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