SCLS Background:  May 1993 Dynix installed  1994 GoLive at 19 libraries  LINK expansion: 50 libraries and most of the Dynix modules  December 2003 Horizon contract signed  March 2007 Horizon development stopped

 April – August 2007 ◦ Conferences and Demos  SirsiDynix Unicorn demo at SCLS  Iowa regional users conference for Symphony update  ALA vendor demos: Innovative, LibLime, TLC, SirsiDynix  WiLSWorld meeting with Equinox ◦ Evaluations and Recommendation  Workflow changes required with any new ILS  Holds, Codes, Serials and Acquisitions hurdles  Recommend further investigation in Spring 2008

 September 07 – March 08 ◦ Conferences  WLA, CODI and PLA  April 2008 ◦ Onsite Demos: Innovative, Polaris, SirsiDynix  Migration committees: checklists  LINK Library Staffs: surveys  Follow up with vendors  Reduced to 2 vendors

 June - July 2008 ◦ Migration Committees to Implementation Team ◦ ALA  Vendor meetings for follow up  Vendor demos ◦ WiLSWorld  WALDO presentation  Meeting with LibLime and Koha Demo ◦ Customer Site Visits  Winnefox (SirsiDynix Symphony)  OWLS (III Millennium)

 September – October 2008 ◦ LibLime 2-day Scoping Study  Contact potential LibLime customers  Contact PTFS (vendor supporting Koha) ◦ Implementation Team evaluates Koha, Millennium and Symphony ◦ Recommendation to replace Dynix with Koha and pursue agreement with LibLime as the implementation and support vendor ◦ LINK Directors approve at October meeting ◦ Implementation Team will manage project

 Functionality  Software development process  Sharing development costs  Accelerated development  Hosting option  Company ownership  New customers  Customers migrating to other systems  Staff retention  Costs

 Investment in next ILS must be long term ◦ Migration costs and effort are immense  Consortia’s functional development needs ◦ Workflow changes inevitable ◦ Library staff join in development projects ◦ Learn from and share ideas with Koha community  Vendor-supplied development & support ◦ Don’t plan to hire in-house programmers  Lower maintenance allows investment in future development

 Applications Staff planning & organization  Migration Committees members and Implementation Team  Vendors’ time and effort = $$$  Winnefox and OWLS Staffs References:  Marshall Breeding’s Library Technology Guides at:  Breeding, Marshall “Perceptions 2008: An International Survey of Library Automation”

 Cibbarelli, Pamela “Helping You Buy ILSs” Computers in Libraries October 2008 pp7-53  Boss, Richard W. “Open Source Integrated Library System Software” revised December 14, tions/platechnotes/OpensourceILS.pdf tions/platechnotes/OpensourceILS.pdf  Migration to come… Don’t crow till you’re out of the woods. (old Irish proverb)