1. Interoperability with ILS Acquisition Systems Why is it important to make sure your ILS and ERM are interoperable? Angela Riggio, UCLA NISO E-Resource Management Forum Denver, CO Sept. 24, 2007

2. Some basic questions Why is interoperability desirable? Is it realistic to expect at this stage of the ERMS game? What are the challenges? Is this “standards” material?

3. Brief background Pre-2004: homegrown ERMS (Gold Rush, Vera, ERDb, ERLIC, HERMES, U of GA, MICH, MINN, VA, Yale, Harvard, Tri-College, Notre Dame, NCSU, Columbia, etc. etc.) 2004: ERMI Report Post 2004: Innovative ERM; Meridian, Verde, Serials Solutions ERM Now: Innovative ERM, Verde, 360Resource Manager (SS), other support services (EBSCO, Harrassowitz, Swets, etc.)

4. ERMS implementation 400-500 ERMS customers? Full or partial implementation Full or partial integration Home-grown solutions persist ERMS developing rapidly; but aren’t quite “there” yet

5. Why is interoperability desirable? ERMI Phase 2—White Paper Increasingly complex environments Licensing Consortia Usage statistics—SUSHI Cost per use Aggregation of data from various sources Staff savings, workflows That’s what we always wanted

6. Is interoperability realistic? The true state of ERMS today Playing in the library’s sandbox What is on the horizon? SUSHI ONIX for Licensing Terms ?? Basic functionality is today’s top priority

7. What are the challenges? Different vendors, different systems Holdings data Lack of permanent identifiers Lack of one-to-one correspondence between Acquisitions records, ERM records, MARC records, etc.

8. Desired acquisitions elements Basic set of data elements—keep it small Purchase order # Price Start/end dates Vendor name Vendor ID Fund code Invoice number Others=invoice date, selector, vendor contact information, interpreted price, payment notes, distributed payments

9. Why do we need a standard? We can’t do it alone Common understandings, common solutions Promote the need for standard identifiers Validates/enables new standards (e.g. SUSHI)

10. Outcomes Different (better) workflows Different metadata Promote further interoperability (subjects, publishers, etc.)

11. Thank-you!