Reports

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

   February 22, 2005, at UMass Worcester
   March 14, 2005 at UMass Worcester




2. Activities / Accomplishments to date (list or summarize)
   • Developed a standardized questionnaire for vendor interviews (see appendix A)
   • Interviewed 6 vendors regarding their products.
   • Summarized interviews and made recommendations on the vendors that should be invited for demonstrations to the consortium.
   • Barbara Preece has made contact with these vendors and will arrange for demonstrations for consortium members to attend.

3. List of COI's with which you communicate

   ILL, Circulation, Reference
   We also communicate with the Virtual Catalog Team

4. Requests
• Funding – We anticipate requesting funding to support the vendor demonstrations yet to be scheduled.
• Resources
• Board/ MC queries


5. Next Steps
   

   The taskforce will construct (via email) a list of features they would like vendors to include in their demos. Barbara will pass these along to the vendors.

   The taskforce will construct (via email) an evaluation/response sheet for the BLC attendees to fill out on the day of the demos after seeing each vendor.

   The taskforce will contact customers of the vendors that we bring in for demonstrations in order to gather additional information before writing our final report for the board.

   The group will meet at the celebration on March 31st to finalize plans for the demos.

• Explain the functionality of your product.
• Is your product currently working with Horizon, Aleph, Voyager, III?
• Does the product handle returnables and non-returnables? (books and photocopies)?
• If your product makes it possible for users to request articles does it also track copyright compliance? How is this done?
• Are there currently any known major bugs in the product? If so, what is being done? When will the bugs be resolved?
• How do users make requests?
• Which OpenURL standard do you support? 0.1. Will you support 1.0?
• What are the matchpoints? OCLC number, Standard Number, title key, etc.?
• Does the product de-dupe?
• Describe how one searches the product and how one make requests.
• What kind of technology do you use to read data from ILS – e.g., z39.50, screen-scraping, web interfaces, telnet connections, NCIP, etc.? Is NCIP required for your product?
• Is the ILS data live or are there periodic loads?
• How does the product handle formats other than MARC - specifically for holdings information in 866?
• Does your system support on-site borrowing of materials?

• How long has the product been up and running?
• Where is the product up and running? Can we have a contact list of users? (Particularly one from a consortium with varied ILS systems.)
• What are the costs associated with the product? One time? Recurring?
• Will the company provide work flow support at each participating site?
• Will the company provide training?
• Will the company provide technical support?
• Will you help processing the raw data if we need to upload data?
• Are there new releases on the horizon?
• Can you do a demo catalog with our data?
• Would you be willing to do a short general product demo for BLC COIs (probably 3/31)?
• How much practical work is required on the part of the library to get the product up and running? Estimate of time (work hours) required.

• Is there any aspect of your product you'd like to mention that we haven't asked you about - or any further elaboration you'd like to make now to any of our questions?
• Can you provide links to materials about your product?

• Did the company follow through with their promises?
• Did they provide effective training?
• Do they provide technical support?
• Are they responsive?
• What do you like about the product?
• What don’t you like?
• Have you identified any problems?
• What do your patrons think about the service?
• How easy/difficult was it to train patrons to use the service?

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

   March 31, 2005, at Boston Public Library
   April 15, 2005 BLC Virtual Catalog Vendor Day
   April 25, 2005 at UMass Worcester
   

2. Activities / Accomplishments since date of last Interim Report (list or summarize)
   • Three vendors were invited to the demonstration day for the consortium. These were: Dynix, Fretwell-Downing and RAPID.
   • The taskforce constructed a list of features they would like vendors to include in their demos. Barbara Preece passed these along to the vendors in advance of the demo day. (see appendix A)
   • The taskforce constructed an evaluation/response sheet for the BLC attendees to fill out on the day of the demos after seeing each vendor. (See appendix B)
   • Jen Varney, Assistant Director of the BLC, tabulated the results of the evaluations sheets for the Task Force. These results were reviewed by the Task Force at the meeting on April 25th.
   • Barbara Preece contacted the vendors to obtain a response on the free-form comments from the evaluation sheets. Their responses were shared with the Task Force.
   • The Task Force had concluded that adequate information on the RAPID system had been presented at the demonstration day. However, more information is needed from Dynix and Fretwell-Downing before a complete assessment of these products can be made.

3. List of COI's with which you communicate

   ILL, Circulation, Reference
   We also communicate with the Virtual Catalog Team

4. Requests

The Task Force requests an extension for their final report. We cannot make any conclusions based on the information that we have so far. A proposed deadline for this work would be a month after these demonstrations are completed.



5. Next Steps
   

   The Task force will invite Dynix and Fretwell-Downing for a day long demonstration each. Only the task Force members will attend these meetings.

   The task force will develop a list of specific questions and scenarios that we would like to see addressed at these demonstrations.

Thank you for coming to demonstrate your product to the Boston Library Consortium on April 15th, 2005 at Boston College. Below you will find a list of features that we would like to see. We prefer a live demonstration if at all possible. The time allotted for your demonstration is one and one half hours. Please leave enough time to allow for questions from the attendees within this time-frame. Questions can be taken at the end of your presentation, or if you prefer, questions can be take throughout. Attached you will also find a questionnaire that attendees will use to evaluate your product.

1. Please demonstrate the functionality of your product.
2. Demonstrate cross functionality with a variety of catalogs specifically Horizon, Aleph, III, Voyager and with ILL management software packages such as ILLiad and Clio.
3. Demonstrate how records are displayed when there are multiple copies, locations, editions or other variations in cataloging.
4. Demonstrate the request process for returnables and non-returnables from the standpoint of both patron and staff. Please also show search strategies and options.
5. Demonstrate patron interface and staff interface fully, including patron authentication.
6. Demonstrate the statistical reporting features of your system including any copyright reporting features.
7. Please describe enhancements that your customers have requested and what your plans are for implementing them.
8. List sites that are currently using your product.

Please rate the products that you saw demonstrated today. Please use a scale of 0-5 where 0 is non-functional and 5 is outstanding functionality.

Please take a moment to write additional comments or recommendations for action by the task force:

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

   May 31, 2005, Conference Call
   



2. Activities / Accomplishments since date of last Interim Report (list or summarize)
   • The feasibility of inviting Fretwell Downing and Dynix back for more detailed demonstrations for the Task Force was discussed. Neither vendor currently has full interoperability with all of the integrated library systems used in the consortium. The task force does not feel that a good decision can me made without seeing fully functional products in operation. The task force request for an extension on their work was received by Management Council.
   • Management Council has graciously agreed to grant the Task Force a hiatus for the summer. The vendors will be notified of this fact and Barbara Preece and other task force members will stay abreast of developments with their products. The Task Force extends its thanks to the Management Council for this break while we wait for the vendors to develop their systems. It is our sincere hope that they will be able to hold live product demonstrations showing functional systems by the Fall.

3. List of COI's with which you communicate

   ILL, Circulation, Reference
   We also communicate with the Virtual Catalog Team

4. Requests

None at this time.



5. Next Steps
   
   • Task force members attending ALA will meet with Fretwell Downing and Dynix in Chicago.
   • The Task Force will meet at UMass Worcester on September 12th at noon and will discuss product/vendor developments over the summer. Ideally we will find that they will be ready to demonstrate operational products that fit our needs and will be able to resume discussions. If this is the case, then we will proceed with invitations for day long demonstrations for the Task Force where appropriate.

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

   September 12, 2005, 12:00 - 3:00, UMass Worcester
   



2. Activities / Accomplishments since date of last Interim Report (list or summarize)

   Task Force members Barbara Oakley and Kathryn Ridenour, along with BLC Director Barbara Preece met with two vendors at ALA this summer for further discussion about and demonstrations of their products.

   At that date and at the date of this meeting both vendors still could not demonstrate products that were fully functional with all of the integrated library systems used in the Consortium. To date one vendor still does not have their latest version in use at any site, though they say that they expect to be testing soon. The other vendor has difficulty functioning fully with the circulation system at some sites. They did some testing with a site and submitted the results of these tests to the task force in a final report. The report noted the inability for their product to fully function with the circulation system at the site due to the lack of NCIP. Some sites are trying to bring pressure to bear on the ILS system vendor to offer this functionality.

   The task force discussed these developments and how to proceed, as our hopes of seeing a fully functional product by Fall have not been realized. The group also discussed the functionality of a third product and the relative ease of implementation of this product for article delivery. After lengthy and far ranging discussion the group decided that in order to be fair and to make a balanced decision, regarding any virtual catalog product, completing the investigation of one of the products was necessary. The steps to be undertaken are:

   • Barbara Oakley will speak to a contact at another consortium to gauge how that consortium has dealt with circulation issues while not using the product interface for this function.
   • Kathryn Ridenour and Barbara Oakley will place a call to a contact at a second consortium where a vendor has fully implemented their product to investigate the strengths and weaknesses of this product. If this information proves promising and positive then Barbara and Kathryn will follow up with a site visit if funding for this trip is approved by the Board.
   • Ellen Keane and Jane Fama will speak with someone at a third consortium about the use of products in their consortium.
   • Barbara Preece will investigate the possibility of obtaining a more favorable consortial pricing model for a product.

3. List of COI's with which you communicate

   ILL, Circulation, Reference
   We also communicate with the Virtual Catalog Team

4. Requests

If the results of the calls are positive, the task force requests funding for two members to go on a site visit. (Airfare for 2 : $800.00, one nights stay $150.00 and meal allowance)



5. Next Steps
   
   • The task force members will standardize a set of questions to use when making the calls listed above. Once calls have been completed the task force will share the information and decide on the necessity of a site visit. The next meeting date will be set at that time.

1. Meeting held (virtually and/ or face-to-face): Results of the call and email detailed below were conveyed to the Task Force via email.
   
   
2. Activities / Accomplishments since date of last Interim Report (list or summarize)
   • A set of standardized questions was developed for use in our conversations with VDX implementers.

   • One call was made to the OCUL consortium to investigate their use of VDX. This call was made by Barbara Oakley and Kathryn Ridenour. The result of this call was shared with the task force. Contact was also made with Mary Heath of the California Digital Library project. Ms. Heath responded to our standardized set of questions via email. This response was also forwarded to the Task Force.

   VDX still has difficulty functioning fully with the circulation system at some sites. The inability for their product to fully function with III circulation systems due to the lack of NCIP is still problematic. Some sites are trying to bring pressure to bear on the ILS system vendor to offer this functionality.

3. List of COI's with which you communicate

   ILL, Circulation, Reference
   We also communicate with the Virtual Catalog Team

4. Requests

none



5. Next steps:
   • Meet to discuss the results of these contacts and decide what further action is necessary. (Next Meeting, Dec. 12, 2005)
   
   
   

Charge:

This task force will survey the marketplace for products that may replace or complement the current software, Dynix's URSA, used by the Consortium.

The task force will recommend to the BLC a product or products that allow patrons to submit request across the disparate Consortium catalogs for returnables and non-returnables. The task force may recommend that the BLC continue with the current vendor, continue with the current vendor for non-returnables and recommend another vendor for non-returnables, or suggest a different model. Rapid and Fretwell Downing’s VDX are two products that should be considered in this review. One member of the task force will be a member of the Virtual Catalog Team and will serve as liaison to that group.

• The BLC continue with URSA (the current Virtual Catalog) for the immediate future and install URSA 4.1 when appropriate. We want to make it clear that we are unimpressed with the progress that has been made on URSA 4.1, and we are discouraged that libraries such as Brandeis, Boston College, and MIT are unable to participate in the Virtual Catalog because their ILS software and URSA are not interoperable. We also recognize that the installation for 4.1 is included in our current URSA maintenance fees, so there will be no additional costs to upgrade. It remains our hope that URSA 4.1 will extend operability to all libraries, and increase operability with libraries that currently have less than ideal integration with URSA, without sacrificing operability in libraries that currently have full operability. It continues to remain questionable whether URSA 4.1 can process non-returnables. That feature has never been successfully demonstrated to the BLC.



• The Virtual Catalog Team and the BLC Administration monitor the progress of URSA 4.1 and recommend an appropriate time for installation.



• The BLC Administration monitors the market for returnable and non-returnable loan systems and reconstitutes a task force to examine new products and/or new versions when the market has matured. We recommend that some members of the current taskforce be on that new taskforce for continuity.



• The BLC purchase RAPID. We recognize that as a consortium, we are not taking full advantage of each others resources, with many libraries placing fillable requests outside the BLC. We understand that as libraries we are paying to leverage each other’s resources. As URSA 4.1 cannot serve our non-returnables needs, we recommend to the Board that the BLC invest in RAPID. RAPID is currently in use by two of our members, both of whom report tremendous success as RAPID greatly reduces wait time for articles. One concern that we have is that many of us are moving to electronic editions for our journal collections. These holdings are becoming more invisible to our partners. Many of our contracts, however, allow us to use their electronic editions for ILL purposes. RAPID allows the each library to make the decision as to which holdings to include and make visible to our partners. No other product is capable of determining our electronic holdings at this point. Furthermore, RAPID will easily integrate into an ILLiad workflow, and less easily into a Clio workflow. For ILLiad libraries, a simple click of a button searches and sends the request. Once received, it can be auto-posted using our own ILL systems. RAPID also offers remote article hosting for members not using a local management system. If a BLC library is unable to fill a RAPID request, the request will go automatically go out of the BLC group and look for holdings elsewhere, either in another RAPID pod to which an institution belongs or in OCLC. RAPID will best leverage the BLC journal holdings with minimal impact on staff workflow and maximum speed of service to patrons.




II. Background Information (optional):




III. Programs planned or implemented:


N/A



IV. Resources used (how have BLC resources have been used?)

Funding for vendor demonstrations.



V. Activities (summary, include milestones and challenges faced)

During its tenure, the Virtual Catalog Task Force looked at several products for unmediated or minimally-mediated requesting and fulfillment of returnables and non-returnables. These included SFX, RAPID, INNREACH, VDX, URSA/Horizon, and others. We viewed demonstrations by Rapid, Dynix (URSA/Horizon), and Fretwell-Dowling (VDX) in a forum open to all BLC members.




Interim reports:

March 17 2005
April 29, 2005
June 10, 2005
September 15, 2005
November, 2005



Final report:

December 16, 2005