1. IN IT TOGETHER: SELECTION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF ALMA/PRIMO AS A CONSORTIAL SYSTEM Ann Miller University of Oregon Eugene, Oregon USA

2. Central Oregon Comm. College Central Washington University Chemeketa Community College Clark College Concordia University Eastern Oregon University Eastern Washington University George Fox University Lane Community College Lewis & Clark College Linfield College Mt. Hood Community College Oregon State University Oregon Health & Science Univ. Oregon Institute of Technology Oregon State University Pacific University Portland Community College Portland State University Reed College Saint Martin’s University Seattle Pacific University Seattle University Southern Oregon University The Evergreen State College University of Idaho University of Oregon University of Portland University of Puget Sound University of Washington Walla Walla College Warner Pacific College Washington State University Western Oregon University Western Washington University Whitman College Willamette University

3. MAP OF ORBIS CASCADE ALLIANCE

4. 37 universities, colleges, and community colleges in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho 258,000 students 9.2 million titles representing 28.7 million items Group purchases of electronic resources at a value of over $9 million annually. Existing tradition of cooperation in resource sharing and collection building. History of working in OCLC and using Worldcat Local Looking to explore how to collaborate more fully in technical services THE ORBIS CASCADE ALLIANCE FIGURES AND VALUES

5. Operational costs duplicated across the consortium Existing system operated on an outdated platform Interest in facilitating technical services collaboration Prediction that institutions could save money by sharing WHY A CONSORTIAL PURCHASE?

6. Shared ILS Groups formed to review the possibility each year from 2009-2011 Shared ILS RFP in 2011-2012 (https://www.orbiscascade.org/rfp-for-shared- library-management/) Chose Ex Libris Alma/Primo in Spring 2012 4 Cohorts between Jan. 2013-Dec. 2014 – First went live in June 2013 – Six months each Libraries requested a cohort, record numbers were a factor, as well as confidential negotiation TIMELINE OF REVIEW AND DECISION ON A SYSTEM

7. Cohort 1 - Linfield College, Marylhurst University. Pacific University, University of Washington, Western Washington University, Willamette University Cohort 2 - Concordia University, Eastern Washington University, Evergreen State College, Lewis & Clark College, Portland Community College, Reed College, Saint Martin's University, Seattle Pacific University, University of Idaho, Warner Pacific College, Washington State University Cohort 3 - Clark College, Mt Hood Community College, Oregon Health & Science University, Oregon Institute of Technology, Portland State University, Southern Oregon University, University of Oregon, University of Portland, University of Puget Sound, Western Oregon University Cohort 4- Central Oregon Community College, Central Washington University, Chemeketa Community College, Eastern Oregon University, George Fox University, Lane Community College, Oregon State University, Seattle University, Walla Walla University, Whitman College COHORTS

8. Shared ILS Program Manager Shared ILS Implementation Team – chairs of: – Acquisitions WG – Cataloging WG – Circulation & Resource Sharing WG – Discovery WG – Serials/ERM WG – Systems WG – Training WG Implementation Leads grouped into Cohorts for communication STRUCTURE OF IMPLEMENTATION

9. Reviewed fulfillment policies Reviewed location codes Deleted order records based on university record retention policy Extracted bibliographic records for withdrawn material Reviewed and coded local bibliographic data (unfinished) Edited bibliographic, holdings and item records to ensure a smooth migration IMPLEMENTATION PREPARATION (UNIVERSITY OF OREGON)

10. 1.Initial configuration and migration forms due 7 months out from go live. 2.Data sample to Ex Libris 6 months out 3.Full data and test load (Alma) about 6 months out (loaded by groups within the cohort) 4.Primo configuration form 4 months out 5.3.5 months of data testing (Alma) 6.Primo testing 2 months out (C3 had 6 weeks due to Primo changes at the Alliance level which postponed it) 7.Technical freeze – Oregon’s lasted 4 weeks. 8.Within a cohort we had rolling go live dates of the course of one month IMPLEMENTATION (C3 EXAMPLE)

11. Functional workshops for Cohort 1 & 2 provided by Ex Libris Functional workshops for Cohort 3&4 provided by Cohort 1 & 2 In Cohort 1 Alma and Primo certification provided after go live. Now provided earlier Webinars have varied in quality, but are improving Weekly functional calls started with Cohort 2 TRAINING

12. Tab for NZ between IZ and CZ – search by all titles only (no inventory (as yet)) Alma IZ local inventory, order and fulfillment data NZ formed of OCLC master records held by Alliance members. Loaded daily Anytime the master record is updated a record comes in. Management presents a challenge, don’t want to give everyone access Let’s take a quick look SHARED SETUP AND STRUCTURE – ALMA AND THE NETWORK ZONE

13. Central Alliance installation at which some standard configuration is set for all Other than those there can be institutional branding and other configuration The 50 field display limit in Primo has been problematic Where and how local data displays has been a question One significant loss we perceive is the integration with Worldcat Local for identifying tangible resources outside the Alliance SHARED SETUP AND STRUCTURES - PRIMO

14. Summit pass through to NRE is working The move to central publishing has been problematic Across the board productivity has slowed Complexity makes diagnosis of problems difficult Monthly releases provide advantages and disadvantages – Advantages -New functionality and fixes – Disadvantages-New functionality and fixes Difficult to keep up with necessary policies Has strengthened ties between Alliance institutions and staff HOW IS THE SYSTEM WORKING?

15. To early to truly assess Center for Excellence Definitely need continuing development in some areas – Electronic resource management in the NZ – Summit 3 – consortial resource sharing – Ability to perform collection assessment from the NZ Alliance needs to develop its own support and management models Concern about “service exhaustion” among Alliance staff CONCLUSION