IN IT TOGETHER: SELECTION AND
IMPLEMENTATION OF ALMA/PRIMO
AS A CONSORTIAL SYSTEM
Ann Miller
University of Oregon
Eugene, Oregon
USA
Central Oregon Comm. College
Portland State University
Central Washington University
Reed College
Chemeketa Community
College
Saint Martin’s University
Clark College
Seattle University
Concordia University
Southern Oregon University
Eastern Oregon University
The Evergreen State College
Eastern Washington
University
University of Idaho
George Fox University
Lane Community College
Lewis & Clark College
Linfield College
Mt. Hood Community College
Oregon State University
Seattle Pacific University
University of Oregon
University of Portland
University of Puget Sound
University of Washington
Walla Walla College
Warner Pacific College
Oregon Health & Science Univ.
Washington State
University
Oregon Institute of
Technology
Western Oregon University
Oregon State University
Western Washington
University
Pacific University
Whitman College
Portland Community College
Willamette University
MAP OF ORBIS
CASCADE ALLIANCE
THE ORBIS
CASCADE ALLIANCE
FIGURES AND
VALUES
• 37 universities, colleges, and community colleges
in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho
• 258,000 students
• 9.2 million titles representing 28.7 million items
• Group purchases of electronic resources at a
value of over $9 million annually.
• Existing tradition of cooperation in resource
sharing and collection building.
• History of working in OCLC and using Worldcat
Local
• Looking to explore how to collaborate more fully
in technical services
WHY A
CONSORTIAL
PURCHASE?
• Operational costs duplicated across the consortium
• Existing system operated on an outdated platform
• Interest in facilitating technical services
collaboration
• Prediction that institutions could save money by
sharing
TIMELINE OF
REVIEW AND
DECISION ON A
SYSTEM
• Shared ILS Groups formed to review the
possibility each year from 2009-2011
• Shared ILS RFP in 2011-2012
(https://www.orbiscascade.org/rfp-for-sharedlibrary-management/)
• Chose Ex Libris Alma/Primo in Spring 2012
• 4 Cohorts between Jan. 2013-Dec. 2014
– First went live in June 2013
– Six months each
• Libraries requested a cohort, record numbers
were a factor, as well as confidential
negotiation
COHORTS
•
•
•
•
Cohort 1 - Linfield College, Marylhurst University. Pacific
University, University of Washington, Western Washington
University, Willamette University
Cohort 2 - Concordia University, Eastern Washington University,
Evergreen State College, Lewis & Clark College, Portland
Community College, Reed College, Saint Martin's University,
Seattle Pacific University, University of Idaho, Warner Pacific
College, Washington State University
Cohort 3 - Clark College, Mt Hood Community College, Oregon
Health & Science University, Oregon Institute of Technology,
Portland State University, Southern Oregon University, University
of Oregon, University of Portland, University of Puget Sound,
Western Oregon University
Cohort 4- Central Oregon Community College, Central Washington
University, Chemeketa Community College, Eastern Oregon
University, George Fox University, Lane Community College,
Oregon State University, Seattle University, Walla Walla University,
Whitman College
STRUCTURE OF
IMPLEMENTATION
• Shared ILS Program Manager
• Shared ILS Implementation Team – chairs of:
– Acquisitions WG
– Cataloging WG
– Circulation & Resource Sharing WG
– Discovery WG
– Serials/ERM WG
– Systems WG
– Training WG
• Implementation Leads grouped into Cohorts for
communication
IMPLEMENTATION
PREPARATION
(UNIVERSITY OF
OREGON)
• Reviewed fulfillment policies
• Reviewed location codes
• Deleted order records based on university record
retention policy
• Extracted bibliographic records for withdrawn
material
• Reviewed and coded local bibliographic data
(unfinished)
• Edited bibliographic, holdings and item records to
ensure a smooth migration
IMPLEMENTATION
(C3 EXAMPLE)
1. Initial configuration and migration forms due 7
months out from go live.
2. Data sample to Ex Libris 6 months out
3. Full data and test load (Alma) about 6 months out
(loaded by groups within the cohort)
4. Primo configuration form 4 months out
5. 3.5 months of data testing (Alma)
6. Primo testing 2 months out (C3 had 6 weeks due to
Primo changes at the Alliance level which
postponed it)
7. Technical freeze – Oregon’s lasted 4 weeks.
8. Within a cohort we had rolling go live dates of the
course of one month
TRAINING
• Functional workshops for Cohort 1 & 2 provided by Ex
Libris
• Functional workshops for Cohort 3&4 provided by
Cohort 1 & 2
• In Cohort 1 Alma and Primo certification provided after
go live. Now provided earlier
• Webinars have varied in quality, but are improving
• Weekly functional calls started with Cohort 2
SHARED SETUP
AND STRUCTURE –
ALMA AND THE
NETWORK ZONE
• Tab for NZ between IZ and CZ – search by all titles
only (no inventory (as yet))
• Alma IZ local inventory, order and fulfillment data
• NZ formed of OCLC master records held by
Alliance members.
• Loaded daily
• Anytime the master record is updated a record
comes in.
• Management presents a challenge, don’t want to
give everyone access
Let’s take a quick look
SHARED SETUP
AND STRUCTURES PRIMO
• Central Alliance installation at which some standard
configuration is set for all
• Other than those there can be institutional branding
and other configuration
• The 50 field display limit in Primo has been problematic
• Where and how local data displays has been a question
• One significant loss we perceive is the integration with
Worldcat Local for identifying tangible resources
outside the Alliance
HOW IS THE
SYSTEM WORKING?
•
•
•
•
•
Summit pass through to NRE is working
The move to central publishing has been problematic
Across the board productivity has slowed
Complexity makes diagnosis of problems difficult
Monthly releases provide advantages and
disadvantages
– Advantages -New functionality and fixes
– Disadvantages-New functionality and fixes
• Difficult to keep up with necessary policies
• Has strengthened ties between Alliance institutions
and staff
CONCLUSION
• To early to truly assess
• Center for Excellence
• Definitely need continuing development in some areas
– Electronic resource management in the NZ
– Summit 3 – consortial resource sharing
– Ability to perform collection assessment from the
NZ
• Alliance needs to develop its own support and
management models
• Concern about “service exhaustion” among Alliance
staff