Page Comparison

Acquisitions & ERM

Assessment & Analytics

• The Data Viz task force is putting finishing touches on the next iteration of the Deans' Dashboard.  They plan to have it ready to demonstrate by the December COLD meeting.  They have been working to combine various data sources into a single Tableau account, adding contextual elements (e.g. campus FTE) where appropriate, and determining how best to handle outlier data points.
• The SRU task group is making good progress toward a web application that will allow users to upload title lists and receive back enriched lists containing information such as online version or ownership by other campuses.  They are currently working on ways to handle items lacking good match points (e.g. older titles) and are awaiting resolution of a data defect introduced by the November 2018 Alma release.
• The Collection Development task group is creating report folders in IZ and NZ Analytics that will contain a variety of customizable, actionable reporting tools.  These are intended for collection management staff to use when creating reports or providing data on behalf of Collection Development librarians, subject specialists, selectors, and others who might not typically use Alma or Alma Analytics.  The expectation is these reports will provide a scaffold that all libraries can use, but will require individual customization to fit each campus, due to the wide variation in fund code structures, physical locations, project requirements, etc. across the system.  Also for this reason, the reports will be kept in a curated folder rather than provided in a dashboard.
• As a follow-on to this, the group will also find out whether the canned Acquisitions Dashboard is sufficient for campuses' needs.
• The Committee also discussed training needs across the system.
• The Network Zone Analytics training session at the Southern California Technical Services Meeting reached 40-50 people.  We are considering how best to offer this training to other parts of the system.  Hands-on training in NZ Analytics is particularly difficult as reports can built during training but not run (due to time constraints--NZ reports take ~45 minutes to run), which limits the trainer's ability to help with specific errors or explain results.
• We determined that some of the information from the Network Zone Analytics training slide deck might be useful if pulled out on its own and posted in the ULMS wiki.  The slide deck itself is posted there.
• An idea was proposed that small cohorts might go through the Ex Libris training videos together to encourage participation, offer mutual support, and provide more incentive to complete the training.  We'll explore this idea further in the next few months.
• The Committee is exploring Ex Libris Benchmark Analytics.  SLO has opted in, but hasn't seen results yet as it can take up to 30 days for Ex Libris to populate the data.

Discovery

Fulfillment

• Matthew Prutsman will serve on the Volunteer for UResolver Task Force.
• Kevin Phillips (Fullerton) has been appointed as the FFC Vice Chair.
• The next Fulfillment Open Forum is on November 27 and will be a demonstration and panel discussion on ExLibris Leganto led by Ian Chan and Jodi Shepherd. Lauren Saslow of the Council of California Community Colleges Chief Librarians Electronic Access and Reviews Committee contacted Ian Chan for info about Leganto, and he asked if can invite her to the Open Forum as the CCs are going to be migrating to Alma and Primo. FFC agreed we should invite Lauren, and that we want to help others in their migrations.
• Feedback from FFC regarding Enhancements and Enhancement Process:

• Mallory - Like drinking from a firehose - very overwhelming and felt rushed.
• Kevin - he’s one of the voting members for his library. They looked through as a library (individual voting member). You also need to look at it strategically because you don’t want to vote on things that won’t succeed or benefit a small subset of your population.
• Cathe - voted individually and as a library. Found the whole point assignment process confusing. Committee should probably have some more involvement in advance of the vote.
• Christine - process is confusing. At some of the steering committee meetings Brandon was trying to get everyone together and get some consistency between campuses, which would have been nice.
• Jaime - we didn’t seem to have the time to plan or to get everyone together to vote. It’s days of staring at a spreadsheet trying to understand what you’re voting for. It’s not fun.
• Natasha - main issue is that they’re trying to get feedback from too many places. Perhaps a more effective way to do this in our system: have some governance for each section of the sheet and CSU people who are “in the know” (like the committees) to vote on top 10 and then send those items out to all campuses. Filter down to a smaller set of items to choose from. Extra difficult because many times the most complex things affect a lot in the system but are hard to understand.
• Perhaps a written survey would be a more effective way to get feedback from people if that’s what they’re looking for.
• FFC Goals: The committee collaborated on the attached Access Services and Student Success document inspired by an article that Mallory found: Who Succeeds in Higher Education? Questioning the Connection Between Academic Libraries & Student Success. Our document identifies challenges to student success and ways that Access Services can contribute to student success. The article includes our research and areas we will focus on this year.

Resource Management

Resource Sharing

Suzanna Conrad (Unlicensed)

A discussion between the the ULMS Chair & COLD Exec may be needed to determine how best to move forward.