something I could live with if we decide to make the move (or are forced to switch due to extreme budget strain).
Just thought I'd pass that along, too, for what it's worth - depending on the user and their background, tag cloud options after a Google-like search may be perfect! :-)
My own thoughts:
It sounds like it might be a while before cost savings are really seen, since so much more time might be spent by staff creating original cataloging records for items that are not yet in Skyriver (but almost certainly in OCLC). I guess this might translate to job security for cataloging librarians!
~Cheryl
The SkyRiver demo was very interesting. In addition to Jane [Richard] from WiLS, there were staff from Fond du Lac Public Library and Hedburg in Janesville. After viewing the product and searching for a couple of items, I agreed with the staff from Hedburg - it's definitely not perfect, but it's the first product I've seen that could be a viable alternative to OCLC.
I currently have things set up in Polaris to allow my member libraries to use a Z39.50 connection to search OCLC from Polaris - using the search interface they're accustomed to. I and my assistants here use the Connexion client for final cataloging of everything.
It sounds as though SkyRiver could also allow for the Z39.50 connection for my libraries. It's a smaller database than OCLC, of course, so there's the potential they'd find fewer matches and would have to more often manually fill in brief templates for new items, but at least their interface would be the same. And I try to keep the templates as simple as possible. (when we were in Horizon, the only way they could add new items was filling in templates, so Polaris and the ability to provide the Z39.50 connection was quite a step up and a time saver)
On my side of things, I have to say I think I'd be frustrated. The cataloging interface looks a lot like the Connexion client (though I've changed my color scheme, so I don't see the lines and boxes - it's probably just me, but I find that annoying - I'd be stuck with the lines and boxes in SkyRiver, but oh well). The main difference is the fixed fields have drop down windows listing all options for a particular spot.
However, the search interface is MUCH more simplistic. The main search window is basically a Google-like search box - no ability to do command line searching as there is in Connexion. After Lakeshores joined up in January, they and some other libraries asked for more search power, so a simplistic "advanced" search has been added. But it's simple and only uses drop down windows to select options. (I'm a command line user in Connexion, so that would feel very slow and clunky to me) There's also no browse search capability. (I'm someone who still finds a very important use for browse searching, so it bothers me that it seems to be disappearing ...)
SkyRiver has an authority database populated with LC records - that allows for at least some ability to "control" authority fields in a bib record when edited - or at least check whether they match an existing authority.
Jane said it reminded her of OCLC in the early, baby stages. Ann Lininger, the cataloger for Racine Public Library, said SkyRiver seems to be responsive to customer feedback when requests come in for changes to the product. Oh, SkyRiver does allow for Macros and Constant data.
Though there's no spell checker.
Ann said their materials budget was cut $100,000 - and their average number of new adds per month has dropped from about 2000 to 300 ... I keep hoping I misheard, because those numbers still seem hard to fathom ... despite that, she said the amount of original cataloging has increased quite a bit for her. Ann said that Lakeshores saved about $30,000 by 1. moving to SkyRiver for cataloging + 2. the few libraries that were using WorldCat Resource Sharing for ILL moving to Wiscat.
Regardless of my concerns, our budget situation is tenuous, so I think we have to pursue it to at least get some numbers. My coworker Paul is hoping to hear back from SkyRiver today with a quote. The cataloger from Fond du Lac mentioned some numbers they got from OCLC, and, if she was remembering correctly, it sounds as though we're paying quite a bit more per item than they were quoted. I mentioned that at the demo and suggested we should perhaps also be going back to OCLC to ask about renegotiating. Ann said, "funny you should mention that." She said OCLC had contacted them the previous week about the possibility of Lakeshores renegotiating and coming back to OCLC ... that lends more support to the idea we should at least try to get OCLC to come down in price. After Paul gets a quote from SkyRiver, he and I will talk to our boss, David, to fill him in and to ask him to talk to Shirley at WiLS about possibly renegotiating.
So, from my perspective, at least, SkyRiver isn't anywhere near a great alternative - but it would probably be doable - and one could only hope it will continue to grow and get better. And if push comes to shove budget-wise, we need to have the Plan Bs in place ...
It's good to note, I think that in addition to Lakeshores, the 01/07/11 SkyRiver Press release mentioned two additional recent additions to
SkyRiver:
*Founded in 1961, the Suffolk Cooperative Library System is an association of autonomous libraries and serves a population of over 1.4 million.
*The Library Network, created in 1978, is the largest library cooperative in Michigan, serving 2.4 million residents.
Alison:
From what Ann Lininger said, SkyRiver is currently in the process of loading and deduping Lakeshore's database into the general SkyRiver database. If they're doing the same with the above two consortia, that could go a long way toward increasing the size of the overall pool of available records.
Jane Richard also mentioned Mid-Wisconsin has dropped OCLC. (apparently a more recent decision than Lakeshores') When I asked if they, too, are moving to SkyRiver, she said she wasn't sure but thought that may be the case.
Additional comments from Alison:
I just remembered some additional differences to the SkyRiver search interface, so I thought I'd pass them along.
After you complete a search, in addition to the list of results in the middle of your screen, there are various tag cloud groups on the left and right side of the screen to provide further limiting options.
Personally, as I mentioned, I prefer Connexion's command line - or at least up front control of searching and limits. Tag clouds are great for exploration, but if I know exactly what I want and know that a bit of this title and that author and that date and that format will get me right where I need to go, the idea of having to drill down click by click to reach the same destination just leaves me feeling frustrated.
But, again, that's just me - and it's still likely something I could live with if we decide to make the move (or are forced to switch due to extreme budget strain).
Just thought I'd pass that along, too, for what it's worth - depending on the user and their background, tag cloud options after a Google-like search may be perfect! :-)
My own thoughts:
It sounds like it might be a while before cost savings are really seen, since so much more time might be spent by staff creating original cataloging records for items that are not yet in Skyriver (but almost certainly in OCLC). I guess this might translate to job security for cataloging librarians!
~Cheryl
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
What's happening next door:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This is today's blog post from the Director of the FDL Public Library:
Winds of change let misinformation sweep in [by Ken Hall]
July 19, 2011
News of our intention to leave the Winnefox Library System shared catalog has been met with shock and misunderstanding. Coming to quick conclusions can be deceptive. Like buying a new car, you can’t judge by outward appearances. You have to kick the tires and look under the hood to know what you are really getting.
Let me put some rumors to rest. We did not, nor did we ever consider, leaving the shared catalog to pay for the opening of the Express branch near Festival Foods. The branch has been in the works for about three years, with the parked bookmobile our market-tester. The majority of costs to operate the branch will be met by moving the existing Festival staff, materials and communications indoors and by closing the two bookmobiles.
Believe it or not, we’re going to have more material available to Fond du Lac library users as a stand-alone library.
While the methods of getting the material may change, users still will have the Winnefox catalog as well as all the holdings of all the public libraries around the state available to them. Users will have to take a different path to reach their titles, but – eventually – that path will be available online.
So how will leaving Winnefox make more things available? This part gets complicated. Stay with me. Budgets in libraries around the country are falling (ours will be cut some time next year). The trend in U.S. libraries – including those we share with – has been to deal with declining budgets by buying less new material. So sharing makes sense, right? But a growing practice – “XYZ Library hold only” – used to protect materials for home-town customers defeats that purpose of the shared catalog. We’ve been paying Winnefox more than $100,000 a year for the convenience of having all our material mixed together. The $60,000 we’re saving by going standalone will free up more dollars for materials, which will allow us to stay true to our core mission: getting people the materials they want when they want them.
We’ve worked hard over the last 10 years to build a collection that fulfills the “I want it now” needs of our patrons. People want to walk through our doors to pick up the latest James Patterson or an up-to-date Grand Canyon travel guide. They don’t want to be put on reserve lists. So we buy multiple copies of the most-popular items, and we get them on the shelf as quickly as possible. Other libraries don’t buy as many copies, and since all items are shared equally in the Winnefox catalog, this means our customers are waiting longer because our copies are being used to fill holds elsewhere.
Ten percent of our patrons’ holds come from other libraries. We think a good chunk of those holds are of titles we own but came from another location because it was next in line. It’s not at all uncommon for a Fond du Lac customer to receive a Menasha copy of a book today because the Fond du Lac copy went to a Menasha customer yesterday. Shipping books is costly.
We’ll still have the Interlibrary Loan system to get special-purpose material, such as a resource book for home school parents or the sixth edition of King Lear for that term paper.
This is a time when libraries, like all public institutions, are being asked to spend money wisely. As a library director, I have to make service recommendations to the Board of Trustees based not only on what is right for today, but on what will put the library in the best position for the future. I believe that going standalone will give the taxpayers of Fond du Lac the biggest bang for their buck.
That advantage might not be readily available as we enter the transition period – August 1 until we go live in November. It’s going to be clunky and not a little frustrating. But I’m confident the proof will be in the final product.
Kick the tires and look under the hood before judging this car. The new catalog will have more substance, and when you get a chance to see it, perhaps even a little extra glam.
This is today's blog post from the Director of the FDL Public Library:
Winds of change let misinformation sweep in [by Ken Hall]
July 19, 2011
News of our intention to leave the Winnefox Library System shared catalog has been met with shock and misunderstanding. Coming to quick conclusions can be deceptive. Like buying a new car, you can’t judge by outward appearances. You have to kick the tires and look under the hood to know what you are really getting.
Let me put some rumors to rest. We did not, nor did we ever consider, leaving the shared catalog to pay for the opening of the Express branch near Festival Foods. The branch has been in the works for about three years, with the parked bookmobile our market-tester. The majority of costs to operate the branch will be met by moving the existing Festival staff, materials and communications indoors and by closing the two bookmobiles.
Believe it or not, we’re going to have more material available to Fond du Lac library users as a stand-alone library.
While the methods of getting the material may change, users still will have the Winnefox catalog as well as all the holdings of all the public libraries around the state available to them. Users will have to take a different path to reach their titles, but – eventually – that path will be available online.
So how will leaving Winnefox make more things available? This part gets complicated. Stay with me. Budgets in libraries around the country are falling (ours will be cut some time next year). The trend in U.S. libraries – including those we share with – has been to deal with declining budgets by buying less new material. So sharing makes sense, right? But a growing practice – “XYZ Library hold only” – used to protect materials for home-town customers defeats that purpose of the shared catalog. We’ve been paying Winnefox more than $100,000 a year for the convenience of having all our material mixed together. The $60,000 we’re saving by going standalone will free up more dollars for materials, which will allow us to stay true to our core mission: getting people the materials they want when they want them.
We’ve worked hard over the last 10 years to build a collection that fulfills the “I want it now” needs of our patrons. People want to walk through our doors to pick up the latest James Patterson or an up-to-date Grand Canyon travel guide. They don’t want to be put on reserve lists. So we buy multiple copies of the most-popular items, and we get them on the shelf as quickly as possible. Other libraries don’t buy as many copies, and since all items are shared equally in the Winnefox catalog, this means our customers are waiting longer because our copies are being used to fill holds elsewhere.
Ten percent of our patrons’ holds come from other libraries. We think a good chunk of those holds are of titles we own but came from another location because it was next in line. It’s not at all uncommon for a Fond du Lac customer to receive a Menasha copy of a book today because the Fond du Lac copy went to a Menasha customer yesterday. Shipping books is costly.
We’ll still have the Interlibrary Loan system to get special-purpose material, such as a resource book for home school parents or the sixth edition of King Lear for that term paper.
This is a time when libraries, like all public institutions, are being asked to spend money wisely. As a library director, I have to make service recommendations to the Board of Trustees based not only on what is right for today, but on what will put the library in the best position for the future. I believe that going standalone will give the taxpayers of Fond du Lac the biggest bang for their buck.
That advantage might not be readily available as we enter the transition period – August 1 until we go live in November. It’s going to be clunky and not a little frustrating. But I’m confident the proof will be in the final product.
Kick the tires and look under the hood before judging this car. The new catalog will have more substance, and when you get a chance to see it, perhaps even a little extra glam.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)