1. ERMing for a Consortium: Are We There Yet? (Setting the Stage…) Angela Riggio, UCLA Electronic Resources Interest Group ALA Annual Conference Anaheim, CA June 28, 2008

2. What is a consortium? Defined by: Geographic location (by country, state, etc.) Membership (PALINET, SOLINET, Amigos, etc.) Private network of colleges or universities (Tri- Colleges, Claremont Colleges, etc.) Public network of colleges or universities (California Digital Library, California State University, name-a-state-u, etc.) Any self-defined network

3. A bit of ERM history… ERMI Report (2004) did not “adequately” address consortial requirements Functional requirement 19 “Search, browse, and retrieve records by attributes unique to e-resources, such as… consortium…” Functional requirement 45.1 …“record the name of the consortium, relevant notes, and, optionally, the names of other participating institutions…” Functional requirement 45.2 …“store name and contact information for key consortial contacts…”

4. ERMI Data Elements Consortial Agreement Indicator Consortium Name Consortium Alternate Name Consortial Fund Contribution Consortium Note Consortial Issues Note Consortium Address Consortium Identifier Consortium Participation Identifier Contacts/Contact Info Number of Consortial Participants

5. ERMI Consortium Data Structure Identify Name Contacts Notes Partner information Other library IDs Names IP ranges Notes Bridge to Consortial participants Acquisitions information Fund contribution

6. What else do we need from a “Consortial ERMS?” It depends: Multiple views; multiple searching options Robust customer-defined reporting SUSHI compliance and support for other standards Member voting mechanisms Cost share, cost savings, relevant date data Flexibility to handle consortial ‘quirkiness’ An effective way to communicate!

7. Local history… UCLA: developed and released home-grown ERM in 2001 (ERDb) Quickly intercepted; focus on public discovery More hits than catalog Source of frustration for users; yet still used Functionality lacking on staff side Little to no improvements made since its release

8. Local history… 2004: University of California held statewide ERM meeting 2005: RFP issued 2006: decision made for all 10 campuses Spring 2006-Spring 2007: statewide ERM Implementation Team charged 2007: UC University Librarians halt ERM implementation

9. What next? No coordinated ERM effort on UC level Monitor developments in ERMS Make decisions in tandem with the California Digital Library Find creative solutions in the interim

10. In the interim… Resurrect the “old standard?” Use “ancient” forms of communication? Investigate Web applications such as wikis, blogs, etc.?