Date: April
4, 2006
To:
RCPL Board of Trustees
From:
RE:
Recommendation: Board feedback for the
purpose of RCPL participation in SDLN. Staff is recommending continuing SDLN
participation pending reallocation of RCPL staff resources for migration to a
new system as approved by the Board. Reallocation of staffing resources
estimated timeframe is 16 – 24 months. Staff will continue to research systems and
an RFP process to seek proposals within 14 – 16 months.
Summary:
The SDLN Executive Board
voted to retain the current governance of one vote per library. RCPL proposed a
weighted voting for SDLN governance. The RCPL proposal would have addressed the
needs of public library patrons represented by a governance based on the
percentage of funding contributed. RCPL is the second largest financial
contributor of the system. The most significant policy to come out of this
current governance structure is the selection of Aleph software as the new
operational system. ExLibris is vendor providing the software. The majority if
not most all their customer base is academic libraries.
Reasons for pursuing
another system:
·
Executive Board
Governance: there is a lack of ongoing communication and discussion from the
Executive Board to with the larger financial contributors to the system. In
fact, review of their minutes (most current Board meeting minutes linked) is related with libraries not in the
system or smaller sized. In addition, a recommendation from the SDLN Fee
Structure Committee and the Advisory Council in 2005 requested clarification of
definitions for remote libraries and libraries accessing the system through
State Library cards (it is unknown if this is fact or fiction as there has been
no response to the question). RCPL Management attended an Executive Board in
2005 to request improved communications from the Executive Board with the
larger funding contributors and concerns with public library services. This
communication has not been forthcoming, in particular with the recent vote to
retain the governance structure. It is problematic to address the communication
and public library service concerns since the governance membership of the SDLN
Executive Board is divided between the Board of Regents, the State Library and
the Membership.
·
The following
technical items are problematic to the SDLN structure and operations:
▪
Lack of SDLN response
for changes in areas such as the Kids Catalog, patron and staff user friendly
language, extracting of data for public library operations of interlibrary
loaning, collection assessment, fine records and holds on materials as
examples.
▪
SDLN service
deadlines not met for implementation and updates.
▪
In some cases the
priorities of public library service requested by RCPL is ignored or lost by
SDLN. RCPL staff have documented and provided to SDLN the concerns. This
strategy is becoming less effective and generates bad public relations in the
state for RCPL
▪
It is apparent
the concerns expressed from RCPL are balanced upon the multitude of overall
needs of which RCPL is not receiving the service needed for public library
patrons.
▪
There are a
number of companies with systems that have a long history and product for
serving public libraries. The SDLN project is a means for ExLibris to gain some
of the U.S. Public Libraries Market. This a recognized strategy for a company
to break into the market, however it is the outcomes of this strategy in
reinventing the wheel with SDLN/RCPL resources for their effort to provide
public library products that is problematic.
Further research is needed
to pursue another system:
▪
Cost –
preliminary figures indicate RCPL would pay the same or in close proximity of
the current cost
▪
Data transfer –
vendors often claim often they can accommodate the migration of library data.
Until the actual migration takes place, this is typically with problems, i.e.
fine data of $5,000 lost by the Aleph data migration
▪
Access to SDLN
library collections and databases –a library that is not a full member such as
RCPL can use the system for a fee that access could change given the financial
impact to SDLN if RCPL was to withdraw as a full members. However, Siouxland
Libraries has never participated as a full member and has access to all SDLN
collections and databases for $10,000. They use a different system of Horizon
for their operations.
▪
The allocation of
staff resources for a migration close on the heels of a recent migration.
Staffing is available for a migration, however during the switch to SDLN a
number of strategic goals were on hold. The same approach would be necessary
for a new system.
▪
Other public
libraries such as Spearfish have expressed a partnership interest if RCPL
should pursue a new system.
Concerns in pursuing
another system:
▪
Loss of influence
and relationships for other RCPL statewide participation, temporarily or more
long term. However, Siouxland Libraries has continued to be encouraged for
participation on statewide projects even though they are not and recently
turned down their participation as a full SDLN member.
▪
There is no
perfect system
