ERMS couperin
Jérôme Kalfon
Head of the studies and forecasting Department
SELL Porto 2011
Project’s goals
• A project enabling members to:
 manage e-resources life-cycle and metadata
 gather e-resources usage statistics
 analyze overlapping collections
• A project to deal with the needs of Couperin for:
 managing its negotiations
 storing and sharing e-resources and negotiations metadata
with its members
 better identifying its members’ collections
2
• Managing :
Project’s goals
Négociations workflow and 500 databases / packages
for COUPERIN
Up to 200 databases / packages
For each member ;
Between 200 and 300 metadata for each resource ;
Not doing what others have already done
•
•
3
Why having chosen a
shared ERMS solution ?
Sharing an ERMS solution is the best solution:
to address the needs of libraries having small collections
and lack of staff
70% to 80% of descriptive and administrative metadata
values are the same for all members due to “Big deals”
to improve the quality of negotiation and acquisition
activities of Couperin
to define a source of enhanced information on electronic
resources, covering French-speaking publishers and French
products
•
•
•
•
4
General issues
• The mass of electronic resources to manage is more
and more important
• its management is more and more complex
• Integrated library systems can’t manage flows (fluid
information)
• The solution: ERMS: a software associated with an
up-to-date knowledge base
5
Five pilots institutions
• 7th december 2010, the ERMS project is launched
with SerialsSolutions (Proquest)
• January 2011, the software is installed in the five
pilots institutions:





INRIA,
Université Lyon 2,
Université Bordeaux 1,
Université Paris Descartes,
PRES de Toulouse
6
Problematic points
Stumbling point: Metadata inheritage and ERMS
architecture : modifying resources at the local level is
not possible
Major defaults
• The AtoZ (360 portal) is beyond what we asked for
• Research possibilities are weak
• Cost metadata management is not available at a local level
• Trainings and documentation are not in french
7
Problematic points
Minor defaults
• Notes system is heavy
• Alerts are not well managed
• Dynamic export to websites or portals is not available
• Files downloads are difficult to use
8
Positive points
Positive Points
• Complete and up-to-date Knowledge base
• MARC records export
• The link between the different modules (ERMS,
reporting, knowledge base)
• Ergonomics of the software
9
How is the situation
today ?
● Serials Solutions software doesn’t allow a
centralized consortial management
● Improvements are planned but for december 2012
● The project team is having a meeting in early june to
decide wether to continue the pilot or not
10
What are we up to ?
A new orientation is about to be taken by the team
leading the project:
● focus on ERMS local functionalities
● Couperin becomes a development partner alongside
the ERMS project
11
General positive points
• This pilot allows to test the same software in several
institutions
• It allows a real co-operation
• Problems are solved for six institutions at the same
time (thanks to two coordinators and one ingeneer)
• It brings experience on negotiation with an american
provider
• ACQUISITION OF EXPERTISE ON ERMS
12
Problematic points for
some members
• The calendar (the new product will be available only
in late 2012)
• Members are thinking about chosing a local
•
temporary ERMS solution but in that case of a
temporary subscription, they have to make sure they
can leave their provider with all the metadata put in
their system
focusing on the local level is a problem for institutions
working like a consortium (INRIA, PRES Toulouse) 13
General issues
• Integrated library systems are only a part of the
whole process giving access to electronic resources
• Integrated library systems can’t manage flows
• Other systems are required for that
• How connecting ERMS knowledge base and
resources cataloguing by the ABES (Bibliographic
Agency for Higher Education)
14
What other solutions ?
• A shared software for french academic libraries AND
a private knowledge base ?
• A european-wide knowledge base ?
15