Tipasa Testers 2023 decision page

See Best Practices for Decision Pages and Tags for groups

Legend: not started IN PROGRESS STALLED decided

Recommendation

Since the Tipasa Testers group finds that Tipasa is not ready for UC to use as a VDX replacement as of Oct 6, 2023, the following projects options approved or rejected in lieu of the Tipasa project plan outline 2023/2024 :

RS OST approves these projects for RS OST’s work plan

• Extend Time on VDX

  • reasoning: Since OCLC’s Tipasa product is not yet ready to replace VDX, the UCs must stay on VDX to maintain current services.

• Participate fully in OCLC’s Tipasa/Alma integration work plan [underway]

  • reasoning: On November 8, 2023, RS OST decided to start a new small group, Tipasa Developer Review, to work with OCLC on the new integration work plan to give OCLC and Ex Libris direct and early feedback in solutions being developed for identified gaps.

• Vendor Environmental Scan

  • reasoning: Although the RS OST is not confident in the current product landscape, this project should be added to the work plan with the caveat to not start until/if there are changes to the landscape or how UC’s ILL integration might be changed.

• Environmental Scan of Peers

  • reasoning: Learning about the workflows, integrations, and products in use by our peer institutions could improve the prospects of UC’s vendor landscape and potentially improve ILL service for UC patrons.

RS OST rejects these projects

• Certify each deliverable in OCLC’s Tipasa/Alma integration work plan

  • reasoning: This project is redundant of the approved ‘Participate fully in OCLC’s Tipasa/Alma integration work plan’.

• Certify full deliverable of OCLC’s Tipasa/Alma integration work plan

  • reasoning: This project is redundant of the approved ‘Participate fully in OCLC’s Tipasa/Alma integration work plan’.

• Implement Tipasa product as is (as of Oct 6, 2023)

  • reasoning: This project is redundant of the approved ‘Participate fully in OCLC’s Tipasa/Alma integration work plan’.

• Another Request for Proposals

  • reasoning: RS OST is not confident that the product landscape would result in a successful RFP.

• Utilize WSILL without Tipasa

  • reasoning: Forgoing ILL NCIP integration with Alma would impact ILL service at UCs such that ILL services would likely effectively cease.

• Discontinue Resource Sharing/ILL Services

  • reasoning: While some ILL needs could be transacted with acquisitions or other document delivery services, these methods may not be as cost effective as ILL and many resources required by UC researchers are not available via these methods.

Background

Tipasa Pilot

Timeframe: September 2022 to January 2023.

The UC RS OST engaged in a Tipasa Pilot in 2022 [UC only, request access if prompted] with OCLC during which UC discovered Tipasa was not sufficient to support UC’s resource sharing needs.

• OCLC provided a multi-month implementation plan that included demonstrations for Tipasa configuration and use, that did not take into account our requirements of our Alma integration needs and expectations. 

  • “The findings of the UC RS OST is that the Tipasa product in its current state is not ready for implementation at the UC.” from Tipasa project plan outline 2023/2024 (decision page)

• RS OST created a gaps document [UC only, request access if prompted] to identify shortcomings with the Tipasa program and integration with Alma as of the time of testing. 

  • “The gaps are to a number and degree such that manual remediation on UCs part would effectively halt any non-consortia interlibrary loan traffic in or out of the UCs. This would negatively impact UC patrons, as roughly 47% of materials supplied to UC patrons are filled from outside the consortium (from UC Library Annual Statistics, 2021-2022, table 5, pages 5-6)” from Tipasa project plan outline 2023/2024 (decision page)

Tipasa Testing period

Timeframe: March to October 2023

During RS OST’s March 1, 2023 meeting, the RS OST charged a small group of Tipasa Testers with the following charge:

“The Tipasa Testers are charged with coordinating and testing integration between Alma and Tipasa. This team will communicate with vendors OCLC (Tiapsa) and Ex Libris (Alma) to facilitate testing, requirements, use cases, etc as needed to achieve a successful integration between Alma and Tipasa. The testers will work to ensure that the Alma/Tipasa integration has minimal to no negative impact on interlibrary loan and resource sharing services to UC library patrons. … The Tipasa Testers will periodically report on testing progress to the Resource Sharing OST. The Tipasa Testers will present a final report to RS OST once all gaps have been successfully addressed or by October 2023, whichever event occurs first.”

Gaps document, October 6 freeze, only showstoppers [UC only, request access if prompted]: what was delivered and what is missing as of end of project

Findings of Tipasa Testers 

At start of period (March 2023): 11 show stoppers identified

At end of period (October 6, 2023): 5 show stoppers delivered & verified; 6 remaining. 

Tipasa Testers group finds that Tipasa is not ready for UC to use as a VDX replacement as of Oct 6, 2023.

OCLC Tipasa/Alma integration work plan

In late September 2023, OCLC presented a Tipasa/Alma integration work plan draft, created in coordination with Clarivate/Ex Libris, to complete the gaps remaining at the end of the Tipasa Testers phase. The timeline of the work plan draft runs from late September 2023 through mid April 2024. The work plan draft includes a five week testing phase for UC to certify the full solution of Tipasa.

Possible Project Opportunities

The Tipasa Testers have identified the following projects as possible next steps following the failed delivery of Tipasa gaps at the end of the project.

Extend time on VDX

OCLC has verbally confirmed it will not sunset in 2024 as previously communicated; OCLC has tabled any discussion with UC of an end of life for VDX until Tipasa is functional for UC.

• Priority: High / Effort: Low 

• Timeframe: begin immediately

• Positive Risks/Advantages:

  • Maintain status quo

  • Everyday functionality is currently compatible with all systems (Alma)

  • Software is cloud-based system and is more easily manageable than client-based system; OCLC supported

• Negative Risks/Disadvantages:

  • Limited in broker integration options

  • Declining support and attention from OCLC

  • VDX technical issues and breakdowns cause major disruptions in service and staff resources

  • OCLC may become unable to support VDX; new development of the product has ceased

• Impact 

  • Dynamic nature of Resource Sharing/ILL services will be stagnated 

  • Patrons and user experience diminished 

• Dependencies

  • VDX is the only product known to serve UC's needs at this time

  • Unknown technical feasibility of lifespan for VDX

Participate fully in OCLC’s Tipasa/Alma integration work plan [underway]

Work with Ex Libris and OCLC in designing, testing, and verifying remaining gaps in Tipasa / Alma integration.

• Priority: High / Effort: High

• Timeframe: September 2023 - May 2024

• Positive Risks/Advantages:

  • UC / CDL maintain involvement/voice in driving product design decisions

  • Clean/simple solution supports our needs / leads to better integration between the two systems (Tipasa/Alma)

  • Resolve all gaps/show-stoppers leads to the development of a usable solution

  • Software as a service/OCLC maintains infrastructure

• Negative Risks/Disadvantages:

  • Prolonged frustration with testing environments/testing failures

  • Inability to/limited availability to test with ExLibris due to time zone differences

  • Project plan does not finish on time/additional delays

  • Vendors design gap solutions inappropriately

  • Vendors abandon project altogether

• Impacts:

  • Patrons/user experience enhanced by seamless integration

  • Patrons/users affected by possible temporary changes

• Dependencies

  • Make redundant the “Certify deliverables…” and “Certify full solution…” projects

  • UC staff availability for work plan period

Certify each deliverable in OCLC’s Tipasa/Alma integration work plan

Work with Ex Libris and OCLC to verify each gap as it is delivered.

• Priority: High / Effort: High

• Timeframe: October 2023 - May 2024

• Positive Risks/Advantages:

  • UC / CDL maintain involvement/voice in driving product design decisions

  • Clean/simple solution supports our needs / leads to better integration between the two systems (Tipasa/Alma)

  • Resolve all gaps/show-stoppers leads to the development of a usable solution

  • Software as a service/OCLC maintains infrastructure

• Negative Risks/Disadvantages:

  • Reduced involvement/voice in driving product design decisions

  • Prolonged frustration with testing environments/testing failures

  • Inability to/limited availability to test with ExLibris due to time zone differences

  • Project plan does not finish on time/additional delays

  • Vendors design gap solutions inappropriately

  • Vendors abandon project altogether

• Impacts:

  • Patrons/user experience enhanced by seamless integration

  • Patrons/users affected by possible temporary changes

• Dependencies

  • Make redundant the “Participate fully…” and “Certify full solution…” projects

  • UC staff availability for continuous testing phase

Certify full deliverable of OCLC’s Tipasa/Alma integration work plan

UC participation limited to reviewing full integration deliverable at the culmination of OCLC’s integration project.

• Priority: High / Effort: High

• Timeframe: April 2024 - May 2024

• Positive Risks/Advantages:

  • OCLC delivers anyway without any effort from us

  • Software as a service/OCLC maintains infrastructure

• Negative Risks/Disadvantages:

  • No voice in design decisions by vendors

  • Vendors design gap solution inappropriately

  • Vendors abandon project altogether

  • UC not tracking development: “black box” on updates on OCLC’s progress on project plan

• Impacts:

  • UC staff availability for testing at end of project plan phase

• Dependencies

  • Make redundant the “Participate fully…” and “Certify deliverables…” projects

  • UC will have to verify all developments/gaps/show-stoppers are resolved to start a Tipasa implementation project

Vendor Environmental scan

Explore and investigate overall product offerings for resource sharing for large academic institutions.

• Priority: Medium / Effort: Medium

• Timeframe: 12-18 months once begun

• Positive Risks/Advantages:

  • Gain knowledge of Interlibrary Loan Management System marketplace

  • Narrow down options to find suitable product for UCs system-wide use

  • RS/ILL staff networking opportunities with vendors/developers

• Negative Risks/Disadvantages:

  • Minimal or no suitable products discovered for UCs system-wide use

  • Environmental scan finds no suitable out-of-the-box product 

• Impacts:

  • RS/ILL staff will have to create workarounds or redesign ILL workflows to meet the product’s potentially limited functionality

• Dependencies

  • undetermined

Environmental scan of peers

Explore and investigate how other large academic institutions engage in resource sharing. Explore what products peer institutions utilize & how these products integrate into resource sharing workflows.

• Priority: Medium / Effort: Medium

• Timeframe: 12-18 months once begun

• Positive Risks/Advantages:

  • Discover and learn different ways of performing ILL workflows

  • Potentially broaden knowledge of more product options

  • Develop better relationships with peer institutions

• Negative Risks/Disadvantages:

  • Potentially disturb peer institutions with multiple inquiries/questions on systems/workflows

  • Uncover solutions with untenable impact to UC

• Impacts:

  • Peer institutions become unresponsive to UC inquiries

  • Available products do not meet the needs of UC patrons and current ILL workflows/services

• Dependencies

  • Peer institutions would need to be responsive and share information in timely manner

Another Request for Proposals

Work with SILS and UC leadership to engage in a formal Request for Proposals process for a VDX replacement. 

• Priority: High / Effort: High

• Timeframe: 2-3 years elapsed project time

• Positive Risks/Advantages:

  • Potentially discover a more suitable option with a seamless integration with Alma

• Negative Risks/Disadvantages:

  • RFP finds no suitable out-of-the-box product

  • RFP fails; time and resources spent with no productive outcome

  • Viability of technical support of VDX by OCLC is unknown.

• Impacts:

  • Heavy use of staff time

  • Budget considerations

• Dependencies

  • Potential legal restrictions of other projects (given formal RFP procedures)

  • Coordination/approval by budgeting oversight body (CoUL or CDL)

Implement Tipasa product as is (as of Oct 6, 2023)

Move forward with Tipasa implementation as a VDX replacement with known gaps present. Would require rethinking patron experience, overall system integration, and staff workflows.

• Priority: High / Effort: High

• Timeframe: unknown

• Positive Risks/Advantages:

  • Conclusion of testing period/finalize implementation phase 

  • Moderately out-of-the-box product after UC testers developmental assistance

  • Fewer integration steps between broker & WSILL

  • Software is a cloud-based system/more easily manageable than client-based system

  • OCLC supported and continuously developed

• Negative Risks/Disadvantages:

  • Requires change in ILL staff workflow

  • Change in patron experience (communications/notifications)

  • Potentially continuous development of product/unicorn-type solutions developed by UC staff

  • Danger of normalizing workarounds

  • [If patron load necessary]: Data security risk (guarding patron information)

  • [If patron load necessary]: increases workload from outside ILL departments

  • Increased operations/systems administrative involvement

  • May not be able to change ILL workflows; prohibiting ILL services or reduction in efficiencies/timeliness

  • Patrons dissatisfaction increases to point of reduced use of ILL services system-wide

  • Increased patron/users complaints on changes and service issues

  • OCLC continues inability to deliver on development of show-stoppers/gaps

• Impacts:

  • Increased patron/users complaints on changes and service issues

  • RS/ILL staff will have to create workarounds or redesign ILL workflows to meet the product’s potentially limited functionality

• Dependencies

  • undetermined

Utilize WSILL without Tipasa (without NCIP)

WSILL has lacks NCIP integration with Alma; ILL workflows and patron experience will have to be reexamined and redesigned

• Priority: High / Effort: High

• Timeframe: unknown

• Positive Risks/Advantages:

  • UCs will not have to manage integration mishaps 

  • Software is cloud-based system is more easily manageable than client-based system; OCLC supported

• Negative Risks/Disadvantages:

  • Higher manual workload

  • Disjointed patron experience

  • Slow Turnaround Time

  • Requires extensive manual work processing ILL requests 

  • Will require reduced ILL services (restrict for patrons or only allow ILL in certain circumstances)

• Impacts:

  • Patrons and user experience diminished 

  • Would negatively impact research done at UC

  • Staff workload increased exponentially

  • Additional ILL staff workload likely required; budgets increases not always feasible

• Dependencies

  • undetermined

Discontinue Resource Sharing/ILL Services

Convert resource sharing Requests into Patron-Driven Acquisitions; lean more towards digital solutions such as Reprints Desk

• Priority: undetermined / Effort: unknown

• Timeframe: unknown

• Positive Risks/Advantages:

  • Potential collection strengthening 

  • Reduced emphasis on Turnaround Time 

• Negative Risks/Disadvantages:

  • Increase load in collection budget

  • Increase load in collection space

  • Not everything is acquirable (out of print, eg)

  • Lack of acquisitions removes support of UC research & education

  • RS/ILL staff jobs affected

• Impacts:

  • Patrons and user experience diminished

  • RS/ILL staff reassignments and retraining needs

  • System-wide library budgets possibly redistributed

  • More need for library shelf space

• Dependencies

  • undetermined

Action Log