ACQNET v2n100 (October 28, 1992) URL = http://www.infomotions.com/serials/acqnet/acq-v2n100 ISSN: 1057-5308 *************** ACQNET, Vol. 2, No. 100, October 28, 1992 ========================================= (1) FROM: Christian Boissonnas SUBJECT: Who's new on ACQNET today (8 lines) (2) FROM: Richard Jasper SUBJECT: Automated systems migration (121 lines) (3) FROM: Jim Mumm SUBJECT: Insurance for returns (16 lines) (4) FROM: Barbara Swetman SUBJECT: Bundled publications (11 lines) (1) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: October 28, 1992 From: Christian Subject: Who's new on ACQNET today Gary A. Hudson Acquisitions Librarian Mankato State University Library E-mail: HUDSONACQ@MSUS1.MSUS.EDU (2) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 24 Oct 92 12:36:39 EDT From: Richard P. Jasper (Emory University) Subject: Systems Migration In Acqnet 2:94 I asked folks about whether they were involved in, or contemplating, a systems migration, particularly from one integrated system to another. My reasons for asking were three-fold: (1) Emory is nearing the end of an 18-month process of identifying a successor system to DOBIS, the integrated library system we have used for everything except serials control (DOBIS' serials control module doesn't work) since the mid-1980s. We are hoping to begin implementing a new system within a year, although this gets complicated since five administratively distinct libraries at Emory share DOBIS. (2) Our decision-making process is further complicated by the fact that my library, the largest of the five, uses Faxon's SC-10 serials control system for serials check-in. Faxon has indicated that it intends to pull the plug on SC-10 no later than March 31, 1993, which mans we will have to migrate to Faxon Manager or some other serials check-in system (remember, DOBIS's doesn't work) in fewer than six months. (3) I'm working on a book project involving management of library organization. Although the book is not about systems migration per se, how libraries deal with systems migration as part of workflow design and overall planning will be an important component. Like any good former newspaper reporter or a diarist in another era, I'm taking detailed notes. The comments I receive will become grist for the mill, although not in any directly quotable sense. At least one respondent has already confirmed what I have come to believe quite firmly, namely that moving from one integrated system to another is much more complicated than just automating one or more manual procedures. I'd take that a step further by saying that moving from one integrated system to another is probably more complicated than moving from a collection of stand-alone systems to an integrated system, although that may not be the case if one of the stand-alone components really belongs to a materials vendor. I have asked my respondents to let me summarize their comments for ACQNET. What appears below is with their permission. In a few cases, feedback regarding SC-10 has been included, but only to identify who is also grappling with this issue. As Christian pointed out, a full discussion of the fate of Faxon's SC-10 serials control system is to be found in SERIALST. (1) Sheila Osheroff reports that Oregon State University is currently implementing the acquisitions and serials modules of Advance, their integrated system developed by Advance, which is now a Geac company. Oregon State came online with the OPAC, cataloging and circulation modules of Advance in 1988. Because the serials control module had not yet been developed, they began using Faxon's SC-10 system and are now moving to Advance. (2) David Marshall reports that Georgetown University is now receiving bids in response to RFPs for a new system. Georgetown, a Geac site, has used the acquisitions component since 1987. They hope to sign a contract in January and to begin implementation with acquisitions as early as April so that they can start their new fiscal year with the new system. (3) Peter Stevens, University of Washington, says that UW is close to beginning a major migration from Geac GLIS to all modules of Innovative Interface's Innopac. At the time of his response (early Octo- ber), UW hadn't completed contract negotiations yet but had been in the planning process for nearly a year. He indicates that at UW, like at Emory, campus officials want the library to move to a UNIX environment and off proprietary hardware and software. Peter has a big task in needing to migrate an existing Geac database of more than 300,000 records; 8,000 vendor records; and more than four years worth of accounting transactions. Responding to my point about Emory's needing to get five separate libraries to agree on a single system, he adds: "Luckily for me, I just have to worry about satisfying the needs of the main library, 22 branches, Law, library accounting, university accounting and collection development--all but two units are under my budgetary umbrella." And I think I have problems! (4) Steve Murden, Virginia Commonwealth University, and Beth Jacoby, University of Delaware, report that both their respective libraries are grappling with the question of whether to go with Faxon Manager or with NOTIS 5.1 serials control. Lack of a loader program seems to be the most serious concern. (5) Barbara Winters, as usual, has more experience than all of us combined. At VCU she migrated from ALIS II to NOTIS and at Wright State she has migrated from DRA to Innovative's Innopac, although she noted: "We still do serials control the OLD FASHIONED way...on cards." Implementation of the serials control module will begin in November. (6) And I may be wrong about thinking it is less complicated to move from a number of stand-alone systems to a single integrated system. Carol Hawks reports the following: "OSU is moving from its own 20-plus-year-old system, LCS, to Innopac in the next 18 months as a part of the statewide OhioLINK system. I already have an Innovacq with an interface to LCS." In addition, Carol points out that: (a) OSU moved her Innovacq to the Unix version in August (no small change itself); (b) over the next three months all three of OSU's stand alone Innovacq systems (for Health Sciences, Law, and the central library) will be merged into a single Innovacq; and (c) once the Innopac online catalog and circulation are implemented the newly merged Innovacq with need to be merged with the rest of the system. Which once again reminds me of my favorite Barbara Winters' expression, "The Tyranny of the Urgent." I think Dick Dougherty was a trifle amused when I suggested to him that we're getting busier and busier, but re-reading all of the above I'm ready to go take a nap. Come to think of it, this may have to do more with my prose style than anything else. Whatever. Sleep well. (3) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 26 Oct 1992 11:19:39 -0500 (CDT) From: Jim Mumm (Marquette University) <9724MUMMJ@VMS.CSD.MU.EDU> Subject: Insurance for returns How do acquisitions librarians handle the issue of insuring books which are being returned to publishers/vendors? We recently had a case where the post office lost the contents of a package which we were sending to a vendor. They sent us the face of the package with their apologies and a tracing form. We figured the value of the contents to be about $90.00, but this led us to question whether we should insure packages which are being sent through the mail. Our interest is in policies as well as how this actually works out. Thanks for your help. (4) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 26 Oct 92 11:35:51 EST From: Barbara Swetman (Hamilton College) Subject: Publisher's discounts on serials I get calls occasionally from publishers with deals that seem too good to pass up. A recent example is getting a combination of directories. Right now we get 2 of 3 and would spend 1150.00 + vendor's charges. I can get 3 for 875.00. I feel suspicious of this type of offer. What experience do other libraries have with these? Is this likely to be a one time thing to get us to switch from our subscription agent and add this 3rd title, or is the same offer likely to be made again next year? Are these administrative nightmares? Any pointers would be appreciated. ******* END OF FILE ****** ACQNET, Vol. 2, No. 100 ****** END OF FILE *******