Reports

• Target subjects for the portal which may include the development of a knowledge base of BLC library policy documents, forms, contract wording, training manuals, research guides, pathfinders, best practices, grant opportunities, statistics for circulation, ILL, e-journals, etc.
• Identify a host site.
• Investigate the deposit of data by disparate entities over a network in a consistent template format (content management software) in order to build this portal.
• Demonstrations of software and pros and cons of each should be reported out to the BLC community and recommendation for implementation should begin in January.
• Select pilot subjects and request samples from each consortium member to build the critical mass needed.
• Pilot project should have a "product" by June 6, 2003.
  
  

The Task Force will communicate with the BLC community through news items on the BLC's web page, BLC-L, and any COI that may have interest in the project. The Task Force will work closely through the BLC Office and the Director Liaison to make sure information about the project is distributed.

This task force is aligned with the BLC Goal: The BLC Portal "To take advantage of available technology, staff expertise, and collective information resources to advance the teaching, research, and service missions of the member institutions." And specifically, "To share staff expertise in specialized areas of scholarship through the development of guides to research resources or methodologies" and "To develop a means of managing information resources in a shared environment."

1. Summary of recommendations
   • The Task force should schedule an introductory session to the IntranetConnections software for BLC Staff, Management Council and other interested parties.
   • BLC staff should populate the pilot with representative documents.
   • BLC staff should provide a collection mechanism for pilot feedback from members.
   • If the product proves to be acceptable, the Management Council should identify a viable host site library and negotiate appropriate fees [or remuneration?].
   • If the product is approved for purchase, BLC should take steps to identify and organize workflow and policies.
     
     
2. Background information
   See previous reports and section, V. Activities
   
   
3. Programs planned or implemented
   The BLC Portal task has begun piloting a product from IntranetConnections. The product will be installed on a server at UMass Boston, Healey Library, for a period of between 60 and 90 days. The url for the pilot is: http://esr.lib.umb.edu/blcportal/
   
   The portal product the task force selected as the product of choice is pre-packaged. During the "pilot" phase, the task force will populate the portal with documents and other information received from the BLC office.
   
   
4. Resources used (how have BLC resources been used?)The following BLC resources were utilized:
   • Phones and laptop were utilized for meeting held at Boston Public Library on February 10, 2003
   • BLC Staff Portal listserv was used throughout the course of the taskforce
     
     
5. Activities (summary, include milestones and challenges faced)
   Summary of Committee Activities:

   The staff portal task force met five times to discuss our charge and test software solutions (September 26, 2002; October 23, 2002; December 13, 2002; February 10, 2003; February 27, 2003; May 29, 2003). During the course of the year, we met with Daniel Ortiz, our liaison from Management Council, Barbara Preece, and Joan Thompson.

   The task force began by examining the needs of the BLC for internal document management and communication. We also looked at the recommendations made by the BLC Portal Committee the year before, when BLC was considering a research portal, and took from that proposal some ideas that we felt applied to a staff/member portal.

   We then discussed the relative benefits and drawbacks of building a portal ourselves, purchasing software and hosting it ourselves, or paying a private company to host a portal system.

   We discovered that there are numerous products available on the market. We researched several software solutions, and some of us subscribed to individual trials or tutorials for some of them. Then we narrowed our preferences to two: Knowledge Gear and IntranetConnections. We previewed these two in formal online demonstrations with vendor representatives.

   We have recommended Intranet Connections to the BLC. We would like the BLC staff to have the opportunity to try out this software, which Apurva Mehta is prepared to install on the UMass server next week. As a next step, we are prepared to set up an introductory session for the BLC in order to continue to move the process forward.

   Challenges to the committee:

   The possibility of a lengthy review cycle by the BLC, and the limited time available for a trial (the vendor will give us 30 days, plus a 30-day extension), presents a challenge to the committee. Careful timing is crucial to insure that the BLC will have an adequate opportunity to review the product and decide if it is an appropriate solution.

1. Meetings held (virtually and/ or face-to-face)
   Two meetings of the Staff Portal Task Force were held since the January 31st report. A meeting/product demonstration was held on February 10, 2003 at the Boston Public Library; Daniel Ortiz, Joan Thompson and Barbara Preece were in attendance. Another meeting/product demonstration was held on February 27, 2003 at the Snell Library at Northeastern University.

2. Activities/Accomplishments to date (list or summarize)
   The Staff Portal Taskforce has completed the following activities thus far:
   • Held two meetings/ product demonstrations (Intranet Connections) and (Knowledge Gear) to identify the product to be piloted by June 6, 2003.
   • Selected the Intranet Connections portal product to pilot following a demonstration held on February 27, 2003. We have requested a 60-trial day period from Intranet Connections. There is a possibility that they may grant us up to a 90-day trial, which would allow us to begin the pilot before the June 6, 2003 date stated in the charge.
     
     
3. List of COI's with which you communicate
   The Staff Portal Taskforce has not communicated with any COI's at this time.
   
   
4. Requests
   1. Funding
      The Staff Portal Taskforce has not requested funding at this time.
   2. Resources
      The Staff Portal Taskforce has not requested any additional resources at this time.
   3. Board/ MC queries
      The Staff Portal Taskforce has not made any queries to the Board at this time
      
      
5. Next Steps
   • Upload product onto a server that has ColdFusion (UMass-Boston) and configure product for use
   • Identify BLC documents to be added to portal and begin entering data
   • Assess usability of the product and troubleshoot problem areas for June 6th, 2003 Final Report

1. Meetings held (virtually and/ or face-to-face)

   The third meeting of the Staff Portal Taskforce was held at the Lamar Soutter Library (UMass-Worcester campus) on December 13, 2002.

2. Activities/Accomplishments to date (list or summarize)
   
   The Staff Portal Taskforce has completed the following activities thus far:
   
   
   • Created a list of "features" that we would like to see in the portal.
   • Used the month of November to continue researching software solutions that may meet our needs, including "Scout Portal Tool Kit"(recommended by Barbara Preece).
   • Held our third meeting to evaluate the various portal options. Attached to this report is a spreadsheet that compares the various portal options. The result of this meeting was the decision to pursue the Intranet Connections (intranetconnections.com) option.
     
     
3. List of COI's with which you communicate

   The Staff Portal Taskforce has not communicated with any COI's at this time.

4. Requests
   • FundingResources
     The Staff Portal Taskforce has not requested any additional resources at this time.
   • Board/ MC queries
     The Staff Portal Taskforce has not made any queries to the Board at this time.
     
     
5. Next Steps

   In early January 2003, the president of Knowledge Gear (kgear.com), one of the software options, expressed a desire to donate the software + two add-on modules to the BLC. The next step is for the BLC staff portal committee to view an online demo and see whether this product meets our needs.

   A fourth meeting of the Staff Portal Taskforce (which will be attended by Daniel Ortiz and Barbara Preece) is being arranged for February. At this meeting we will discuss the Taskforce's progress thus far, evaluate the Knowledge Gear product, and decide on next steps for the Taskforce.

1. Meetings held (virtually and/ or face-to-face)

   The first meeting was held at Northeastern University on September 26, 2002 following the BLC Taskforce training workshop. The second meeting was held on October 23, 2002 at the Route I-495 campus of UMass. A third meeting is scheduled for December 13, 2002 at the UMass-Worcester campus.

2. Activities/Accomplishments to date (list or summarize)
   
   
   1. Summary

      At this point in time, the Staff Portal Taskforce has meet on two separate occasions to discuss and take action on the above charge. Following our initial meeting, we presented to our liaison, Daniel Ortiz, three major assumptions to be confirmed by the Management Council. The confirmation of these assumptions would help clarify the Staff Portal Taskforce charge. These assumptions were:

      1. There will be the level of support appropriate to assure the success of the pilot (e.g., funding)
      2. BLC member libraries will provide content to the content management system (CMS), i.e., "portal"
      3. We will focus on "out of the box" software packages only and not on development

         Additionally, the Taskforce began surveying software applications as well pertinent literature on Intranets and content management. The Taskforce also requested sample documents from the BLC in order to get an idea of what kinds of documents are collected from member libraries.

         At the second Taskforce meeting, our liaison provided feedback from the Management Council regarding the aforementioned assumptions. It was confirmed that the Management Council would provide financial support for the pilot. The level of funding will be determined once proposals for software packages are presented to the Council. It was also confirmed that the Management Council is not expecting software developed by the Taskforce but rather, "out of the box" software. Examples of potential software applications and BLC documents were also presented at this meeting.

   2. Products we looked at and surveyed:

      In early October 2002 we sent an email to SYSLIB-L listserv to solicit ideas for how other libraries have implemented a Staff Portal within their library/consortium. The response was very poor; we got back one response in which a library was using the Microsoft .NET product to deploy a portal.

      We then reviewed various articles in "Intranet Professional," a publication that addresses Knowledge Management issues. We found this publication to be very useful and have attached several documents that relate to deploying portals or Intranets (see Bibliography below)

      Using Internet search engines, we listed half a dozen products that offer wide variety of features and hosting options (not to mention the price!). Listed below are the products we reviewed:

      1. .NET solution
         This Microsoft solution is based on its newest OS called .NET. To implement a portal, Microsoft has released a set of ASP scripts that work with .NET OS.
         Pros:
         (a) Apart from purchasing the .NET OS, the scripts (programs) are free.
         Cons:
         (a)NET is still a very new OS and one that we do not have any expertise with the product.
         (b) The program did not meet all our requirements. For example, the end user would not have been able to submit documents to the database without user intervention.
         
         
      2. Yahoo portal solution
         The Yahoo portal solution looked as if it were aimed for very large institutions. Yahoo offers an enterprise wide solution. Yahoo also hosts the portal on their site.
         Pros:
         (a) Large enterprise installations were each user is able to have their own look and feel (interface).
         (b) Yahoo hosts the portal, thereby shifting the responsibility of maintaining the system from one of the BLC institutions to Yahoo.
         (c) A wide variety of canned information is obtainable. Cons:
         (a) The interface and content is too commercial.
         (b) Supports very large institutions and hence can be very expensive.
         
         
      3. Intranetconnections.com
         This company specializes in portal / Intranet software. It comes all ready out of a box with 21 pre-built applications and uses cold fusion technology to manage the database. This solution also lets users submit documents electronically to the database without user intervention.
         Pros: (a) A complete solution and looks easy to install.
         (b) Uses standard technology (Windows NT, Cold Fusion)
         (c) Locally hosted and controlled.
         (d) Database used: Access or SQL server
         (e) Price - about $5,000 - unlimited # of users.
         Cons:(a) Flexibility and scalability of application is not yet known.
         
         
      4. NETIT.com solution:
         Another site that can host a portal / Intranet for you. Netit.com is a web content management tool that lets users share documents of any kind. This solution again has been used by very large organizations.
         Pros:
         (a) The option to have the site designed and hosted by NetIt.com is available.
         (b) Users are able to submit documents without going through an IT dept. or other intermediary.
         
         Cons:
         (a) Uses non-standard technology. Documents are stored in jDocs format and not in HTML or PDF
         (b) Pricing structure we found to be very expensive -- 1,000 documents $4,700 to 100,000 documents $35,500
         
         
      5. Symtrax Portal solution:
         Another large provider of portal solutions is Symtrax. This solution is able to accept documents from any source, web, databases, scanned images and make it part of a database.
         Pros: (a) uses standard windows technology (Windows 2000 & IIS server)
         (b) uses output engines to capture data from the source and indexes it
         (c) Customizable
         Cons: (a) Uses non-standard technology. No database concept. The documents reside on various servers on the network.
         (b) Cost - for 100 users the license is $11,000
         
         
      6. Intranets.com solution:
         Intranets.com provides another solution, in which the company hosts the site for you. Three solutions, document management, calendar and drag & drop feature, make up the portal/Intranet solution.
         Pros:
         (a) Hosted solution
         (b) Easy to submit documents into the database and share them
         Cons:
         (a) Pricing based on # of users and documents (disk space) -- $30 a month for the first 10 users and then $3 each month for every subsequent user.
         (b) Functionality is not as extensive as in other portal/Intranet products.
         
         The Groups Assessment:
         The group thought that we should:
         a. continue to research other solutions
         b. Offer a solution in each of the following categories: (i) scalability (ii) ease of installation (out of a box) and (iii) locally hosted vs. vendor hosted solution.
         
         Bibliography
         • Building & Hosting your own Intranet:
           http://www.Intranets.com/ProductInfo/ProdLit/
           Whitepapers.asp#BYOI
         • Why do Intranets fail?:
           http://www.darwinmag.com/read/110101/
           Intranet_content.html
           
           
   3. Features to be considered
      The following represents a list of features that we believe any Intranet or portal product must have in order to be considered as a candidate for purchase.
      • Document posting and management
      • Document sharing
      • Calendaring
      • Bulletin Board
      • Support for forms, including a form building utility - registrations, requests, feedback, etc
      • Forum
      • Search capabilities
      • Support for resource booking
      • Support for image management, standard formats
      • Issues tracking
      • Import/export capabilities with applications
      • Support for open linking
      • Support for COIs
      • Ability to interact with back-end databases
        
        
   4. Technical issues
      Technical issues for Intranet/Portal development include: robust user management, membership management, and policy, along with security, personalization, integration, aggregation, presentation, and search.
      1. Hosting versus purchasing hosted space
         1. Advantages to hosting
            COST: The main issue here is cost. Hosting an Intranet somewhere within the BLC would probably be less expensive, even if we had to purchase software and equipment. It is conceivable that the BLC would have to create a position to manage the service, similar to what Sonya does for the Virtual Catalog
         2. Advantages to purchasing hosted space
            MAINTENANCE: It will be much easier to design, update, manage security, and get support for new services and functions if we purchase access to an already existing infrastructure
         3. A hybrid solution would consist of a contractor who could build and design a service for us, then turn it over to us to manage subsequently
         
         
         
      2. Hosting ourselves would require:
         1. Access to a server at the BLC or a member institution with Internet server, security, firewall, portal, and other pertinent software
         2. Database backend and front-end software so the site is data-driven and up-to-date, searchable, and scaleable
         3. Server administration expertise
         
         
         
      3. Scalability
         If the task force develops a site itself, there is a question of whether a sample site would truly be scalable to what the Management Council has in mind. It is possible that we could develop something on a small scale that does not scale adequately for all the desired functions.
         
         
      4. Permissions and security: user and membership management:
         Someone at the BLC will have to take responsibility for giving permissions and authorizations for member access to various portions of the web site. For example, registration for BLC events would be available to anyone, but only committee chairs would have access to updating committee documents or their section of the web site.
         
         
      5. Archiving:
         Is archiving content desirable? If so, a portal server or hosted service should provide automatic archiving
         
         
      6. Searchability:
         It is desirable for the portal to be searchable; a database backend can allow for sophisticated searching and retrieval if we want it
         
         
3. List of COI's with which you communicate
   The Staff Portal Taskforce has not communicated with any COI's at this time
   
   
4. Requests
   1. Funding
      The Staff Portal Taskforce has not requested funding at this time
   2. Resources
      The Staff Portal Taskforce has not requested any additional resources at this time
   3. Board/ MC queries
      See II.A Activities/Accomplishments to date - Summary
   
   
   
5. Next Steps
   Information will be forthcoming