?SPAM? Re: Death by enhancement: was WorldCat Local

I think there is some truth in this ­ however, if you chose to use the
system in the first place and have been using the same system for x years,
then there is obviously something right with the system. So ­ you were
willing, at some point, to put up with the problems because overall you felt
the system was worth it.

When we chose our current library system, there were some things that didn¹t
work as we wanted, and we asked for them to be corrected ­ some of these
made it to the enhancement procedure, and eventually came into the system.
However, by the time they get into the system (and although timescales vary,
I would say this would be true whether your talking months or years), we had
adjusted our working practices to work with the system we had ­ rather than
waiting for the enhancement to come through.

I would guess that in at least 50% of cases, we end up not using the
functionality we asked for, because it no longer seems relevant when it
appears.

It¹s not as if I expect these small incremental changes to go away
completely. As new customers consider the system, there are bound to be new
requirements that come in ­ and to some extent the Œmarket¹ decides what¹s
important here. The truth is that you can¹t make everyone happy all the
time, and if you try, you end up with over complicated systems, and diverted
development effort.

So the question is ­ if it¹s really that bad, why are you still playing
xxxx?

Owen

On 26/4/07 19:49, "Hank Young" <WilYoun_at_UFLIB.UFL.EDU> wrote:

> This may be totally off-base, but when I read this I could not help but
> drawing an analogy to a popular MMOG I have played since before the first
> expansion was introduced.  Players have always complaining about quests that
> did not work, NPCs (non-player characters) that had typos in their scripts and
> used poor grammar, rings that could only be worn on the waist (!), treasure
> that could not be used by the types of characters who obviously SHOULD be
> using them, doors that opened the wrong direction, etc...  however; the
> company that produces the game has chosen to focus on the next expansion
> (available at your local store or by digital download every 6 months!)
>  
> When you look at the number one source of player complaints, there were too
> many new expansions (which sounds like new product development on one specific
> functional area) instead of fixing problems that already exist.  I am often
> asked ³OMG! Do you still play ____?² NOT because I am ## years old but because
> these complaints have driven so many players to other fields.  The mind
> boggles at what libraries could do if they were able to change their ILS as
> easily.
>  
> Just food for thought.  I will go back to lurking now.
>  
> Hank Young
> Cataloger
> University of Florida
>  
> 
> 
> From: Next generation catalogs for libraries [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU]
> On Behalf Of Stephens Owen
> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 2:03 PM
> To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
> Subject: [NGC4LIB] Death by enhancement: was WorldCat Local
>  
> Interestingly the North American Aleph user group has recently moved away from
> working with the supplier (Ex Libris) on individual enhancement requests, and
> instead has an agreement to focus development on one specific functional area
> at a time. However, even early into to trying this not all libraries are happy
> they have lost the opportunity to vote for smaller enhancements.
> 
> Having been involved in a process of Œincremental¹ enhancements I¹m convinced
> that this type of Œimprovement¹ does nothing for the overall development of
> the product, detracts from strategic product development, and leads to much
> wasted time and resource for both users and suppliers.
> 
> Although I agree that libraries continue to have a need for Œacquisition¹ and
> handling multi-part items we end up getting very small changes to the way
> systems handle these issues, when we should really be asking questions about
> whether completely accurate prediction of when the next issue of x journal is
> going to arrive is more or less important than redesigning the subscription
> functionality to deal with electronic resources more effectively.
> 
> Owen
> 
> 
> 


Owen Stephens
E-Strategy Co-ordinator
Royal Holloway, University of London
Egham
Surrey
TW20 0EX
Tel: 01784 443331
Email: owen.stephens_at_rhul.ac.uk