Just completed a short report on both TIND and KOHA for our library ILS migration project. Our library has been using III Millennium for a number of years. At some point, it was high time for us to evaluate and assess the performance of Millennium. During the assessment phase, we considered the need to migrate to a new ILS. For those who are not sure of what ILS is all about, here are some info:
I looked at a number of criteria, among others:
- User Experience (my own; this would be a good time to start a UX project on how our users search/navigate/browse print/AV items in the public interface
- Social Media features
- Export features: Downloading, printing, exporting to citation management software
- Customization: whether we can customized information on the left or right columns of the result screen
- Facets features: what are the available filter features that our user can use? Are there any limitations to this feature?
- Personalization: Viewing of borrowed/suggested/renewed items; Renewing books online; Search history
Both KOHA and Tind have their pros and cons. Ultimately it depends on the individual libraries. As for us, we are a digitally-born library. More than 90% of our resources are in electronic format. A handful are in print/AV format. This presented several unique challenges to the library staff.
Some useful references:
- Perceptions 2016: An International Survey of Library Automation by Marshall Breeding
- ILS report by Carnegie Classification by Marshall Breeding
- ILS Wikipedia
- Tristan Müller, (2011) “How to choose a free and open source integrated library system”, OCLC Systems & Services: International digital library perspectives, Vol. 27 Issue: 1, pp.57-78, https://doi.org/10.1108/10650751111106573
- Bojan Macan, Gladys Vanesa Fernández, Jadranka Stojanovski, (2013) “Open source solutions for libraries: ABCD vs Koha”, Program, Vol. 47 Issue: 2, pp.136-154, https://doi.org/10.1108/00330331311313726
- Singh, V. (2013). Experiences of migrating to an open-source integrated library system. Information Technology and Libraries (Online), 32(1), 36-53. Retrieved from http://libsys.kaust.edu.sa/docview/1356913028?accountid=78788
I’ve just completed the slides for the Electronic Resources Management Systems ERMS project. Highlighted the library’s journey to the new ERMS – Proquest 360 Resource Manager. I recalled the 3 phases that the project went thru. Each of them posed challenges and issues that the project team had to face head on. Endured late but not sleepless nights. Discussions, disagreements, and compromise. Yes, it was hard work; at times it can be nerve-wracking but all in all, it was an enriching experience.
- Awareness of the available ERMS in the open market. Products are constantly changing and companies merge. Staying on top of things are advantageous as the library can re-position itself in the case of any advancements/product / company mergers
- Match the ERMS features against the team’s ERMS wish list. Before embarking on the ERMS project, conduct a study of the strengths and weaknesses of the present system. Identify what can be improved and what are the missing ‘pieces’ that should be evident in the new ERMS
- Contact peers on their experience on using the ERMS products. Most if not all of
E-Resources Librarians are willing to share information and knowledge. Compare notes. Sometimes, what works for them may NOT work for us.
- Keep communication open. Ensure that library management and project team are updated on the project progress.
- There may be hiccups/challenges along the way. Stay focus and keep calm.
Looking for more adventures on this road …..
After months of research, communication, and discussion, our ERM (Electronic Resources Management) team finally got what we wanted …. a new ERM System (ERMS) to replace the obsolete one. Thank God.
We decided to go for Proquest 360 Resource Manager. One of the advantages is that we are currently using 360 Core, 360 Marc Updates and Summon; all on the same platform and vendor. Thus seamless integration.
Now that I have finished the recommendation report, I am planning the Implementation Phase of this ERMS. Exciting times.
The road ahead will be challenging and hopefully rewarding. Given that we only have a small team with varied expertise level, there will be some learning curve (hopefully NOT a steep one). Thinking back, it was interesting to note the technologies that we had used before in relation to ERM:
- Innovative Millennium ERM > Replaced by Proquest 360 Resource Manager
- CASE > Replaced by Proquest 360 Core
- Encore > Replaced by Proquest Summon
- MS Outlook > Complimenting the future ERMS
- MS Sharepoint > Storage point
as well as the challenges that we faced.
I’m thankful and glad to have the opportunity of leading those projects listed above.