The ghost of BMUC past

[altivo]

Some of you will remember my remarks about the Big Messed Up Consortium last winter and spring, and how the little rebel libraries escaped its clutches (mostly.) Today I learned that one of the big leverage points that BMUC used to argue that we should have given up our more advanced software in favor of their cheaper system was that they had purchased (in advance) an enhancement that would make it work more like our better product.

That enhancement failed to meet two promised delivery dates by the time our little group finally bolted and slammed the door behind us. For well over a year, I had been saying that the promised enhancement was vaporware that would never be delivered...

My reputation as a Kassandra stands untarnished. I was right. The software vendor has now admitted that they will never be able to deliver the enhancements in the promised form so that they could be used by a library group as large as BMUC. (90+ libraries is simply too large for ANY product to handle properly.) There are of course financial penalties for failure to deliver on the contract, but I expect they will never be paid. The software vendor is in financial trouble already, and, as I previously reported, has already been bought out by another company that has little interest other than in consolidating its power base.

Meanwhile we are fighting a new battle with at least some members of the BMUC group. They continue to use our small group of eight libraries as their primary source for interlibrary loans, even though we receive no financial support at all for their usage. In repeated talks with the libraries who continue to borrow from us first even though their own consortium has the same material available (often many more copies of it than we have) turns up the admission that: 1) they find our catalog software much easier to use, and it is easier to place a request with us than with their own group ; and 2) they find that we deliver the requested materials more consistently and promptly than the members of their own group do. No sh*t, Sherlock. That's two of the things we kept saying all along. The software they committed to is second rate, clumsy, and inefficient. AND... in a group of 90 libraries that extends from the Indiana state line all the way to and across the Mississippi into Iowa, it takes longer to get a response and longer for materials to be delivered. The absence of the now aborted enhancement means that Joliet can request a title and rather than the nearest holding library receiving the request, it could be delivered from Davenport, Iowa. Obviously the delivery time for that is double or triple what it needs to be. This has always been apparent to anyone with half a brain, but I guess consortial administrators are not required to have, or at least exercise, brain cells in order to keep their chairs warm.

Comments

[quickcasey.livejournal.com]

That's just unfair, I said, pointing out the obvious.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Many things about the way public libraries operate in Illinois are unfair or even downright stupid. For that we can thank a politician or two. Other states (Michigan, California, New York are prime examples) have much more effective library systems that serve every single resident of the state instead of the quarreling and moth-holed patchwork that Illinois offers. However, fixing that means shifting some tax money around from one district to another, which is never a popular thing with Illinois politicians, so don't expect any improvements soon.

Money is presently allocated from state taxes to existing library districts based on the size of the population they serve. The equivalent share of taxes for "unserved" areas should be likewise allocated to insure some sort of universal library access to everyone. But that is not done. Instead, the "unserved" remain unserved and have no access to libraries at all unless they pay a direct fee in order to buy a card. The fee system for that is mandated by a state law, so it is illegal for us to make adjustments to the system on our own initiative.

[keeganfox.livejournal.com]

So you're telling me libraries are just like the military?

[altivo.livejournal.com]

I'm afraid it is much wider than that. The military is no different from any other human organization, be they corporations, congress, or service agencies. All the Dilbert principles apply.

[gabrielhorse.livejournal.com]

Well said... and in such circumstances, looking good overshadows minor details like practicality and responsibility. What do you do when you drop the ball? File for bankruptcy and/or take cover under the shelter of a buyout company :/ worhtless asshats.

Now that I understand the situation past better, I wholeheartedly applaud your resistance to "progress" in the name of Dilbertism :) as well as anyone who agreed with you at your workplace.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Thanks. I was the persistent critic who pointed out many flaws, both in the software and in the organizational structure. But I couldn't make the course of the bus change. Unfortunately, directors are political animals who change direction only when pushed really hard, and they waited just a couple of weeks too long to act. They could have saved themselves $65K by listening just a bit sooner.

[cabcat.livejournal.com]

Hehe, I'm seeing all these Librarian horses galloping out of the meeting and closing the stable door all the sounds of hooves and whinning.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Oh, I'm probably the only equine. Most of the group would be cats of some sort with maybe a few dogs thrown in, maybe a wolf or two. The snakes and jackasses seem to have all been left behind in BMUC.

[cabcat.livejournal.com]

Cats make good librarians?

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Altivo at work, with help? Emma, the library cat, displays her characteristic demeanor of aloof disinterest combined with imperial ownership of any spot she chooses. Taken winter of 2005.

[cabcat.livejournal.com]

Its even more uncanny that I'm a tortoishell cat although not in fur colour, more of a persian you could say.