OLE ERM Copenhagen April 12, 2016

Data Model Notes: Designed to interface with GOKb, so used a similar data model. Addition of platform to e-resource link added later to address some performance concerns, as well as overly complex model. Breaking apart holdings/e-holdings created some development issues in OLE. Designed to be flexible and complete, to account for all situations, and prevent duplicate entry of data.

E-Resource Record at the Heart Centralized place to record information about an e-resource, be it a package of titles, an individual database, collection of e-books, or something else Serves as the locus of e-resource activity A place to centralize and coordinate different workflows: subscription and purchasing, access, and licensing Brings together individual electronic holdings, license information, platform details, and purchasing/payment information. Institutions can choose to make e-resource records for what best suits their purposes, but frequently will involve a set of activities around a grouping of titles, e.g., Sage Premier Package (set of journal titles), ebrary Academic Complete (set of e-book subscription titles), EBSCOhost Academic Search Premier (aggregator database that comes with full text access), or other packages. Activity associated with the e-resource will affect those titles associated with it, such as licensing terms, subscription period, and access mechanisms. The ERM record is similar to collections

Workflows Identified in E-Acq Group Trial (never fully speced out) Initial Acquisition Purchasing/payment Licensing Access Renewal/Cancellation Storage and collection of usage data and link resolver capabilities identified as needs but never speced out.

GOKb Integation with OLE Took from Kristen Wilson from 2014. And this is just a quick mapping to show how we envision data matching up between the two systems. You can see that the major records Kristin showed in the data model all have a GOKb counterpart. We purposely modeled the e-resources metadata in OLE on the GOKb data model to make this process easier.

Workflow Goals Planned to have capabilities for four sub-workflows in managing e-resources Licensing Purchasing Access/Activation Renewals/Cancellations Workflows would take advantage of routing within OLE when involving multiple departments/people Workflows could be routed to multiple individuals or ad-hoc routed if new steps needed Sub-workflows could occur simultaneously or in any order Used alerts and action list to move through the process

Workflow lacks High-level management view of all workflows and location of e-resources within various workflows (e.g., Workflow dashboard) Ability to cancel/complete a workflow without completing all steps Ability to run parallel steps within the same workflow If you put OLE’s workflow ideas together with Coral’s, you could probably get the perfect workflow support tool.

Example: T&F SSH Package Start purchasing workflow Create e-resource: T&F SSH Collection Start licensing workflow Start access workflow Decision to purchase T&F SSH Collection Create independent e-resource: T&F Titles Outside Package Scenario: Your institution has been subscribing to the Taylor & Francis titles individually. In the areas of Social Science and Humanities, there is enough interest in their titles that you want to purchase this package, which is a subset of their larger title list. Some titles you’ll need to have and maintain individual subscriptions (and thus have individual POs) and some titles will be part of their bundle and you’ll get access to them, but nothing else. There are other titles outside of your package where you can continue to subscribe/unsubscribe to them as you want. You already have records, e-holdings, and POs in your catalog for the T&F subscribed titles. You want to add the bundled titles, but these won’t have individual POs, they will just have a single PO for the bundle. This is the general workflow. The library will have some e-holdings already in their system for those titles which they subscribed, but will need to add e-holdings and access to new titles in the bundle. At the same time, some titles will be outside the bundle, so those titles can be added to a separate e-resource. Once these steps are taken, the purchasing, licensing, and access workflows can occur sequentially or simultaneously (e.g., some libraries may need to have a signed license in place before access can be granted, while others can work on both simultaneously). The independent titles package contains all of the titles that the library already subscribed to but were outside the package. The library could still link these titles to GOKb to keep track of them, but we will focus exploration today on workflow for new package.

T&F Purchasing Workflow Begin purchasing workflow ERM staff request title list for SSH package ERM staff reconcile title lists ERM staff upload title list and attach to e-resource record E-holdings and POs now appear on e-resource ERM staff identify and attach e-holdings for existing subs to T&F SSH Titles Invoice follows routing and is approved for payment Acquisitions staff post the invoice in OLE Acquisitions staff create Requisition for bundled titles T&F Purchasing Workflow Req follows approval routing and becomes PO Payment information reflected on E-resource/e-holdings. Workflow complete PO for bundle attached to T&F SSH Titles e-resource Purchasing workflow: If a user a starting out with a new package from scratch and did not already have individual subscriptions with POs, OLE does provide a way from the e-resource record to generate POs for each title, with a few pieces of input data.

Licensing workflow Begin licensing workflow (License Request) ERM staff request copy of license and start License Request workflow ERM staff receive license and route to Licensing Manager Licensing Manager negotiates license, following workflow Final signed license is attached to new Agreement Record Licensing Manager submits final license for official signature Licensing Manager records terms in Agreement Record License workflow complete

T&F SSH Collection Access Workflow Begin access workflow (Access Dashboard) ERM staff verify access is turned on ERM staff route through checklist For bundled titles, import TIPPs to create new e-holdings ERM staff link to GOKb (status: review) Update OpenURL resolver Verify proxy Verify administrative URL Announcement to staff GOKb matched to bib records already in the catalog; brief bibs created if no match For already subscribed titles, import TIPPs that match existing attached e-holdings T&F SSH Collection Access Workflow Brief bibs routed to cataloging staff for fuller cataloging Access workflow complete Cataloging staff catalog brief bibs A good mechanism for matching existing e-holdings to GOKb TIPPs is still being worked out. Setting status to review will allow the library to make sure any titles added or changes don’t affect current subscriptions outside of package (for example, if the publisher transfers titles in that already have subscriptions)

Challenges to OLE ERM GOKb integration proved challenging to implement Licensing support either over or under-developed Original goal of ONIX-PL proved too complicated Simplified mapping may not have been flexible enough for libraries Difficulty coding workflows in a way that would prove both easy enough to use and complex enough to be useful Separate holdings/e-holdings created integration problems within the acquisitions system Performance problems for e-resources with 1,000s-100,000s of related e-holdings No clear path for migrating existing data into ERM and linking to GOKb

Data Model General Development Concerns E-Resource is the hub of activity, but a lot of data gets fed through e-holdings, which may not fit library needs Difficulty balancing needs to provide access vs. needs for management/acquisition history Complexity of data model may end up requiring libraries to duplicate data they otherwise would avoid A lot of data had to be loaded in and out of OLE in order to keep it current No support for trials, usage data, or direct link resolution limited usefulness and meant keeping separate systems was a necessity In Duke’s catalog, they loaded records from Serials Solutions, and provided one single “best-bet” link to the content. They were attaching POs to the bibs, since they didn’t have holdings for each place they had access to a title. They would have had to figure out how to get all of their title lists into OLE and create and then suppress from any public view the e-holdings created for management purposes. In fact, the OLE model doesn’t work well with any record service where links are consolidated. In general, there is a disconnect between the access requirements for e-resources, and what is needed for management, which is where duplication of data came in. Chicago originally was interested in keeping track of access within OLE to titles accessible via aggregators, but this started to get too labor-intensive, besides the fact that it wasn’t necessary for either access or management purposes. ER&L discussion about entitlement report needed for access purposes versus what is needed for audit history. Some solutions for the former without solutions for the latter.