2017-04-07 - Consortia SIG Notes

• David Dahl: Technical directory for USMAI in Maryland (public plus a few private institutions). Shared ILS (model #2). Group buying. Resource sharing. Shared training/knowledge.
• Former user (Deleted): Fenway Libraries Online. Shared ILS of 10 academic libraries (model #2 – all on one system). Also represents commonwealth catalog (resource sharing within Massachusetts). In FLO, shared buying.
• Christopher Holly: At EBSCO for 6 months; prior was executive director at CCS (public libraries in northern Illinois). Co-mingled ILS (model #2). Had gone through a review process of what needs to be central and what needs to be separate.
• Sebastian Hammer: At Index Data, work with several different consortia providing services for mixed academic/public libraries to Borrow-Direct (substantial number of institutions on each installation) and discussions about what would happen now that Relais has been acquired by OCLC. Customers are model #1 (heterogeneous).
• Martina Tumulla: hbz Library Service Center in Cologne Germany. Services for academic and public libraries: union catalog, discovery system, ill, digitization, preservation, acquisitions, etc. Regional and national consortia for content (e.g. databases, e-journals).

David Dahl: Model #2 for USMAI. Using Aleph.

1. What works well is resource sharing: a single patron database (a decision from 2000 to share a single patron database for unmediated resource sharing).
2. Acquisitions is difficult because everyone is together; each institution has only one parent budget and everything lives beneath that. Shared OPAC layer means there are group decisions about how that looks (other organizations can skin things for their institutions).
3. Nothing comes to mind at this point.
4. Resource sharing model was legislated, so that level of interoperability was mandatory. There are different ways to do this, and hopefully FOLIO can allow for sharing of patrons with different options for sharing other infrastructure. Ideally would be looking at something like model #4: want to share bib data without recreating the wheel but not necessarily just within the consortium (something that the FOLIO Metadata Management SIG seems to be looking at). Something between models #1 and #4 would be the best way forward.

Former user (Deleted): Model #2 for FLO. Voyager.

1. Sharing patron database means that resource sharing is easy, walk-in borrowing is easy. Physically located close together; being able to see holdings data is very useful. Model #2 means that bib records are loaded once and can be used for all institutions.
2. Circulation matrices are crazy – accounting for every patron group that the other libraries also have. Resolving circulation matrix is challenging. Agreeing on system-level configuration can be a challenge. Barcode conflicts between institutions – duplicate identifiers between campuses for patrons. Seeing financial information is okay, but could become troublesome.
3. None to mention at this point.
4. A larger cast of characters could cause problems and would consider something like model #4.

Christopher Holly: Model #2 for CCS. SirsiDynix Symphony.

1. Primary reason for architecture is resource sharing. Looking at new models reaffirmed that resource sharing was the primary need. Can set up filters to limit views to libraries. Shared bibliographic database – common cataloging and shared records. Making sure permissions was there to support different cataloging expertise is important.
2. Circulation matrices and tables were 1000s of lines long; troubleshooting is extremely difficult. Allowing others to be able to edit codes could be helpful. Libraries had different needs for fiscal functionality; having varied library types with different apps would be helpful. EBooks: subgroups within the consortia had different buying clubs – having to manage different input files for different buying clubs – in the OPAC patrons could see things that they didn't have access – important to have resources that are available to subsets of users are only shown to those subsets of users.
3. Having more flexibility in acquisitions – working with other bursar systems. Also the e-book piece.
4. Given all of the pros and cons, the review showed that model #2 is the best option. Model #4 might be closer to what is in place because of the number and type of filters that SirsiDynix had in place.

Sebastian Hammer and Charlotte Whitt worked with the Danish national library service that operates a shared ILS infrastructure with a shared catalog; all are required to be a part of it. Would often speak of trying to match Amazon's level of service (can see this title and have it in 'x' days; reducing the complexity of what appears to the patron). Biggest roadblock becomes access to patron information to enable instant decisions for resource sharing without violating privacy guidelines. Increasing interested in how FOLIO can support heterogeneous groups of libraries – linking them together in the common whole. Monoliths in this area become very complex. Christopher Holly: Something like #1 is good but can be expensive.

Former user (Deleted): what is the bare minimum of patron information that needs to be shared; want to minimize the amount of patron information that is being shared. Sebastian Hammer: Is something like Shibboleth possible to make this happen? David Dahl: Something like shibboleth minimizes the amount of information that needs to be stored.

Martina Tumulla: Libraries have their own local systems. Several different local systems at libraries. An issue - different types of libraries: 1. main library of an institution with several branches, but all branches "belonging" to this main library. 2. main library of an institution and several independent libraries in departments at the same institution. Libraries that are more independent than "branches"; their own staff and their own funds. Should not see each other's data; particularly fund hierarchy and balances. 3. Mixture of 1 and 2: main library with branches and independent libraries at the same institution Christopher Holly: a similar example is with law libraries and health center libraries and their relationships to the main libraries. Different operational units; think of them almost as different institutions.

Kirstin Kemner-Heek: Noticed that questions are asked from the perspective of a buyers club and not from a network. All four models exist within GBV, and that is the challenge in their context – the system needs to support all of these models. One library system which is consistent in itself; two-track systems of libraries that are independent but organized; and mixtures of libraries working along and libraries that are collaborating in parts or in whole. Finding the right setup in the beginning is important because changing later can be challenging; don't have the flexibility to change later. The configuration of the system is more complex when a lot is shared; libraries have to align themselves in areas of budget structure, organizing supplier database, organizing request structure; how to print things; how offline jobs are organized. Because the system was not thought to be used in such a big way makes it challenging. Would appreciate a more strict structure of the data model; a big chance now to do it in a clean, well-structure, and efficient way while keeping the way to support different opportunities. (Carries a lot of load from the history of the system because there are so many side effects for changing pieces of the system.)

Christopher Holly: A lot of discussions so far have been about resource sharing, but there are also concerns about buying club consortia (e.g. sharing cooperative purchase of content packages, for example).

Former user (Deleted): how might the system handle the retention requirements that vary across institutions?

Sebastian Hammer: Behind the politics and practices of individual libraries, is there an ideal that can be glimpsed? Exploring the ambition of an idealized vision of what we should be doing in each of these areas? Can we disentangle the politics and practices from the service goals of what we are striving to provide?