Unit 9: Electronic Resources Managment Systems

Electronic Management Systems (ERMS) are confusing in their scope and variety. But necessary, because managing electronic resources is even more confusing in scope and variety. Managing large volumes of electronic resources is too complicated for spreadsheets and word documents and humans alone-- which poses a problem for librarians. A cohesive system that can manage all the tasks relating to electronic resource management is the ideal solution. Many different systems have evolved that manage these tasks, but none quite live up to the ideal, and almost all are named with an acronym of some sort.

What is an ERMS:
Wikipedia says it is a software system that keeps track of information about electronic resources.

What should an ERMS be able to do:
The Collins Chapter and the Hogarth and Bloom Chapter list some of the processes that can and should be handled with an ERMS:

• Public Display
• License Management
• Collection Evaluation
• Statistical Analysis (usage, etc)
  
• Maintenance of multiple spreadsheets and databases
• Ability to generate A to Z lists
• Financial/purchasing (align publishers, handle renewals)
• Track processes of electronic resources through acquisition, purchasing, and licensing.
• Contact and Support
  

How ERMS evolved:
The H& B chapter discusses of the needs that began to arise in the early 2000's. Libraries needed to create and maintain patron-accessible, searchable lists of their electronic resources, to save and share information about licensing, and track usage.

A variety of systems evolved to fill these needs, but information management needs kept getting bigger and more complex. It was important to not have to enter data in multiple places, and to be able to import it automatically. To do this, one needs standards!

Collins says that in the early 2000's the need for ERMS became pressing, as well as the need to develop standards for such said ERMS. Tim Jewel (University of Washington) did some key research into the issue of ERMS and standards for license information. He noticed that many libraries were cooking up their own ERMS, and that the variety of data forms was going to cause some long-run interoperability problems. Tim Jewel formed Web Hub in 2001 to provide a place for information exchange on ERMS by interested parties. The DLF Electronic Resource Management Initiative was formed, and has been working on developing data standards for license agreements and administrative details. Some goals of DLF ERMI are to:

• Provide XML Schema
• Create Data Dictionary
• Describe functional requirements of an ERM
• Identify and support data standards (like ONIX for license agreements, from EDItEUR)

What types of ERMs available:
There are a variety of ERMS available for libraries to choose from. Each type has pros and cons associated with it. The Collins chapter lists some of these types and their strengths and weaknesses.

ERMS available from ILS vendors.
Examples: Endeaver's Meridian, Ex Libris' Verde, Innovative's ERM
Pros: Interoperability!
Cons: Overly dependent on a single vendor, and potential lack of a knowledge database

ERMS available from 3rd party vendors
Examples: Carls Gold Rush, Serials Solutions, TDnet TERM
Pros: knowledgebase, A to Z lists, link-resolvers
Cons: Integration with ILS and with tools from other 3rd parties

Homegrown ERMS
Pros: Tailored and customized
Cons: Time and staff intensive to develop and need ongoing tech support

Note- there is a table on page 190 of the Collins reading that lays out information on assorted ERMS, and has a checklist on p. 192 for determining the ERMS needs of a particular library

Implementation of ERMS:

In my Health Information Systems class last semester, we discussed how adoption of an information system is often hard on a workplace, especially if it involves changes in workflow. Unrealistic expectations about how the system will be integrated and how well it will work often get in the way of successful implementation. This seems to be pretty applicable to Collins' discussion of implementation, and how important planning is for the process.

Some implementation complaints that Collins notes are:

• overwhelming amount of manual data needs to be entered
• hard to incorporate tool into workflow
• not having enough staff involved
• poor mapping
• underappreciation of the value of the ERMS

Summary:
In class we discussed ERMs and read an issue from Against the Grain that covered ERMS. A survey from Against the Grain noted that 75% of respondants use ERMS in their library. The top uses are:

• E-journal package management
• Online database management
• Access to license terms and conditions

Many librarians in the survey expressed frustration at the amount of manual data entry required. One librarian referred to it as "care and feeding" of the ERM. But there was a general feeling that ERMS are still a work in progress, and are improving, and are worth the effort.

UW Madison libraries use Ex Libris's VERDE ERM, Voyager ILS and SFX OpenURL link resolver.


References:
1. Maria D.D. Collins “ERM Systems: Background, Selection and Implementation, Chapter 10 in Maria D.D. Collins and Patrick L. Carr (Eds) Managing the Transition from Print to Electronic Journals and Resources. New York: Routledge, pp 181-206.
2. Hogarth, M.; Bloom, V. “Chapter XVII: Panorama of Electronic Resource Management Systems” Chapter 17 in H. Yu and S. Breivold Electronic Resource Management in Libraries: Research and Practice. Information Science Reference: Hershey PA, 2008.
3. ERM Special Reports (2010) Against the Grain, Vol 22, No 2