Title Layout

Evergreen Review1The TeamEmerson Kerry Adams Elena OMalleyLesley Marilyn Geller NEC Damian Iseminger Ricky ValloneEmmanuel Cathy Tuohy Susan von Daum Tholl Diane ZydlewskiMCPHS Kathy KrathwohlSMFA Lauren Kimball-Brown Darin MurphyEDS Anne-Marie MulliganMassArt Rachel Resnik Greg WallaceWentworth Kathleen Berry Kurt Oliver Katharine RitterFLO Kelly Drake Paul Hoffman Adam Shire Walter StineMFA Lee-Anne Famolare

New England College of Optometry Patricia McIvor

Wheelock Brenda Ecsedy Mare Parker-OToole Adam Williams2

Patron Experience Team

Evaluate Evergreen in terms of its functionality for library patrons. Search, Discovery and AccessSelf-Service/My AccountLocalizationUsability4Evergreen: Basic Search

5Evergreen: Advanced Search

6Evergreen: Facets

7Evergreen: Account Links

8Evergreen: My Account

9Evergreen: SFX Integration

10NOBLE

11Kent County, MD

12Historic Deerfield, MA

13Middlesex County, VA

14Evergreen on mobile

15Workflows Team

Evaluate Evergreen in terms of its functionality for staff functions. Not a comparison with Voyager, but rather taking a bigger what wed like, and what we really need approach to analysisOverall functionality like a bicycle team, a system needs to work well overall Assessment of individual modules16Workflows Overall Assessment

17Workflow Task AssessmentCirculationAcquisitionsAuthorityCatalogingIntra-Library LoanCourse Reserves?Serials

18System Management Team

19Evergreen Community

Throughout the Evergreen Review we all also looked to evaluate the community involved. As this is an open source system, we have learned that the community is a key aspect of the success of a system.

To this end all members of the Review Team attended the Evergreen Annual conference in May, met with members of the MassLnc association (both the governance body and individual systems and library people) and the staff of Berklee College who migrated to Evergreen a few years ago.

We found the Evergreen Committee, pictured here in Simon Fraser Universitys Asia Pacific Room during the 2013 Annual Conference, to be vibrant, enthusiastic, and well-organized.

We also reviewed a few of the commercial support systems for Evergreen and briefly worked with one of them, Equinox to enhance the authority browse.

We also learned that while the governance committee controls the legal aspects, and arranges for conferences, etc. It is the development committee, and the developers who are responsible for code contributions, and that that community too is very active and very dedicated. 20Iterative Evaluation and Development CycleIn short, over the last 5 months weve been evaluating the whole Evergreen System. As Marilyn mentioned in the FCDC presentation. An open source system isnt just software. And using one isnt like purchasing a package off the shelf. In order to assess whether or not to commit to an OS project

the product must meet minimum standardsidentify development needslearn about yourselflearn about the OS Communityidentify matches and mismatches between organization and communityidentify resources that will help you neutralize mismatches

Weve come a long way down the path to understanding FLO, Evergreen and the Evergreen Community 21Where do we go from here?

The question iswhere do we want to go from here?22The TeamEmerson Kerry Adams Elena OMalleyLesley Marilyn Geller NEC Damian Iseminger Ricky ValloneEmmanuel Cathy Tuohy Susan von Daum Tholl Diane ZydlewskiMCPHS Kathy KrathwohlSMFA Lauren Kimball-Brown Darin MurphyEDS Anne-Marie MulliganMassArt Rachel Resnik Greg WallaceWentworth Kathleen Berry Kurt Oliver Katharine RitterFLO Kelly Drake Paul Hoffman Adam Shire Walter StineMFA Lee-Anne Famolare

New England College of Optometry Patricia McIvor

Wheelock Brenda Ecsedy Mare Parker-OToole Adam Williams23