Migrating to the Cloud:
Pepperdine Libraries at Web Scale
Michael W. Dula, Ph.D.
Director for Digital Initiatives &
Technology Strategy
Pepperdine University Libraries
michael.dula@pepperdine.edu
Gan Ye
Digital Systems Librarian
Pepperdine University Libraries
gan.ye@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
Initial 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?
Phase 2: Piloting Web Scale Management
•
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?
Why WMS? It’s the technology…
•
•
•
•
•
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 feature roadmap…
• 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 a cost/benefit call…
•
•
•
•
•
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.
A Few Slides from OCLC…
I LS
Acquisitions
A to Z
List
OPAC
Library
ERM
Self
Service
Circulation
Print
Vendors
Cataloging
Users
M etasearch
Electronic
Vendor
I nstitutional
Repository
Cataloging
Utility
National/
Global
System
Consortial
System
Resolver
A Few Slides from OCLC…
I LS
Acquisitions
A to Z
List
OPAC
Library
Library
Self
Service
ERM
Circulation
Print
Suppliers
Vendors
Cataloging
Users
Users
D ata
M etasearch
I nstitutional
Repository
Cataloging
Utility
National/
Partners
Global
System
Electronic
Vendor
Consortial
System
Resolver
Data Migration
WMS System Data Requirements
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
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 Process
First 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 Process
Local Holding Records
Data Migration Process
Patron Records
Data Migration Process
Circulation 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
Voyager
PATRON_GROUP_NAME
WMS
Alumni
Crest Associates
Dependents of fac/staff
Faculty
GSBM distance learners
GSBM students
GSEP distance learners
GSEP students
Graduating seniors
Inst. of Dispute Resolutn
Law Faculty
Law students
Public policy students
Seaver graduate students
Summer high school stdnt
Undergraduate students
others
Patron Type
Faculty
Staff
Graduate
Undergraduate
Other
Borrow Priority
5
4
3
2
1
Impact on Library Workflows:
Circulation
• 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:
Acquisitions
•
•
•
•
•
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:
Cataloging
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
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
Some Advantages of Being in the
Cloud
•
•
•
•
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
WMS Features
WorldCat (220,891,418 records)
WorldCat Local
Cataloging
Circulation
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.