Yale University Library

Present: Mary Angelotti, Matthew Beacom, Susan Burdick, Denise Hersey, Holly Grossetta Nardini, Carol Jones, Sue Lorimer (Chair), Wesley Most, Danuta Nitecki, George Ouellette, May Robertson

Absent: John Gallagher, Maureen Malone Jones

1. Announcements

   May announced that her full-time assistant, Diana Quinonas, has begun work.

   Carol mentioned that she attended a document delivery workshop in Washington where it was announced that the NCIP protocol will be delivered next week. Both Fretwell-Downing and Pigasus will begin testing it in real time.

   Sue mentioned that Steve Hargis of Pigasus has called to see where we are in our deliberations. He also clarified the fact that the price they quoted us (which coincides with the information now available on their website) is much better than that available through either Nelinet or NELCO (the Law Library consortium).

2. The system evaluation process (continued)

   Sue distributed copies of (a) our ratings of each of the vendor systems to date, and (b) corrected copies of the systems price comparison spreadsheet.

   Although half the group had not submitted their final ratings, we agreed that it was unlikely that the final results would differ much from those reflected in the current documents. ILLiad and Pigasus are the top contenders, with Pigasus a slight favorite.

   Carol made a strong case for selecting ILLiad. She argued that in two of our areas of concern -- service to readers and workflow enhancement -- it would give us immediate results: it provides a web-based patron interface, request tracking, and is more of an "out-of-the-box" product than either of the other two. There was discussion of its authentication system, but a call to the University of South Carolina verfied that it can import patron data hourly from a NOTIS system. Initial patron authentication is done by social security number, with the patron then entering a user name and password of his or her choice. There was some question whether this authentication process was now incorporated into the ILLiad software or whether there would be an additional charge for it.

   Carol expressed two concerns about Pigasus: the number of major libraries where this system was already implemented and the number of vendor support staff available.

   It was mentioned that if the Borrow Direct partners choose Fretwell-Downing's VDX as the software to support this service, we could then implement ILL management and intra-campus document delivery at no additional cost.

   Danuta joined the meeting at 2:00 and reported on funding concerns and the status of Borrow Direct software deliberations. To make our case for funding the software we select, we need to focus our arguments on how its implementation will (a) lead to process improvement (including direct patron service enhancement) and (b) increase staff productivity (which includes being able to accommodate increasing requests without an increase in staff). We need to make the case for delivering, over the next two years:

   • Management of traditional interlibrary loan functions (which all three systems provide)
     Simplification of processing for staff which will increase staff productivity
     Patron empowerment features

   • Expansion to integrate current Eli Express functions (ILLiad isn't there yet, but Pigasus and VDX are, with various amounts of tweaking)
   • Expansion to integrate current Borrow Direct functions by integrating peer-to-peer borrowing which is reliant on incorporating the reporting of status information into the search process (ILLiad isn't there yet, but this is central to both Pigasus and VDX)
   
   Danuta reported that there's a place holder in the FY02 budget, which Scott is working on now, for about $100,000 to build on the success of Borrow Direct. The Borrow Direct partners are considering VDX as a replacement for the current epixtech software, and Danuta has suggested that they consider Pigasus as well. She believes that the longer-term future of document delivery at Yale lies in the future of Borrow Direct and that there will be a decision on that software by February or March. Because of the difference in cost, choosing to implement ILLiad could be handled as a funding request in the next round of equipment requests in January.

   She then posed several questions to the Group:

   • Would the Group consider it worthwhile to implement software that would only bring us service and productivity improvements in traditional ILL functions?
   • What would the systems premium be?
   • Are we willing to implement ILLiad for possibly only one year? Can we say that the c.$25,000 one-year cost of ILLiad would be worth a one-year investement?
   • Do we want to wait to see what the Borrow Direct partners choose and perhaps not implement new service and productivity features until July-December 2001 (January 2002 would be more realistic)?
   
   The Group voted on the question "Is there value in moving more quickly, purchasing ILLiad, and beginning to grapple with the general issues involved with implementing an ILL management system?" The vote was 7 yes and 3 no. (This makes the document the Group must prepare an equipment request rather than an argument for a budget allocation.)

   A related question was posed, "If we say 'no' to the first question, how far do we want to delay choosing a system in order to see what the Borrow Direct partners select?" The consensus was no later than February/March 2001.

   The document that we must now prepare as the outcome of our deliberations will be written for Danuta (with the wider audience our Borrow Direct partners) and will be a summation of why we believe Pigasus should be our vendor of choice for the longer term.

Recorded by Suzanne Lorimer, suzanne.lorimer@yale.edu

RETURN TO SQIC HOMEPAGE

© 2000 Yale University Library.
Last modified December 7, 2000.
Send comments about this web site to the library web administrator at
Library Administrative Services.
This file is located at http://www.library.yale.edu/Administration/SQIC/SQIC161.html