Final ILS Recommendation - SWITCH Library Consortium

Final ILS Recommendation
SWITCH Library Consortium
Prepared by the ILS Task Force
March 2014
Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................ 2
The ILS Task Force members........................................................................................................... 2
Why consider a different ILS now? ................................................................................................. 2
ILS Selection Process ............................................................................................................................................ 3
Implementation timeline ............................................................................................................... 3
Evaluating Specific ILS Products ...................................................................................................................... 3
ILS products researched ................................................................................................................. 3
Background research ..................................................................................................................... 4
Summary of Findings ........................................................................................................................................... 4
Overall priorities for SWITCH.......................................................................................................... 4
Products eliminated without a demo.............................................................................................. 4
Open Skies (VTLS) ...............................................................................................................................5
BLUECloud Suite (Sirsi Dynix) ............................................................................................................5
Polaris (Polaris) .....................................................................................................................................5
Alma (Ex Libris)....................................................................................................................................5
Products not yet in production ....................................................................................................... 5
Intota (ProQuest) ...................................................................................................................................6
Kuali OLE (open source; supported by Vivantech) ..............................................................................6
Partially evaluated products .......................................................................................................... 7
Evergreen (open source; supported by Equinox)...................................................................................7
Fully evaluated finalist products ..................................................................................................... 8
WorldShare Management Services (OCLC) .........................................................................................8
Sierra (Innovative Interfaces) ................................................................................................................9
Koha (open source; supported by ByWater Solutions) .......................................................................10
Detailed Evaluation Criteria ............................................................................................................................ 11
Final scores.................................................................................................................................. 11
Detailed price information ........................................................................................................... 12
Final Recommendation ..................................................................................................................................... 12
Considerations for Directors Group ............................................................................................................. 13
The ‘wait and see’ option ............................................................................................................. 13
Topics for discussion .................................................................................................................... 13
Appendix A- Evaluation Criteria Weighting and Results ...................................................................... 14
SWITCH ILS Task Force Final Recommendation
1
Introduction
In September 2013, the SWITCH Library Consortium, in consultation with the Directors Committee,
embarked upon a major project to research and evaluate library automation products in the market. The
goal was to determine the appropriateness of continuing with our current Integrated Library System (or
ILS) vendor, Innovative Interfaces, Inc. SWITCH formed an ILS Task Force consisting of staff from its
member libraries and as selected by its library directors. This group assessed the current needs of
member libraries in relation to the ILS functionality available from Millennium. It researched and
evaluated a set of ILS products – five of which included a vendor demonstration. The project spanned
from October 2013 – March 2014 with the Task Force meeting twice monthly. This report describes the
process in detail and ends with a final ILS recommendation for our consortium following the current
2013-2014 fiscal year.
The ILS Task Force members
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Larry Duerr – AC (Reference/Instruction, Director)
Laurie Swartwout – CSU (Cataloging, Reference, Acquisitions)
Gae Kelly – CUW (Cataloging, Reference)
o Replaced in February by Kathy Malland, Carol Mittag and Karen Nowak
Ann Owen – SHST (Cataloging, Acquistions, Circulation, Serials)
Kathy Frymark – SF (Director)
Nancy Siker – MIAD (Serials, Circulation, Cataloging, Reference)
Sarah Klippel – MMU (Reference, Circulation)
Jenny Schmidt - SWITCH
Karl Holten – SWITCH
Why consider a different ILS now?
Millennium, the ILS software from our long-standing vendor, Innovative Interfaces, Inc. will soon
become obsolete. It is nearing its end-of-product lifecycle, and will no longer be developed or supported
starting in Q4 of 2016. This means that any bugs or technical issues staff encounter will go unfixed with
no new functionality being added. Innovative has already launched Sierra, a ‘new generation’ library
automation product in 2011. The company has experienced great success with this platform, and a large
number of existing Millennium libraries are migrating to it. Sierra is Innovative’s ILS platform moving
forward. Millennium will have one more full software release, which SWITCH anticipates in 2014.
While we renew our software and maintenance contract annually, SWITCH has an ILS server contract for
on-site equipment that expires in March 2015. Called the Server Replacement Program, the “SRP” option
has been discontinued by Innovative - as has the option for libraries to be a Turnkey site which SWITCH
currently is. Instead, Innovative customers can opt for cloud-based hosting with the company, or may
become “software only” purchasing server equipment outside of Innovative.
Selecting our next ILS now will help us plan for future organizational projects where integration with
other, third-party products (e.g., discovery, ILL, link resolver, knowledge base) is better ensured. It will
force SWITCH to look at our current membership and assessment process. It will allow SWITCH and its
members to make decisions on other software/hardware with confidence.
SWITCH ILS Task Force Final Recommendation
2
ILS Selection Process
The following components comprise our full ILS Selection process. Staff feedback was a key part of this
process throughout:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Held a staff SWITCH Day to discuss future ILS needs
Surveyed SWITCH staff on their current ILS usage and needs
Set up a staff Task Force web site on Google with our documentation
Formulated a set of detailed evaluation criteria
Identified ten major ILS products and researched them using a set of ‘Requirements’
Selected six finalist products for demos
Created a set of demo questions to demonstrate key functionality
Held demos with selected ILS vendors
Contacted other libraries with follow up questions
Analyzed vendor quotes and negotiated costs
Drafted budget projections for the SWITCH Directors Committee
Developed a weighting mechanism for criteria
Scored finalist ILS products based on criteria
Wrote up a formal recommendation for the SWITCH Library Directors committee
Implementation timeline
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
December 2013-February 2014: Vendor Demos
March 2014: SWITCH selects next ILS vendor
Summer & Fall 2014: TOPCAT database cleanup
January 2015: Purchase date of ILS system
January-May 2015: Database migration to new ILS
May 2015: Staff Training for new ILS
June 2015: New ILS goes live
June 30th, 2015: Millennium contract expires
Evaluating Specific ILS Products
ILS products researched
This is a list of the ILS products we initially researched (and their vendors):
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Sierra (Innovative Interfaces)
Open Skies (VTLS)
Intota (ProQuest)
BLUECloud Suite (Sirsi Dynix)
WorldShare Management Services (OCLC)
Polaris (Polaris)
Alma (Ex Libris)
Kuali OLE (open source; supported by Vivantech)
Evergreen (open source; supported by Equinox)
Koha (open source; supported by ByWater Solutions)
SWITCH ILS Task Force Final Recommendation
3
Background research
At this point in the process, our group relied a lot on the Fall 2012 Issue of Information Standards
Quarterly. That issue has a detailed article by Carl Grant called The Future of Library Systems: Library
Services Platforms, which compares many of the above products with an explanation as to their
differences. Grant describes three different approaches to library automation products:
1.) new library service platforms; 2.) traditional ILS products; and 3.) open source products.
Below is a chart showing where many of our candidates fall based on this article:
Library Services Platform
Traditional ILS
“Sometimes you have to start over”
“Don’t throw the baby out with the
bathwater”
Proprietary
Software
Intota (ProQuest)
WorldShare Management Services
(OCLC)
Alma (ExLibris)
Sierra (Innovative)
Open Skies (VTLS)
Polaris (Polaris)
BLUECloud Suite (Sirsi Dynix)
Open Source
Kuali OLE (HTC, Vivantech)
Evergreen (Equinox)
Koha (Equinox, ByWater, LibLime)
SWITCH staff participated in an online class on ‘understanding the open source ILS.’ In that class, the
instructor advised libraries to include at least one open source product when evaluating ILS products.
Along with this, SWITCH staff participated in two webinars where a panel of librarians shared their ILS
migration experiences with different vendors. One session was dedicated to proprietary products and the
other to open source. Based on this research, our group felt it was important to have candidates from each
of the above three approaches.
Summary of Findings
Overall priorities for SWITCH
An ILS is a complex piece of software with many requirements. The Task Force compiled a Detailed
Evaluation Criteria document which can be accessed online at:
https://sites.google.com/site/switchilstaskforce/key-criteria/10-23-search-criteria. Strong feedback was received both
from the library directors and from staff which lead us to emphasize the following priorities:
•
•
•
•
•
Provide an economical ILS that delivers core functionality for our staff.
Accommodate existing SWITCH software and hardware as much as possible.
Grant our members the flexibility to pursue third party products impacted by the shared ILS
(Discovery, ILL, etc.) either collectively with SWITCH or independently.
Ensure ILS can handle e-resources along with traditional library materials.
Enhance/maintain lists functionality and article requesting as these are two areas where we
received a great deal of staff feedback.
Products eliminated without a demo
During our early Task Force meetings and before getting to the “demo” stage, the group decided to
eliminate the following products:
SWITCH ILS Task Force Final Recommendation
4
Open Skies (VTLS)
VTLS is a long time ILS developer with a suite of current generation ILS products such as an ILS
(Virtua), an IR (Vital) and an OPAC enhancement product (Chamo). VTLS does not have a strong market
share in the United States, so it is also difficult to find information about Open Skies. Open Skies is a
repackaging and bundling of existing VTLS products. From the information we could find, Open Skies
focuses on adding support for streaming multimedia, library events and mobile devices on the patron side,
rather than any true Library Services Platform enhancements on the staff side. One reason for the
elimination of Open Skies was that compatibility of Open Skies with Summon and 360 Core (knowledge
base) is unclear. Another reason Open Skies was eliminated from consideration was that reporting and
analytics were mentioned in several reports as being poor.
BLUECloud Suite (Sirsi Dynix)
Sirsi Dynix is a large company with two existing current generation ILS products- Horizon and
Symphony. BLUECloud Suite is a recently announced attempt to provide cloud-based functionality on
top of these two products. This product was very new to the market when the ILS Task Force examined
it, and this made specific information about functionality and release dates difficult to find. Several next
generation features, such as a knowledge base to handle e-resources, were not bundled with the product.
Sales materials also heavily targeted existing Sirsi Dynix customers, indicating the primary advantage of
BLUECloud was that there was no need to migrate or retrain staff. The ILS Task Force felt that as
BLUECloud is a traditional ILS product with similar functionality to Sierra, it was not worth migrating to
a new vendor.
Polaris (Polaris)
Polaris is another long-standing vendor in the ILS market. Their current generation software, also named
Polaris, is an older system and largely oriented toward public institutions. Polaris has been well received
by libraries, and it does meet many of our high priority requirements. Even though Polaris is a traditional
ILS product, the quote for Polaris came in prohibitively high. As a result, Polaris was excluded from a
more detailed consideration.
Alma (Ex Libris)
Ex Libris is an experienced vendor in the ILS market. Their newest product, Alma, is a next generation
Library Services Platform. Alma bundles in many features typically provided by multiple different
products into a single ILS platform. This is problematic for compatibility as some of the functions
packaged with Alma, such as a knowledge base and link resolver, are already provided by pre-existing
SWITCH products. One serious drawback of Alma is that there is no default OPAC included. During a
phone conversation with a member of Ex Libris technical services staff, we learned that all of the libraries
purchasing Alma also purchased Primo. We therefore eliminated Alma from consideration due to the
difficulties integrating Alma with existing SWITCH products, particularly libraries without discovery and
those using Summon.
Products not yet in production
Two of the ILS products we wanted to see demos for were Intota and Kuali OLE. Both are next
generation Library Services Platforms that have shown promise, but are not currently well developed
enough for a full live demo of functionality. Right now there are simply too many questions about these
products to fully evaluate them according to our detailed evaluation criteria, but the impressions of the
ILS Task Force regarding these two products as they stand are included below.
SWITCH ILS Task Force Final Recommendation
5
Intota (ProQuest)
Positive
SWITCH libraries have had positive experiences with ProQuest’s products and with their technical
support. SWITCH libraries already have a number of ProQuest products, as all of our libraries are
subscribed to ProQuest’s knowledge base and link resolver until fiscal year 2016. Additionally, two
SWITCH libraries have Summon, ProQuest’s discovery product. Many existing SWITCH products
would be guaranteed to have compatibility with Intota, as our quote for Intota is bundled with
Summon, 360 Link, and 360 Core.
The Intota Assessment live demo was well-received by staff. The current acquisitions workflow and
reports look well developed. The planned future functionality looks very promising.
Our ProQuest sales representative told us if SWITCH signed a contract for Intota, they would work to
give us discounted pricing and would guarantee delivering a base amount of functionality.
Mixed
Beta testing for the full version of Intota is scheduled to start at end of 2014. Assuming that Intota
meets its development targets, we will be migrating to a system in beta. While this means we would
be able to provide feedback to ProQuest and help determine the direction of the product, it also means
we’re more likely to encounter serious bugs and difficulties as we implement.
All of the ProQuest products come bundled together. Because Intota doesn’t have an OPAC,
SWITCH would be required to use Summon as its discovery layer for every library. ProQuest would
become our sole vendor. This means that their products would all work well with each other, but we
also risk vendor lock-in.
Negative
Unfortunately, Intota is still far from a completed product. Critical areas of functionality such as
circulation, cataloging, and reserves are missing from the current version of the product. ProQuest’s
demo only included a live demo of Intota Assessment, while planned functionality for the unreleased
Intota E and full version of Intota was represented with screenshots.
Our Intota sales representative stated that the full version of Intota is scheduled to enter beta in
December 2014. Our drop-dead date for beginning migration to a new ILS is January 2015, as we
generally were quoted a six month time frame for migration. This makes the best case
implementation timeline tight. Should Intota be delayed in terms of development, it might mean
features are missing from Intota when we go live. In a worst case scenario, it would affect our go-live
date and might exceed our Millennium contract.
This is the most expensive ILS product long term, even excluding the required additional costs of
Summon. While we feel we could negotiate a lower annual maintenance cost, Intota will still be more
than Sierra. Additionally SWITCH libraries would need to make a group purchase of Summon,
because there is no OPAC included with Intota. SWITCH would need to consider a new member to
offset these long term costs.
Kuali OLE (open source; supported by Vivantech)
Positive
While we have not received a quote for OLE, open source software tends to be more economical long
term.
OLE is a next generation Library Services Platform. It will have sophisticated e-resource
management and workflow management like we see with other Library Services Platforms. As OLE
SWITCH ILS Task Force Final Recommendation
6
is being developed by academic libraries, it is designed to have the needs of academic libraries
specifically in mind.
During a phone conversation, SWITCH staff confirmed that OLE will be compatible with multiple
discovery layers, such as EDS, Summon and VuFind. This offers our libraries the freedom to select a
discovery layer or simply use VuFind as an OPAC.
Mixed
We would be early adopters for OLE. Two institutions, the University of Chicago and the University
of Lehigh are planning on going live during the summer of 2014. While there are some other
consortia our size involved with the OLE project, we would be an early adopter for institutions our
size.
OLE is still in development. Version 1.0 is out, but critical functionality required for a live demo is
still being added. Version 1.5, with substantial changes, is due by the second quarter of 2014, which
is when our vendor Vivantech said they could provide a demo.
Negative
The vendors who we would contract for technical support are still learning about OLE’s functionality.
Many of these vendors are larger education software services providers such as HTC and Vivantech.
They are new to the ILS market, but not to the education software market.
Consortium development is still a work in progress, as earlier versions of the product are targeted
toward single institutions. Version 2.0 is planned to have more robust consortium functionality.
OLE is not ready for a live demo, so the Task Force was unable to provide an assessment of its
current capabilities.
Partially evaluated products
Evergreen (open source; supported by Equinox)
Positive
Evergreen is very economical. The quote provided by Equinox was the least expensive option the
Task Force investigated.
Evergreen was developed by a state-wide Georgia consortium, so it is designed with consortia in
mind. This means that the consortia related functionality for Evergreen is strong, and that as a
product it will scale well to handle a lot of locations, patrons and bibliographic records.
Evergreen has a great deal of functionality that meets our needs- it has decent circulation, serials,
cataloging, bookings and acquisitions functionality.
Mixed
The lists and query functionality for Evergreen is strong, but not user friendly. Complex SQL queries
are possible, but also difficult to construct. Equinox does not offer query support.
SWITCH feedback was extremely negative, as a majority of libraries found the product confusing and
difficult. However, when we solicited libraries that had Evergreen, they indicated that they liked
Evergreen and did not feel that it was particularly cumbersome.
Negative
Equinox proved to be a poor vendor. The presenter for the live demo was unable to answer some of
the prepared questions we had given him in advance. There were bugs and errors present in the demo
SWITCH ILS Task Force Final Recommendation
7
itself, though this was explained as the result of a very recent update. Unlike any of the other
vendors, Equinox provided no follow up after their demo.
Staff found the user interface unfriendly. The workflow for a lot of functionality was also far more
clunky and slow than current Millennium functionality. For this reason, the Task Force decided to
focus its follow up research and scoring on other products.
Fully evaluated finalist products
WorldShare Management Services (OCLC)
Positive
WMS bundles together a number of products into a package that is about on par with Sierra’s costs.
Included in the price of WMS is a large number of products- WorldCat Discovery, OCLC’s link
resolver and knowledge base, ILL functionality (for libraries with a subscription to OCLC) and a
mobile OPAC.
WMS provides decent functionality in a number of technical services areas.
This product had a streamlined technical service workflow which simplified ordering materials and
cataloging. WMS was the most innovative in this area.
Customer feedback indicates that patrons love WMS’s discovery layer.
Mixed
WorldCat information is used to populate the catalog, meaning that WMS lacks local bibliographic
records. New bibs and local additions are made either directly into WorldCat or into Local Holdings
records. Though this simplifies cataloging in many ways, we would lose our local SWITCH bibs. It is
also problematic for items that we do not want to make publically available in WorldCat, such as
thesis statements, dissertations and equipment.
While the discovery interface provides search results for a broad range of materials available through
WorldCat, consortium browsing and lending functionality is perfunctory. Search results display eresources or a link resolver option, then ILL, and finally local and SWITCH resources. This display
is not customizable.
All of OCLC’s products are bundled together in our quote. OCLC would, with the exception of
Summon libraries, become our sole vendor. This has benefits and drawbacks- their products would
all work well with each other, but it also means integration with other types of products may be
difficult.
Negative
WMS is not customizable based on local needs. For example, local customizations to holdings
records and bibs are not displayed at the top of the record, instead being located at the bottom. They
are not displayed to the public. There is no way to customize the order that items display in discovery
to make consortium resources more prominent.
During the demos, numerous workarounds involving the creation of “temporary records” were
required to accommodate some of our functionality. This was worrisome to the Task Force.
Feedback from other libraries regarding training and customer support has been negative. OCLC
documentation has proven fragmented and confusing for a number of their products to SWITCH
office staff.
SWITCH ILS Task Force Final Recommendation
8
Summon integration would cost more money for CUW and AC, and would not work as well as our
current integration with Millennium does, as real time item status wouldn’t display and would result
in an additional cost.
Fit with SWITCH Priorities
• Economical ILS that delivers Core Functionality- Comparable to current ILS costs, and WMS
provides additional products- discovery, link resolver, knowledge base, mobile OPAC, and ILL
all included.
• Accommodates existing SWITCH software and hardware- Summon, Self-Checkout, 360 Link,
360 Core, and WAM are all problematic with WMS. 360 Link and 360 Core would become
extraneous to non-Summon libraries. Self-Checkout requires a purchase from 3M. We would
need to change our proxy server to EZ Proxy.
• Flexibility to pursue third party products- Something of an “all-in-one” product--means OCLC
becomes our primary vendor for majority of products. Not a great deal of flexibility or
customizability based on local needs.
• Can handle e-resources- E-resource integration done very well on staff side, but not as well for
discovery when in a consortium. Each member is treated separately based on their own
knowledge base. There is no ability for customization of the discovery display to make it
“SWITCH” friendly.
• Lists and reporting functionality- Canned reports are actually pretty good. Customizable report
tool with a dashboard will cost SWITCH $20K annually.
• Article requesting- SWITCH consortium resources, such as article requesting, strongly deemphasized on patron-side in favor of OCLC ILL requesting.
Sierra (Innovative Interfaces)
Positive
Sierra has the strongest overall functionality of the ILS products we reviewed. Sierra earned high
marks with strong administrative, circulation, cataloging, serials and resource management
capabilities.
Sierra also has the unique advantage of being III’s successor product to Millennium. All of the
functionality available in Millennium will continue to work for Sierra, and in virtually the same
fashion. This means that training and migration will be the easiest for Sierra out of all the ILS
products.
Mixed
Sierra offers the freedom to choose any vendor for a number of products such as a knowledge base,
link resolver, discovery layer and mobile OPAC. This means that all existing SWITCH software and
hardware would remain compatible with Sierra, but also means those products would have to be
purchased piecemeal and often through other vendors.
Soliciting for new members seems like a must in order to offset some of the costs of Sierra.
Negative
Long term, we see no cost savings with Sierra over our current setup. No products other than our
proxy rewrite tool are bundled in with Sierra. Innovative often charges piecemeal for functionality.
With annual maintenance increases of 3.5%, Sierra remains a fairly expensive option.
The default OPAC functionality is dated, with commonly expected features such as faceted browsing
and mobile catalog not included.
SWITCH ILS Task Force Final Recommendation
9
Fit with SWITCH Priorities
• Economical ILS that delivers Core Functionality- Staff functionality is the most robust of all
candidates. Staff has continuity in terms of training and expectations.
• Accommodates existing SWITCH software and hardware- All existing SWITCH software and
hardware would continue to work with Sierra.
• Flexibility to pursue third party products- Offers flexibility when implementing third party
products; promised API’s to assist with this haven’t yet materialized.
• Can handle e-resources- E-resources would be handled on the staff side as they currently are.
ERM remains a separate product.
• Lists and reporting functionality- Sierra’s lists and queries will become more powerful due to
more fields and the ability to use SQL, but will remain the same in terms of user friendliness.
• Article requesting- Article requesting through the Article-Reach product would be highly
beneficial to SWITCH. Other ILS products lack article requesting.
Koha (open source; supported by ByWater Solutions)
Positive
These are covered in detail in our final recommendation, but in brief:
•
•
•
•
•
Koha is the least expensive of the ILS products- both to implement and to maintain.
The functionality solidly covers SWITCH’s needs.
Koha offers the freedom to choose any vendor for other products such as knowledge base, link
resolver, and discovery layer.
The default OPAC is strong and has faceting and a mobile OPAC built in.
Koha has strong admin capabilities, and lots of local control over the system.
Mixed
Koha’s queries are written in SQL, giving them impressive power to pull together records. This
means that writing new queries is likely to get more difficult. Fortunately query templates, once
written, appear more staff friendly than what we see in Millennium.
Feedback from other libraries regarding Koha workflow was mixed. Libraries consulted indicated
that some workflows such as placing holds improved, but that others such as serials and acquisitions
decreased in efficiency. Staff workflows likely won’t improve overall compared to Millennium.
Negative
Koha lacks a bookings module. Equipment can still be checked out, but not reserved in advance
using a calendar. Current heavy users of the bookings module would have to seek out alternative
solutions.
Fit with SWITCH Priorities
• Economical ILS that delivers Core Functionality- Most cost-friendly of all the ILS products
considered. Koha provides core functionality that is needed, even if workflows are not improved.
• Accommodates existing SWITCH software and hardware- The only SWITCH software
incompatible with Koha is WAM. We would need to change over to EZ Proxy (annual fee of
$3100).
• Flexibility to pursue third party products- Koha is completely open in terms of software
compatibility- this allows libraries to pursue third party products such as discovery layers of their
choosing.
• Can handle e-resources- Koha has some OPAC support for importing article metadata from
vendors (such as Ebsco) but e-resources would be handled on the staff side the same as they
currently are in Millennium.
SWITCH ILS Task Force Final Recommendation
10
•
•
Lists and reporting functionality- Writing new queries requires knowledge of SQL, but resulting
lists are powerful. Query templates can be used to simplify query writing for staff. ByWater
Solutions is committed to setting up the reports we need.
Article requesting- Article requesting is not included by default, however our vendor has
indicated there is a possible workaround that could be used to accommodate article requests.
Detailed Evaluation Criteria
The Task Force developed a matrix containing all the criteria desired from a future ILS. This document,
called “Detailed ILS Evaluation Criteria” can be found at https://sites.google.com/site/switchilstaskforce/key-criteria/10-23search-criteria. Members of the Task Force researched Sierra, WMS, and Koha and, to a lesser extent,
Evergreen and Intota. The group evaluated each ILS performed against the criteria with members filling
in information on this centralized document. A great deal of time was spent on this part of the process.
The SWITCH office created a weighting scheme based on the major categories of the Evaluation Criteria
document. Each category was assigned a specific point value based on staff feedback and discussion by
the ILS Task Force. All categories together totaled 100 points.
Category
Total Point Allocation
Costs & Functionality (or Price)
Circulation
OPAC and Discovery
Resource Management and Reports
Third Party Product Integration
Systems and Administration
Cataloging
Staff Usability
Vendor Support
Consulting with other Libraries
24
15
10
10
10
8
8
8
4
3
100 points
SWITCH Office staff scored each ILS independently. In addition, two to four Task Force members
scored each ILS (except Intota and Evergreen) on their performance by Evaluation Criteria category.
The Task Force then met and combined these into a final score for each of the three final ILS candidates:
Sierra, WMS and Koha. Please see Appendix A for the full weighting scheme and results by ILS.
Final scores
Category
Total Point
Allocation
Sierra
WMS
Koha
Intota
Price (Costs & Functionality)
Circulation
OPAC and Discovery
Resource Management and
Reports
Third Party Product Integration
Systems and Administration
Cataloging
Staff Usability
Vendor Support
Consulting with other Libraries
24
15
10
10
14
14
7
9.25
18
8.9
7.75
7.5
21
12.5
9.75
8
12.5
8
5
7.5
10
8.5
7
8.8
6.5
8
7.75
6.3
7.8
8
7.5
8
8
1
8
8
7
7.5
8
4
3.5
3.25
3.8
4
3
3
2.3
2.25
100 points
82.5
76
89.4
52.5
Please see Appendix A for the full weighting scheme and results by ILS.
SWITCH ILS Task Force Final Recommendation
11
Detailed price information
Price was the category with the greatest amount of total points (24 pts.). The subcategories included OneTime Costs; Annual Maintenance Fees; and Necessary Additional Purchases (or “what’s not included”).
Sierra and Koha provide an option for SWITCH to have on-site servers. For those two products, we
computed a ‘one-time’ implementation cost of $20,000 representing the purchase of two new ILS servers
which each product would require. Both Sierra and Koha vendors provide a hosted option as well. To
calculate that amount (for Sierra and Koha only), subtract $20,000 from the “Implementation Costs”
listed below and increase the recurring costs ($15,000-$19,000/annually for Sierra; $8200/annually for
Koha). WMS and Intota are hosted only options.
Sierra (on-site servers)
Implementation costs are $92,750.
Recurring costs are $73,956 a year (with 3.5%
annual increase)
Any vendor allowed for KB, LR, mobile catalog,
and discovery. Proxy included.
Cost of additional products (LR, KB) are $41,166
annually (2% increase)
Koha (on-site servers)
Implementation costs are $80,000.
Recurring costs are $22,800.
Any vendor allowed for KB, LR, discovery,
mobile catalog included with cost
Cost of additional products (KB, LR, Proxy) is
$44,266 annually
OCLC WMS (hosted only)
Implementation costs are $95,302.
Recurring costs are $73,760 a year (after 3 years,
5% annual increase)
Same vendor for KB, LR, discovery, mobile
catalog– included in cost
Cost of additional products (Self-Checkout, Proxy,
Reporting Tool) are $33,507 annually
Intota (hosted only)
Implementation costs are $60,300.
Current quote for recurring costs for ILS are
$99,560 a year.
Same vendor required for KB, LR, discovery,
mobile catalog included at annual cost of
$82,940 a year.
Cost of Proxy is $3,100 annually.
These amounts are based on quotes as of February 2014.
Final Recommendation
The SWITCH ILS Task Force had to balance a large number of factors when making its decision. There
was no one candidate who stood out in every category as the clear favorite. Our scoring criteria tried to
reflect the requirements for a new system as set by SWITCH directors and staff.
Koha is the most cost-friendly of the products we researched, which enables our libraries to direct their
resources toward more patron centric services, such as discovery and ILL. Koha provides compatibility
with existing SWITCH software and hardware, and is compatible with many different discovery products
including Summon. It includes a mobile-friendly online catalog for libraries not yet ready for discovery.
The Koha community is active in terms of development: new features are released every six months, and
bug fix releases occur every month.
While Koha does not offer drastic changes to workflow compared to next generation Library Services
Platforms, it still provides core functionality that meets our staff needs. Koha scored well in a number of
functional areas such as circulation, cataloging, and resource management. Koha’s lists are very robust
because they pull information directly from the database using SQL. Once written, these queries are easy
for staff to modify and reuse. Koha does not have article requesting by default, but our vendor has
suggested a workaround that would meet our article requesting needs. Overall, Koha’s functionality
meets the needs of our consortium both from a functionality and a budgetary standpoint.
SWITCH ILS Task Force Final Recommendation
12
The committee has selected ByWater Solutions as our vendor for Koha. Contracting with a vendor will
help reduce any potential anxiety of using an open source solution. It will also provide us with training,
technical expertise, and support. They have received very good feedback from the libraries we contacted.
ByWater Solutions will help with the migration, run nightly back-ups, write SQL queries, and perform
regular software updates.
The SWITCH office, as part of the Task Force, concludes that an on-site server would be the best setup
for SWITCH. There are several reasons for this. First, the networking infrastructure required will already
be in place at Alverno, and we don’t anticipate spending considerable amount of time on server
maintenance. We will still see comparable levels of service from ByWater in terms of software updates
and support. SWITCH will have greater control over its own data. SWITCH will see cost savings over
the next five years as there will be no need for an annual hosting fee.
The SWITCH ILS Task Force formally recommends an on-site installation of Koha with ByWater
Solutions as our commercial vendor. Our recommended timeline for implementation is: sign a contract
by January 2015, migrate our data over the next 4-6 months, and go live with Koha by June 2015. This
gives us a month overlap with our Innovative contract before it expires on June 30th, 2015.
Considerations
The ‘wait and see’ option
One option the SWITCH board of directors might want to consider is waiting to see how either Intota or
Kuali OLE develops. Migration periods are typically six months (III quoted 3 months). Our
recommended go-live date is in June 2015, meaning an ILS decision is critical by January 2015. In
theory, we could make a final decision in the Fall of 2014 without affecting the ‘go live’ date.
Waiting would give these products time to develop. SWITCH would be able to assess Intota and OLE
fully. Some potential problems are that we must budget for an unknown ILS. Delaying an ILS decision
may affect discovery plans, and gives our consortium less time for data migration and implementation.
Topics for discussion
Is it possible that Koha would be a temporary solution for SWITCH until more changes materialize with
other products?
Which product will help move SWITCH to improved article requesting among members?
• Sierra has Article Reach which other products seem to lack
• Perhaps a discovery layer will be what SWITCH uses to accommodate article-level requests?
Over the next few years, SWITCH may want to consider new members to help defray costs and expand
our selection of materials. How will our next ILS help us accomplish this?
• Next generation library services platforms such as WMS or Intota might have functionality that
other area libraries find appealing.
• If Koha proves to work well for our members, other area libraries might be enticed by its low
costs and flexibility.
SWITCH ILS Task Force Final Recommendation
13
Appendix A- Evaluation Criteria Weighting and Results
Point
Allocation
Price
One-time costs (Implementation, Migration,
Hardware)
Annual Maintenance Fees (Hosting, Software)
Necessary additional purchases (discovery,
link resolver, knowledge base, etc)
Sierra
(Final)
WMS
(Final)
Koha
(Final)
Intota
(CUW)
3
2
2
3
3
14
8
10
14
6.5
7
4
6
4
3
24
14
18
21
12.5
2.5
2.5
1.5
2
2
1.5
2
0.5
0.3
0
0.5
0.3
0.5
2
1
2
1
0.5
0
0.2
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
1.5
1
1.5
1
1
0.5
1
1
0.5
0.3
0.5
0.5
2
1.5
1.8
1
14
8.9
12.5
8
1
2.5
2.5
4.5
3
5
0
1
1
1
0.75
0.75
0.5
0.5
0.5
7
7.75
9.75
Circulation
Patron record management
Notifications (editable notices, automatic
notifications, e-mail notifications)
Bookings (Is bookings included? Is it
integrated? Can it handle rooms and
equipment?)
Off line circulation
Item Holds & Requests
2
0.5
0.5
2
Article Holds & Requests
0.5
Printing slips
1.5
ILL (Outside the Consortia)
Self Checkout
Course Reserves
Inventory
Loan Rules (Complexity)
1
1
1
0.5
2
15
1.5
OPAC and Discovery
Default OPAC functionality (faceted browsing,
integrated e-resources)
Discovery Layer Compatibility / Integration
(Summon and others)
Mobile OPAC
Course Reserves
Social Media (Tagging, Reviews,
Recommendations)
SWITCH ILS Task Force Final Recommendation
2.5
5
1
1
0.5
10
5
5
14
Resource Management and Reports
Acquisitions (traditional and electronic
resources)
ERM (e-books, rights management,
knowledge base)
Serials (print and electronic)
1
1
1
0.75
0.5
1
1.5
1
0.5
1.5
1
0.75
1
2
1.5
2
2
2
1.25
2
2
1.75
1.25
1.5
1.5
9.25
7.5
8
7.5
0.5
1.5
1
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
5
3
4.8
1.5
1
1.5
8.5
7
8.8
2
1
2
3.5
3
3.5
1.5
1.3
1.3
0.75
1
1
8
7.75
6.3
7.8
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1.5
1.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
7.5
8
8
1.5
1.5
Customizable Lists and Queries for a variety
of record types
2
Analytics & Reports (variety of formats, easy
to use, tracks electronic resources)
2
Flexibility and Functionality of Lists and
Queries
Third Party Product Integration
Robust APIs (Circulation, Cataloging,
Acquistions)
2
10
1.5
Campus ERP Software Integration (automatic
student creation, automatic fines)
2
Compatible with existing SWITCH hardware
(checkout)
1.5
Integration with existing SWITCH software
(Summon, 360 Link, WAM)
5
10
5
6.5
Systems & Administration
Server Requirement / Hosting Options
(Software as a Service or locally hosted)
Strength of admin capabilities (load tables,
login setup, backups, staff authorizations)
Authentication and Proxy
Workstation requirements (web based or
client software, hardware requirements)
2
3.5
1.5
1
Cataloging
Basic cataloging functionality (MARC,
authority control, Z39.50, searching)
Support of RDA and Metadata (RDA, Dublin
Core)
Printing spine labels
Works with Connexion
SWITCH ILS Task Force Final Recommendation
1
1.5
0.5
8
1
1
15
Staff Usability
4
User Interface/ Workflows for Staff
2
Ease of Use
Consortia Support
2
Data Migration (can records be converted,
does the vendor handle migration)
1
Software regularly updated (product
innovation, bugs fixed)
1
8
4
4
3.5
4
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
8
7
7.5
8
1
1
1
1
1
0.75
1
1
0.75
1
0.8
1
0.75
0.5
1
1
3.5
3.25
3.8
4
2
1.8
1.5
0
1
0.5
0.75
0
3
2.3
2.25
0
82.5
76
89.4
52.5
Vendor Support
Customer Support (availability, quality of
technical support, means of contact)
1
Amount of training provided for new system
1
Customer satisfaction with product (worked
as advertised, easy to use, staff satisfaction)
2
Customer satisfaction with vendor (customer
support, migration, training)
1
4
Consulting with Other Libraries
Other area libraries having it (Wisconsin
libraries; academic vs. public libraries)
Total
SWITCH ILS Task Force Final Recommendation
0
3
100
16

Download Report