Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Issue Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Collaborative Selection of New Library Automation Vendor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Implications of Educational Governance Reform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Attachment 1: Overview of FCLA and CCLA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Attachment 2: Chronology of Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Attachment 3: Proposed Library Technology Models for Combined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
       State University System/Community College Library Software
       (as sent to Endeavor and Ex Libris March 16, 2001)

This report outlines a base plan to move higher education library automation activity to a single library software environment. Currently, the Florida Center for Library Automation (FCLA) serves the State University System library automation needs through a legacy system targeted for replacement utilizing FY 2000-2001 funds. The College Center for Library Automation (CCLA) provides library automation services to the community colleges of Florida. CCLA currently utilizes a different library software vendor than FCLA and is also in next generation system migration planning.

This plan was developed in response to direction contained in the Governor’s proposed budget for FY 2001-2002 for a single library automation software vendor. FCLA and CCLA staff, in concert with library representation from the community colleges and universities, have outlined a strategy to unify the new system acquisition efforts to better serve all higher education. This plan insures that the distinct needs of both community college and university libraries will be met and state fiscal resources will be leveraged for an effective long-term approach.

For the past sixteen years, Florida has enjoyed national and international recognition as an early pioneer, ongoing innovator, and leader in the field of library automation. In recent years, as other states have come to realize the advantages of this type of state level activity, they adopted similar approaches to sharing library technology thus benefiting from state level leadership as demonstrated by Florida's continuing successes. Collaboration and state level library leadership has not been limited to the higher education system, however. The State Library of Florida has also played a significant role in library automation activity by acting as a point of collaboration and by stimulating cooperative activity through federal funding of technology-based library demonstration projects.

Within the higher education system, library automation has developed along the traditional lines of institutional type. The pioneering efforts of the State University System (SUS) began with the establishment of the Florida Center for Library Automation (FCLA) in 1984. This unique and centralized approach that utilizes large-scale mainframe technology, is still unique in its scope on the national level. (See Attachment 1, FCLA and CCLA Overview for a general perspective on these two organizations.) The SUS library automation system was closely followed in 1989 with the establishment of the College Center for Library Automation (CCLA) to serve the Community College System (CCS). FCLA and CCLA have worked cooperatively over the years as a matter of practice. The Executive Director of CCLA sits on the FCLA Advisory Board. Similarly, the FCLA Director sits on CCLA's Advisory Board and Executive Committee. This high degree of cooperation between the two organizations enabled the successful establishment and operation of the Distance Learning Library Initiative (DLLI), which provides the common core collection of electronic resources for all higher education students in the state.

Today, a unique opportunity exists to build upon Florida’s library automation heritage and bring these two great library services closer together through the joint acquisition of new library automation software technology by both organizations. This venture will help lay the foundation for even greater levels of cooperation and collaboration in the future.

At the beginning of the 2000-2001 fiscal year, both FCLA and CCLA were in the process of preparing to move to a next generation library automation system. FCLA’s original vendor, NOTIS, is no longer in business and their 16-year-old legacy technology requires complete replacement. The legislature appropriated $3.77 million to the SUS for phase I of a new system acquisition, with a later Phase II appropriation to complete the process at a cost to be determined by an Invitation To Negotiate (ITN) which began in October 2000. CCLA’s vendor, Data Research Associates (DRA), is still viable in the library automation software marketplace. Following a 1999-2001 review by the Technology Review Workgroup, CCLA was proceeding to implement DRA's next generation Taos® software with a FY 2000-2001 legislative appropriation of $1,281,580. CCLA has been beta testing portions of the new Taos® software; however, implementation has now been significantly delayed due to altered DRA delivery dates for the full suite of software components.

With the release of the Governor’s proposed budget in January 2001, FCLA and CCLA were notified of proviso language that directed the same software be used by both higher education library management systems. In response to this proviso—and recognizing unknown potential implications of the emerging Education Governance Transition process for higher education library automation—FCLA and CCLA staff moved to investigate collaboration opportunities. A listing of this process is contained in Attachment 2, Chronology of Events.

Since the community college's library software vendor, DRA, had been eliminated from the ITN process as not meeting the SUS needs, activity focused on options for CCLA to join the SUS ITN process already underway. By March 2001, that process had reached an announced short list of two vendors: Endeavor Information Systems and Ex Libris Automated Library Systems. Collaborative sessions between representatives of the SUS and CCS have resulted in the plan proposed below as a mechanism to proceed with a move to a single library management system vendor.
 
 

Original SUS Timetable

As of this report, the SUS is on schedule with proposals received and evaluated from six vendors and negotiations are underway with two successful proposers. The two companies, Ex Libris and Endeavor, are the current state-of-the-art vendors in this marketplace. Planned site visits to installations using these vendors are currently underway and scheduled for completion by April 30, 2001.

The original timetable for the SUS ITN process is outlined below:
 

 The following dates were considered approximate and subject to change:
 

Modified Timetable

The participation of the community colleges in this process will slightly delay the above schedule in order to ensure that the needs of community colleges will be met and to allow the CCS to fully participate as an equal partner in the final decision. The revised timetable listed below allows for the CCS to select its own review team, review the ITN responses, and conduct site visits if needed. However, joint activity is now envisioned for deeper review of technology and investigation of system configuration options to best address the specific needs of both the colleges and universities. This will allow for the best planning and deployment of resources to operate and support the software among the two distinct user groups represented. Once the community college selection team has achieved parity of familiarity with the current SUS new system evaluation team, the two teams will merge. The final vendor selection processes will be conducted from this single team perspective. Further, the SUS has also offered the State Library of Florida specifically, and any publicly supported library in general, participation in the benefits of the final contract as negotiated. Staff from the State Library are being invited to observe all vendor selection activity from this point on.
 

Florida has embarked on an ambitious and sweeping reorganization of its educational governance process. With the March 1, 2001 release of the official report of the Education Governance Reorganization Task Force, it is clear that a new approach to K-20 education governance is well underway. HB 1533, filed March 19, creates an Office of Technology and Information Services within the Office of the Commissioner of Education, and among other duties states "The office shall develop a method to address the need for a statewide approach to planning and operations of library and information services to achieve a single K-20 education system library information portal and a unified higher education library management system." From this wording in HB 1533, it is clear that the plan outlined here, which will result in both CCLA and FCLA acquiring the same library software and utilizing that software to meet the library management system needs of all higher education libraries, will be aligned with the proposed movement toward K-20 library services.
 
 

Attachment 1

While the Florida Center for Library Automation (FCLA) and the College Center for Library Automation (CCLA) both operate centralized library management software (LMS) systems, they differ in their overall mission and each has programs unique to its organizational approach. Both systems provide complex business logic for all aspects of library operations. Technologically, these two LMS systems are the largest in the country. They are also the most highly centralized; no other state's approach to library automation is more centralized than Florida's.

With respect to the LMS:

• All 28 community colleges share a single LMS, located at CCLA in Tallahassee.
• All 10 public universities share a single LMS system, located in at the North East Regional Data Center (NERDC) in Gainesville and run by FCLA.
• The current community college and university systems were acquired from different mainstream commercial LMS vendors at different times. Each vendor was selected based on competitive analysis that selected the vendor that best met the needs of the libraries.
• A significant opportunity is represented by the potential opportunity for FCLA and CCLA to acquire and operate the same library automation software.

Distance Learning Library Initiative

Through the Distance Learning Library Initiative (DLLI), a committee of the Florida Virtual Campus Board, the state universities, community colleges, and the State Library of Florida worked collaboratively to develop direct student services in support of distance learning. DLLI services, composed of electronic resources, a statewide reference and referral center, a statewide courier service, provide benefits to all students both distant and on campus learners. DLLI has been a model of cooperation between Florida’s universities and community colleges. Further, a recent distance learning substantive change accreditation process of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) noted the significant value of DLLI as vital to insuring adequate resources to the distance learner.

Below is additional information specific to the programs of FCLA and CCLA:

Legislative proviso language created "The Florida Center for Library Automation (FCLA)" in 1984 for the purpose of automating all the SUS libraries.

FCLA Mission

Through acquisition or development, implement and support high quality computing and telecommunication systems that assist the SUS libraries in managing and providing access to their traditional collections, increase the productivity of library staff, improve inter-library sharing and expand the electronic delivery of information resources to students, faculty and staff.

Leaders in Library Automation and Information Technology

FCLA's primary accomplishment is building the technical and human infrastructure to support the online catalogs, reference databases and business applications necessary for libraries to provide services to approximately 39,500 faculty/staff and 142,000 FTE students (227,000 headcount) in the SUS. In reaching this achievement, FCLA has created the most heavily used, full-functioned library management system in the world.

Though its mission-critical WebLUIS portal, FCLA provides the SUS faculty and students with access to almost 11 million catalog records and over 25 million journal citation records loaded in LUIS. LUIS usage averages about 20 million searches per year. Another half a billion records are available to the SUS faculty and students in over 125 databases licensed from 60 publishers stored on a dozen providers' remote servers. Another 6 million searches per year are conducted on these databases. For all databases, over 1.5 million journal articles and other full-text documents have been viewed online and/or downloaded by SUS students and faculty. Since its inception, FCLA has coordinated resource sharing among SUS libraries and has taken a leadership role in introducing and developing new technologies. In FY 99/00 alone, FCLA’s collaborative database licensing saved the SUS libraries $1.8 million or 50% of the aggregate cost of the commercial content in the SUS Digital Library Collection.

FCLA is a member of an invisible college of prestigious research libraries that are leaders in the field. Other members are Harvard, Wisconsin, Penn State, UC-Berkeley, UCLA, Texas, NYU, Stanford, Minnesota and Indiana University. Members of FCLA’s staff have served in a variety of elected and appointed positions that demonstrate their national recognition as leaders and experts in the library automation and information technology field. Examples are: member of OCLC’s Users Council; president of ALA’s Library and Information Technology Association; chair of the National Information Standards Organization (NISO) Standards Development Committee and member of the NISO Board of Directors; member of the National Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Committee; and chair of the Z39.50 Implementers Group (an international organization responsible for the development of the standard that allows disparate computers to communicate and share information). FCLA actively participates in a number of initiatives including OpenURL (open reference linking), e-Metrics analysis (standard for measuring library performance in the new arena of electronic resources), DublinCore (metadata standards), OpenArchives (research metadata harvesting) and the new Z39.50 National Profile.

Highlighting these accomplishments, FCLA services were once featured in a student centered segment on CNN’s Science Weekend.

Library Management System

FCLA maintains the library management system (LMS) software that provides online access to the collections of all the SUS libraries. This system, known as LUIS (Library User Information Service), provides separate access to each university's library collection as well as to all of the SUS collections simultaneously. The WebLUIS interface, developed by FCLA, also allows students and faculty to renew their checked-out books online, place interlibrary loan requests for books and journal articles, download search results to create bibliographies, and verify library journal holdings from journal article indexing databases whether loaded on LUIS or stored on remote servers.

The business application modules of the LMS enable library staff to perform the tasks that are needed to support the selection, acquisition, receipt, cataloging, circulation and inventory control of the myriad library resources housed in the 51 physical library facilities on the campuses of the ten universities. These modules help the library staff manage a workflow that encompasses 200,000 orders being processed, 600,000 new volumes entering the collections and 3.1 million items being circulated each year.

Over the past 16 years, however, computing technology has changed drastically. The current LMS, based on mainframe technology, is no longer economically competitive with new systems built on UNIX and client/server technology. An SUS wide Library Management System Committee (LMSC) has investigated new library systems, and based on the committee’s recommendations, FCLA is in the process of procuring a new LMS and a set of UNIX servers on which the new software will run. The new LMS will be less expensive to operate and will be one that is widely used in large academic research libraries.

Digital Library Services

Additional information resources such as journal article indexing and abstracting databases; gateways to other library catalogs including the Library of Congress; gateways to commercial information providers; and links to digital content (e-books, e-journals) have contributed to making LUIS and WebLUIS an indispensable tool for students and faculty whenever they use the SUS libraries as part of their classwork or research. Enhancing LUIS to provide students and faculty with more information vital to their work is a continuous goal.

Digitization projects: The SUS institutions are increasingly involved in the creation of electronic research collections, from accepting electronic theses and dissertations to digitizing rare and special materials in order to improve access and help preserve fragile originals. FCLA developed PALMM (Publishing Archival, Library and Museum Materials) as an infrastructure for supporting creation and network delivery of such collections, and as a vehicle for attracting external funding. PALMM projects under development include the Florida Heritage Collection, Linking Florida's Natural Heritage, and Reclaiming the Everglades, the latter of two of which are funded by federal grants.

FCLA also focuses on building central infrastructure services to support long term maintenance and management of digital research materials. These include naming services to encourage persistence and facilitate the move towards uniform resource name (URN) technology, and archiving services to ensure the long term preservation and usability of important digital resources.

Advisory Board and Council Organization

FCLA is an SUS-wide (Type I) Center hosted by the University of Florida. FCLA has an advisory board composed of one representative from each of the ten state universities and one representative each from the BOR, the Division of Community Colleges and the State Library of Florida.

The Director of FCLA reports to the UF Vice President for Academic Affairs. All of FCLA's purchasing, payroll, and personnel functions are managed through UF and all of FCLA's policies and practices conform to UF's. Like all Type 1 Centers, FCLA's budget must be approved by the Council of Academic Vice Presidents (CAVP), the Council of Presidents and the BOR.

The Future

FCLA has provided high quality, essential services to the SUS for 16 years. These services have long been vital to the daily learning of students and the daily operations of the all the SUS libraries. The FCLA staff serve as a seamless extension of the SUS libraries’ staff and perform tasks that would have to be replicated in all of the libraries otherwise. The success of FCLA’s student-friendly system is evidenced by the fact that LUIS usage is the largest of any LMS in the world! While the past may not be a predictor of future success in the stock market, the past does predict the future performance of FCLA. The SUS libraries want to continue this successful collegial partnership with FCLA for years to come as FCLA modernizes the LMS and expands the universe of digital content available to students.
 
 

The State Board of Community Colleges created the College Center for Library Automation (CCLA) in 1989 in response to legislative proviso providing for the creation of a centralized library automation system to serve the Florida Community College System. Funding for the creation of CCLA was in response to a state level library automation plan developed by the SBCC to enhance and improve the community college educational experience by providing statewide access to shared library resources. CCLA operates the Library Information Network for Community Colleges (LINCC), an automated information system that connects Florida's 28 community colleges and their nearly 70 individual campus libraries.

Mission

As formally adopted by the SBCC, CCLA's mission is:

The LINCC system is the only state wide centralized community college automated library system in the world. LINCC serves the 183,000 FTE (618,063 headcount) students, 20,000 faculty, and over 22,000 staff of the Florida Community College System.

CCLA operates the various LINCC system services from its own centralized computer facility in Tallahassee. The library management system services are outlined below. CCLA has designed all student-based services in a manner to ensure equality of access to all students statewide, independent of the size or location of their community college. Student focused products are centered in the immensely popular information portal, LINCCWeb, that provides single search, multiple response access to nearly 60 information-rich commercial databases. LINCCWeb also acts as a centralized gateway to not only the combined resources of community colleges, but to public and university library collections statewide. Access to proprietary services on LINCC feature CCLA custom designed remote user authentication services that ensure easy and simple access to all users independent of their location.

CCLA has also pioneered the development of specialized library tools within the community college library setting. In 1996 CCLA staff developed an assistive technology workstation that was placed every LINCC library statewide to ensure the broadest access to the text based terminal technology of that time. This effort was followed by the development and delivery of a internet based document delivery workstation to all LINCC sites in 1998. While such technology is common in very large libraries, the presence and operational use in all Florida community college libraries, regardless of size, distinguishes the quality of library services available to students statewide. To provide support for its full range of programs and services, CCLA maintain a centralized call center to assist its users that is available during all hours of library operation.

In addition to information services and library management tools, CCLA provides value-added library consultation support tailored to the unique needs of each institution. CCLA also provides an extensive program of in service library staff educational programs to assist effective use of online library and information resources. As a service of the State Board of Community Colleges, CCLA bears community college system level responsibility for library development and advocacy to ensure the delivery of information in support of the educational process when and where the information seeker needs it.

Library Management Systems

LINCC's library management system—which provides the automated circulation, cataloging and other functions that allow for increased library staff productivity—uses foundation software developed by Data Research Associates (DRA). CCLA has enhanced the installation of this software so that LINCC meets the specific needs of Florida's community college libraries. CCLA specialized enhancements to the LMS include the LINCC Report Service that offers over 140 management information reports concerning the use and activity within library collections. The LINCC statistical services offered by CCLA move beyond simple system utilization information into realms involving collection assessment and custom needs identified by the library. LINCC operates over a dedicated telecommunications network maintained by the Florida Information Resource Network (FIRN). LINCCWeb operates over the open Internet using standard TCP/IP protocols.

Advisory Board and Executive Committee Organization

In order to ensure coordination of service, the legislative proviso created a CCLA Advisory Board that meets annually to review the progress made toward automating the community college system. The Advisory Board selects members for a smaller executive committee, which in turn reports to the State Board of Community Colleges. The Advisory Board developed and adopted an organizational document for purposes of self-governance.

To enhance communication and collaboration between CCLA and other library agencies in Florida, the Director of the Florida Center for Library Automation (FCLA) and the State Librarian of Florida sit on CCLA's Executive Committee and Advisory Board. Similarly, CCLA's Executive Director serves on FCLA's Advisory Board.

The Future

The creation of CCLA initially enabled the community college libraries of Florida to automate library services to a level unavailable in any other state community college system. An initial investment in wiring, telecommunications, and centralized computing services has now evolved into a full spectrum of access to shared information resources. CCLA state level activity ensures the effective use of technology through training, support, and consultation; researching and implementing suitable new technologies; and providing library advocacy for issues of concern to community college libraries.

Since 1989, CCLA has provided benefits that far exceed the value of the original financial commitment. As the world of electronic information changes and grows, CCLA will continue to enhance LINCC and deliver new services to the Florida's Community College System.

Attachment 2
 

NEW AUTOMATED LIBRARY SYSTEMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS As of April 4, 2001
Jul. 2000	Community colleges (CCLA) receives $1.2 million from legislative appropriations to upgrade existing library system to next generation software (continuing DRA as vendor).
Jul. 2000	State University System (SUS) receives $3.77 million from legislative appropriations for year 1 of 2-year effort to replace aging legacy automated library system.
Oct. 11, 2000	SUS ITN issued by University of Florida.
Dec. 1, 2000	Six proposals received in response to ITN (included community college vendor, DRA).
Jan. 17, 2001	Governors 2001-2002 Budget Proposal released Section 181 – STO to issue RFP by 10/1 for single administrative agency for FCLA/CCLA Section 194 – 4.3 million non-recurring for year 2 of 2 SUS automated library system replacement (3.77 million appropriated 2000-2001). New library automation system process must include the community colleges.
Feb. 2, 2001	SUS begins negotiation with short list vendors, Endeavor Library System and Ex Libris Library System (CC vendor, DRA does not meet SUS needs).
Feb. 16, 2001	CCLA contacts SUS and FCLA about opportunity to observe vendor demonstrations.
Feb. 19, 2001	DRAFT approved Education Governance Transition task Force Report/decision. Recommendation No. 5 DOE reorganization propose Office of Technology and Information Systems in Office of Commissioner of Education (implications, if any for FCLA and CCLA?).
Feb. 22-23, 2001	CCLA Executive Committee Officers annual goals meeting. Study of draft Educational Governance Transition Task Force recommendations result in creation of the document Issues of Online Library Information Services in Higher Education that raises concerns over strategic planning for library technology services in a seamless K-20 system. It was decided to share this document with the FCLA Board as part of their meeting, March 2.
Feb. 27-28, 2001	Endeavor vendor demonstrations for SUS system. Community college and CCLA staff observe.
Feb. 28, 2001	SUS delegation (Dale Canelas (UF), Derrie Perez (USF), Larry Miller (FIU) and Jim Corey (FCLA)) met with Roy Cales, STO, to provide information about SUS libraries and FCLA. SUS expresses willingness to work with Community Colleges per Governor’s proviso. STO concurs that SUS include community colleges as partner in new system acquisition. STO says a plan should be jointly developed between the community colleges and universities and brought forward early in the legislative session to a joint meeting of representatives from the Office of the Commissioner of Education and the State Technology Office.
Mar. 2, 2001	FCLA Advisory Board formally and unanimously votes invitation to Community Colleges to join State University System ITN process (currently in negotiation with two vendors: Endeavor Library Systems and ExLibris Library System). Offer to State Library to participate in final contract for new system.
Mar. 6, 2001	CCLA Executive Committee of the CCLA Advisory Board teleconference call unanimously accepts offer to participate in SUS ITN process in order to achieve unified system approach as per language in proposed Governor’s Budget and recommendation from STO to SUS for development of a plan.
Mar. 6-7, 2001	ExLibris vendor demonstrations for SUS system. Community college and CCLA staff attended as observers.
Mar. 8, 2001	SUS notifies vendors of expanded participation to include community colleges and option for State Library.
Mar. 9, 2001	Meeting of CCLA Executive Director with House and Senate budget staff discussing fiscal implications of community colleges participation in the SUS ITN. Anticipated additional $2 million needed by the community colleges to be added to the currently held $1 million for a new community college library automation system.
Mar. 12-13, 2001	Planning meeting of the Ad Hoc Higher Education Library Automation Working Group to outline joint new system acquisition plan and prepare written plan to submit to the Office of the Commissioner of Education and the State Technology Office.
Mar. 14-15, 2001	Governor’s Office Technology Review Workgroup (TRW) information request to CCLA concerning community college participation in the SUS ITN.
Mar. 15, 2001	Technology Review Workgroup (TRW) issues review of CCLA budget reduction, Governor’s proposed proviso; and consolidation of software procurement. TRW recommends restoration of CCLA budget reduction and joint SUS/STO/CC collaboration on proviso development for new library system acquisition funding.
Mar. 16, 2001	System information sent to Endeavor and ExLibris by UF Purchasing requested revised cost estimates to include Community Colleges and State Library in ITN.
Apr. 6, 2001	FCLA Director, Jim Corey, and CCLA Executive Director, Richard Madaus, meet with staff of the State Technology Office to review the planned joint approach to new LMS vendor selection.

 

Attachment 3

The State of Florida, as part of a process of reorganizing higher education and as a condition of future funding for library automation, has recently mandated that the 10 state universities and the 28 state funded community colleges merge their efforts to migrate from their current library management systems to a new common system. The state has further stipulated that the community colleges are to join with the university system in the latter's competitive solicitation, Invitation to Negotiate Number 01W-14. Previous responses submitted as part of this ITN process have all been based only on information related to the libraries of the State University System of Florida. Therefore, additional responses will now be required in light of the state mandate to expand this negotiation to include the community colleges.

A new response is now required for Section 6 of Invitation to Negotiate Number 01W-14. In this response, each vendor must respond fully to Section 6, Cost and Hardware Recommendations, of the Invitation To Negotiate (ITN) for scenarios 1-4 described below. Supply both SUN and IBM configurations. This new response must be received by the University of Florida Purchasing by the close of business on March 26, 2001. Appendix C: Overview of the Community College System and Current Library Automation Technology, includes system specific information about community college databases and workloads to use as a basis for this required response.

Describe any additional costs in scenarios 1-4 to provide a separate test system. Such a system would be a self-contained testing environment that duplicates 100% of the application software and operating system and would be priced to accommodate 25% of the data of the production system, 50% the data of the production system, and 100% the data of the production system.

An additional response is requested by April 5, 2001, to address scenarios 5-7 of this document to explore potential continued expansion of this ITN. Appendix D: Overview of the State Library of Florida, includes system specific information about State Library of Florida databases and workloads to use as a basis for this required response.
 
 

Responses to this section due to University of Florida Purchasing by close of business, March 26, 2001.
 
 

1. Separate Systems/Separate Union Catalogs

 
 






The original Invitation to Negotiate Number 01W-14 required 10 individual library catalogs and a single union catalog of all holdings. In this scenario the same model is proposed for the community colleges with 28 individual institutional catalogs and a single union catalog for the community college system. Separate servers would be maintained for each system. In addition to the Section 6: Costs and Hardware Recommendations information, also provide narrative information as to any advantages or disadvantages this model would create for system operations and the sharing of information between the separate university and community college library automation systems.
 
 

2. Separate Systems/Single Union Catalog

 
 






In this scenario separate community college and university servers are maintained and a separate union catalog server for all 38 institutions is created.

In addition to the Section 6: Costs and Hardware Recommendations information, also provide narrative information as to any advantages or disadvantages this model would create for system operations and the sharing of information between the separate university and community college library automation systems. Also provide information and costs as to the options of the union catalog technology and software being created as separate from both the university and college technology and as an integral part of one or the other of the community college or university servers.
 
 


2-a. Adding a Redundant Union Catalog
 
 








Describe the options and costs for your system if a redundant copy of the master union catalog were to be made available from a separate server location. Also provide narrative information as to any advantages or disadvantages this model would create for system operations and the sharing of information between the separate university and community college library automation systems.
 
 

3. Single System

In this scenario separate community college and university servers are no longer maintained, but a single location, single server union catalog for all 38 locations is created.

In addition to the Section 6: Costs and Hardware Recommendations information, also provide narrative information as to any advantages or disadvantages this model would create for systems operations and the sharing of information among university and community college libraries.
 
 

4. Mirrored Systems

In this scenario the full system of scenario 3 is duplicated for redundancy/security purposes. Full community college and university technology is duplicated at two locations.

In addition to Section 6, Costs and Hardware Recommendations information, also provide narrative information as to any advantages or disadvantages this model would create for systems operations and the sharing of information among university and community college libraries.
 
 

Responses to this section due to University of Florida Purchasing by close of business, April 5, 2001.
 
 

5. Separate Systems/Separate Union Catalogs










Assuming the costs proposed in scenario 1 for the universities and community colleges, state the cost and system configuration for the State Library of Florida to acquire and operate its own freestanding server. Provide narrative information as to any advantages or disadvantages this model would create for system operations and for the sharing of information between the separate university, community college, and State Library automation systems.
 
 


5-a. State Library added to Community College Server
 
 







Assuming the costs proposed in scenario 1 for the universities and community colleges, state the cost to add the State Library of Florida as a 29th catalog in the community college data structure. Provide narrative information as to any advantages or disadvantages this model would create for system operations and for the sharing of information between the separate university, community college, and State Library automation systems.
 
 

6. Separate Systems/Single Union Catalog

 
 









Assuming the costs proposed in scenario 2 for the universities and community colleges, state the cost and system configuration for the State Library of Florida to acquire and operate its own freestanding server and participate in the union catalog as the 39^th catalog. Provide narrative information as to any advantages or disadvantages this model would create for system operations and for the sharing of information between the separate university, community college, and State Library automation systems.
 
 


6-a. Separate Systems/Single Union Catalog







Assuming the costs proposed in scenario 2 for the universities and community colleges, state the cost and system configuration to add the State Library of Florida as the 29^th catalog on the community college system. Provide narrative information as to any advantages or disadvantages this model would create for system operations and for the sharing of information between the separate university, community college, and State Library automation systems.
 
 

7. Single System

Assuming the costs proposed in scenario 3 for the universities and community colleges, state the cost and system configuration to add the State Library of Florida as the 39^th catalog on the system. Provide narrative information as to any advantages or disadvantages this model would create for system operations and for the sharing of information between the separate university, community college, and State Library automation systems.