Transcript ERMing for a Consortium: Are We There Yet?

ERMing for a Consortium:
Are We There Yet?
(Setting the Stage…)
Angela Riggio, UCLA
Electronic Resources Interest Group
ALA Annual Conference
Anaheim, CA
June 28, 2008
What is a consortium?
 Defined by:





Geographic location (by country, state, etc.)
Membership (PALINET, SOLINET, Amigos,
etc.)
Private network of colleges or universities (TriColleges, Claremont Colleges, etc.)
Public network of colleges or universities
(California Digital Library, California State
University, name-a-state-u, etc.)
Any self-defined network
A bit of ERM history…
 ERMI Report (2004) did not “adequately” address
consortial requirements
Functional requirement 19
“Search, browse, and retrieve records by attributes
unique to e-resources, such as… consortium…”
 Functional requirement 45.1
…“record the name of the consortium, relevant notes,
and, optionally, the names of other participating
institutions…”
 Functional requirement 45.2
…“store name and contact information for key consortial
contacts…”

ERMI Data Elements











Consortial Agreement Indicator
Consortium Name
Consortium Alternate Name
Consortial Fund Contribution
Consortium Note
Consortial Issues Note
Consortium Address
Consortium Identifier
Consortium Participation Identifier
Contacts/Contact Info
Number of Consortial Participants
ERMI Consortium Data Structure
 Identify
 Name
 Contacts
 Notes
 Partner information
 Other library IDs
 Names
 IP ranges
 Notes
 Bridge to
 Consortial participants
 Acquisitions information
 Fund contribution
What else do we need from a
“Consortial ERMS?”
 It depends:
 Multiple views; multiple searching options
 Robust customer-defined reporting
 SUSHI compliance and support for other
standards
 Member voting mechanisms
 Cost share, cost savings, relevant date data
 Flexibility to handle consortial ‘quirkiness’

An effective way to communicate!
Local history…
 UCLA: developed and released home-grown
ERM in 2001 (ERDb)

Quickly intercepted; focus on public discovery




More hits than catalog
Source of frustration for users; yet still used
Functionality lacking on staff side
Little to no improvements made since its
release
Local history…
 2004: University of California held statewide
ERM meeting




2005: RFP issued
2006: decision made for all 10 campuses
Spring 2006-Spring 2007: statewide ERM
Implementation Team charged
2007: UC University Librarians halt ERM
implementation
What next?
 No coordinated ERM effort on UC level
 Monitor developments in ERMS
 Make decisions in tandem with the California
Digital Library
 Find creative solutions in the interim
In the interim…
 Resurrect the “old standard?”
 Use “ancient” forms of communication?
 Investigate Web applications such as wikis,
blogs, etc.?