2015-09-09 Implementation Team Meeting notes

Owned by David Walker
Last updated: Oct 19, 2015 by brandon dudley (Unlicensed)Version comment
5 min read

Date

Attendees

Goals

  • Vanguard load – when will the campuses be oriented on the forms so they can get started?
  • Sacramento & San Marcos – Opportunities to rethink/reconfigure their Alma and Primo implementations during the project
  • Resource sharing – What options are available for configuration? Can you help us think through the possibilities?
  • Introducing milestones during project: information to facilitate decision-making within the CSU

Discussion items

TimeItemWhoNotes
15minVanguard loadBrandon
  • Vanguard test load starts in mid-December
  • Ex Libris proposed that the data / form preparation begin in early November.
  • Brandon and Rae Ann asked for this earlier, for mid-October.
  • Three vanguard institutions identified
    • San Jose
    • Fresno
    • Northridge
  • Audrey has the new Basecamp project site up and running, will send out a link by the end of the week.
10minSacramento & San MarcosBrandon
  • Brandon explained that both campuses are actively working on things, looking to improve various aspects of the system. Is there an opportunity for either campus to reconfigure things now? Can either campus seed the Network Zone early? Are there things they should not be doing?
  • John said that they are rethinking the placement of Sacramento and San Marcos in the seeding process. Ex Libris support has just delivered initial report to Sacramento, and thinking through the issues. Ex Libris is interested in engaging the two sites earlier in the project. This will be an ongoing conversation.
10minResource sharingBrandon
  • Brandon gave a bit of history here, pointing out that the CSU has not done resource sharing much in the past, so we have no set policies or criteria. We have a lot of unknowns now.
  • John proposed that we start with an overview, create a concise list of options to consider/make decision about. There is a document in the documentation center that may cover this.
10minIntroducing milestones during projectBrandon
  • Brandon mentioned that, because we are starting from scratch in some areas for consortium functionality, we would like to get information on some of those steps earlier rather than later.
  • Audrey mentioned that, after populating the Basecamp site, we'll have a better idea of the timeline around specific tasks. This should give us a good idea of which items may need more lead time for discussion.
  • Discussion about how the migration and implementation forms are an iterative process that allows us to see mistakes or change our mind. We should see it as an opportunity to learn about what we want.
    

Action items

 

01CALS - Pre-Implementation Meeting

Wednesday, September 09, 2015

Attendees:

CalState: Brandon Dudley, David Walker, Alice Kawakami, Rae Ann Stahl, Patrick Newel

Ex Libris: Melissa Hilbert, Audrey Ho, Tony Gibbons, Marina Spivakov, John Larson

 

 

Agenda

 

1.       Vanguard load – when will the campuses be oriented on the forms so they can get started?

o    Targeting late Oct/early Nov to start talking about migration inputs

·         Feedback: more lead-time the better.

·         Decision: let's target mid-October to start talking about migration inputs.

o    Question: Vanguard institutions - have they been identified? Yes.

·         San Jose (Rae-Ann)

·         Fresno (Patrick)

·         Northridge

Action:  Melissa will inform migration team - DONE

o    Vanguard load calendar:

 

 

 

Action: Audrey to populate Basecamp site with proposed dates and share with Brandon (CalState is using Confluence internally) - target by end of the week

 

2.       Sacramento & San Marcos – Opportunities to rethink/reconfigure their Alma and Primo implementations during the project

o    Brandon supplied context:

·         Sacramento is working with customer retention on improving Primo; San Marcos doesn't have as many questions/need for improvement. However, there is interest in re-visiting Primo implementations. Sacramento also interested in Alma-side improvements as well.

·         Brandon explained that both campuses are actively working on things, looking to improve various aspects of the system. Is there an opportunity for either campus to reconfigure things now? Can either campus seed the Network Zone early? Are there things they should not be doing?

·         Schedule as set-out indicates that both campuses will be engaged only at the very end. Also, would their late entry into the NZ pose problems?

o    John Larson: will probably need to re-think their entry into the process as we move to merged discovery environment as well. Initial report of findings only just delivered to Sacramento, so this is not an unknown issue. Ex Libris is interested in engaging the two sites earlier in the project. This will be an ongoing conversation. Also consider that there will be a number of decisions on policy that you'll want to make as a group as you  move into a merged discovery model. These discussions will need to include the two campuses that have already been implemented. The timeline here though still needs to be determined.

 

 

3.       Resource sharing – What options are available for configuration? Can you help us think through the possibilities?

o    Since the last phone call CALSTATE has started to introduce the topic of RS to the library deans. CSU-wide RS isn't like a formal thing at this point -- so the goal is to bring awareness of this capability in Alma to the membership. No set policies or criteria or borrowing rules/workflows currently exist at CSU. Since we're starting from scratch, there are a lot of unknowns here. If there are options that are clearly defined, would love to have the information upfront. The plan is to have a more involved conversation on RS with the deans in October.

o    Exl proposes starting with a very high level overview of RS at the kickoff. Consider if it makes sense to do a more formal overview of RS along with options. ACTION: John will get the relevant doc to Audrey; CALSTATE to review the doc in advance of the kickoff. - SENT

o    ACTION: Let's plan to have a specific RS call prior to the meeting with the deans. Timing TBD; Brandon will get back to Audrey on best times to discuss resource sharing in more detail before October COLD meeting

 

4.       Introducing milestones during project: information to facilitate decision-making within the CSU

o    Move up the discussion on migration inputs to start in mid-October

o    As much lead time as possible for access to training/documentation is preferred

o    Audrey mentioned that, after populating the Basecamp site, we'll have a better idea of the timeline around specific tasks. This should give us a good idea of which items may need more lead time for discussion.

o    Discussion about how the migration and implementation forms are an iterative process that allows us to see mistakes or change our mind. We should see it as an opportunity to learn about what we want.

o    For decisions that are strategic and that require dean-input, we'll need substantially more lead time (weeks?) - e.g. RS, 3rd party integrations

 

 

Other topics:

 

·         Kickoff on Oct 5 confirmed; information to be socialized to the project managers on CALSTATE side

·         Action: Preferred hotels list to be sent to Audrey - SENT.