Abstract
Christine E. Ryan and Rose Nelson presented a detailed account of transfer from one electronic resources and access management service to another from the librarian's and the vendor's points of view. The library's motivation for seeking a vendor change was to save money while retaining essential services. Important features included vendor reliability, responsiveness, and reputation; administrative options and customization; system flexibility and ease of use; and reporting capability. Details of the time line, lists of tasks, and vendor demonstrations were presented, along with suggestions for a successful transfer.
The University of Tennesee, Chattanooga (UTC) is a metropolitan, liberal arts college with a full-time equivalent of 8,500 students (7,600 undergraduates and 900 graduate students). UTC's Lupton Library has a materials budget of $1.3 million with access to 143 databases, 950 individual e-journal subscriptions, 29,000 e-journals through aggregators, and 596,000 books. The library has twenty-four employees—twelve faculty members and twelve staff members.
In August 2007, Lupton Library received an invoice from their vendor for the library's electronic resources and access management service that began a rapid process of change. Lupton Library staff were dissatisfied with their vendor's pricing model, less than responsive customer service, and lack of communication. They had not seen improvement in spite of numerous attempts to resolve issues. That August, the price increased again and UTC librarians questioned whether they could afford it. Since they were using a highly rated vendor, they were not looking at a vendor change, but hoped to work with the vendor to arrive at an agreeable price. The vendor's pricing suggestions were less than hoped for, and in the meantime, library staff began reviewing options, including abandoning link resolvers altogether and building their own A–Z list, which would allow them to discontinue using their existing vendor.
The Tenn-Share DataFest, a vendor showcase of products recommended by the Tenn-Share member libraries, was held at an opportune time. Invited vendors gave presentations on selected products. Seeing a number of products at work helped UTC librarians start to think about change. The Colorado Alliance for Research Libraries was one of the vendors there, presenting Gold Rush, a comprehensive ERM system. It seemed possible that Gold Rush or another vendors' system, could provide services they currently lacked, and at a lower cost. It was clear that other vendor options would be worth exploring.
Following the Tenn-Share DataFest, Lupton Library embarked on what Christine Ryan called an “online serials access X-game.” In an extremely short time frame, they went from exploration to decision to implementation and launch. They were motivated by the possibility of extreme savings, extremely low disruption to students, and extremely valuable side benefits. Their X-game adventure spanned eight months from exploration beginning in October 2007 to launch on June 30, 2008.
Initially, Lupton Library staff faced a number of issues. The small staff were already heavily committed and could not effectively accommodate an additional selection and review committee. It was decided that the Electronic Resources Librarian, Ryan, would become a committee of one, reducing bureaucracy and speeding the process, and reporting to the library IT Council and library faculty. The time line had to be short to have a new vendor system in place by the fiscal year's end and the expiration of the current vendor's contract. Library staff were concerned about the stability of a vendor partner. Price and quality were major issues. A low-priced product with fewer features and services can be more expensive in the long run. Their aim was to maintain equivalent product features with any vendor change and not to wind up with a product that was inferior to the current vendor's service. Ultimately, the library could continue using the current vendor.
The aggressive time line, outlined in and based on the process documented by Harrell Library at Pennsylvania State University, was developed to keep the vendor selection and migration on track.Footnote 1 It called for selection by January to allow for training, implementation, and troubleshooting while the current vendor's system was still in place. Key to this was access to both vendors' systems for the months leading up to the end of the current vendor's contract and the beginning of the new vendor's contract.
TABLE 1 Timetable
Ryan began by gathering information on potential vendors and developed a list of twelve potential providers. Since time was of the essence, she consulted vendor websites to narrow the pool to five vendors, including the library's current vendor. The currency of vendor websites was important because the initial decision to continue to consider a vendor was made on the basis of information from each website.
Only two of the five vendors offered a live trial. It was disappointing that other vendors were not able to provide this critical evaluation tool. The trial enabled them to test the link resolver, comparison reports, and other features to make sure they worked to meet the library's needs. Another advantage of a live trial is ease of transition. If the library subscribes to the service of a vendor who has offered a live trial, then access may simply continue from the trial.
To further narrow the pool and ultimately identify the vendor that best met Lupton Library's needs, Ryan made a list of desired features and created a spreadsheet to evaluate vendor capabilities. A simple scoring system was devised with the current vendor, that is, status quo, assigned a value of zero for each feature. If a vendor's service for a specific feature proved better than the current vendor, a value of one was assigned. If the vendor provided less than the current vendor for a given feature, a value of minus one was assigned. shows the list of features evaluated and scores assigned. details the features held in common by all vendors evaluated. There was no substantial difference among vendors for these features.
TABLE 2 Desired Features and Vendor Ratings
TABLE 3 Commonly Held Features
Part of Ryan's success in coordinating a fast-paced and ultimately successful vendor selection and transition was her organizational skills. Her list of questions for vendors and clients and the list of scenarios for response provided in the appendix will assist other libraries when planning a similar vendor selection.
Vendor demonstrations were the next step. A successful webinar demonstration requires advance planning by both the prospective library client and the vendor. Rose Nelson pointed out that the vendor needs to determine what the client is looking for and then tailor any demonstration to the audience. For instance, determine where in the library the webinar attendees work and predict their interests, for example, licensing, link resolver, and so on. The library planner needs to consider who should attend the webinar based on their role within the library. Ideally, the library should share this information with the vendor, giving the vendor the opportunity to tailor the demonstration to library needs.
Ryan made some comments about and tips for vendor selection. One vendor allowed Ryan to sit in on online training sessions for existing customers. That provided added insight and information. Some vendors' online documentation is complete and very helpful, but some of the best vendors have little information online. If a library has to request information repeatedly, a vendor can be dropped from consideration for lack of response. Three of the twelve vendors in the original pool did not contact Ryan after their initial response; one inexplicably did not confirm a previously arranged appointment and did not arrive for a visit to Lupton Library. If a vendor is not responsive to a potential client, it brings into question that vendor's responsiveness to customers. Ryan asked vendors to be aware of the skills of their sales representatives. If a demonstration is poorly executed, librarians will not support selection of the vendor. Librarians need to be assertive, let vendors know what they need, and insist on getting the demonstrations, information, and whatever support is necessary to make an informed vendor selection. Working with each vendor prior to the demonstration regarding specific examples that would apply to the library audience will help to make vendor demonstrations more relevant to the library.
The Colorado Alliance's Gold Rush product was selected by the UTC staff in January 2008, as a result of the vendor review and evaluation process. This final selection was not made on data from the spreadsheet alone. Professionalism of the vendor, product features, the opportunity to partner with the vendor on future development, and price all combined to make Gold Rush the first choice option. The Lupton Library saved thousands of dollars in comparison to the subscription price of the current vendor. They transferred their subscription to a product that provided the desired features and in addition provided an ERM system.
With the vendor decision made, pre-implementation began. Retaining databases, journal titles, URLs, and coverage or holdings dates from the current vendor was key. This provided the capability to upload all title lists, customized dates, and custom URLs, instead of checking each title and changing each date, and contributed to maintaining the aggressive time line. Ryan noted that some vendors will upload your original data or large title lists, but UTC's experience was that this created too long of a time delay. By loading titles themselves, Lupton Library staff could control and pace the uploading of their data.
Once data are loaded, testing is needed. The Colorado Alliance provided access to Gold Rush before the actual subscription period began. With access to the current vendor's system and the new vendor's system, a sample of titles was tested from vendor to article to ensure that the link resolver functioned as expected. Librarians provided examples of heavily used and important resources for testing to ensure that the system worked. Ryan recommended finding more examples to add to the sample; too many is better than too few test titles.
UTC prepared a comprehensive list of all places where the OpenURL link resolver appears. This included titles where Lupton Library controlled the URL and image, as well as those where the URL and image were requested via e-mail, Web form, or other means. The next step is to prioritize the list: Which will be done first? Which could wait until after implementation? Lupton Library recognized that some database vendors require special setup on their side of the equation to accommodate a new OpenURL vendor. Finally, Ryan contacted database vendors ahead of time to let them know when the change to the new ERM system vendor would be made. Ryan and Nelson had some reminders for vendor implementation: ask database vendors to make necessary changes, know key databases and publishers, and know when you will imbed the base URL in a vendor's database. Some database vendors will allow two base URLs to be set up in a database, but check with your database vendors to be certain.
When implementation began in earnest, the library convened the Gold Rush Implementation Team (GRIT). Weekly meetings were supplemented by critical updates via e-mail or in person. GRIT wrestled with challenges with Joomla (an open-source content management system that enables website construction) and the library's current Web design. The availability of other Gold Rush customer templates was a benefit and meant that UTC did not need to reinvent these.
As Lupton Library began coding, Gold Rush released their XML gateway, three months ahead of schedule. Gold Rush's XML gateway allows for full customization of the public interface and article linker screen. Users never leave the library website and results are sent back from the XML server to the library's XML client. XML supports both Perl and PHP for development allowing library staff to customize the interface.
UTC wanted the flexibility of the XML gateway to provide the opportunity to create a consistent interface and, for example, to help ensure consistent font size display in different browsers. An information technology (IT) developer went to work, starting with the easier A–Z list. A week or so later, the link resolver was ready for testing. This gave the library the critical ability to control display and to control the timing of changes, avoiding crucial times such as the beginning of a semester. As a side note, no formal training was necessary to begin using this product. Documentation was readily available and contacts by phone and e-mail were responded to promptly for a few questions regarding list uploads.
With the implementation of the A–Z list complete, GRIT began the next phase of testing. Ryan advises libraries to upload content as soon as possible. These titles are the targets and will just sit there until the library points to them with the new URL. Testing the new Gold Rush OpenURL link resolver required balancing user disruption with the need for adequate test feedback. Each library needs to plan for this to allow for necessary, but minimal user disruption. Lupton Library did some testing during spring break, and some on weekends or during off-hours, as roughly determined by looking at proxy server traffic and Web logs. It is critical to switch back to the old vendor when testing is complete. Since few changes to the user interface were made, usability testing and getting library buy-in were simplified.
Phase one of the transition of referring sources began June 30. Be sure to contact your vendor ahead of time since this is a vendor-mediated process. Library staff transferred as many referring sources as could be managed in two days, and did necessary testing at the same time. Resources were prioritized so that the most heavily used sources were transferred first. One of the most important aspects of this implementation phase was food for everyone: doughnuts and coffee each day and pizza one day, sub sandwiches the next. Everyone was gathered in one room to facilitate communication of problems and solutions, tell stories, and develop camaraderie. Making the transition in the summer meant that few users needed to access resources. Unfortunately, the EZproxy certificate expired and somehow the IT manager had missed this and was away at a conference. A campus IT manager stepped in to create a temporary fix. The same weekend, the Wiley InterScience platform absorbed former Blackwell Publishing journal titles, so no access to those journals was available. Lupton Library staff learned some important lessons: do the transfer on a weekend, but avoid major events, and have IT personnel on call. Phase two, the lower-priority resources, were transferred once the high-priority sources were in place.
Campus-wide launch took place in September with a big, bold celebration. The support of the library administration for promotion and any celebratory announcement is critical. Promotional activities included posting flyers, having giveaways, and making announcements via e-mail, on the library's website, and in library instruction classrooms. Repetition helps. An eye-catching red logo, “Get it @ UTC,” was used as the database record link, in the linker results XML screen, and on the article source screen.
After Ryan described the launch of the new vendor, Rose Nelson briefly outlined the link resolver process for those who may have been unfamiliar. Article links work when OpenURL variables are passed from source to target. The source is the database where the search begins and target is the article where it ends. The link resolver transfers data from source to target. Some vendors adhere to the OpenURL standard and others use proprietary link rules. Also bear in mind that the OpenURL standard is not necessarily standard; some aggregators loosely apply the standard. Encourage your vendor to attend related National Information Standards Organization (NISO) meetings and implement the current standards. Many examples from referring source to target can help with problem solving. Vendors view troubleshooting a product as an opportunity for product enhancement or for customer training. You can help your vendor help you by providing screen shots and URLs to document a problem.
How does the UTC decision to switch to Gold Rush look nearly a year after implementation? The vendor with the highest price did not provide the most robust system or the best service, so the comparison of price to quality was not a factor. Lupton Library acquired an ERM system with new features and reliable, responsive customer service at a considerable cost savings. They gained partnership opportunities for beta testing, source code sharing, a users' group, a discussion list, and the chance to share enhancement costs.
UTC believes they lost very little. One report they relied on is not replicated in Gold Rush, but it can be assembled from other reports. The next step is to implement the ERM system during summer 2009.
Notes
1. Virginia A. Lingle, “Implementing EBSCO's A-to-Z and LinkSource Products for Improved Electronic Journal Management,” Serials Librarian 47, no. 4 (March 2005): 43–54, doi:10.1300/J123v47n04-06.
APPENDIX
Questions for Vendors and Clients and Administrative Scenarios
Questions for vendors
What pricing model is used for the A–Z listing and for the link resolver?
List of clients for references?
Is there an active user group? An active discussion list?
Frequency of knowledgebase updates?
Can the system automatically distinguish and search genres (ISSN vs. ISBN)?
How much knowledge of the supporting database does the representative have? (Oracle? MySQL?)
Depending upon pricing, what billing options are available to keep each bill under $5000?
Questions for clients
Number of databases and number of titles handled by the vendor?
Size of client's user population?
Describe the transition from the link resolver. Which link resolver did the client transition from?
Does the client subscribe to both the A–Z list and the link resolver?
Did the client install A–Z and link resolver at the same time?
Describe the process used to transfer holdings from the client's previous vendor.
What difficulties did the client encounter when transferring holdings from the other vendor?
Did the client upload holdings to the integrated library system?
How many people were on the implementation team? What roles or positions did they hold?
Length of time to implement new vendor service?
Experiences with support during implementation?
Experiences with ongoing support?
Did the client encounter any surprises?
Administrative scenarios
What happens when the client has a customized publisher package that includes titles from two different packages?
If a title is not in the knowledgebase, what are the options for adding it?
If coverage dates for non-aggregated titles differ from the knowledgebase, can they be changed?
What options exist for uploading local catalog holdings? How much or how little detail is required?
What subject classifications are used?
Can non-aggregated links be customized (e.g., to point to an archive page instead of a current issue page)?
How does the vendor handle title changes? Are they cross-referenced at all?
How does the vendor handle alternative titles (JAMA versus Journal of the American Medical Association)? Listed one place or both?