Notes for SirsiDynix 2012—Detroit
There was a lot of the “same ol’ stuff.” We actually had a lot of “They’ve done that” moments, along with the “but they can still get better” moments.
1) UPGRADES:
Getting better, but still needs work at the client level. Both Horizon and Symphony agree. The consortia survey shows that there are MANY sites with over 500 PCs with clients needing updating. The Remote Login upgrades worked well for the sites here that used it.
Problems with Horizon upgrades “blow up” the OPAC. VLC halted all upgrades until this is resolved.
Q: Not just client upgrades: is SD learning from mistakes with JWF that will also apply to WEB CLIENT and browser environment issues?
Suggestion (AGAIN!!): add a confirmation note at end of the upgrade!!
Q: Are overnight upgrades part of standard service, or are they an additional cost or Platinum services?
2) CLIENT CARE:
Consensus that CC quality seems to go in wave depending on hires and fires, but generally getting better.
Consensus is that Yes/No answers get quick (but not necessarily accurate) responses. If call gets bumped to the middle tier of support (ie, not the front line, not the developer, but the senior techs)—things are MUCH better. The middle level is the “sweet spot.”
However, there are sites that feel if it gets to the bug/development level one can “kiss it goodbye.” Other sites feel that at least if it gets a UNI number that there is hope.
Q: What does CC see when they pull up our record? Do they see that we are a consortium?
Still the impression that we have to identify ourselves as consortia, because CC doesn’t know.
Also, that techs don’t seem to read the record notes(like call b4 logging in).
Q: How does SD regard CC? Are they in a “stepping stone” position so that they leave when they find something better? SD needs to remember that CC should think of themselves as part of Sales. If customers are not happy with CC, they’ll go elsewhere.
Q: What are metrics based on? Time? Quantity closed?
Suggestion: CC and SD in general need NOT to be afraid to give bad news. It is better to know up front that something won’t work, isn’t coming soon, etc than getting promises that aren’t fulfilled.
Q: How does the current CC support structure process requests from Consortia? How do they treat or classify them? Is there any difference in how Consortia calls get treated than standalone sites?
3) Bravo!!!
SPP: Got it right in One!
Company Focus: Consensus that there is a good balance of continuing development on existing products and new development (ex Web Services).
Stability: Symphony is stable!
4) Future Development:
Starting to see progress –ie real products, less vaporware
Not as much feeling that current product is being neglected in favor of future dev.
HOWEVER, Don’t Stop!!!!
A feeling that SD is doing a much better job of meeting obligations and promises for enhancements, etc.
HOWEVER:
Stop pushing Hosted Services.
Ex Bibliocommons issues with network
Cost- SaaS not necessarily cheaper. Better for some, less flexibility for others.
SaaS: most sites happy. Redundancy in the cloud a plus. Numbers of SaaS customers seem to be increasing, but Consortia are slower to adopt partly because local hosting gives more local control and flexibility for complex sites. HOWEVER, the move to SaaS to Amazon cloud is a concern based on experiences with Bibliocommons.
Social Library didn’t seem to take consortia into account at all for Social Library. Have to re-enter all configurations when upgrading.
5) Horizon:
We asked why are so many Horizon sites fleeing to other vendors? Wis has 4 former Dynix sites for whom SD is almost ruled out just because it is SD.
Answers:
Faith and Co history. Many feel betrayed.
Current sites still feel like “step children”. Want Web Client, and other cool stuff, but are always told “oh, that’s for Symphony. You’ll get it later.”
SD should “get it together” and tell Horizon sites when Horizon will be EOL’d. This falls under the heading of “don’t be afraid to break bad news.” HOWEVER, we understand the dangers and pitfalls of human nature to throw a hissy fit and leave when presented with the news that their beloved ILS is being shelved.
6) ENHANCEMENTS
Happy that there is some progess.
Happy that Joel is doing a good job.
HOWEVER… intimidated, confused by process. Seems like a lot of work.
Suggestion: Is there a way to have something like a single ballot/survey monkey with all the requests that we could rank them? Maybe would also be a way to enforce single site single vote?
Q: What is the plan for the future? What type of commitment are SD making for the top votes this round of enhancements that ends in mid-November?
ENHANCEMENT REQUESTS:
Privacy issues for shared systems. Member libraries can get lists of patrons and other data via reports. Would be nice to be able to lock reports down more.
Simplify holds management and policies
Make sys policies undeletable, or bold, or something
Need for notices to be streamlined—1 run thru database, and then split by library or other criteria.
Need more individual library settings, less global settings. Both Symphony and Horizon agree this is critical.
** Start a Policy Management SPP **
7) PRICING:
Just looks bad when sites find thousands of dollars difference in quotes for same product in similar environments.
Suggestion: Send Itemized Invoices instead of making sites demand them.
There was talk about trying to form a “Super-Consortia”, but consensus landed at wanting (at least for starters) SD to define their Consortial Pricing Structure.
Q: Is SD willing to give us a “price sheet” for consortia—with discounts?
We would like to know HOW SD comes up with pricing—is a product based on Circ? Population? More transparency/logic on how SD is coming up with numbers.
Q: There seems to be a penalty for annual contracts. Can SD give any sort of discount if site does automatic renewal of contract? Ex Sign 10-year contract, but annual renewal.
It is our job to ask colleagues
It is our job to negotiate
It is SIRSIDYNIX’s job to:
Disclose criteria for costs
Be aware/realistic when only one library of a consortia wants a product. Ie,don’t price us as if entire consortia wants product when it is only one site, and don’t make assumptions about scale.
Give us discounts because we’re consortia
Woo us so that we don’t go elsewhere
Help us by not pricing everything on an annual maintenance model. There is more $$ available to buy products in capital budgets than in operational budgets. Any annual costs come from OB.
Itemize invoices
Have reasonable base rates. 7% annual increase is ridiculous.
Q: What is Platinum Services, what does it cost, and what does it do that regular support doesn’t??