1. March 7, 2013

2.  New SWAN staff  Server Migration  Projects completed Dec 2012 – February 2013  Reporter & Decision Center Update

3.  Brande Redfield, Office Manager  Lauren Peltier, Member Services Support Analyst  Diane Nickolaou, Bibliographic Services Clerk  Samantha Dietel, Member Services Consultant

5.  Replace 3 Millennium ILS servers  Production, Report, and Training/Test  Move away from Oracle/Sun hardware  Production server 5 years (purchased 2007)  Servers showing age, higher cost to support  Target: complete replacement by end of 2012

6.  Complex Migration  Red Hat Linux replaces Solaris Unix  Virtualized VMware  32 CPUs vs. 4 CPU  64GB RAM vs. 32GB Our monitoring service of server activity: now in 32 colors!

7. Retiring… Production, Test, & Report servers New! In the rack, ready… Production, Test, & Report

9. 1. Millennium Bib & Item Retrieval is Slow Solution: Millennium software patch coming 2. Patron Images & Digital Signatures Cause MilCirc to Run Slow Solution: network DNS fix, see memo details 3. Keyword Indexing: new records appear after 10 minutes Solution: will adjust timing of indexer 4. Printing Issues: hold slips Solution: network DNS fix, see memo details

10.  INNOPAC access ended (except for Lansing)  Time to Shelve “Black Friday” gift  Go Green email sign-up  Boopsie mobile Hinsdale project  ILS Committee (4 SWAN staff, 5 library staff)

11.  Message added to My Account within WebPAC  2,900 new email addresses collected

12.  Boopsie mobile app  Hinsdale, Downers Grove, Oak Pk  Hinsdale project: patron self-checkout on app  Technical success with SIP2 running in VPN to Boopsie servers  “BookCheck” not live yet, needs testing

13.  Reduce Millennium backup time  Reporter implementation  ILS Committee recommendation  Complete new SWAN support website

14. Update:  Decision Center delayed by III  Reporter v 2.2 possible now  Upgrade Millennium R2011 to get Decision Ctr & Reporter v 2.3  III will eventually merge both products

15.  What next? III answers  Option 1: move forward with Reporter v2.2 after new servers, wait on Decision Center  Option 2: Reporter v2.3 & Decision Center after R2011 upgrade  Other options: will be explored, bring to SWAN Board at 3/15 meeting  R2011 upgrade not set, prior to this news Q3 2013 was target for upgrade

17.  Libraries with RFID:  Oak Park, Flossmoor, Elmhurst, Prairie Trails, Homewood  Libraries underway: ▪ Elmwood Park ▪ Downers Grove ▪ Oak Lawn  Goal: create an RFID “profile” for SWAN members  Consultants: Convergent, Galecia Group, Shawn Shafer @ Elmwood Pk

18.  Reminder: use the URL below  http://204.120.131.105/director/ http://204.120.131.105/director/

19.  End of Executive Director report  Look for this presentation here: http://support.swanlibraries.net/gov/meetings http://support.swanlibraries.net/gov/meetings

20.  Jeannie Dilger, La Grange Public Library  Aaron Skog, SWAN ED

21.  Recommend direction for SWAN integrated library system (ILS) platform  Innovative Interface’s Inc. (III)  Sierra: next ILS announced 2010  SWAN’s agreement with Innovative ends May 18, 2013  How long do we stay on Millennium?  Is Sierra our best choice?

22.  Strategic plan goal  Nine reps: 4 SWAN staff, 5 member library  Jeannie Dilger & Aaron Skog, co-chairs  Kate Boyle, SWAN  Tony Siciliano, SWAN  Mary Lou Coffman, SWAN  Pilar Shaker, Hinsdale  Ahren Sievers, Elmwood Park  Vickie Totton, Cicero  Rebecca Teasdale, Oak Park

23. ResearchedVendor/Support/Developer AlmaEx Libris Group EvergreenOpen-source (Equinox) KohaOpen-source (ByWater Solutions) Kuali OLEOpen-source (Kulali Foundation) Polaris ILSPolaris Sierra LMSInnovative Interfaces Inc. Symphony SirsiDynix WorldShare Management Services OCLC VirtuaVTLS, Inc.

24.  All library staff  Special section for Administrators/Directors  Purpose  Help the Committee narrow selection  Scalability, tiered services, deal breakers, suggestions  We received 515 responses to the survey from 71 member libraries

25. Patron Features 1. Easier to use OPAC 70% rated this "very important" which was the highest within this section of the survey 2. E-Resources are downloadable/accessible via OPAC 42% rated "very important" followed by a close second of "important" at 40% 3. Patrons can opt into a variety of online services (customize their experience) 47% rated "important" 4. Mobile web interface for OPAC 44% rated “important” 5. Patron ability to access and edit their own personal information (email address, etc) 38% rated “very important” & 37% rated “important”

26. 1stConsistent and reliable response time at peak hours 2ndQuality training and accessible documentation 3rdStrong support and ongoing development from the vendor 4th Robust bibliographic data tools allowing for easy manipulation by staff & vendors 5thNotifications via phone, email or text 6thCustomizable holds system designed for a multi-library group 7thSupport for a variety of mobile devices 8thStaff and Patron screens are similar 9thSeamless and easy offline system 10thOperating system neutral ILS Features – Ranked

27. If you could keep one thing about our current ILS, what would it be? 505 of response to the open-ended were categorized in this way:  WebPAC 50+  Holds functionality 40  Patron Ease of Use 34  Empowered patrons 20  Staff screen display 20  Cover art, book reviews, etc. 13  Rapid updating of records 10  Scoping of the catalog 9 There were votes for linked patrons (4), reading history (9), patron entry (6), limiting (7), Encore (6), templates (4), patron images (3), E- Commerce (1), & hold wrappers (1). Then there were the “anything but Millennium” respondents (9).

28. If you could change one thing about our current ILS, what would it be?  Staff client = 119  Staff client integration = 14  Staff client interface = 12  Staff client reports = 7  Staff client search = 21  Staff client other = 65  OPAC = 109  OPAC Interface = 29  OPAC Search = 33  OPAC e-Resource Integration = 12  OPAC Other = 35  Interface (general) = 56  Performance (speed, downtime, etc.) = 43  Flexibility = 9  Ports = 7  Other = 33

29. Administrator Question #1: Which of the following best describes your feelings about the size of SWAN’s membership?  I would be open to adding new members, to help spread out costs: 95% (55)  I think SWAN is big enough already, and should not grow: 5% (3)

30. Administrator Question #2: As a library director, if you were presented with the following, which would you chose?  My library needs only the basics and would like it at a lower cost: 10% (6)  My library needs a lot of features and options; we are willing to pay more than other libraries: 20% (12)  The SWAN consortia should have features for all its members to equally participate in the system, which will ease the overall software administration: 70% (42)

31. Administrator Question #3: When a consortium migrates to a new ILS, it is not uncommon for some libraries to decide to leave the consortium at that time. Which of the following might make your library consider leaving SWAN?  Large increase in fees. Note that SWAN does not intend to increase fees, but this information will be helpful in our selection of an ILS: 40% (25)  Loss of specific functionality: 8% (5)  When my library has to migrate the ILS we would consider a stand-alone ILS option: 6% (4)  My library would never leave SWAN: 46% (29)

32. 1stAccess to a Larger Collection 2ndEconomies of Scale 3rdPatron Convenience 4thAffordability 5thSharing My Library's Resources 6thTechnology Changes 7thNetworking Administrator Question #4: Rankings Library directors asked to put into order the reasons their library belongs to SWAN

33.  Discussion