[LIBRARYDIR] Alma Contract Q & A

[Sue Kennedy]

Great questions, and discussion.

I do want to emphasize something about the draft contract resolution we will vote on by Friday:  The vote is about affirming the contract on a SYSTEM level as a statewide opt-in contract - the vote to affirm is NOT a confirmation of an individual institution's role in this project.

LLC is not authorized to approve the contract, but the state board (and WACTC, IC, and BAC through their explicit endorsement) our giving us (the content experts) the opportunity to affirm its viability on a SYSTEM level.

Basically - this is a system discussion, not an institution discussion. Ultimately, of course, the details will matter. The table included in the contract itself was to meet a technical requirement. How we move forward in implementation (who's in, how costs/funds are allocated, who goes when) are not part of the discussion on whether the contract meets our system needs.

See you all tomorrow online at 4 p.m. - if you have questions, before then, do please keep the dialog coming.

Best,
Sue

- - -
Sue Kennedy
Twitter: @SueWKennedy
(360) 736-9391 x304

From: LIBRARYDIR [mailto:librarydir-bounces at lists.ctc.edu] On Behalf Of Hersh-tudor, Andrew
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 10:22 AM
To: an open discussion list for WA CTC Library Directors
Subject: Re: [LIBRARYDIR] Alma Contract Q & A

Hi, Stan -

Re distributing the implementation costs on an FTE basis, I've confirmed with Abraham Rocha that the reason we have a fixed per-campus implementation cost in the contract is so we can show the State that it won't be left holding the bag for a total implementation cost if one or several campuses don't participate. We do have the option to reallocate the subscription cost.  The sheet I sent yesterday shows that scenario: a fixed implementation cost and an FTE-based distribution of the subscription cost.  It also includes the note that the latter may change depending on participation.

We are still working on the ongoing support model.  We will likely need to develop an organizational / support model working group immediately after contract signing to shape and finalize that.  There's quite a bit of preliminary work that has been done both internally and in discussions with the state board, and you can see that we are funding two positions in our financial model, but no, the structure has not been finalized.

Re the technical details, I'm with you - I hope that some folks with sharp eyes for things technical are reviewing that portion of the contract. As I said in our meeting last Friday, we have included quite a bit of technical information at the recommendation of the University of Wisconsin system representatives, who identified that as something they wish they had done in their contract with Ex Libris.

-Andrew
From: LIBRARYDIR [mailto:librarydir-bounces at lists.ctc.edu] On Behalf Of Horton, Stan
Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 4:30 PM
To: an open discussion list for WA CTC Library Directors
Subject: Re: [LIBRARYDIR] Alma Contract Q & A

I think the question I'm asking is "do these ideas sound reasonable." Now onto  some ideas that I'd need to have addressed before I could give my campus my opinion about joining into the project:

First, we need to nail down some ideas regarding the One-time fees. I know we are being asked to only affirm that the contract under discussion will indeed move us to a common ILS.  But without some overall assurance as to cost, that affirmation essentially becomes meaningless-I'm sure no President or Vice President would approve actually joining into the contract until the costs to their campus was known, and the distribution of those costs is an essential part of the answer to that question.


1.       The alma one-time setup fees which are specified in the contract, are the amounts Ex Libris needs to be paid to bring a particular library up.  HOWEVER, there is nothing in the contract that requires SBCTC or LLC to actually collect the money from the individual colleges that way.

2.       So, can we act like we historically have (this is both to LLC and to ORCA as precedents) and just charge their respective FTE percentage of the $1.2 million to the individual colleges.  We'd pay into the central coffers, just as we do now for other projects, but pay Ex Libris as they bill us?

3.       Doing this will result in a considerable difference in the amounts needed for a given college from the $500K subsidy.  In Grays Harbor's case, for example, my costs would drop from $47,155 to $18,241.  Give me $8,500 from the subsidy (rather than the $31,250 Andrew's model tossed out for consideration) and I'm on board.

4.       Since some schools actually do need more help than others, especially for schools that have not already automated under a modern, robust, integrated system (yes, I mean Follett!)  We'd want to strip off the needed extra help for them right at the beginning.

5.       Obviously this means the larger schools would be paying more than under the Ex Libris model.  They have done this before, and I'd hope that would continue.

Second, there is the issue of on-going support personnel.  Has any commitment been agreed to by SBCTC about managing this aspect of the continuing project?  I'm concerned on two accounts:

1.       Cost, again. That's an important part of the overall decision on any given campus.  Andrew's latest model gives numbers that work for me, so if that's OK by everyone, then we are good to go.

2.       How will this be managed?  I'd suggest that if at all possible, LLC adopt the ORCA model for this-we identify one school to manage the operation, thus ensuring LLC has the right to set job expectations, select personnel, make job assignments, evaluate, etc.  Quite honestly, I don't think we dare relinquish this right or responsibility to an entity that is not directly using the product of their labors.

3.       So, at this point we don't have time to pursue all the details of this idea but at least we should find out if (a) most of us agree to the concept and (b) if it's legal and administratively even possible.  ORCA did it, but ORCA is not LLC, so perhaps different rules apply.  I'd assume SBCTC would still be the fiscal agent, so that activity would not need to be part of the LLC school handing the support job.

Then third but not least, is the issue of the technical aspects of the contract itself.  I'm not good at seeing such things, so I'll agree with what somebody said at Friday's meeting: let's ask the known technical experts (I'm thinking Shellie, Dale, and Sally) to read and parse carefully to report back to us any concerns we might not have caught already.

And make headway before Wednesday so we can agree on things.

Stan



From: LIBRARYDIR [mailto:librarydir-bounces at lists.ctc.edu] On Behalf Of Sue Kennedy
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 2:45 PM
To: librarydir at lists.ctc.edu<mailto:librarydir at lists.ctc.edu>
Subject: [LIBRARYDIR] Alma Contract Q & A

Hi all,

As discussed at today's LLC meeting, we'll be having a Q&A follow-up session on the Alma contract. Look for information in the next couple of days for review. If you can submit questions in advance that would be great.

The session is on Wednesday, March 4th, at 4 p.m.

Here:  https://sas.elluminate.com/m.jnlp?sid=2008170&password=M.4C394CB514E2B1E546588AB726AB95

Thanks,
Sue

- - -
Sue Kennedy, Dean
Library | eLearning
Centralia College

Twitter: @SueWKennedy
(360) 736-9391 x304

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ctc.edu/pipermail/librarydir_lists.ctc.edu/attachments/20150303/7d6d534a/attachment.html>