December 17, 2013 Meeting of Content Access Policy & Technology (CAPT)

Agenda not yet available.

Tom Teper, Beth Sandore, Lisa Hinchliffe, Jenny Johnson, Robert Slater, Michael Norman, Bill Mischo, Sue Searing, Tim Cole

Web Migration (Content Management System End of Life/New Selection/Content Conversion)

The library gateway is a (the) critical component by which we provide access. We’ve been discussing the need to update or replace the current library CMS (openCMS) for the last two—nearly three—years. We’ve been working on getting new personnel hired to get the process started. WAG has been developing some guiding principles for future library gateway (re)designs. When we last did this seven years ago, it was a paired update- implementing a new Web CMS and converting content into it, along with developing a new library gateway. We aren’t saying that we will necessarily convert all content whole hog, since some libraries recently (like Virginia) have undertaken major ground up redesigns of all their content, reorganizing and weeding instead of only converting to a new system.

We are on the point of hiring one person for the CMS conversion/maintenance to work on the Web Team to work on selecting, testing, and implementing the new CMS (including automated content/module conversion).

The idea has been raised of having a point person reassigned to focus a lot of their attention on managing this re-design/conversion.

Discussion of metrics for analyzing current use. Discussion about implementing piwik for more comprehensive data analysis.

This current discussion is centered on what process we should use for getting the CMS and gateway conversion done: a committee, an outside consultant, or a project manager in the vein of the New Service Models.

We need to focus on the Gateway content/design versus technology infrastructure. Also, what role does WAG play in this, because the charge seems to encompass (or the 2-3 year timeline of major tasks) CMS selection and editorial oversight of the gateway. Some concern about WAG having the right expertise for taking the lead one this, since several members have never been through a conversion/redesign project of this scale.

What structure can we adopt to leverage the benefits of a committee (broad range of input) but have a more agile process (as opposed to the nearly three year long process undertaken for the last major gateway revision/content management system). Something we didn’t have during the last project was CAPT or any similar committee.

How will the January 7 All Staff meeting, and it’s topic of web content/development, play into this. Who will lead the discussion(s)?

PIXO is the name of the company in town (they did work on the current ALA web) centered on Drupal systems. Some members felt that the ALA web (re)design doesn’t exactly recommend them. Sue worked with them as part of a not for profit a few years ago, and felt that they wouldn’t get out of PIXO what they expected they would.

Our web site has transitioned from content based largely on organizational structure, to a hybrid, with the gateway in particular not reflecting the organization at all.

What about content not on the CMS/Library servers (hosted solutions like libguides, publish.illinois.edu, social media sites, etc.). With libuigdes the model is that we have an administrator that makes and applies some system-wide decision, and an advising committee that is consulted when decisions have a broader policy implication. They don’t make policies that can’t be enforced by the system. Any content/design approaches that can’t be required/checked/enforced by the libguides platform is suggested as a best practice.

During the last conversion, one thing people grappled with was the dearth of library-related imagery for use on their web site. What users want is a reasonably usable toolbox of content to implement in their own unit level and below content. The other issue was the challenge of using (and learning to use) a new system (and approach) to web content management.

If we follow the NSM approach, we need to make sure that the person in that role has the % time release they need as well as the necessary administrative support.

We need to get a good sense of a timeline for this project. We don’t want to roll out a new system that lacks some of the functionality and features of a replacement system. This may also be a time to identify little used features and rank them as low or not needed for conversion.

We have some analytics tools and data, so we can look at what is used, how little, how often.

We also need higher level requirements on what we want to do, versus the way we currently do it (in the CMS) as well as figuring out what migrates, and what does not, which will inform the matrix/RFP for evaluating and selecting a web content management system. WAG could advise on this requirements gathering work.

Maybe two teams, with some overlap. One team to scope out what is needed, then an implementation team with a point person to apply those requirements to a selection and implementation process.

Task Items: Robert- see how often certain modules and features in openCMS are being used. WAG- analyze what is being used on the Gateway. Robert and Sue: WAG could do requirements gathering, but doesn’t necessarily have the expertise to then apply that to CMS selection and implementation.

CARLI Next Task Force

The CARLI broad of directors has charged the I-Share Next task force. Coordinates and advises on all matters related to the selection of the next shared catalog for CARLI. CAPT should at least monitor this. The CARLI group’s timeline begins sometime this month. The project will be announced to libraries in January. The library directors will be getting some communications this week laying out the plan for the next 2-3 years. CARLI’s director will be coming to the CAPT February meeting to talk about this more with us. During the spring of 2014 there will be vendor presentation, collection of public comment, etc. Following that, they will be taking membership for the task force (on the RFP track). Timing can be critical in making an RFP for a library catalog. Because of some company bankruptcy/consolidation as well as insufficient capacity issues, several ILS vendors didn’t get serious consideration during the RFP (or didn’t respond at all). Lynne Wiley is our liaison to CARLI. Will she have the time/interest/capacity to take the lead role during this critical period of selecting a new ILS. We at least need a group of people doing requirements gathering and paying close attention to this process, even if Lynne remains the liaison person.

E-resource usage statistics

We have 100+ vendors providing web based content.10%-71% percent collection budget for e-resources 2001 vs 2013 (might have that date wrong). The library will be implementing EBSCO Usage Consolidation, and the will collect and collate our use data in the form of two annual reports.