Making the Big Move: Moving to Cloud-Based OCLC’s WorldShare Management Services (WMS)

November 8, 2013

Brad SpryLibrary Webmaster

Shoko TokoroElectronic & Continuing Resources Coordinator

Michael WinecoffAssociate University Librarian for Technical Services

UNC Charlotte Atkins Library• FTE: 23,975• Member of the Association of Southeastern Research

Libraries (ASERL)• Material budget (FY13):

$3.7 M (base budget) + $1M to $2M one time funds

• Library staff: 59 SPAs, 29 EPAs • 3 library locations:

Main Library, Architecture Library & Center City – no physical materials

• Library Collections:1,598,300 physical volumes, 438,500 eBooks, 66,451 paid eJournals, 11,000 streaming videos, 350 databases

Why did we switch?

• Search results: Our previous search infrastructure is outdated in ways that seriously under-represent the extent of our holdings, and the material we can make available to patrons. Further, it did not allow for quick/powerful refinement of search results or facets. Search in WMS is better on all these scores.

Why did we switch?

• Reducing the cost and complexity of our search infrastructure: WMS will reduce the number of systems currently required to do search. This will simplify the task of maintaining and integrating search systems, and it will radically reduce their cost.

• Possible servers/services no longer needed: – ILS, EDS, Syndetics, Eres, Serials Solutions, Marcive

Why did we switch?

• Management reporting: In an environment that relies increasingly on data to drive decisions our previous system was incapable of meeting our needs. WMS will allow us to derive critical managerial data to inform collection building, staffing, and resource allocation decisions.

Overall Migration

• Preparation and implementation took 6 months (October 2012-March 2013). We’re still migrating!

• Over 850,000 monographs and 32,000 serials• Had a fulltime project manager – very helpful! • Staff participated in webinars and used the

sandbox to learn WMS• July 3, 2013 – Go live date

WMS and WCL Pluses

• Web-based -- no client to install– Works with Chrome and Firefox

• Shared vendor file• Shared serial check-in• Patrons like faceted results and access to ILL

Migration Overview• Goal: migrate the search, circulation and catalog

infrastructure • No MARC holdings in our serial records – ARG!• FTP file limits were restrictive

– 90,000 character limit in MARC records– 90,000 MARC bibliographic records per file– 100 MB file size limit

• Different formats need to sent separately• OCLC does not migrate acquisitions or authority data• Local bibliographic data preserved sometimes in different

fields

Migration Steps

• Complete the data migration questionnaire• Prepare translation tables• Prepare for batchload project (s)– Approve Scope Statement– Extract bibliographic records from ILS and send to

Batch Services• Maintain holdings during migration• Extract and send circulation transaction data• Send gap file for monographs and serials

Acquisitions Workflow

• We order in YBP GOBIs system as previously • Orders are ftp’d to encumber the funds in WMS• Must have a record in WorldCat for ordering• Catalogers must select either monograph, serial or

multipart monograph to receive item• Catalogers add the barcode (link the item)• Pseudo records for laptops must be in the system in

order to check out• Electronic invoices/EDIFACT will be supported the 3rd

quarter of next year

Technical Services – Workarounds

• Refunds/credits – [December 2013]• Bound-with materials – [3rd qrt 2014] • Shadow system necessary for call numbers –

[Planned, but unscheduled]• Bulk item update for location, status, etc

[Planned, but unscheduled]• Paying an item costing more than $99,999.99• Printing of serial checkin labels

Collections Development & Electronic Resources Unit

Before – 2 librarians, 4 staff + 2 students• Collection development

librarian (AUL)• Electronic & Continuing

Resources Librarian• 4 staff

– Electronic & serials cataloging– Usage statistics– Gifts & Course development– Serials Solutions & EZproxy

• 2 students– Check access & journal projects

Changes – 3 librarians, 2 staff + 4 students

• Upgraded to an advanced-level staff position

Will be added soon for KB maintenance, EZproxy, usage statistics

• Combined and upgraded to a position for Non-Serials Electronic Resources Librarian

Will be added for ER management & licensing

• Added 2 more studentsMainly assuring access

Temporary personnel solutionTwo staff from TechServ pitched in for 6 months (April - Oct.) to add customized collections to the OCLCKnowledge Base (KB)

E-Resources Migration1. Building collection in OCLC Knowledge Base (April – June, 2013)• E-journals (Pubget) / E-books / Streaming videos

Choose collections in OCLC KBCustomize Serials Solutions reports, orCustomize vendors records or reports

350 collections (45% customized collections & 55% selected from KB)

Free e-resources excluded for now

2. Exporting Local Holding Records (LHRs) (completed in August)• 300+ database-level titles

(EBSCOhost dbs, JSTOR, ProQuest dbs, etc) - Maintained manually one by oneConnexion Client - batch processesConnexion Browser - LHRs maintenance

Workflows Creating customized collection into KBART (Knowledge Base And Related Tools) formatCorrecting existing collectionContact data provider to update information in collections in OCLC KB

OCLC KBART Format – Cheat sheet

OCLC Algorithm/Indexing/FRBRizationMatching points:

1. OCLC# availability2. Identifier (ISSN/ISBN)3. Title (# of words in TI > 3)

Records # in KB Missing OCLC# Missing ISSN/ISBN # of words in title ≤ 3

eJournals 66,451 23,854 12,561 4,792

35.9% 18.9% 7.2%eBooks 438,444 88,919 80,651 11,346

20% 18.4%↑ 3%↑Streaming videos 10,985 1,586 Lack of ID 584

14.4% - 5.3%

Workaround – Streaming Video

Suggestions to OCLC to Improve• OCLC systems, Service Configuration, Connexion, Usage Statistics, and FirstSearch, etc. require different

usernames and passwords, logging in is very inconvenient. • Improve slow processing time in WMS.• Diacritics in online holdings don’t display correctly, so they don’t match a title from a master record.• Need a way to know when a collection is updated in the KB. The date in a properties page can be any date

processed by the system, a library, or OCLC. • Only one ISBN can be listed in KBART format currently.• Add query reporting tools to the KB.• Add a URL checker.• Shorten a process time for indexing. A 6-8 hour window is too long for fixing access problems for large

collections. Also, a 5-10 day window is too long to add holdings set on titles in a collection in WorldCat for both selecting and removing collections.

• Add back button function in WMS. It breaks a session and we have to start over.• Create a database to store OCLC’s documentation and manuals in one place. Many of them are scattered on

their site and some of them are outdated or lack detailed information.• OCLC’s idea to share resources in the KB is often not working well. All institutions have slightly different title

selections in a package. Selecting existing collections are not updated well and OCLC waits until data providers send updated records.

• Improve linkscheme process. Linkschme is not available for some collections that means no article-level linking available.

Existing Patron Account Management Workflow

• Patron Data Operations– Data Sources– Comparison– Scrubbing– Manipulation– Ingest– Reporting

Existing Patron Data Sources and Workflows

• Existing feed from Banner/Webfocus– Manual export/import process every weekday

• Ran five (5) days per week, not seven (7)– No weekend import operations

• Existing data fields– Patron_type, name, primary_address, secondary_address,

phone_1, phone_2, university_id, “barcode”, dept_major, email

Trust and Perception of Authoritative Data Source

Trust and Perception of Authoritative Patron Data Source

•Banner Data Stinks!

Why does Banner Data Stink?

• Data problems begin upstream– How does the University actually operate?– Sources of data? Departments? Who?– Eschewing the past and starting anew on working

relationships and partnerships– Working together effectively is the hard part, not technology– WMS is an enterprise-grade system, you must engage your

entire enterprise. There are experts within your organization waiting for your call.

UNC Charlotte AffiliatedPatron Data Sources

• Central IT Enterprise Information Group– Banner

• Human Resources (employees)• Admissions (students)

– WebFOCUS

• Central IT Security– Active Directory

• Authentication (LDAP)– University Firewall

• Auxiliary Services– Blackboard Transact

• University ID Card Office• “Barcode”

• Academic Affairs– Adjunct faculty*– Emeritus faculty

Discovery of Existing Circulation Data Workflows

• Interview employees who are part of the process

• OMG Moment– Discovered Circulation Supervisor conducting strenuous patron data comparisons using Microsoft Excel

• Multitude of Manual Maintenance Operations

• Identifying Arriving Patrons

• Departing Patrons (manually setting circulation expiration date, deleting graduates with reconciled accounts)

• Updating Patrons (updating within local ILS, not at authoritative source)

– Circulation Supervisor Retirement Announcement…….

Bonnie Stuart

Stuart.uncc.eduDaily Delta, XML Transformation, Secure Sync

Trust and Perception of Authoritative Patron Data Source

•Banner Data Stinks!•Best Available Data

Previous ILS Patron RecordImport

WMS Patron Persona RecordImport

Data

• Performance Issues– Metrics

• Circulation Desk Checkout Line• Fingernails Tapping on Circulation Desk• Employee Frustration

– Blood, sweat, tears

– Local or Remote Issue?• Local issues are our responsibility, not OCLC’s• Point the finger at yourself first

Real World Circulation Desk Performance

• Computer– Hardware

• CPU, Memory, Disk– Software

• OS• Browsers• Java

• Network• Devices– Printers– Scanners

Local Performance Issues

Pointing the finger at ourselves first

• After eliminating local issues, UNC Charlotte could identify remote performance issues with confidence

• OCLC received our deep research findings and have identified performance bottlenecks

• OCLC really is working on it• Fruits of our labor in next two releases

Remote Performance Issues

• WMS is better because we fully engaged OCLC, got in the game, not sitting on sidelines

• OCLC is not a vendor, we are not a customer• OCLC is a consortium, we are a member• WMS belongs to us, it’s our system now, we took

ownership• Result: UNC Charlotte has the most advanced

WMS implementation in the world

WMS Is Better Because of Us

Thank You!

Brad Sprydbspry@uncc.edu

Shoko Tokorostokoro@uncc.edu

Michael Winecoffmkwineco@uncc.edu