رابط های نوآورانه سیستم مدیریت منابع الکترونیکی: بررسی وضعیت پیاده سازی و طریقه استفاده

This paper presents the results of a survey on Innovative Interfaces' Electronic Resource Management System (III's ERM). The authors distributed the survey to III ERM users through LISTSERVS in November 2009 and received sixty-one responses. The survey contained seventeen questions that focused on three themes: satisfaction with implementation, impact on workflow, and impact on patrons. The results indicated that difficulty with implementation caused some dissatisfaction with staff workflow, although a majority of informants indicated that III's ERM improved staff workflow to some degree. The major benefits of III's ERM were listed in terms of the product's impact on patrons.

Innovative Interfaces' Electronic Resource Management system (III's ERM) was released in March 2004. Nonetheless, many of the early adopters still refer to their implementations as works in progress. In preparation for implementation at the St. Edward's University library, the ERM team was advised by colleagues at other institutions to allot as many as three years for the process. The lack of quantitative research on III's ERM is an impediment to preparing for implementation. The literature on III's ERM includes numerous case studies of individual libraries, but very few studies that identify overall trends. While these case studies indicate that III's ERM had a significant impact on individual libraries, it was difficult to determine whether the authors' experiences were shaped by local circumstances or by the product itself. This survey of III's ERM users was conducted to fill the quantitative void in the literature, to determine the state of implementation, and to present a collective view of the product.

This study's purpose was to determine whether claims that III's ERM implementations are difficult and that III's ERM negatively affects workflow were accurate. The results show that, while the majority of the informants did indicate a positive impact on staff workflow, many still found their implementation to be unsatisfactory. Furthermore, not a single library rated III's product as a 5 on meeting expectations, and 54% rated it as 3 or lower (survey question 16). This finding is consistent with case studies in the literature, which paint a generally negative picture of ERM implementation. The gap between expectations and reality is indicative of a larger problem. Current research, vendor training, and documentation do not adequately convey the realities of implementing III's Electronic Resource Management System. The promise of ERMI is met by a lack of standards across vendors making an ERMS difficult to populate and maintain. However, the survey revealed that the most popular and useful features of III's ERM affected patron access, such as coverage load and license information display. More quantitative research is needed to create a more realistic representation of ERM use and implementation. In particular, research that examines impact on patron access would round out the literature on this topic. The current literature's focus on staff workflows is measured against a product that is more useful in making electronic resources more accessible to users. Further research should also include other ERMS that are currently on the market to determine whether the successes and challenges identified in this survey are unique to III's ERM. Finally, research should move beyond staff functionality, such as licensing and administrative information, and delve into the product's positive impact on patron access.