OhioLINK Update Vol. 15 • Fall 2009 Even in Tough Economic Times Special Issue Reinventing OhioLINK - progress report

e first reported on the need and economics for students, Notwithstanding reduced state appropriations 4) minimizing at a statewide level the long- to the programs within the ETD, a coordinated to reinvent OhioLINK in the W term capital and operating costs of storing, effort will maximize the effectiveness of the Fall 2006 Update. http://www.ohiolink. preserving and providing improved access to resources we do have. edu/about/update/fall2006/fall06.pdf. Much current and future library materials, thought has gone into this need since then. 5) implementing centrally new software tools Electronic Content Licensing - This Update reports on our progress. for information management and access that Refinancing and Reprioritizing can be utilized at all campuses, The OhioLINK state appropriation for fiscal A Necessary Strategic 6) coordinating library operations across Ohio 2010 (began July 2009) is reduced 13% from to expand cost efficiencies and savings, and the original fiscal 2009 appropriation. With Information Utility for Ohio 7) collaborating with other Ohio information The current state, national, and international electronic content licenses (ECLs) representing dependent groups (e.g. public libraries, K-12, financial crisis highlights the need for Ohio the majority of OhioLINK operating expenses, and business incubators) to enhance the to successfully develop the University System OhioLINK’s $8.1 million share of $35.0 Million quality of education, research, and economic of Ohio (USO) http://www.uso.edu/ . Ohio in statewide ECLs must be reduced by $1.6M. development beyond OhioLINK’s core must have a globally competitive educational That reduction also provides for a reserve fund constituencies. system to fuel its economic development. In and support of the strategic initiatives to carry turn, for the USO to succeed it requires access us successfully into the future as noted in this to the world’s scholarship, research, and Organizing for Success Update. information. OhioLINK’s goals are to provide The Strategic Plan for Higher Education that access. http://www.uso.edu/strategicplan/ calls for an The OhioLINK library community is working integrated Educational Technology Division cooperatively to minimize the loss of access (ETD) built around a shared technology to key resources by absorbing the reductions infrastructure. The Ohio Board of Regents, in OhioLINK ECLs shares. Given the overall OhioLINK, OARnet, and Ohio Learning Network, weakness in current library budgets there all serving higher education, have common will be limitations. Fortunately, 2010 fees will or overlapping missions and technology average flat versus 2009. This will help libraries needs. Likewise organizations such as decide to what extent they can increase their eTech Ohio serving the K-12 community $27.9M 2009 share of the statewide licenses. have similar agendas and needs. These organizations are pooling and re-organizing Beyond these necessary short-term actions, their information technology staff into new the OhioLINK community must determine groups sharing common skill sets to better the most important content additions to serve all constituencies. This will result in more support the goals of the USO. Group action efficiency by combining the separate systems will continue to be the most cost efficient administration staff into one group and doing means to do so. We are looking across the the same for the software development staff. breadth of academic disciplines for the most valuable resources we can make available to Simultaneously, the now separate computer faculty and students. As part of this effort we server and storage systems are being migrated are evaluating the key information resources to a single large scale Shared Infrastructure that are needed to support the 2008 Ohio (SI). The SI is significantly larger in capacity Research Scholars programs. We will produce

than the multiple platforms currently in place. a blueprint of resources that will most Its initial capacities include 500 terabytes of effectively support the USO’s Strategic Plan. We can do this by; storage, 2 petabytes of backup tape capacity, 1) providing Ohio researchers comprehensive and 16 high performance HP Proliant blades. electronic access to the historical and latest Digital Resource Commons The SI will dramatically expand our collective global scientific research at economically (DRC) – To a State Repository ability to serve the needs of Ohio’s educational affordable and sustainable rates, The DRC is already the largest DSpace communities and at the same time be more 2) providing the necessary array of electronic repository in the US and the second largest efficient to support through the use of library services and resources to support in the world. Offering institutionally branded common technology and single organization. the full range of core curricular needs from repository web sites joined together through vocational programs to preparation for a four- federated searching, it enables all Ohio higher Another positive consequence of an ETD is year degree, education institutions to create, store, and our ability to pool financial resources. This 3) creating new models for electronic make accessible digital information without will facilitate the alignment of our staff and textbooks that improve the learning outcomes technology infrastructure to shared priorities. continued on page 2 Reinventing (continued from page 1) duplicative local repository platforms. To ensure that OhioLINK continues to along with modularity may expand flexibility provide the highest quality service at the and options. We will need to consider a We want to do even more with the DRC. In lowest possible cost through institutional wide range of options and design our own keeping with the strategy to leverage the use cooperation a redesigned OhioLINK system approach through this complex set of needs of common technologies, the ETD is beginning will: and options; the development of a Statewide repository that will extend the DRC and integrate (1) Interface with or be interoperable with 5) Any redesign of OhioLINK must meet the with eTech’s Ohio iTunes project. This new the systems of Ohio’s public and school diverse needs of our different libraries and repository will provide a shared platform that libraries in order to participate in statewide their institutions. The differences between serves both organizations and their clientele. resource sharing. The State Library, with the the very small and the very large libraries and Multiple services can be offered to a variety of participation of OhioLINK, is developing a the differences between libraries at two-year, constituencies but the underlying technical statewide resource sharing system (SWRS) undergraduate, and graduate institutions platform will be shared and supported more using an open source software vendor; must be acknowledged and taken into efficiently. consideration. (2) Increase the efficiency and effectiveness of Reinventing OhioLINK After 20 technical services and processes in managing The bottom line is that any new system Years – OhioLINK 2.0 both print and digital materials. The overall must be able to demonstrate productivity objective of any redesign is to cut costs When OhioLINK was created twenty years ago improvements and spending efficiencies. The which can be redirected to other essential it was a fundamental change in how libraries goal is also to foster increased collaboration operations. Shared or coordinated technical provided services and how their behind-the- and mutual growth within higher education service operations offers the potential to scenes operations were conducted. After and with other Ohio educational and consolidate operations, reduce the number years of isolated print-based operations, information-using communities. of local systems, and use newer, cheaper libraries were transformed into computerized technologies; institutions electronically connected to create OhioLINK 2.0 – A multiple Step opportunities for cooperation. (3) Improve the flexibility of the system Process by placing as few limits on scalability as The effort to examine these issues has been Twenty years ago OhioLINK took the new practically possible. OhioLINK’s current organized for the past year as the Catalog, concept of a local integrated library system system has reached limits, both technological Cataloging, and Integrated Library System (ILS) and exploded it into a successful and fiscal, which have effectively stalemated Architecture (CatArch) Steering Committee. As statewide resource sharing system. The ILS, OhioLINK’s efforts to add new libraries, we move to implement the recommendations which made the change to computerization especially Ohio public libraries; of the CatArch group to fundamentally possible twenty years ago, has now reinvent our core OhioLINK and library developed its own set of internal limitations (4) Increase the adaptability of the system ILS systems, the effort is now being called and constraints, hampering the ability of to meet future changes. This will be a OhioLINK 2.0. libraries to operate efficiently and to quickly developmental project, as opposed to a adapt to technological and societal changes. procurement of a replacement ILS system. Any recommended OhioLINK redesign project Additionally, with fiscal resources constrained Open source development or collaboration will be very complex with multiple, inter- and expected to remain so in the future, the need for Ohio academic libraries to reduce continued on page 3  Baldwin-Wallace Coll. costs and to operate more efficiently is even  Lourdes College  Case Western Reserve Univ.  Mery College of NW OH  Cleveland Clinic COM  Owens CC more pronounced. It is time to change again.   Cleveland State University Univ. ofToledo  KSU Ashtabula  Univ. ofToledo-Health Sci.  Cuyahoga CC  Lakeland CC  John Carroll University But already having made the transfer into  Notre Dame College Toledo  Saint Mary Seminary  KSU Geauga  Ursuline College a computerized environment and having  Northwest State CC  Defiance Coll.  Lorain CCC Cleveland   BGSU created a cooperative community, this change Terra CC  Oberlin College  KSUTrumball  Bowling Green Firelands State Univ.  HiramCollege  Univ. must consider more fundamentally what tasks  Heidelberg Coll.  Kent State University  Tiffin Univ. of Akron  NEOUCOM can be done differently or not at all to make  Univ. of Findlay  Youngstown  Ashland U.  MaloneCollege State Univ. the system more efficient and effective.  Coll. ofWooster  Mt. Union College  North Central   KSU E. Liverpool  Bluffton Univ. State Coll./OSU  OSU ATI/OARDC Stark State Coll.  James a Rhodes  Ohio Northern University  UAWayne ofTech/KSU Stark  KSU Salem Mansfield State College/OSU Lima  Walsh University Our existing system cannot be cost-effectively  MarionTech.College/ OSU Marion expanded, enhanced or modified. It limits  WSU Lake KSUTuscarawas   Kenyon College Franciscan Univ. of  � our participation in statewide resource  Mt.Vernon Nazarene Univ. Steubenville  Antioch College MethodistTheological School in OH  Jefferson CC � sharing efforts, and lacks capabilities which  Cedarville Univ. OhioWesleyan U. �  Central OhioTech.College/ �  Central State Univ.  Urbana Univ. OSU Newark are essential to the effective operation of  SinclairCC Columbus  Denison Univ. BelmontTech.College  �  Edison CC  Muskingum College  Univ. of Dayton OU Eastern  �  Clark State CC  Capital University  Zane State College/ today’s academic libraries. It may be no  Wright State Univ. �  Wittenberg University  ColumbusColl. of Art &Design OSUZanesville  Wilberforce Univ.  Columbus State CC longer necessary or advisable for OhioLINK  Dayton  Franklin University OU Lancaster to be dependent on a single ILS vendor. In  Miami University  Mt.Carmel Coll. of Nursing  MU Hamilton  Ohio Dominican University Marietta College  � addition, even with the ILS, the basic backroom  MU Middletown  Ohio State University  �  Wilmington College  Otterbein College Washington State CC operations of libraries have not changed to the  PontificalCollege Josephinum  HockingCollege  State Library of Ohio  Ohio University extent necessary to efficiently and effectively  TrinityLutheran Seminary Cincinnati  UC Clermont  Southern State CC provide services in the 21st Century for a  Athenaeum of Ohio  Ohio Christian Univ.  Cincinnati Christian Univ.  OU Chillicothe University of Rio mostly electronic collection.  Cincinnati State Tech. & CC Grande & CC  �  College of Mt. St. Joesph Shawnee State Univ.  �  Univ. of Cincinnati �  UC RaymondWalters  OU Southern  Xavier University 2 OhioLINK Update • Fall 2009 Reinventing (continued from page 2) dependent steps or phases over multiple Building a Foundation in This will involve harvesting, transforming, and years. To avoid failure each of the proposed Practice for OhioLINK 2.0 computing relevancy rankings for disparate metadata sets, and returning results to search steps must be parsed to no more than six or The Group Technical Services Task Force queries in such a way that other applications eight months and avoid as much as possible #2 (GTS2) was formed in August 2008 in can make use of the data. Most data may any massive one-time switch or migration. response to a call to the OhioLINK library be universally available to all institutions An evolutionary approach will allow for directors to form a “Coalition of the Willing” changes and additions along the way as to experiment with cooperative technical but some metadata sets will be limited to technology rapidly evolves. Many decisions services operations. This experimentation particular member institutions. can be delayed until earlier steps are under was done within the context of the work of development or implemented without the CatArch Steering Committee and provides The initial dataset for the unified index compromising the end result. a working laboratory to inform our work to is expected to include records from create OhioLINK 2.0. approximately 60 sources comprising roughly Subject to this evolutionary approach, the 220 million records. The initial set of remote CatArch group has proposed a potential The GTS2 has made recommendations to databases for federated search includes about step-wise path. Steps foreseen that will take pilot work and concepts of shared 40 sources. Plus, each member institution will be investigated include 1) migration to a expertise, training, coordinated collection want to add resources to the system for local new central catalog that will allow resource development and cooperative use of vendor subscriptions. sharing across the K-12, public, and academic services to new levels that can become more libraries; 2) modification of our flow of catalog broadly used now and evolved on a day-to- records to reduce duplicates and minimize day basis. The Database Management and cataloging costs; 3) migration of the circulation Standards and the Cooperative Information function to the central system; 4) migration of Resource Management committees have cataloging, acquisitions and serials to some been charged with addressing these major form of functional or regional hubs. recommendations. To get started we are forming various committees to create specific functional Creating a 21st Century requirements, define the technical Discovery Layer environment, and more. It is important that Librarians are well aware that many users participation be from a broad spectrum of begin their academic work with Web search representatives including members from our engines rather than at the library or library current standing committees, library directors Web site. We also know that many users have and the ETD technology community. The trouble identifying relevant library resources, major committees being formed this fall are: and consider library Web sites and electronic resources difficult to use. Our clientele of Web Maximizing the Regional (1) OPAC/Cataloging Functional Requirements users now expect: Library Depositories (RLDs) (2) PCIRC/Circulation Functional Requirements Efficiency (3) Acq/Serials Functional Requirements *Simple access: single search box, with option The 1980’s original concept of Ohio academic (4) Systems Design and Architecture (SDAC) for advanced search library cooperation included as essential (5) OhioLINK 2.0 Implementation Steering *Comprehensive access: single search provides components both a more effective means to Committee access to “everything” in a display ordered by store and access physical resources and a new relevance to the user’s query shared electronic catalog and services. Neither The SDAC is charged with defining the *Social computing: users help each other by could succeed without the other. Under past infrastructure on which OhioLINK 2.0 will be adding personal terminology and comments practices, each of the five depositories have built. Creating specifications for the technical *Attractiveness and design: Web pages which operated independently on a regional basis. components of the system includes hardware, are appealing in appearance and intuitive to software, operating system, and networking use With at least four now at capacity it is based on the work of the three functional financially impractical to request state support requirements committees. In response, the Discovery Layer Task Force for four simultaneous new modules. Clearly created a definition of our needs, an analysis a commitment to increased coordination The Steering Committee serves as the of alternatives, and a recommendation based and adoption of the principle of community oversight group to which the three functional on an RFP process. As a result of their work shared repositories provide an opportunity requirements committees and the SDAC the ETD will work with Index Data to create a to be more efficient and limit the investment report. This committee will 1) provide suite of tools and services that all educational needed at any point in time. oversight to the work of the standing or any institutions can use. specially formed committees by maintaining The commitment to operate at a coordinated, the overall view of the project, and 2) maintain The best course of action is to build a pre- statewide level has been embraced by the the timeline in order to keep the work moving computed index of as much metadata as public university library directors and is being forward. possible while using a federated search tool put into action. Major first steps include the to query remaining databases for which migration of the five repository catalogs to metadata is not available for pre-indexing. a shared library system and undertaking a Results from the pre-computed index and the coordinated de-duplication effort of bound federated search will be available through the journals. new interface.

Fall 2009 • OhioLINK Update 3 OhioLINK Member and Participating Institutions with Installation Dates OhioLINK Update Antioch College, 1999 Mount Vernon Nazarene University, 1996 Ashland University, 1999 Muskingum College, 1999 The OhioLINK Update, published The Athenaeum of Ohio, 1999 North Central State College, 1994 Baldwin-Wallace College, 1999 Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine, 1993 annually, provides information on the Belmont Technical College, 1995 Northwest State Community College, 1996 developments of the Ohio Library and Bluffton University, 1999 Notre Dame College, 1999 Information Network (OhioLINK). Bowling Green State University, 1992 Oberlin College, 1995 Capital University, 1996 Ohio Christian University, 2008 Case Western Reserve University, 1992 Ohio Dominican University, 1997 OhioLINK, an initiative of the Ohio Board Cedarville University, 1996 Ohio Northern University, 1995 of Regents, is a consortium of Ohio’s Central Ohio Technical College, 1994 The Ohio State University, 1994 Central State University, 1992 Ohio University, 1994 college and university libraries and the Cincinnati Christian University, 1999 Ohio Wesleyan University, 1996 State Library of Ohio. OhioLINK serves Cincinnati State Technical and Community College, 1995 Otterbein College, 1999 more than 600,000 students, faculty, staff Clark State Community College, 1995 Owens Community College, 1995 The Cleveland Clinic, 2002 Pontifical College Josephinum, 2007 and other researchers at 90 institutions. Cleveland State University, 1994 Rhodes State College, 1994 College of Mount St. Joseph, 1996 Saint Mary Seminary & Graduate School of Theology, 2008 Eric D. Fingerhut, Chancellor of the Ohio The College of Wooster, 1996 Shawnee State University, 1994 Columbus College of Art & Design, 2000 Sinclair Community College, 1994 Board of Regents Columbus State Community College, 1994 Southern State Community College, 1994 Cuyahoga Community College, 1994 Stark State College of Technology, 1994 Tom Sanville, Executive Director, Defiance College, 1999 State Library of Ohio, 1994 Denison University, 1996 Terra Community College, 1995 OhioLINK Edison Community College, 1995 Tiffin University, 1999 Franciscan University of Steubenville, 1999 Trinity Lutheran Seminary, 2007 The Update is available online at Franklin University, 2002 University of Akron, 1993 Heidelberg College, 1999 University of Cincinnati, 1992 www.ohiolink.edu/about/publications. Hiram College, 1997 University of Dayton, 1994 Hocking College, 1995 The University of Findlay, 1999 For more information, contact: Jefferson Community College, 1995 University of Northwestern Ohio, 2008 John Carroll University, 1998 University of Rio Grande & RGCC, 1995 Editor Kent State University, 1994 University of Toledo, 1994 OhioLINK Update Kenyon College, 1996 Urbana University, 2000 35 E. Chestnut St. Lakeland Community College, 1995 Ursuline College, 1997 Lorain County Community College, 1995 Walsh University, 2004 Columbus, OH 43215 Lourdes College, 2002 Washington State Community College, 1996 (614) 485-6722 [email protected] Malone College, 1999 Wilberforce University, 1999 Marietta College, 1999 Wilmington College, 1999 Marion Technical College, 1994 Wittenberg University, 1997 Mercy College of Northwest Ohio, 2004 Wright State University, 1992 Methodist Theological School in Ohio, 2007 Xavier University, 1996 Miami University, 1992 Youngstown State University, 1993 Mount Carmel College of Nursing, 1999 Zane State College, 1994 www.ohiolink.edu Mount Union College, 1999

4 OhioLINK Update • Fall 2009