Interoperability with ILS Acquisition Systems Why is it important to make sure your ILS and ERM are interoperable?

Angela Riggio, UCLANISO E-Resource Management Forum

Denver, CO Sept. 24, 2007

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?

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.)

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

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

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

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.

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

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)

Outcomes

Different (better) workflows Different metadata Promote further interoperability (subjects,

publishers, etc.)

Thank-you!