Bonnie Tijerina (@bonlth) presented a workshop at the INFO 2012 Conference in Tel Aviv, Israel. The workshop entitled, "E-Resource Management, Workflow, and Discovery in the Digital Age" presented a summary of eresources management work drawing from work presented at the 2012 Electronic Resources and Libraries Conference (@ERandL). More information about the conference can be found at www.electroniclibrarian.org
Presented by Bonnie TijerinaResearched, authored and created by: ReetaSinha (La Verne College), Jill Emery (Portland State University), and Bonnie Tijerina (ER&L and Claremont Colleges Library).
WORK ON THIS SLIDE
Since we’re here to talk about ER&L and what happened there, I thought I’d start with looking a little at the meeting and give you a sense of what it was like to attend.
Included (in bold)eresources35.79%director/ associate director8.95%serials6.96%acquisitions5.96%collections6.16%technical/tech services5.96%health/medical5.96%sales/ marketing5.77%digital3.58%catalog2.39%content management1.79%product managers1.59%project managers1.59%access1.59%VP/ vice presidents1.19%professor0.99%assessment0.80%discovery0.80%contract/ license0.60%social science0.60%consultant0.60%web technology0.40%
Tracks are updated by ER&L’s Program Planning committee as needed.
1997: We begin to see big products created that will have an impact on libraries. The beginning of JSTOR had a big impact on libraries move from print to electronic resources.2001: The resources are increasing for the next 4-5 years. Libraries need support in managing it all. Companies attempt to help manage e-resources. Link resolvers are created to connect citations found in one place (like an A&I db) wth paid subscritions. These were early tools in the management of e-resources. We are also seeing people creating their own local tools to get work done. Presentations on homegrown databases pop up around 2001. Colleagues from UCLA, Cornell, the University of Washington, Yale and California Digital Library began their work on creating the data elements for a E-Resources Management tool. This group came together mostly because librarians needed a way to manage license terms, not something they had to worry about before now.2003: The conversation started to move to bringing together all of these dispersed e-resources. Metasearch tools begin to appear2004: Commerical ERMS are on the market2005: ER&L begins2009: In the big research libraries, more e than p was being purchased. – big shift2010/11: discovery is the hot new thing2012: Demand driven tools – Ebooks, Get It Now from Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) complements your interlibrary loan services by providing library patrons with the immediate fulfillment of full-text articles from unsubscribed journals- 24 hours a day, 7 days a week- through a cost-effective, and easy-to-use application integrated into your ILL workflow and/or OpenURL Link Resolver. GIST - CyrilleOberlander's homegrown system (he's at SUNY Geneseo). It works with ILLiad to allow a purchasing form instead of just plain ILLFuture– an area where I see more management necessary is open access resources – keeping up with changing platforms and urls, publishers, etc.
The e-resources life cycle, attributed to OilverPesch, EBSCO
The e-resources life cycle (expanded), attributed to OilverPesch, EBSCONot easy to manage eresourcesMy talk this morning is based on parts of the life cycle
TERMS began as a discussion between Graham Stone in the UK & Jill Emery in the US and developed into a set of mechanisms for trying to gather the best practices being employed in Western Europe & the US. The lifecycle points used are slightly different than the points used by the ERM workflow committee. The points used here are: Investigate, Acquire, Implement, Evaluate, Review, Cancel/Replace.
There are six key practice components listed under each lifecycle points. To date, we've gathered workflows from at least five participants and hope to grow the workflow documents in the future.AT ER&L, Jill Emery hosted roundtable discussions on each of these topics
The discussions from ER&L and other conferences are posted in a few places.The decision to use facebook & Tumblr was made so the best practices could be relatively interactive, social, and readily available to multiple participants. To date, there are 151 facebook group members, 133 followers via twitter & 16 followers directly of the Tumblr blog.
The intent is to try to create an open wiki-version with editors from around the world to help edit the entries as suggestions & new content comes in. Graham Stone is working with JISC to figure out how to best make this happen. Jill & Graham are also working on various conference program proposals to talk more widely about the project in 2013 as well as publishing the current TERMS in April 2013.
While the list of criteria used by libraries to select/evaluate e-resources can be long, most fall into these categories. Content and Cost may be the most variable as access and technical aspects have flattened across the major content-providers (aggregators and publishers). Most major providers provide Counter-compliant usage reports and permit branding/customization, for example.
Single-user vs. multiple (some major databases still price according to number of simultaneous users – GALE’s Lit Resource or ebrary/EBSCOhost eBooks, for example.
Key clauses/terms for most e-resource licensesCountry rights, in my experience, have popped up for eBooks—akin to print eds.: some titles ‘available for sale only in the UK.’ Not so much an issue for FT databasesAt ER&L 12, we had workshops on negotiations and licensing.
There are new models for collecting and acquiring materials. One popular topic right now in the US is Demand/patron-driven acquisitions.I think it’s for a number of reasons.These are the major aspects of an eBook DDA service and workflow. Available from most major eBook suppliers (ebrary, EBL, MyiLibrary). EBSCO’s service not released yet.New titles: Non-subject parameters = format, price, audience level.2. Bibliographic records: Discovery ‘pool’ – can be loaded weekly (YBP profile) or periodically (EBL, ebrary have monthly load option)5. Automated ordering: through book vendor such as YBP vs. eBook supplier will send invoice but libraries may have to created POs manually
UNLV – budget issues, data-driven decision-making, customer-service oriented, less time for librarians to select (because of embedded lib program)Pilot PDA projectYbp/ebrary Information at point of need Already aggressive to collecting ebooks (half of approval plan was epreferred)Interesting trends:Patrons are finding the books and using themIt’s very seamlessFor staff, there was a lot of work on the tech services side at first 70-80% are tied up in short term loaning, not in buying books (same trend amongst other libraries doing PDA)Traditional collection + new business model
Colorado State – example using an approval plan through YBPPat’s results:Saved moneyFaculty library committee wants to continue print and ebookpda serviceOpening up for more titleNo frivolous use
“Successfully integrating an eBook DDA service with your existing collection management strategy“ Patricia Smith, Colorado State University. ER&L 2012. Austin, TX.
Displayed at ER&L by Ebrary and YBP rep.
Do your users use eBooks?
Lifecyclestaff responsibility matrixstaff interviewsworkflow diagramsanalysisassessment of best practicesrecommendations
staff interviewsInterviews were translated into diagrams
20 legal size pieces of paper
What the anaylsis showedThey implemented obvious changes to problem areas of their workflowsHow they plan on assessing – head of assessment and planning at duke helped them measure and assess the effectiveness of their new best practice in their workflows
Proactive troubleshooting strategies to provide quality control and make it easy for patrons to report errorsWork with vendors and products to improve the users’ experienceExtensive cross-trainingLeverage tools and technology to maximize efficienciesImplement ways to expedite loading of MARC recordsImprove transparency of e-resource workflow
Useful reports function in JIRA
Created versus resolved issues report by week during a semester.
ERM Workflow Committee presentation story – this group came out of the DLF ERMI group.Making Good on the Promise of ERM: A Standards and Best Practices Discussion PaperThis publication is the outcome of the NISO Electronic Resource Management (ERM) Data Standards and Best Practices Project, a successor to the Digital Library Federation’s Electronic Resources Management Initiative (ERMI). The project’s primary goals were to perform a “gap analysis” of standards and best practices and make recommendations on the future of the ERMI Data Dictionary. The standards review and findings focused on five categories: link resolvers and knowledge bases; the work, manifestations, and access points; cost and usage-related data; license terms; and data exchange using institutional identifiersAlso included is an evaluation of how ERM systems could improve their workflow support & shortcoming in most existing systems and a detailed workflow best practices bibliography along with a list of illustrative workflow diagrams.http://www.niso.org/news/pr/view?item_key=b93c495341167780c8cbb46a007b186e652d0492
The new generation of user think, process and manage info differently from their predecessors, all leading to changed needs and expectations.They take an active role in choosing their info providersAs customers they: expect and want more personalization and instant gratification are collaborative and mulitaskers learn experimentally through trial and error rather than by formal learning and reading prefer non-linear access to information respond better to graphic than text expect highly intuitive interfaces and convenience
Why measure?Highusage may be an indicator of demand—we may be able to infer that high-use resources are relevant to what users need/wantAlso, data-driven decision-making is more and more the norm—collection building used to be a more subjective activity. No longer can that be the case with budgetary pressures and need for accountability.
1. ‘Journal Usage Statistics Portal (JUSP) helping libraries measure use and impact’ J. Lambert Mimas, U of Manchester. ER&L 2012COUNTER-searches, sessions, downloads, turnaways (by title, month to month).2. All interesting for understanding user behavior3. SNIP: Source-Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) measures contextual citation impact by weighting citations based on the total number of citations in a subject field. The impact of a single citation is given higher value in subject areas where citations are less likely, and vice versa.Impact factor: a measure reflecting the average number of citations to recent articles publishedEigenfactor: uses algorithms use the structure of the entire network (instead of purely local citation information) to evaluate the importance of each journal.
It’s one thing to collect data and another to actually make it meaningful“http://www.slideshare.net/kramsey/getting-the-most-out-of-your-eresources-measuring-success.” 2009Todd Carpenter, Managing Director NISO
California Digital Library - Value-based strategy utilizing objective metrics to calculate the value of scholarly journals“The strategy involves using objective metrics to calculate the value of scholarly journals and identify titles that make a greater or lesser contribution to the University’s mission of teaching, research, and public service. The value-based process is objective and quantifiable and is based on measures of utility, quality, and cost effectiveness, with a goal of alignment to UC’s user communities and programmatic needs.The CDL now uses this strategy for ongoing planning and review of its eJournal packages. Each eJournal is assigned an overall value of High, Medium Low or Very Low based on it’s score.“How much value does our institution derive from Journal X compared to other journals that we license in the same discipline?” where ‘value’ is defined as a combined measure of quality, utility, and cost-effectiveness”“Calculating scholarly journal value through objective metrics.” Feb. 13, 2012, Jacqueline Wilson & Chan Lihttp://www.cdlib.org/cdlinfo/2012/02/13/calculating-scholarly-journal-value-through-objective-metrics/
JSTOR analysis of usage-ERL 2012—analyzed turnaways and saw that many were for content that was out of copyrightAlso noticed that students coming in from outside library didn’t realize they had FT access, so proxy re-direct implemented, helping increase library usageUsage and turnaway data by discipline aids libraries in their collection development and liaison activities for those disciplines
Quote from:“Be realistic, demand the impossible: Comparison of 4 Discovery Tools using real data at the EPFL (EcolePolytechniqueFederale Lausanne).” D. Aymonin, et al. http://infoscience.epfl.ch/record/172947p.2, 1st paragraph
Federated search=slow results; results not always relevant; not all of library’s eResources may be accessed.
“Web scale discovery services for the library environment are an evolution holding great potential to easily connect researchers with the library’s vast information repository. By preharvesting and centrally indexing content sourced across multiple silos, Web scale discovery services hold the promise to fundamentally improve and streamline end user discovery and delivery of content. Such content includes physical holdings, such as books and DVDs; local electronic content, such as digital image collections and institutional repository materials; and remotely hosted content purchased or licensed by the library, such as e-books and publisher or aggregator content for thousands of full-text and abstracting and indexing resources.” J.Vaughn. “Web Scale Discovery: What & Why.” Library Technology Reports. January 2011. Vol. 47, #1. p.5-11Discovery services=faster results because indexes are being searched, not databases—harvesting of metadata
All services are relatively newhttp://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/dxml/bitstream/handle/1944/1623/14.pdf?sequence=1“Searching Online Resources in a new Online Environment: A State-of-theArtReview.”D.RPradhan, et al. Univ of Goa, India—brief overview of each service, plus how we got to discovery services.
List of criteria from “A Comparative Overview of Journal Discovery Systems: Library Users Offer their Experiences”http://www.slideshare.net/CharlestonConference/charleston-overviewpreconf2010
Way, Doug, "The Impact of Web-scale Discovery on the Use of a Library Collection" (2010). Scholarly Publications. Paper 9.http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/library_sp/9
Way, Doug, "The Impact of Web-scale Discovery on the Use of a Library Collection" (2010). Scholarly Publications. Paper 9.http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/library_sp/9
Electronic Resources and Libraries Workshop at INFO 2012, Tel Aviv
INFO 2012 Workshop | Tel Aviv, Israel
Current Work Assistant Director for Collections Services at Claremont Colleges Library Founder, ER&L/ Electronic Resources & Libraries ALAs Digital Content & Libraries Working Group bonnietijerina.com Past Work Editor, JERL/ Journal of Electronic Resources Librarianship Digital Collections, UCLA Eresources Management, GeorgiaTech
Things I like when I’m not working Yoga Hiking Oatmeal Travel bonnietijerina.com Aunt
About you! Do you work in a library? Which library types? Which library roles? Do you work for a company supporting libraries? Which types of products or services?
Electronic Resources & Libraries Founded in 2005 by eresources librarian 100 person gathering in 2006 electroniclibrarian.org 600+ attendees/ online attendees in 2012 2012 , most heavily tweeted and blogged conference Practical, tactical, honest and strategic work from all levels
Great networking and camaraderie More sessions than you could possibly fit in 3 days #erl12 Flickr page
Lightning talk opportunities for attendees 50+ Panels, workshops and keynote sessions Program search tool
Managing e-Resources in Libraries ER&L Track detail Collection Development & Assessment Workflow & Organizations External & User Relationships Emerging & Future Technologies Scholarly Communication & Licensing Library as Publisher ER&L’s tracks are annually reviewed and updated by volunteers on the Program Planning committee.
09.00-10.30 | E-Resource Management Lifecycle, Part 1: Overview of the lifecycle and new models for Collection Development and Acquisitions 10.30-11.00 | Break 11.00-12.00 | E-Resource Management Lifecycle, Part 2: Workflow Analysis, E-Resource Maintenance, and Standards Updates
12.00-13.00 | TDNet presentations 13.00-14.30 | Lunch break 14.30-15.30 | Use, Users and Assessment: An investigation of measuring impact and determining value and ROI (return on investment). 15.30-16.00 | Break 16.00-17.00 | E-Resource Discovery and Promotion: An evaluation and exploration of discovery services
Future… Open access 2004 | Commercial management? 2001 | Advent of e- ERMs on market resource (ERMS, Verde) management tools 2011 | Multiple (DLF, Serials discovery tools on Solutions, TDNet) market (Summon, EDS, P rimo) 2003 | Metasearch tools (Metafind, Ex Libris) 2012 | Demand driven tools (Get- 2009 | Flip to e- It-Now, GIST) access over print purchase (ARL)1997 | Advent of e- resources (JSTOR, SIAM)
Does this Reworking workflows all sound Fully implementing ERMS familiar? Measuring Usage, Value and ROI Value and Use of Discovery Tools Licensing and negotiation skills Useful patron-driven acquisition Dismantling the Big Deal User Experience Leadership in libraries
E-Resource Management Lifecycle |Part 1: Overview of the lifecycle andnew models for CollectionDevelopment and Acquisitions
What is TERMS?TERMS is an attempt to create aninternationally crowdsourced best practices forelectronic resource management. Based on the electronic resources lifecycle, each segment of the lifecycle has been developed to give the basic techniques used. Workflows are shared via an open dropbox site
Where is TERMS available? TERMS is freely available from three social media sites: Facebook: TERMS group page TUMBLR: http://6terms.tumblr.com/ TWITTER: @6terms Documentation regarding the best practices are posted to Facebook & Tumblr sites
Future of TERMS Working with JISC Collections in the UK to find the best place to openly share within their web site environment TERMS will be presented as a poster session at LIBER this summer, and at various events in 2013 TERMS will be published as an ALA Technical Report in April 2013
eResource Management Lifecycle – Selection/ Evaluation Criteria • Relevance to research and/or curriculum needsContent • Depth and breadth of content • Simultaneous multiple user or single user • User interface, response time and reliability Access • Digital Rights Management (DRM) • Authentication • Support (local and vendor)Technical • Customization • Provision of usage statistics, cataloging records • 1-time or Subscription Cost • Platform/hosting fees
eResource Management Lifecycle –Purchasing/ Pricing Models Purchase/own or Lease e-content Pay-per-view (articles) o Library-sponsored or end-user service such as DeepDyve Single-user or Multiple-user Institutional or Consortial purchases o Shared licensing and content; discounted cost Aggregator, “Big Deal” or Title-by-title o Fulltext databases; Publisher eJournal collections; Individual eJournals User demand-driven acquisition (DDA) or Librarian-selected eContent
Models are publisher-driven, in mostcases, but when given achoice, libraries must assess whichmodel is most cost-effective for each e-resource.
eResource Management Lifecycle – Licensing considerations Authorized use and users o Limits on use or users o Downloading and printing o Fair Use, Inter-Library Loan Country rights (outside of N. America) Governing Law o Stipulate local laws govern Cancellation and Archival rights o What happens to content already purchased?Model license available at LIBLICENSEhttp://liblicense.crl.edu/licensing-information/model-license/
eBook Demand-Driven Acquisitions -Key Aspects New titles identified by eBook supplier for DDA service o Based on library-selected subject/non-subject parameters Bibliographic records loaded to catalog for users to discover o Creates an expanding database of relevant titles Users can access eBook for 24-hour loan periods Short-term loans trigger a purchase after library-defined threshold (3 loans, 4 loans, etc.) Automated ordering & e-invoicing of purchased eBooks (Depends on vendor) Expenditure data for loans and purchased available (From vendor and eBook aggregator)
eBook Demand-Driven Acquisitions - A Case StudyColorado State University – July 2011Rationale o Declining budget for books/eBooks o Low use of books purchased via approval plan or librarian selectionsUsed existing subject/non-subject parameters for weeklyrecords load for new eBooks4 short-term-loans before eBook purchase triggeredAfter 8 months, total US dollars spent on short-term-loans andpurchases considerably less than what would have been spenton print approval plan shipmentsGiven the cost savings, library is considering broadening scopeof eBook titles available for users to discover
Workflow Mapping Many institutions both in the US & UK are mapping out their processes for various electronic resource management workflows Mapping workflows help to understand workflow process overlaps in different departments & duplications of efforts via various management tools
Proactive troubleshooting strategies Working more with vendors Extensive cross-training Leverage tools and technology to maximize efficiencies Improve/expedite loading of MARC records Improve transparency of e-resource workflow
Understand | Mapping helps to outlineproblems in processes.Insight | Mapping depicts missing steps ofmanagement.Alignment | Mapping helps all staff in theorganization to understand what the currentworkflow is.
Resolution of access problems often requiresworking multiple angles at once: Access: what device patrons are using, what browsers are being employed for access, is the patron an authorized user Service: What library services are being used to gain access: OpenURL, webpages, LibGuides, LMS
Software ticketing programs like JIRAHomegrown ticketing systemsSharePoint by MicroSoftGoogle Forms
Knowing total number of problems with any given publisher Have percentages for when spikes of troubleshooting requests come in to better manage staffing for troubleshooting Find or distinguish trends with library management tools like OpenURL provider and where their targets can be improved
NISO: National Information Standards organizationCOUNTER: Usage data standard reports (Release 4)ESPRESSO: Establishing Suggested Practice Regarding Single Sign-On [in use]I2: Institutional IdentifiersIOTA: Improving OpenURLs Through Analytics [in development]KBART: Knowledgebases & related tools (KBART5)ONIX Suite: EDI for various processesSERU: Shared Electronic Resources Understanding [just updated]SUSHI: Standardized Usage Statistics Harvesting Initiative [in use] Electronic Resource Management (ERM) Data Standards and Best Practices Working Group Open Discovery Initiative
Identify efficiencies between libraries, publishers and discovery service providers Identify needs and requirements of stakeholder groups Create recommendations and tools to streamline ways to communicate with each other Ways of assessing: 1. participation level of info providers in services 2. breadth and depth of indexed content 3. the degree that content is available and accessible to the end users
Standard vocabulary NISO Recommended practice Data and format transfer Communicating context rights Level of indexing, content availability Linking to content Usage Statistics Evaluate Compliance Spread this Information
In most of these areas, targeted standards and best practices have evolved to fulfill and/or exceed the scope of the ERMI DD KBART COUNTER SUSHI 12 for Instititional Identities ONIX for Serials (SOH, SPS, SRN) NISO should continue to encourage well- focused ERM Standards Development
Workflows still a big issue NISO should convene series of webinars in 2012 to identify common needs & best practices Discuss findings at future conferences to guide further work
Users think, process, and manage informationdifferent Expect more personalization and instant gratification Are Collaborative and multitask Learn experimentally through trial and error rather than by formal learning and reading Prefer non-linear access to information Respond better to graphic than text Expect highly intutive interfaces and convenience
To assess how well the library’s resourcessupport the needs of its usersTo demonstrate value of the library tocurriculum and researchTo show Return on Investment an institution hasmade in the library and its electronic resources
Use • Journal Usage Statistics Portal (JUSP) – locally developed tool • Provides single point of access to COUNTER usage reports (UK academic libraries) • 21 publishers participating • Automated gathering of usage data through SUSHI • Enables report comparisons across publishers and yearsTransactions • Analysis of transaction logs measures system response times, hit rates, session lengths, whether user is inside the library or notQuality • SNIP - contextual citation impact • Impact Factor - perceived ‘prestige’ of a journal • Eigenfactor - measure of time researchers spends with a journal
Make data meaningful Gather & analyze usage over time o Multiple years vs. one point in time to identify trends Factor in cost o Cost/use ratio, Cost-benefit analysis Analyze by subject, publishers, or user type o Variations may be meaningful and aid decision-making Look beyond the numbers o Barriers to use (user interface, training) o System/network/technical issues
California Digital Library - Value-based strategy utilizingobjective metrics to calculate the value of scholarly journals Used to identify titles that make a greater or lesser contribution to the University of California’s mission of teaching, research, and public service Analysis for over 8,600 journals in 36 UC licensed e-journal packages Use of locally developed Weighted Value Algorithm by Subject 3 vectors of value encompassing 6 data metrics: o Utility (usage and citations) o Quality (Impact Factor;1 SNIP 2) o Cost Effectiveness (cost per use, cost per SNIP
Understanding the Future: Next Wave of User Data Analysis -ITHAKA Analysis of JSTOR usage data led to product enhancements ▪ Turnaways resulted in providing content that is out of copyright freely available to users ▪ Proxy re-direct feature for users who started in Google but weren’t authenticated even when they did have institutional access Analysis of usage and turnaway data by discipline o Patterns of use for current content and archival content o Impact have discovery services have on usage
Which tools are you using? What data do you have? How do you use it?
An Evaluation and Exploration of Discovery Services
Slow response Databases are being searched, not indexes Ranking by relevance not possible or problematic Results not de-duplicated Not all of a library’s resources could be searched Libraries selected which resources should be searched—too many and search might time-out
Allow users to search internal and external library resources—print & electronic—simultaneously o Fulltext article databases o Library OPAC o Locally created digital collections o Open-access content Considerations o Simple, single search o Results presented quickly o Filtering & manipulation of search results o Customization of interface by library o Mobile interface
EBSCO Discovery Service (EBSCO) - 2010Primo Central Total Care (Ex Libris) - 2010Summon (SerialsSolutions/ Proquest) -2009OCLC Worldcat Local - 2009
Ecole Poytechnique Federale Lausanne (EPFL) Parallel comparison of Summon, EBSCO Discovery, Worldcat Local and Primo (2011) o Original methodology included focus group with users o Technical & set-up issues resulted in shortened evaluation by only librarians Looked at: o Content & Relevance (Content gaps?) o Search functions (user interface, advanced search) o Results view and manipulation and subsequent result use o User account (integration with circulation to request/hold materials) o Administration (local expertise; vendor support) o Professional interface (permanent URLs to content records?)“Be realistic, demand the impossible: Comparison of 4 Discovery Tools using real data at the EPFL (Ecole PolytechniqueFederale Lausanne).” D. Aymonin, et al. http://infoscience.epfl.ch/record/172947
EPFL conclusion: No one ‘winner’, each service had strengths and weaknesses What’s important for your library and users? o Content focus (local collections, articles, books) o Commercial databases (content-neutral or are some databases excluded?) o User interface o Price
Grand Valley State University, Michigan, USA Implemented Summon in 2009 Used Google Analytics and vendor-provided usage data to study impact of Summon on use of eResources Results – o Use of abstracting & Indexing databases, already declining, continued to decrease o Use of fulltext resources increased ‘dramatically.’
“Web‐scale discovery services represent adramatic change in how libraries provideaccess to collections. Silos that existedbased on subject content, publisher orcontent provider in many ways no longerexist or are no longer important.”Way, Doug, "The Impact of Web-scale Discovery on the Use of a Library Collection" (2010).Scholarly Publications. Paper 9. http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/library_sp/9
Which discoveryservice have youinvestigated ? Share your evaluation and/or implementation experience Has the discovery service impacted eResource usage at your library?