Migrating to the Cloud: Pepperdine Libraries at Web Scale Michael W. Dula, Ph.D.Gan Ye Director for Digital Initiatives &Digital Systems Librarian Technology.

Migrating to the Cloud:Pepperdine Libraries at Web Scale

Michael W. Dula, Ph.D. Gan YeDirector for Digital Initiatives & Digital Systems Librarian Technology Strategy Pepperdine University LibrariesPepperdine University Libraries [email protected]@pepperdine.edu

Where We Started

• 521,000 records in Voyager, many of which had been migrated from an earlier system.

• Upgrades always somewhat difficult to fit into academic calendar. Usually have to do over Christmas break. Time-consuming and risky.

• Complex needs to support multiple branches, separate School of Law database, overseas programs.

• Getting systems to talk to each other always difficult: Voyager, EZproxy, Syndetics Solutions, link manager, website, e-reserves, interlibrary loan, patron management, suppliers, etc.

• Reporting so difficult only the systems librarian can do it.

We Have Big Ambitions, But...

Problem: In an era of staffing constraints, how can we add a lot of capability without adding a lot of new staff?

Phase 1: WorldCat Local• Went live in Fall 2009.• Decision to go with WorldCat Local

preceded decision to pilot WMS.• Our goal was simple: provide one

search interface that allows you to find what you need, get it from wherever it resides, and use it.

Reasons for moving to WCL

• Looking for a better search interface for our patrons

• Wanted to implement Web 2.0 features• Looking for a long term federated search

strategy• Wanted to expand access to collections outside

our own

WorldCat Local: The Big Data Cleanup

• Required substantial batch load project to bring our WorldCat holdings up to date.

• Also required a data cleanup of our Voyager database to bring records up to date with accurate, properly formatted OCLC numbers.

• Ongoing cleanup efforts underway to ensure that records display accurately in WCL.

The Old Voyager Search Interface

Voyager Search Results

WorldCat Local Search Box

WorldCat Local Search Results

• Combination of WCL and ILLiad yielded increased searching (64% more searches) and borrowing. ILL volume tripled.

• Feedback from students and faculty was very positive.

• BUT...

• Patrons still had to access Voyager system to renew books, see pending orders, and view their account information.

• Library staff hadto be familiar with two systems.

• Duplication of labor in cataloging and acquisitions among Voyager, WorldCat, and our PeopleSoft accounting system.

• Can we provide a Web 2.0 user experience for our staff as well as our patrons?

Initial Results

• We got our first look at about the same time WCL went live at the end of last summer.

• Moving the ILS to the cloud seems to fit our technology goals.

• A number of our technical services and circulation librarians tried out and commented on the first prototype Circulation interface.

• Goal is to bring efficiencies to Circulation and Acquisitions processes and reduce TCO.

• How does WMS address our goals?

Phase 2: Piloting Web Scale Management

• Social computing--we had already made move to Blogs and Wikis. Confluence adoption spread from Library to entire University.

• Outsourced hosting: Library already using for iTunes U, CONTENTdm. University using for Blackboard, Sakai.

• In past year, Library also added hosted ILLiad, WorldCat Link Manager.

• Web server moved in December from Library Sun server to central Pepperdine servers.

• We want to get out of the server management business and manage information, not technology.

Why WMS? It’s the technology…

• Web 2.0 features like tagging, RSS feeds.• User interface that makes life much easier for our staff.• OCLC’s plans for integration with ILLiad, WorldCat Link

Manager, ezProxy, CONTENTdm, etc.• Shared data—vendor management, license

management, statistics.• Opportunities for 3rd party integration: widgets galore!

Why WMS? It’s the feature roadmap…

• The addition of WorldCat Local and ILLiad has already increased circulation, tripled our ILL volume, and made our patrons happier.

• Our total system costs will drop significantly as soon as we make the transition.

• Our Acquisitions and Cataloging workflow becomes markedly more efficient.

• We won’t have to worry about replacing our near end-of-life Sun servers or upgrading software every year or two.

• Our Systems Librarian will actually have time to work on other projects besides the care and feeding of the ILS.

Why WMS? It’s a cost/benefit call…

A Few Slides from OCLC…

A Few Slides from OCLC…

Data Migration

Our holdings in WorldCat should be complete and up to date. We need to send following data to OCLC:•Bibliographic Records•Local Holding and Item Records•Patron Data•Circulation Transaction Data

WMS System Data Requirements

Bibliographic Records•OCLC#s •Local system IDs. Each bib record should have a unique bib ID.

WMS System Data Requirements

Local Holding Records•Our OCLC symbol •OCLC Holding Location Code•Shelving Location•Call Number, and Item Barcode•856 field for electronic records, and holdings information for serials (enumeration levels, chronology, frequency, numbering schemes, etc.) is also stored in the Local Holdings Record.

WMS System Data Requirements

Item Records•Item barcode should be unique•Item record is linked to a local holding record via barcode•Circulation data is stored in an item record.

WMS System Data Requirements

Patron Records•Patron barcode should be unique•Each patron is assigned a patron type /borrower category

WMS System Data Requirements

Circulation Data•Items checked out•Bills/Fines•Holds

WMS System Data Requirements

Voyager Data

•Bibliographic Records: 542,601•Holding Records: 568,684•Item Records: 405,433•Patron Records: 14,620•Circulation Transactions: around 500,000

Data Migration ProcessFirst Step: Updating our current holdings in WorldCat.

Batchload Projects:•We exported our bibliographic records and sent to OCLC•OCLC matched our bibliographic records to WorldCat records•OCLC added our OCLC symbol to indicate we hold the items.•OCLC generated cross reference files including our records’ Voyager system IDs and corresponding OCLC#s. •We added/updated OCLC#s in our records

Data Migration Process

Second Step: •Local holding and item records •Patron data•Circulation transactions data

Data Migration ProcessLocal Holding Records

Data Migration ProcessPatron Records

Data Migration ProcessCirculation Data

Problems and Challenges

Item public/non-public note field

Problems and Challenges Item public/non-public note field

Problems and Challenges We found the note was put to 876$z field in our LHR

records at the Connexion site:

Problems and Challenges Patron Group/Type

In Voyager, one patron can have multiple patron groups.

In WMS, one patron can have only one patron group

Problems and Challenges Patron Group/Type

VoyagerPATRON_GROUP_NAME

AlumniCrest AssociatesDependents of fac/staffFacultyGSBM distance learnersGSBM studentsGSEP distance learnersGSEP studentsGraduating seniorsInst. of Dispute ResolutnLaw FacultyLaw studentsPublic policy studentsSeaver graduate students

Summer high school stdntUndergraduate studentsothers

WMS

Patron Type Borrow PriorityFaculty 5Staff 4Graduate 3Undergraduate 2Other 1

• Look and usability of WMS is great• Having Pull list and Cancel Hold Shelf list in

real time is fabulous• First version of Courses (Reserves system)

has been fine –– waiting for next version of Courses in May

• Holds still not specific enough in initial version – waiting for more improvements

Impact on Library Workflows: Circulation

• Specify shelf location at time of order• Scan barcodes into WMS during receiving

(which receives item and creates LHR in Connexion)

• Check items out to internal “in process” patron rather than changing status (temporary)

• No longer load YBP order records (temporary)

• No longer load YBP EDI invoices (temporary)

Impact on Library Workflows: Acquisitions

• No longer export bib records into local system

• No longer update holdings in OCLC• No longer edit records in local system• Catalog all items in Connexion including

laptops and white board markers• Learn about Local Holdings Records (LHRs)• Check displays in WorldCat Local• No longer attach barcodes to items

Impact on Library Workflows: Cataloging

• No longer have clients, servers, or updates to manage

• Can work from a laptop from anywhere (in the stacks, at home, overseas)

• Logins are person-specific—no longer have department logins

• No longer log into specific modules—you are given all of the permissions you need to do your job

Some Advantages of Being in the Cloud

WMS Features

WorldCat (220,891,418 records)WorldCat Local

CatalogingCirculation

Acquisitions KnowledgeBase

Cooperative Intelligence and Reporting (pending)

Workflow Engine

The Path Ahead• Serials check-in• New apps and widgets yet to be conceived• Single sign-on support for all products• Interoperability with digital collections and

publishing platforms• Increased use of shared data such as serial

publishing pattern data and peer institution comparison data

• Integration with University accounting system• Improved e-resource management

A few lessons old and new •Old (but still true)

• GIGO• Standards matter• Customers matter

•New• It is a good thing to be in a partnership with a

vendor.• Cultural shift for librarians: relinquish the

illusion of control.• Are we there yet? No, and we never will be.