Cornell University Library Staff Web Page

Back to LMS Committee Page | StaffWeb Index

Library Management System Evaluation Committee

LMS Meeting Notes, 3/3/97

1. We approved the minutes from our Feb. 10th gathering without revision.

Bill clarified a point he had tried to make at last week's meeting on object-oriented systems. The vendors using these systems (e.g. DRA) do not yet have any large installations in place. Thus, the infrastructure for these systems is pretty much unproven in institutions of our size. Zsuzsa remarked that by next year we may know a lot more about the efficacy of object-oriented systems and we may not want to rule them out, especially if our choice of a new LMS is deferred for some period of time.

2. The Steering Committee to choose the LMS has been appointed by SMG and will be meeting for the first time tomorrow. Lynne will be reporting to them on our progress. She will present:

• a consolidated list of who we are and who we're working with to help determine functional requirements for the new system
• a revised "Why Replace the Current System" document
• our espionage on various vendors

There was some discussion about this last point concerning whether or not to present a summary, rather than a pile of reports. David pointed out that the Steering Committee is likely to have its own espionage, and Tim remarked that a summary always involves some discretionary editing and puts a stamp on the information that may be misleading. Zsuzsa agreed with Tim, pointing out that edited reports end up being too general and one-sided (e.g. 'everybody hates vendor A'). We decided that Lynne would forward this gossip to the Steering Committee pretty much unedited and they could come to their own conclusions (including whether or not to read it all).

3. Lynne will also be reporting the results of our voting and the voting process to the Steering Committee. There was further discussion on the number of vendors we should invite and which factors, if any, should lead us to categorically eliminate any of the possibilities. Although we are still not in agreement over whether or not to exclude vendors using object-oriented systems, we did seem to reach a consensus that it would be helpful to have a two-tiered evaluation process, with minimal technological requirements taking precedence over functional requirements (evidently Harvard has gone this route). Bill will prepare something for us which will cover these technological issues. He also warned us that older systems will appear more functionally rich than the newer generation products and that we should not fall into the trap of prefering the dinosaurs over the technologically stronger newbies. Several folks remarked about the inclusion of Ameritech in our tentative list of invitees for financial reasons alone (not one of the criteria we were asked to take into consideration).

4. Representatives for the various functional areas gave updates on the status of their lists of minimum requirements for the new LMS:

• Susan (Access Services): She and Howard Raskin have completed the first draft. There will be a meeting tomorrow to review it. It will then be run by the Access Services Program Committee and some selected staff members. She hopes to have a finalized list ready in a week or so.
• Scott (Acquisitions): He still has a list compiled through some brainstorming in November, 1995. His group will be meeting on Wednesday to begin reviewing and updating this document.
• Jim (Tech Services): He and Diane ran a preliminary list by the Working Group on Cataloging a couple of weeks ago. The group is now reviewing a second draft by e-mail. They hope to have a final version of the list by the end of the third week of March.
• Anne (Full Text and Preservation): Her group will be meeting soon and will have something by the end of the month.
• Linda (Fund Accounting): So far, only she and Ann Augustine have been working on their list of requirements, but she'll be soliciting input from the statutory accounting offices on what they're looking for in the new system.
• Elaine (Archives): Her group is still at work. They will also be putting together some image technology requirements, which she will share with us.
• Zsuzsa (Public Services): She and Fred will be coordinating the OPAC requirements, but the process is currently on hold while Fred is out of town.
• Bill, Tim, and Nancy (Technology): Bill and Mike Garcia have put together a draft, which they've shared with Tim, Nancy, Lynne, et al. After folks have had sufficient time to make comments, Bill and Mike will write up a more polished document.
• David (Collection Development): CDExec has already presented its list. Lynne remarked that our collective requirements will probably be used as a basis for an RFP.

5. Lynne outlined some of the things that will happen during the vendor visits. She expects that the vendor reps will meet privately with the Steering Committee to discuss money, financial stability of the company, etc. Hopefully, we'll be able to arrange a large meeting for all interested library staff at which the vendors can give a general demo and make their marketing pitch, followed by breakout sessions with the functional groups. She also envisions a separate meeting of technology people to do a technical review.

6. In response to queries and suggestions from the rest of the group, Lynne will query the Steering Committee on: (a) what their expectations are, (b) what they might think about Cornell assuming a co-development role in a new system, and (c) whether they would consider a non-integrated system (for example, cataloging on OCLC or RLIN rather than in the local system).

Recorder: Jim LeBlanc

Back to LMS Committee Page | StaffWeb Index

rev. 3/31/97 dih