79
80
Table 4: Role Players per institution during implementation Institution Role players
MUT 1. All heads of libraries
DUT 1. Project Leader
2. Systems Administration 3. Vendor Implementation Team 4. Library Management
UKZN 1. Library Staff 2. IT Staff 3. Vendor
When asked how the vendor was chosen. There were various responses by Library Management. See Table 3 below:
Table 5: Choice of Vendor Institution Response
MUT 1. Various vendors made presentations
2. Directors of libraries were responsible for choosing the vendor
3. Library staff were also instrumental in the choice of the best system as they were involved when various vendors made representations and SirsiDynix Symphony became the system of choice
DUT 1. History of product and service 2. Well positioned in the market 3. Innovative solutions
4. Client support 5. UKS Local vendor 6. Turnaround time
7. Integrate easily with current system
8. Vendor the sole supplier of current system
81
UKZN 1. Vendor the sole supplier of current system.
When asked about the various packages that were offered by the vendor, the interviewees all came out with different responses but also the reasons for various responses were because different institutions had different needs (Table4)
Table 6: Packages for Institutions Institution Packages
MUT 1. Server hardware
2. Library automation software 3. Workstations and peripherals 4. Authority upgrading
5. Data conversions, clean-ups, and data extraction 6. Installation of Z39.50
DUT 1. Workflows
2. Serials 3. Cataloguing 4. Acquisition
5. SirsiDynix Rooms 6. Director’s station
7. Electronic Data Interface UKZN 1. Circulation
2. Cataloguing 3. Acquisition 4. Serials Control 5. Reports
When asked about how the system was administered, all interviewees gave various answers according to their institution’s needs and specifications. Ntando highlighted that “all licensing agreements were entered into at inception and their policies were customised to suit their needs”. Sandile indicated that “they managed their own
82
policies and the system were configured in relation to their policies and the institution’s specifications’. Thanda said “their policies were checked by their Legal Office’.
When asked how the system was financed and how funding was sponsored, Ntando said “funding was sourced through an organisation known as the Mellon Foundation, and that the Finance Committee as well as the Project Committee were responsible for overseeing the whole financing process”. Sandile indicated that “the Library was responsible for sourcing funds whereas at UKZN money was sourced from the Research Office”.
4.8.2 Implementation and Administration of ILMS
When asked how data was migrated from the old system to the new system, Ntando responded by saying that “the project manager and the systems manager were responsible for data migration”. Both Sandile and Thanda said that it was the responsibility of the Vendor Team as well as the Systems Manager.
When asked about how the problems experienced during the implementation of the new ILMS were resolved, Ntando reported that “the issue of customisation of records according to individual institutions stipulations was very problematic and the process of record clean ups was a daunting task”. Sandile mentioned that “no major problems were identified except for general teething problems such as librarians’ resistance and adaptations to change”. Thanda also shared the same view as Sandile as they both highlighted “general teething problems as well as staff adjustment to the new change as any change came with adjustments resistance and comparisons were challenges experienced”.
When asked whether training for the new system was done and responsible for staff training. Sandile, Ntando and Thanda agreed that training was done by the vendor system administrator as well as the various task teams that formed part of Library staff from three participating institutions representing each module. Sandile, Ntando and Thanda further agreed that all twelve Librarians interviewed each represented one module, they were all were responsible for cascading the training to various Librarians in their respective sections.
83
4.8.3 Outcomes and Post Implementation of ILMS
When asked if the system was meeting its value of investment, Ntando agreed that
“the system was adding value in the sense that it was able to generate reports of any kind depending on the institution’s specific need”. Ntando further said that “it had a test server that could be used for trial and error before going to the live server. The system also offered continuous access to all library resources as well as to other participating institutions”.
Both Sandile and Ntando agreed that they could see the value of their investment because Universal Knowledge Software offered continuous support to any problems and challenges they encountered. The system was also very stable and was offering system updates automatically at only a click. Thanda said that “the system was a one- stop shop because it offered broader coverage of all their branches and that was a great help to them and to their library users”.
When asked if they would recommend any change in the current system, Sandile said that “they were currently happy with moving to the system because the change had put them on the cutting edge of technology”. Ntando reported that “as much as any change had it teething problem embarking on this change was one of the best idea they had done over the years except for challenges that came with any change”.
Thanda also reported that that “they were all happy with the system” and no he could not comment any further.
When asked what strategies can be employed to improve the implementation and administration of ILMS, various responses were gathered from the interviewees.
Ntando suggested that “the turnaround time in terms of addressing queries should be addressed.” Sandile reported that “there must be communication between all the stakeholders involved so that they were informed about the process and the step”.
Sandile further reported that “team members needed to be specialists in their functional areas”. He highlighted the need that the project plan must be consultative.
Sandile further reported that library staff members need to be on board. Sandile reported that the IT Department of DUT and the Universal Knowledge Software administrators to be part of the plan. Sandile also reported that ILMS must be marketed and Post Implementation to be done to see if the project was on track.
84
Thanda responded by saying that “they were concerned with collaboration with librarians that are actually using the system”.
When asked to comment about the implementation and administration of the ILMS, Sandile, Ntando and Thanda managers interviewed came out with different views in their responses. Ntando reported that “as an institution they were more interested in cloud-based services, and the problems of downtime, poor bandwidth, slow connectivity, offline and lack of IT support were also identified”. Sandile indicated “they were also interested in Blue Cloud Computing Services but also raised concerns that the system was not web based”. Sandile said that “they needed to make changes first on the systems automation functionality for them to be able to operate using cloud- based services”. Thanda suggested that “if there was more collaboration they may be able to improve their service delivery”.