Demographic. 1. Select your institution.

Transcription

1 Demographic 1. Select your institution. 2. Please provide your 2016 staff estimates (in FTE), using ACRL definitions. (page 4, Librarians Other Professional Staff All other Paid Staff (Except student assistants) Student Assistants

2 Content Creation & Dissemination Please note this is the Content Creation & Dissemination (CCD) section of the survey. Unique and Local : Held by only a single library and cannot be readily replaced or substituted; or Held in a very small number of libraries, in curated aggregations unique to the institution; or Original works initially published/distributed from within the institution, including, but not limited to Special Collections and Archival Materials 3. My institution uses Alma for the management of the following types of Unique and Local content: Yes No Digital Collections (e.g. reformatted or born digital) Original works initially published / distributed by institution (e.g. institutional repository items) Print (physical) Special Collections and/or Archival collections 4. If you answered 'no' for any of the Unique and Local content listed in Question 3, please indicate the reason(s) (check all that apply): Our current system manages these materials more effectively Migrating to a new system for these materials isn t a priority The functionality related to unique materials is underdeveloped The functionality related to unique materials is not intuitive The functionality offered by Ex Libris for unique materials isn t a priority for us We don t have the resources or time to transition to a new system for unique materials Our institution does not believe that Alma is the appropriate venue for managing these types of resources Other (please specify)

3 5. Rate the efficiency of Alma s workflows for managing and exposing Unique and Local content: Very Efficient Efficient Inefficient Very Inefficient N/A 6. Rate your institution's satisfaction with Primo in each of these aspects relevant to Unique and Local materials: Overall Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied N/A Discoverability Circulation or Availability Status Metadata

4 Systems Please note this is the Systems section of the survey. 7. Rate your institution's satisfaction with the following aspects of Alma and general systems infrastructure: Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied Current Alma user interface uptime Alma user interface uptime improvement over the last several years Current Alma user interface responsiveness Alma user interface responsiveness improvement over the last several years Current Ex Libris' timely communication about technical issues (outages, etc.) Ex Libris' timely communication about technical issues (outages, etc.) over the last several years

5 8. Rate your institution's satisfaction with the following aspects of Primo systems infrastructure: Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied Current Primo public user interface uptime Uptime improvement of Primo public user interface over the last several years Current Primo public user interface responsiveness Improvement of interface responsiveness over the last several years Current Primo back office interface uptime Primo back office interface uptime improvement over the last several years Current Primo back office interface responsiveness Improvement of Primo back office interface responsiveness over the last several years 9. Rate how effective the levels of granularity of permissions roles are for: Primo Very Effective Effective Ineffective Very Ineffective Alma

6 10. Rate the ease of the following: Very Easy Easy Difficult Very Difficult N/A Submitting an institutional need to Ex Libris for consideration as an enhancement Determining if Alma's performance issues are local or multi-institutional Sharing an Alma Analytics report with staff at other Alliance institutions Using the Analytics API to generate an Alma report 11. Rate your institution's satisfaction with Ex Libris Alma Support: Ease of contact Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied Understands the problem Reasonable timeframes for initial response Correct and accurate information Resolution fixes problem Resolution in a reasonable time frame

7 12. Rate the effectiveness of Alma interoperability with: Authentication system Very Effective Effective Ineffective Very Ineffective N/A ILL system (non- Summit) Student Information System Bursar Self-checkout Institutional Repository Archive Management System Digital Asset Management System Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) for ordering Course Management System (LMS) 13. List software or systems your institution would like to integrate with Alma but cannot due to technical challenges or lack of compatibility. 14. Rate your institution's satisfaction with Ex Libris' documentation for the following Alma activities: APIs Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied N/A Troubleshooting Configuration Data Security (all system data) Privacy (user related data) Integration with other systems

8 15. Rate your institution's satisfaction with Ex Libris' documentation for the following functions or activities in Primo: APIs Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied N/A Troubleshooting Configuration Data Security (all system data) Privacy (user related data) Customization Primo Central Index (PCI) 16. Rate the ease of the following activities in Alma: Very Easy Easy Difficult Very Difficult N/A Integration with other systems Using APIs Troubleshooting Configuration 17. Rate the effectiveness of Alma in accomplishing the following: Very Effective Effective Ineffective Very Ineffective N/A Integration with other systems Troubleshooting Configuration Data Security (all system data) Privacy (user related data)

9 18. Rate the ease of the accomplishing the following in Primo: Troubleshooting Very Easy Easy Difficult Very Difficult N/A Configuration Data Security (all system data) Privacy (user related data) Customization Maintaining the Primo Central Index (PCI) 19. Rate the effectiveness of accomplishing the following in Primo: Configuration Very Effective Effective Ineffective Very ineffective N/A Customization Data Security (all system data) Privacy (user related data) 20. Rate your institution's satisfaction with the following: Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied The accuracy of the Primo Central Index (PCI) records The completeness of the Primo Central Index (PCI) The accuracy of Alma Central Knowledge Base records The completeness of Alma Central Knowledge Base records

10 21. Rate your institution's satisfaction with the following aspects of Alma Development: Useful functionality Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied Timely implementation Completeness Quality Communication of functionality Timely notice Documentation Ease of implementation / documentation Integration (e.g., did not break current configuration) 22. Rate your institution's satisfaction with the following aspects of Alma Analytics: Accuracy of results Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied Reliability Ease of creating reports Ease of publishing reports Completeness of available data Timeliness of data availability Granularity Predictability, in terms of timeliness of data publishing Ease of learning to use

11 23. Rate your institution's satisfaction with the following aspects of Primo Analytics: Accuracy of results Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied Reliability Ease of creating reports Ease of publishing reports Completeness of available data Timeliness of data availability Granularity Predictability, in terms of timeliness of data publishing Ease of learning to use 24. Rate the efficiency of using the Network Zone to execute work in the following areas: Very Efficient Efficient Inefficient Very Inefficient Print Resource management Electronic Resource management Acquisitions Resource Sharing 25. Rate the importance of Alma APIs for extending functionality: Very Important Important Somewhat Important Not Important

12 26. Rate the effectiveness of accessibility (ADA compliance) in the Primo user interface: Very Effective Effective Ineffective Very Ineffective 27. Each member has its own production instance of Alma. Rate the impact of this on the following: Postive Neutral Negative Resource Discovery Resource Sharing Fulfillment Systems Testing Acquisitions Cataloging Library staffing 28. Each Alliance member maintains its own Primo. Rate the impact of this on the following for the Primo Production view: Positive Neutral Negative Resource Discovery Resource Sharing Fulfillment Systems Testing Acquisitions Cataloging Library staffing

13 Collaborative Work Please note this is the Collaborative Work section of the survey. 29. The SILS implementation has enabled my library to share work with other Alliance libraries. Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree 30. Since implementation, my institution has the number of staff hours for responsibilities related to: Increased Kept the Same Decreased Primo Alma 31. In 30, if you reported a staff hour decrease for Alma or Primo, were you able to add FTE to an area outside of the SILS? Yes No

14 32. Rate how effectively Alliance libraries collaborate in the following areas using the Shared ILS: Acquisitions Very Effective Effective Ineffective Very Ineffective Cataloging Discovery interface Electronic Resource Management (ERM) Fulfillment Network Zone Reporting & Analytics Resource Sharing Shared Collections Unique Collections 33. Rate the ease of communication within and across Alliance Teams in the following areas: Acquisitions Very Easy Easy Difficult Very Difficult Cataloging Discovery interface ERM Fulfillment Network Zone Reporting & Analytics Resource Sharing Shared Collections Unique Collections

15 34. Rate the effectiveness of the current Alliance Program and Team structure in : Optimizing SILS use Very Effective Effective Ineffective Very Ineffective Supporting collaborative work related to the SILS Communicating decision-making authority related to the SILS Moving initiatives related to the SILS forward 35. Rate the effectiveness of Alma in supporting: Shared cataloging Very Effective Effective Ineffective Very Ineffective Shared or centralized batch importing of records Shared or centralized management of electronic collections Resource sharing within Summit 36. Rate the ease of working with Ex Libris as a collaborative partner. Very Easy Easy Difficult Very Difficult 37. Rate the effectiveness of the Alliance infrastructure in supporting collaborative SILS work. Teams Very Effective Effective Ineffective Very Ineffective Working Groups Alliance central staff Council Board

16 Technical Services Please note this is the Technical Services section of the survey. 38. Rate the efficiency of the following in Alma: Very Efficient Efficient Inefficient Very Inefficient N/A Adding physical inventory (creating holdings records and item records) Creating local bib records for acquisitions or items such as equipment or course reserves process Managing electronic resources (portfolios/collections) Managing print serial resources Performing shared cataloging through the Network Zone for physical resources Process for maintaining records in the Network Zone Performing shared cataloging through the Community Zone for electronic resources The process for maintaining records in the Community Zone Ordering items Managing standing orders Managing print serial orders Physical processing (ie. binding and label printing)

17 Very Efficient Efficient Inefficient Very Inefficient N/A Creating boundwith records The creation, use, and management of POL (Purchase Order Line) templates Process of setting up and using Alma s In Process workflows 39. Rate the importance of development of the following functionality in Alma: Very Important Important Unimportant Very Unimportant N/A The ability to identify, merge, overlay, and/or eliminate multiple records for the same resource in the Network Zone The ability to share serial prediction templates Getting import profile templates to function between the Institution Zone and Network Zone The ability to set up import profile templates 40. Rate the effectiveness of the following Alma templates: Very Effective Effective Ineffective Very Ineffective N/A Shared Bibliographic Templates Holdings Templates

18 Shared Content Please note this is the Shared Content section of the survey. 41. Rate the efficiency of the following functionality in Alma: Very Efficient Efficient Inefficient Very Inefficient N/A Managing electronic resources licenses at the institution Ex Libris configuration of editors for electronic portfolio, collection and services Network Zone management of consortial ebooks (subscription, demand driven, and evidencebased) Community Zone Updates Task List functionality for updating records

19 42. Rate the importance of the following functionality in Alma: Very Important Important Unimportant Very Unimportant N/A Managing licenses for physical items Managing trials for electronic resources Managing PDA resources in the PDA Module Network Zone management of electronic resources Managing electronic resources in the Network Zone Managing shared vendor records in the Network Zone Running Alliance-level Analytics reports for cooperative collection development across the Alliance 43. Rate the ease of accomplishing the following in Alma: Very Easy Easy Difficult Very Difficult N/A Activating electronic resources collections Updating electronic resources collections Deactivating electronic resources collections Identifying appropriate electronic resources collections Following Alliance guidelines (such as Last Copy and Three-Copy threshold) for cooperative collection development

20 44. Rate your institution's level of agreement with the following: Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree The Central Knowledge Base is accurate The Central Knowledge base records are complete The Central Knowledge Base is updated with sufficient frequency Shared record management for electronic resources is assigned appropriately between member libraries and the Alliance The current SILS environment allows my institution to make cost effective decisions for collection development

21 45. Rate the ease of the following: Very Easy Easy Difficult Very Difficult N/A Setting up import profiles Managing local headings Ordering electronic resources Managing vendor information Editing records in the metadata editor Adding local fields to bib records Running import jobs using an import profile Invoicing for print resources Invoicing for electronic resources Managing funds and ledgers Managing end-of-yearrollovers Basic repository search feature in Alma Advanced repository search feature in Alma Batch record processing Moving holdings records to a different bib record Moving item records to a different bib record Identifying and reestablishing broken links between boundwith constituent records Ability to create the sets of records my institution needs

22 Alma / Primo Release Testing Please note that this is the Alma / Primo Release Testing (Sandbox Group) section of the survey. 46. Rate the importance of the following in Alma: Testing releases Very Important Important Unimportant Very Unimportant N/A Enabling staff at my institution to test Alma features prior to their installation on production Sandboxes to test and resolve Alma support issues for my institution The Premium sandbox for Alma testing and feature development at my institution Collaborating with other institutions on Alma release testing in the Alma sandboxes Interacting directly with vendor development teams to improve the system in Alma Interacting with the Sandbox Testing Working Group to coordinate and understand Alma releases and release testing

23 47. Rate the importance of the following in Primo: Testing releases Very Important Important Unimportant Very Unimportant Enabling staff at my institution to test Primo features prior to their installation on production Sandbox to test and resolve Primo support issues for my institution Premium sandbox for Primo testing and feature development at my institution Collaborating with other institutions on Primo release testing in the Primo sandboxes Interacting with Ex Libris development teams to improve the system in Primo Interacting with the Sandbox Testing Working Group to coordinate and understand Primo releases and release testing

24 48. Rate the ease of the following in Alma: Very Easy Easy Difficult Very Difficult N/A Enabling staff at my institution to test features prior to their installation on production. Testing Alma API features prior to their installation on production. Using the sandbox to create and test local features Using the sandboxes to collaborate with other institutions on feature development 49. Rate the ease of the following in Primo: Very Easy Easy Difficult Very Difficult Enabling staff at my institution to test features prior to their installation on production Using the sandbox to create and test local features Using the sandbox to collaborate with other institutions on Primo feature development 50. Ex Libris feature/fix releases for Alma are: Too Frequent Just right Not Frequent Enough 51. Ex Libris feature/fix releases for Primo are: Too Frequent Just Right Not Frequent Enough

25 52. Rate the effectiveness of the following: Very Effective Effective Ineffective Very Ineffective N/A Testing new features on the sandbox prior to installation when preparing staff at my institution for new Alma monthly releases Ex Libris' responsiveness to development needs in Alma Ex Libris' responsiveness to bug fixes in Alma Interacting directly with Ex Libris development teams to improve Alma 53. Rate the effectiveness of the following in Primo: Very Effective Effective Ineffective Very Ineffective N/A Testing new features on the sandbox prior to installation when preparing my staff at my institution for new quarterly releases Ex Libris' responsiveness to bug fixes Interacting directly with Ex Libris development teams 54. Rate the effectiveness of the testing processes for normalization rules for the materials identified below: Very Effective Effective Ineffective Very Ineffective N/A Unique & Local Materials Boundwith Materials E-Books Serials

26 Discovery & Delivery Please note that this is the Discovery & Delivery section of the survey. 55. Rate the effectiveness of the fulfillment functionality for the following: Checking out materials Very Effective Effective Ineffective Very Ineffective N/A Administering user roles Checking in materials Creating reports Renewing materials Calendar maintenance Fulfillment job configuration/scheduling Booking Print course reserves Electronic course reserves Configuring fine structure Fine notifications Tracking and payment of fines Exporting fines

27 56. Rate the effectiveness of the following Alma patron record functions: Very Effective Effective Ineffective Very Ineffective N/A Accessing patron information Editing patron information Availability of necessary patron fields Deleting patron records Adding internal patron records Adding external patron records 57. Rate the effectiveness of the following Alma patron communication functions: Very Effective Effective Ineffective Very Ineffective N/A Customizability of notifications Automation and scheduling of notifications 58. Rate the efficiency of the following aspects of Summit borrowing: Tracking requests Very Efficient Efficient Inefficient Very Inefficient N/A Processing requests Printing paging slips

28 59. Rate the ease of administering / configuring / maintaining local settings in Alma for the following functions: Open hours Very Easy Easy Difficult Very Difficult N/A Loan and renewal settings Letters Adding new circulation policies Summit resource sharing ILL 60. Rate Primo s effectiveness in refining search results for: Availability Very Effective Effective Ineffective Very Ineffective Location Creation or publication date Format Resource type Subject or topic 61. Rate the effectiveness of the following tools in Primo: Search Scopes Very Effective Effective Ineffective Very Ineffective N/A Ability to connect to external resources Search Filters / Facets Basic/Advanced Searching

29 62. Rate the effectiveness of the following tools in the Action menu: Add to e-shelf Very Effective Effective Ineffective Very Ineffective N/A Permalink Print Citation 63. Rate the ease of the following tasks in Primo Back Office: Very Easy Easy Difficult Very Difficult N/A Administering local settings for authentication Customizing the current UI Customizing the new UI Managing boosting / blending of local items in search results Customizing labels / messages Administering user roles Running Analytics reports

30 Training and Documentation Please note that this is the Training and Documentation section of the survey. 64. Rate the ease of locating Ex Libris documentation for: Very Easy Easy Difficult Very Difficult Alma Primo 65. Rate the ease of locating Ex Libris staff training materials for: Very Easy Easy Difficult Very Difficult N/A Alma Primo Back Office 66. Rate the effectiveness of the Ex Libris documentation: Very Effective Effective Ineffective Very Ineffective N/A Primo for end users Primo for staff Primo Analytics Alma for end users Alma for staff Alma Analytics Developer s Network Alma release testing Primo release testing

31 67. Rate the effectiveness of Ex Libris' training materials for: Very Effective Effective Ineffective Very Ineffective N/A Primo for end users Primo for staff Primo Analytics Alma Alma Analytics Developer s Network Primo Back office 68. What other Alma or Primo training or support would you be interested in receiving from Ex Libris?

32 General Questions 69. Is there critical missing functionality in Alma or Primo not specifically addressed elsewhere in this survey? 70. What did you expect to be asked that wasn't asked?