SWAN Member’s Quarterly Meeting

1. March 7, 2013 SWAN Member’s Quarterly Meeting

2. SWAN Director’s Report • New SWAN staff • Server Migration • Projects completed Dec 2012 – February 2013 • Reporter & Decision Center Update

3. New SWAN Staff • Brande Redfield, Office Manager • Lauren Peltier, Member Services Support Analyst • Diane Nickolaou, Bibliographic Services Clerk • Samantha Dietel, Member Services Consultant

4. SWAN Organization

5. SWAN Infrastructure • Replace 3 Millennium ILS servers • Production, Report, and Training/Test • Move away from Oracle/Sun hardware • Production server 5 years (purchased 2007) • Servers showing age, higher cost to support • Target: complete replacement by end of 2012

6. New Servers: Smaller, Faster, Stronger • Complex Migration • Red Hat Linux replaces Solaris Unix • Virtualized VMware • 32 CPUs vs. 4 CPU • 64GB RAM vs. 32GB Our monitoring service of server activity: now in 32 colors!

7. New Servers: Smaller, Faster, Stronger Retiring… Production, Test, & Report servers New! In the rack, ready… Production, Test, & Report

8. Post-migration Issues

9. Post-migration Issues • Millennium Bib & Item Retrieval is SlowSolution: Millennium software patch coming • Patron Images & Digital Signatures Cause MilCirc to Run SlowSolution: network DNS fix, see memo details • Keyword Indexing: new records appear after 10 minutesSolution: will adjust timing of indexer • Printing Issues: hold slipsSolution: network DNS fix, see memo details

10. Projects completed Dec 2012 – February 2013 • INNOPAC access ended (except for Lansing) • Time to Shelve “Black Friday” gift • Go Green email sign-up • Boopsie mobile Hinsdale project • ILS Committee (4 SWAN staff, 5 library staff)

11. Projects Completed: Go Green • Message added to My Account within WebPAC • 2,900 new email addresses collected

12. Boopsie Mobile: Breakthrough • Boopsie mobile app • Hinsdale, Downers Grove, Oak Pk • Hinsdale project: patron self-checkout on app • Technical success with SIP2 running in VPN to Boopsie servers • “BookCheck” not live yet, needs testing

13. Upcoming Projects March – May 2013 • Reduce Millennium backup time • Reporter implementation • ILS Committee recommendation • Complete new SWAN support website

14. SWAN Reporter & Decision Center Update: • Decision Center delayed by III • Reporter v 2.2 possible now • Upgrade Millennium R2011 to get Decision Ctr & Reporter v 2.3 • III will eventually merge both products

15. Reporter & Decision Center Update • What next? III answers • Option 1: move forward with Reporter v2.2 after new servers, wait on Decision Center • Option 2: Reporter v2.3 & Decision Center after R2011 upgrade • Other options: will be explored, bring to SWAN Board at 3/15 meeting • R2011 upgrade not set, prior to this news Q3 2013 was target for upgrade

16. SWAN Support Website

17. SWAN Member RFID Projects • Libraries with RFID: • Oak Park, Flossmoor, Elmhurst, Prairie Trails, Homewood • Libraries underway: • Elmwood Park • Downers Grove • Oak Lawn • Goal: create an RFID “profile” for SWAN members • Consultants: Convergent, Galecia Group, Shawn Shafer @ Elmwood Pk

18. SWAN Password Change • Reminder: use the URL below • http://204.120.131.105/director/

19. End of Executive Director report • Look for this presentation here:http://support.swanlibraries.net/gov/meetings

20. ILS Committee Report • Jeannie Dilger, La Grange Public Library • Aaron Skog, SWAN ED

21. Strategic Plan Goal #1 • Recommend direction for SWAN integrated library system (ILS) platform • Innovative Interface’s Inc. (III) • Sierra: next ILS announced 2010 • SWAN’s agreement with Innovative ends May 18, 2013 • How long do we stay on Millennium? • Is Sierra our best choice?

22. ILS Committee Report • Strategic plan goal • Nine reps: 4 SWAN staff, 5 member library • Jeannie Dilger & Aaron Skog, co-chairs • Kate Boyle, SWAN • Tony Siciliano , SWAN • Mary Lou Coffman , SWAN • Pilar Shaker, Hinsdale • Ahren Sievers, Elmwood Park • Vickie Totton, Cicero • Rebecca Teasdale, Oak Park

23. ILS Committee: January Research

24. ILS Committee Survey • All library staff • Special section for Administrators/Directors • Purpose • Help the Committee narrow selection • Scalability, tiered services, deal breakers, suggestions • We received 515 responses to the survey from 71 member libraries

25. ILS Committee Survey Patron Features • Easier to use OPAC70% rated this "very important" which was the highest within this section of the survey • E-Resources are downloadable/accessible via OPAC42% rated "very important" followed by a close second of "important" at 40% • Patrons can opt into a variety of online services (customize their experience)47% rated "important" • Mobile web interface for OPAC44% rated “important” • Patron ability to access and edit their own personal information (email address, etc)38% rated “very important” & 37% rated “important”

26. ILS Committee Survey ILS Features – Ranked

27. ILS Committee Survey If you could keep one thing about our current ILS, what would it be? 505 of response to the open-ended were categorized in this way: • WebPAC                                50+ • Holds functionality           40 • Patron Ease of Use  34 • Empowered patrons                      20 • Staff screen display                         20 • Cover art, book reviews, etc.  13 • Rapid updating of records            10           • Scoping of the catalog                    9 There were votes for linked patrons (4), reading history (9), patron entry (6), limiting (7), Encore (6), templates (4), patron images (3), E-Commerce (1), & hold wrappers (1). Then there were the “anything but Millennium” respondents (9).

28. ILS Committee Survey If you could change one thing about our current ILS, what would it be? • Staff client = 119 • Staff client integration = 14 • Staff client interface = 12 • Staff client reports = 7 • Staff client search = 21 • Staff client other = 65 • OPAC = 109 • OPAC Interface = 29 • OPAC Search = 33 • OPACe-Resource Integration = 12 • OPAC Other = 35 • Interface (general) = 56 • Performance (speed, downtime, etc.) = 43 • Flexibility = 9 • Ports = 7 • Other = 33

29. Director Responses Administrator Question #1: Which of the following best describes your feelings about the size of SWAN’s membership? • I would be open to adding new members, to help spread out costs: 95% (55) • I think SWAN is big enough already, and should not grow: 5% (3)

30. Director Responses Administrator Question #2: As a library director, if you were presented with the following, which would you chose? • My library needs only the basics and would like it at a lower cost: 10% (6) • My library needs a lot of features and options; we are willing to pay more than other libraries: 20% (12) • The SWAN consortia should have features for all its members to equally participate in the system, which will ease the overall software administration: 70% (42)

31. Director Responses Administrator Question #3: When a consortium migrates to a new ILS, it is not uncommon for some libraries to decide to leave the consortium at that time. Which of the following might make your library consider leaving SWAN? • Large increase in fees. Note that SWAN does not intend to increase fees, but this information will be helpful in our selection of an ILS: 40% (25) • Loss of specific functionality: 8% (5) • When my library has to migrate the ILS we would consider a stand-alone ILS option: 6% (4) • My library would never leave SWAN: 46% (29)

32. Director Responses Administrator Question #4: Rankings Library directors asked to put into order the reasons their library belongs to SWAN

33. ILS Committee Survey Questions? • Discussion