CCS RFP Review Discussion for Directors
CCS Office
3355-J N Arlington Heights Rd Arlington Heights, IL 60004
December 6, 2016
9:30 AM
Call To Order: Matt Womack called the meeting to order at 9:34 AM.
Roll Call: S. Murray, Algonquin; D. McNulty, Cary; M. Womack, Ela; S. Davis, Fremont; A. Todd,
Prospect Heights; C. Dolin, Zion-Benton
Also present: R. Malinowski, CCS; M. Stockton, Quipu (by phone)
Public Comment: None
Dolin MOVED, McNulty SECONDED;
Approval of the Minutes of November 10, 2016
Review and discuss RFP response scores and consultant report:
Matt Womack (Ela) introduced the discussion with a proposed goal to select two vendors to move on to
the next round.
Melissa Stockton reviewed the consultant’s report, including the weighting process. She reviewed the
overall impressions of her review of the scores, noting that III scored highest in many sections, with
SirsiDynix as a close second. TLC had a lot of forward thinking functionality that was attractive to many
scorers, but many scorers were uncertain that “branch groupings” and the architecture of CarlX can
support a consortium of autonomous libraries. TLC’s smaller client base could provide additional avenues
for partnership and support.
None of the systems will fulfill every need that CCS has, but all would be functional options.
Key Functionality – 47 scores submitted.
Question about Polaris offering one set of API and SirsiDynix offers a suite. Carl also offers multiple,
though larger chunks. Is there an advantage to one approach or the other? None stand out as the clear best.
Acquisitions & Serials - 11 scores submitted.
EDI is one of the most important functions in acquisitions. Polaris and Symphony provide the most
vendors here, TLC can be lacking in number of vendors.
Patron driven acquisitions was here as well, and while all have some kind of idea or plan, none are
offering a well-put together PDA feature at this time.
Cataloging – 12 scores submitted.
The immediacy of Polaris’s integration was appreciated by scorers. Polaris’s web cataloging product is
the furthest away at this time.
We will want to do some more in-depth questions about matching algorithms.
Authorities and Records Processing – 11 scores submitted.
SirsiDynix has always had a strong authority control system.
Circulation – 9 scores submitted.
Autonomy in circulation is of high importance. SirsiDynix and Polaris offers library-level settings in
more areas than TLC.
Automatic renewal – we have a custom solution in place for patron opt-in/out. This will be something to
look at in the next phase.
SirsiDynix is the strongest in RFID support, based on the responses, both in number of vendors and ways
to use RFID. Polaris is a close second.
Public Access/Discovery – 10 scores submitted.
We need to vet these answers most closely. A lot of these features are newly released or in development
with Innovative. All of these products are always in development. Who do you trust to move forward in
the direction that we want to see regarding Bibframe, RDA, and FRBR?
Reporting – 35 scores submitted.
Polaris is strong on reporting, historically. Polaris brings the most capabilities to individual staff
members, without special knowledge.
SirsiDynix allows access to almost all data points in their basic reporting tool.
CarlX reporting capabilities are unique and powerful, using Excel and SQL. You need to have a fair
amount of Excel knowledge to create the report, but can be shared with lower-level users.
Systems – 10 scores submitted.
In terms of databases: Polaris is Microsoft, Carl is Oracle, Symphony provides some choice.
With the move to SaaS, SirsiDynix has the best track record for hosting systems. They have been doing it
the longest and do the most. Polaris came in later in the game, and they have improved in the last three
years. About 75% of incoming clients are moving to SaaS, so they are all improving here.
Polaris has mostly one interface for Sys Admin, while SirsiDynix and TLC both have multiple that need
to be used to administer the system.
Third-Party Interface – 10 scores submitted.
All three vendors are strong and capable here. CarlX has a shorter list of third parties that they connect to,
at least in part because they have a smaller list of clients.
Polaris has been well-known for working with third parties. They were first to integrate ebooks, for
example. They have been excellent at implementing SIP2 and other standards, beyond what is ‘required.’
Symphony and CarlX are strong, in that they do most of the available messages. SirsiDynix has very
strong connections to a wide range of third party products. They have a large client base and support a lot
of integrations.
Implementation, Migration, Support – 17 scores submitted.
Reference checks will be important here. We will want to know how Polaris support has changed since
the purchase.
SirsiDynix recognized that there would be more work here than renegotiating a contract.
Vendor Stability and Experience – 6 scores submitted.
TLC is one of the only privately held companies left in the ILS market.
Is the public library market the main market? Are they going to continue supporting the ILS they bid?
Dolin MOVED, Todd SECONDED that
Innovative and SirsiDynix will move on to the next round of consideration.
Passed by voice vote.
Next Steps
Look at different functional areas:








Acquisitions:
o Full demo, webinar (open to all)
o Meeting with committee
Cataloging
PAC
o Multiple full demos, webinar (open to all)
o Meet with committee
IT
o Two or three conference calls (specific to staff needed on the vendor side)
Laulima Directors
o Conference call (key requirements, vendor info, implementation)
Circ
o Demo mobile products
o Meet with committee
Reports
o Conference calls with directors
o Conference call with CCS staff (SQL in sys admin)
o Integrate other reporting needs with groups
o Serials
Reference Checks
McNulty MOTIONED, Todd SECONDED to
ADJOURN THE MEETING
Passed by voice vote.
Meeting adjourned at approximately 1pm.
Next Meeting: January 26, 2017, 9:30 AM, CCS Office
Project Schedule
11/10/2016
11/23/2016
11/28/2016
12/6/2016
Dec. 2016 - Jan. 2017
1/26/17
2/1/2017
Feb. 2017 - March
2017
3/31/17
RFP Scoring Meetings at CCS
Proposal Scoring Due to Melissa
([email protected])
Melissa to Provide Score Summary to CCS
Scoring Review Meetings at CCS
Vendor Meetings/Demos
Laulima Directors Meeting to Select Final
Vendor
Final Selection Recommendation to Director's
Group
Contract Negotiations
Final Contract Ready for Approval