summary of software only v. turnkey responses

["Melanie Cornell" <MCornell at piercelaw dot edu>]

A few weeks ago I asked for advice about switching from turnkey to
becoming a software-only site.  I am very grateful for the helpful
insight and experiences shared as a result.  In case these responses
might also prove valuable to other libraries as they face the same
question now or in the future, I am posting here an anonymous summary of
the responses. Our library decided to remain turnkey.  The following
circumstances, facts, and unknowns were the key elements to our
conclusion: - cost of the hardware (a big 'pro' in becoming software
only; root access might be a pro for some libraries)- our need to pay to
contract out for Unix expertise (this was the deciding factor for us; if
we already had Unix expertise within our institution we probably would
have become software-only)- mandatory III charge for data and software
migration with each new server upgrade (this casts a significant shadow
over the potential hardware savings)- possible other mandatory III
service charges in the future, applicable to software-only sites (budget
surprises are not too well taken)- unknowns such as turn-around time in
event of a system crash (due to contracted-out Unix expertise, but would
also have been a concern if Unix expertise was within our own
institution, but outside our library)- more complicated,
multi-directional communication in troubleshooting some issues (due to
contracted out Unix expertise, but would also have been a concern if
Unix expertise was within our own institution, but outside our library) 
The anonymous responses follow...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Not sure the Profit Margin goes away.  We are a software only
implementation and have a knowledgable support staff for network and
hardware.  We cannot do much about the software.  When we installed last
year - III did it.  We are an Oracle shop and had to uninstall Oracle so
they could install it (From what I see on-line, this may be changing). 
We do not have staff to write CRON jobs or special procedures though we
do look at what Noble does as well as the clearing house. I guess I am
wondering as to your motivation to do this.  For us, if we encounter a
problem, we have to call III to correct.  We had an experience where we
wanted to recover a single file for analysis and they wouldn't do it and
we couldn't do it based on how their procedures back up the files.  We
feel that while it is nice to have control, we have little control. 
With the time zone issues, we often have to waited until late morning to
get someone who can really and correctly answer the question. I would
weigh what you think it will cost you to do this vs what it costs to
have III do it.  If you do not have staff that can handle or
troubleshoot the issues, you may not gain much.  It is more than the
cost of the hardware.  It is up time, customer service, disaster
recovery, etc.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I can't speak to being software only with III, however, I worked for
another Library with another system that was software only, and I can
tell you a couple of things. 
1.      Unix is way easier than you think. The things you have to do at
the Unix level aren't hard. 
2.      We found that maintenance from the vendor of the equipment was
far cheaper than through the ILS vendor. 
3.      Several other staff members and I found a cheap class to learn
about Unix and off we went. Although we did have issues, I found that
the support through the server vendor was good, and better than we had
had through the ILS vendor. Faster too.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^I'm
not from a software-only site, but given the lack of Unix experience at
your institution, I urge you to let III have their profit margin.  Far
better to be able to turn to them for reliable maintenance and trouble
shooting than to have to flounder around yourself.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^We're
a large public library, and we wentsoftware-only in [], at the time that
our original maintenance contractwith iii ran out, and we were facing a
significant increase in costs tocontinue as turnkey.  We didn't have
anyone on site with Unix experience, soI went to a two week training ...
to learn something about it.  I'vebeen a system manager before, but
didn't know Unix.  I still don't "know"Unix, but I know the daily stuff
that I need to do, and I have a maintenanceand support contract with HP
for my ... server, and they're very helpful. We're saving money, and in
our case, our Webmaster is happy because he hasmore direct access to the
files on the iii server than he had in the past.But I have to say that
if you're not equipped to have someone on site withthe ability to deal
with the Unix part of it, and to deal with the fingerpointing when
there's a problem and iii insists it's an operating system orhardware
issue and not a software issue, then it's probably better to remaina
turnkey site (I think it's now called "software
plus".)^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^We
decided to go with the III server because their price for a new Sun,
oncethey moved to that as their server of choice, was thousands below
the pricefor an Alpha.  I was worried about the level of support we'd
get from our ITserver group if we went software only.  How high a
priority would we be withthem?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^DON'T
DO IT!!!!!!!!!!!!My previous position was a software only site.  Unix
machine in a REALLY Microsoft only institution.  I don't think it ever
got patched.  They had to have Innovative help them through making it
safe for Y2K (predated my arrival, thank heavens) and came awfully close
to wearing out their welcome to the point of getting a bill for
consultation over it.  Yes, it does cost more to remain turnkey.  But
Innovative monitors your hardware.  Innovative applies any patches and
does any necessary upgrades to the OS.  If you have hardware problems
they tend to be corrected within 24 hours max.  I regard it as worth the
price.  Wish I still had it (turnkey)...  When I started here they were
software only.  When we bought a new server ... we became turnkey again.
 ... we bought yet another server and went to the Oracle option where
turnkey is not possible so we are once again software only.  My only
saving grace is that we have the staff to maintain and monitor it, so I
sort of can pretend I am turnkey (from my viewpoint anyway--I don't have
to fix broken OS software or hardware!)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^I
am agonizing over the decision of turnkey v software just as you
are.Aside from other cost and benefit analysis, what it boils down in
mycase is the support or ongoing support for the UNIX system.  I have
theUNIX knowledge to get us now to software only, but the problem is if
Iever decide to leave, either the library or the institution has to
findsomebody who knows UNIX.  As you are aware that people with both
UNIXand library related experience are not easy to find and not cheap
tohire.  Given the choices, library administration would go for the
easierone, which is to outsource the UNIX knowledge.  But if you are in
aninstitution that already has a staff on hand who knows UNIX, the
choiceis easier.  With a mature system, the overhead is at the
beginningstage, i.e., setting it up and starting it. Occasional problems
willoccur once it is in operation, but that would not be overwhelming so
ITwould not have to devote one staff solely for the III server.
Therefore the first question, at least in my case, is where do you
getthe UNIX support both now and later?  Without a satisfying
answer,library administration in most cases would be reluctant to move
tosoftware only.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^We
are a software-only site.  We have little or no Unix experience within
the team for the Library Management System.  Our IT support has limited
experience also.  (The IT support covers the hardware and operating
system) . When we want some work done on the server we need to "buy-in"
the services of a contractor.  I think this is exacerbated though by the
age of our hardware. 

As far as I'm aware Innovative offer at least 3 levels of support: 
turnkey, software-plus and software-only.  From our perspective we are
still paying a heck of a lot for the software-only support, and we would
have to pay more for the software-plus option. 

One of the problems with software-only is that there is always a
dispute about what the Library does and what Innovative does (though
their documentation is improving and it is becoming clearer).  Also,
there is a constant to-ing and fro-ing between the Library and
Innovative to get any work done on the server.  When you engage a
contractor to do the work there are all sorts of issues around
commercial-in-confidence etc.  I get the impression also that Innovative
are not keen to talk directly with the contractor and prefer all
communication to come via the Library - which can potentially lead to
delays and confusion (especially when the people doing the communicating
are not as technically savvy!). 

Our situation is compounded by the fact that we are really dealing with
3 parties:  (1) Innovative,  (2) the library management system team
within the Library (responsible for the application), and  (2) our IT
support section (responsible for server and operating system).
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Melanie Cornell
Automation Librarian
Franklin Pierce Law Center Library
2 White Street
Concord, NH  03301(603) 228-1541, ext. 1135 (voice)
(603) 228-0388 (fax)
mcornell at piercelaw dot edu


--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
  text/plain (text body -- kept)
  text/html
---