| Time | Item | Notes |
|---|
| 5min | Announcements | |
| 30min | Questions/comments from the Leads group discussed with brandon dudley (Unlicensed) | Darlene suggested on Circ listserv that some resource sharing should be tested/implemented for Sacramento and San Marcos during our initial test phase, is this going to be possible? The current plan is to get everything set up in Alma and then add Sacramento and San Marcos at the end (no resource sharing during Vanguarg Phase). We may have more success setting up resource sharing in the test environment than testing with Sacramento and San Marcos. We don't currently load directly to each other yet Ex Libris expects us to. There are a lot of decisions that will need to be made regarding exactly how we will use resource sharing. For instance, by default Alma uses a ROTA system to parse requests and ILLiad is the last resort. So Alma will check other CSUs first and then dump the request into ILLiad, is that what we want? We need to think through this. For instance: LINK+ libraries, where do they fall in this ROTA system? COLD Presentation for October meeting will give Deans information to help make a better decision. COLD Resource Sharing and Preservation (CRSP) task force make recommendations of resource sharing, ILL, WEST, etc issues that COLD should look in to. Stacy Caron (Unlicensed) is on the group and any concerns of the ULMS Working Group should be sent to her. brandon dudley (Unlicensed) will ask CRSP to work with ULMS Working Group leads. The Vanguard phase will not offer resource sharing and likely not Primo either. This test environment should be released at the end of January. By March campuses will begin working on data migration. The Vanguard is just a really basic test it definitely won’t answer all the questions we have. How would “fulfillment network” work? Since we will use Shibboleth throughout the system library A could pull a patron record from library B and create a temporary patron record in their local patron database. The patron could return the item to any library. We probably want to know more about exactly how this would work before deciding. The patron experience during borrowing in Alma is going to be better than INNReach. Is borrowing from just the CSUs enough? Is ILLiad cost effective and time effective enough for all non-CSU borrows? We need to consider what our needs are and what kind of service we want to provide.
|
| 15min | Next steps suggested by brandon dudley (Unlicensed) to the Access Services and Resource Sharing Leads group | Resource sharing. Engaging on policies and procedures, what things should be done systemwide? What parts of the fulfillment system should be centrally or regionally controlled? Do we want loan rules and patron types to be managed centrally or regionally to make resource sharing easier? “Fulfillment networks”: borrow anywhere/return anywhere, borrow directly. Should the CSU do this? The Dean’s will need guidance from our group. What parts of the patron record should be required system wide (this affects people soft integration)? Best practices on notes, standardization, etc. What workflows should be prioritized for redesign by redesign specialist at CO? Circulation. Things like patron notices need to be reconsidered. Fines and fees synchronized system wide? In-person meeting. Decide as a leads group what topics are best discussed in email versus in-person. Divide topics to derive agenda for an in-person meeting. Patron records. Think of the patron database as a federated database. What is the minimum standard data that PeopleSoft must deliver to Alma to create patron records on all campuses? For instance some campuses may not collect physical address. Sandbox. The sandbox should be used in conjunction with training. It will make a lot more sense once you are doing online training, it's not nearly as useful to just login.
|