X-Envelope-to: innopac@maine.maine.edu
X-VMS-To: IN%"innopac@maine.maine.edu"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.innopac
Date:         Thu, 7 Jan 1993 19:23:07 -0600
              <INNOPAC@MAINE.BITNET>
From:         "TERRY METZ, LIBRARY X4530" <TEMETZ@CARLETON.EDU>
Subject:      Summary of Innovative Testimonials

Thanks to all of you who took time out of your day to respond to my request
about using III products.  This is my fourth attempt to get this list of
representative excerpts of the responses to the list.  Hope it works this time.
If so, I'll be able to get the summaries of the staffing/platform questions I
asked posted as well.


********************************************************************************
Terry Metz, Systems Support & Instr Libn    Voice:  507/663-4530
Carleton College Library                      Fax:  507/663-4204
One North College Street                 Internet:  TeMetz@Carleton.edu
Northfield, MN  55057-4098                 BITNET:  TeMetz%Carleton.edu@interbit
********************************************************************************

                        REPRESENTATIVE RESPONSES FOLLOW

                                *  *  *  *

>From:  IN%"BONATH@AC.GRIN.EDU"  "Bonath,Gail J" 20-NOV-1992 08:58:52.96

  We have had Innovative Interfaces installed since the fall of 1989 and are
  very happy with it.  It is high quality software; it has all of the basic
  modules (catalog and catalog edit, circ, acq and serials) complete and
  integrated; the company is extremely financially stable; and they are
  responsive to customer needs...



>From:  IN%"BALLARD@adlibv.adelphi.edu" 20-NOV-1992 09:39:18.79

I might be a good source of information for you, since I am
the systems librarian here at an Innopac site, and I work nights
and weekends at St. Johns, which is a PALs site.  There are a few
things that I favor about the PALs, but generally, Innopac is the
best system that I have ever worked with, hands down.  The best
thing about St. Johns system is that their PALs through
Westchester County has loaded the most popular 6 or 7 databases
such as ABI and ERIC, and you can help people with these right at
the reference desk.  It is nowhere near Innopac in terms of user
friendliness.  The other thing I like is that PALs does not use
search terms taken straight from the card catalog, so people are
forced to think mostly in keyword terms.
   Most of what I have to say about Innopac has already been
said, because Marshall Breeding of the journal Library Software
Review asked for an article to be run later this year, so I am
sending my final draft of that.



>From:  IN%"herrsj@sncac.snc.edu" 20-NOV-1992 09:39:48.19

I am happy report that I have been very satisfied with III since we went
online with the public catalog in January, 1992.  From then until mid May, we
implemented all available modules.

My position is Head of Reference and Information Services.  My comments will
relate to III as it most affects my job:  ease of use of the OPAC for patrons
andability to do advanced searching with OPAC.

First of all, the system is more menu driven than any that I have every used.
I have used VTLS, DRA, NLS (a homegrown system of UW Madison and Milwaukee),
NSC, and Dynix at various public and academic libraries (also LS 2000).  I
have also used about five or six different CD ROM interfaces and am quite
familiar with DIALOG.  III is by far the easiest interface for the patron to
use of any searching software that I have ever used.

Furthermore, you have the ability to do some really advanced searching with
minimal effort, such as limiting and truncating.  The features that I would
like most to see in the OPAC that are not there now are the abilities to
do boolean searches in author, title, and subject searches and the ability to
know where you are in your list when you are browsing through a long set of
records  (e.g.  your library has 100 items with the subject Bible, and your
looking at the full bib. record for each.  As you are going through the list,
it would be helpful to know which number of the 100 that you are looking at as
you go through the list).

I would say that the biggest problems that the patrons have been having is
reluctance to do a keyword search and the tendency to make judgements on a
work with only seeing the title and call number (and not asking for the full
bib. record).  I know that Marquette U. of Milwaukee has worked with III
so that the patron sees the title and the author in the index screen, and
not the title and the call number, so you can make the adjustment.  I have
suggested to the coordinator of library technical services that we follow
the example of MU in this regard.

I hope that this is helpful.  When we automated, we received proposals from
DRA, III, NSC, NOTIS, Geac, Dynix, and perhaps one of two others.  We narrowed
it down to DRA and III.  III was the second most costly (NOTIS headed the
list), but we were starting from scratch, so the total cost was about $xxx,xxx.
(That included the cost of the library's minicomputer, the software, about 28
terminals, the communication hardware, OCLC interfaces, work by Brodart or whom
ever to get the database tape in shape for III, etc.)  Further-more, I would
like to say that I think that the training by III was very good.



>From:  IN%"stevenz@equinox.unr.edu" 20-NOV-1992 10:15:02.21

Two brief notes.  Innovative Interfaces always delivers everything they
promise and they deliver it on time.  Your faculty will like the
intuitive menu driven design as will your students.  We migrated from
Carlyle to III several years ago when Carlyle could not deliver their
circulation system.  On the downside, III is expensive (but expense is
relative because one truly does get what one pays for).

All institutions of higher education in Nevada are on III.  All of our
systems are fully integrated (circ, acq, cat, public cat, etc.)  We have
put a layer over the type of III to load other databases and services.
Feel free to logon via the Internet: nalis.unr.edu



>From:  IN%"mahan@shrsys.hslc.org" 20-NOV-1992 10:33:14.10

We use III for online cat, acq and serials. I do not have any
experience in migrating from one system to another, but we are very happy
with III.  Their major problem in the past was customer support service
and hours, but our various local, regional and national users groups
have changed that.  The serials module was their first module and is still
considered the best available.  That's why so many law libraries bought
into it right from the beginning. I am sure you will be inundated with
positive comments from the users who subscribe to this list...


>From:  IN%"brneise@susan.cs.andrews.edu" 20-NOV-1992 12:19:56.85

We are in the process of installing iii at our library.  So far we have
the OPAC and cataloging, with other modules to follow over the next few
months.  We are happy we made that choice.  Our finalists were DRA,
Dynix and iii.  DRA was excluded because (at least at that time) the cpu
was not UNIX, and that was required on our campus.  We also felt that
the software was not particularly user-friendly.  Dynix has a very nice
OPAC.  However, our serials and acquisitions people found those modules
very deficient (at the time they were evaluated).  Innovative started
with those modules, and some libraries that use other OPACs still use
those modules (which speaks well for them)...In the end, we felt that iii was
 both very user-friendly and had proven products in all the modules that we
 wanted.  On the down side, their price is high, and they tend to charge top
 dollar for what they do.  On the other hand, you would be in good company, as
 many "prestige" colleges and universities have iii.

PALS is the first OPAC system we ever looked at.  It's prime advantage
for you, I am sure, would be the regional advantage...


>From:  IN%"amyers@bu-pub.bu.edu" 20-NOV-1992 12:30:33.35

We at Boston University migrated to Innovative this fall after having
a CARLYLE public catalog since 1987.  We'd also had INNOVACQ since
that time, and two years ago, brought up circulation with Innovative.
Two of the four university libraries used FAXON for serials while Law
used the VACQ.  As of this week, everything is integrated onto a new
INNOPAC, although it will still take some time to move the serials
from FAXON.

I couldn't be happier with the change.  I'd used Innovative while
at the University of Maine and found it to be an easy to use system
that let me have a lot of flexibility to customize.  If you'd like
more information, particularly on specifics for moving from CARLYLE,
let me know.



>From:  IN%"norden@andy.bgsu.edu"  "Lee Norden" 20-NOV-1992 12:53:25.35

BGSU recently switched from an old (12 yrs.) DataPhase system to
Innopac.  In a phrase, I would describe Innopac as a great
Acquisitions/Serials system that also does some Circulation
functions.  (The old DataPhase system was a great Circulation
system that also did some OPAC and Acquisition functions.)

One drawback in the Catalog module is the fact that Innopac doesn't
store information in MARC format.  Many systems have that limitation.

The main drawback to watch out for is cost.  I think Innovative
software products are very expensive...



>From:  IN%"AKEBABIAN%COLGATEU.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU" 20-NOV-1992 13:31:50.70

Colgate University has been using Innovative since Jan. 1991.  We migrated from
 a Carlyle system (Topcat).  I'd be happy to answer questions about the
 Cataloging subsystem, which is what I'm most familiar with...

Basically, I think we are pleased with Innovative.  We have had minimal down-
time, and the patrons like the OPAC.  I think the cataloging subsystem may
be the weakest part (editing is clunky, and Marc tags are not used to the
fullest extent) but new releases are coming regularly and are substantial
improvements.

If you have specific questions I'd be happy to answer them or pass them on
to my colleagues in the library who would be more familiar with the other
subsystems.

For comparison, Colgate has about 5400 patrons (students, faculty, staff &
guests).  The library contains about 500,000 volumes.  We acquire approx.
15,000 titles per year and have about 5,000 serial subscriptions.



>From:  IN%"dbilyeu@ucscb.UCSC.EDU" 20-NOV-1992 14:37:23.66

I'm currently intalling my 3rd system - 1-Dynix, 2-Innovative - in
the third academic library I've worked in over 6+ years. What you
install is more dependent on your specific needs, size of collection,
overall goal and mission for the library/campus, monies available,
campus network situation, etc. than on differences between systems.
(Not to downplay the differences between how the systems operate.)

It sounds like you are not limited to a particular brand of hardware.
So this is a hardware/software purchase? (Hardware meaning CPU - I
always advise purchasing peripherals from sources other than the
automation vendor. With III, the library pays a maintenance fee based
on a percentage of total system cost. Why pay ANY maintenace on dumb
terminals. Also, costs for these items are always inflated. Light pens
from III are hundreds of $ more than the SAME pen direct from the maker.)

Dynix has always been very responsive to its clientele, and open to new
ideas. III is improving in this area, and the user group is becoming more
structured. I installed III at Caltech - a campus with very demanding
standards and the faculty loved it. I like its opac better than Dynix,
but I haven't used Dynix for several years. But as a systems librarian,
I found III systems harder to configure and alter as needed. Also, I
think cataloging librarians had some complaints about the OCLC interface
and editing records in III. Many of these complaints are addressed in the
release 8 software (I hope)...

P.S. It seems that unless you can easily link with the regional system, you
would want to lean toward PALS, but I have no idea how good PALS is or
what modules it supports.



>From:  IN%"MERCADO@iscsvax.uni.edu"  "MARILYN MERCADO" 20-NOV-1992 16:31:39.23

The University of Northern Iowa loaded its Innovative Interfaces system in the
summer 1989.  We have Acquisitions, Serials Control, Online Catalog,
Circulation, Reserves running on an integrated system.  You did not ask
specific questions about our likes or dislikes.  We are quite happy, after
several systems were investigated by teams of staff Innovative was chosen.  It
works well for us with about 520,000 bibliographic records...


>From:  IN%"INNOPAC%MAINE.BitNet@pucc.PRINCETON.EDU"  "III Online Public Access
 Catalog Discussion List" 20-NOV-1992 17:39:02.70

We just installed Innovative on Sept. 21 in our library.  During our
RFI/RFP process, we looked at Dynix, PALS, DRA, VTLS, Innovative and
hooking on to NOTIS on our main campus.  We opted to go with Innovative
in the end.  To say a little about Dynix, DRA, PALS and Innovative, here
are some general comments (call if you want more details).  Also, I don't
know your politics and, of course, those can be a major decision-making
factor:

Dynix:  nice little system, cheaper than other systems (certainly cheaper
than Innovative), good customer service and relations.  Problem:  not
sophisticated enough for us, especially in terms of dealing with goodies
like analytics, etc.  Serials module, at the time we were investigating,
was insufficiently developed, and serials are a critical component in
our business library (we spend over 85% of our acquisitions budget on
serials).

DRA:  great technically, great database structure, great on standards.
We didn't like the OPAC--too cluttered--and we didn't want to spend time
on redoing screens (as they said we were free and able to do), we wanted
a turnkey system.  After investigating, we began to realize that DRA wasn't
really a totally turnkey system as originally thought, but needed more staff
time than we were going to be able to devote to its care and feeding (we
are getting no staff increase for automation ,e.g., analyst/programmer or
clerk to run jobs, backups, etc.).

PALS:  Their quote to us was WAY higher than everyone else's.  Good, solid
structure, but modules are not (or at least were not at the time of
investigation) integrated.  We also has some politics involved here in
house which didn't lead us to look favorably on them, but I expect I
wouldn't have recommended it anyway.  I really didn't like the OPAC much
and they couldn't handle the serials yet (at least not to my satisfaction).

Innovative:  great acquisitions and serials control--best of all, I think.
OPAC is good too--user friendly, etc.  Weakness tends to be in database
and they very much leave you on your own to prep your data to meet their
rather rigid needs, but once loaded, you're off and running.  Cost is
not cheap, although not nearly as expensive as the PALS quote to us (which
may be very different for you in your circumstances).  This system was
also the least time-consuming in terms of staff to maintain via backups,
updates, etc., etc.  Don't need programmer or analyst or anything like
that.  Good customer relations so far and well recommended originally.



>From:  IN%"INNOPAC%MAINE.BitNet@pucc.PRINCETON.EDU"  "III Online Public Access
 Catalog Discussion List" 20-NOV-1992 20:16:32.00

Colgate looked at VTLS, Dynix, DRA, & III when migrating from Carlyle in
1990.  III and DRA were clearly the top two choices by a long shot.  I
pushed for III because it was then the Lexus of Acq and Serial systems.
I am very happy with it so far and our users seem happy with it...By the way I
did not make it clear that we have the full integrated system [acq, ser, circ,
opac].



>From:  IN%"fmparker@COLBY.EDU" 24-NOV-1992 07:36:08.95

        I remember the decision to with Innovative as a very traumatic one.
 We narrowed it down to Carlyle and III in 1988 and, fortunatly for us,
chose III.  Any Innovative customer can tell you things they would like to
see improved in the system, but I doubt if you will find anyone who is
sorry they chose III. They are responsive to the users and the national
user's group has an ongoing process for collecting a wishlist for
improvements.
        We loaded our catalog in the Spring of 1989, put up
Circulation/Reserve that summer, and added Acquisitions and Serials the
following year.  We linked to the catalogs of Bates, Bowdoin, and UMaine in
1990 and this year have been involved in a project to network the EAI index
and the Maine Union List of Serials on the UMaine catalog.  These things
aren't something we might do someday - we have them up and running.
        III's strong points are the flexibility for setting local
parameters within the functions, the integration of the system functions,
the ability to run on a variety of platforms, the connectivity to other
systems, and the simplicity of its public functions.  The last of these is
the most important.  Any user can walk up and do a basic search without
help.  Even the most computer shy faculty members now admit they can find
things more easily than before.
        The weaknesses of the system?  For us, one weakness has been the
self-contained nature of the accounting systems in Circulation and in
Acquisitions.  The transfer of information to a college accounting system
isn't as easy as I would like.
        We have seen III expand and develop as a company during the past
five years and, throughout, the staff have remained helpful and pleasant,
if somewhat harried, they have improved their customer communications, and
have made great improvements in the product.  I think it is still the best
product of its kind on the market for an institution of our type.



>From:  IN%"LAWLIB9@UCONNVM.UCONN.EDU"  "stone" 24-NOV-1992 19:43:31.57

Can't beat III.  Been in systems since 1967 and this is a dream come true.
Don't get anything that is not on Unix.  Serials control and acquisitions
system is the best.  Fits in a box 2 x 2 and ours handles 150,000 records.
Can't go wrong.



From:   IN%"jking@hamline.edu" 25-NOV-1992 13:25:50.18

        Jo Bell Whitlatch of San Jose State U.
says: "Dynix and Innovative were the two finalists
in the OPAC bid, and I think they are both good
systems, well designed with relatively responsive
personnel. ...both have well established customer
bases.... Innovative "...is easy for the occasional
novice user to do a simple search and be successful
without assistance....for frequent users, the system
has a great deal of power.... Circulation staff are
very satisfied with the power and capabilities of
Innovative's circulation system....Innovative Reserve
module quite workable and a real plus. Most of our
remaining problems have to do with database errors
and the lack of staff (due to declining budget)to
correct the many errors....We also have Innovac, the
Serials and Acquisitions module and we find the
link between systems to be valuable. Users love it!
Several faculty have provided unsolicited testimony,
they think we have one of the best systems around....
So I recommend it highly."
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU