COLD Exec approved Chris' request for accounts to access campus (non-ULMS) ILL stats.
John will share Ex Libris' Rapido subscription proposal with COLD.
Clarivate refused to agree to required CSU contractual language, jeopardizing our Web of Science subscription.
The Student Success Committee’s recent report may be of interest to Analytics.
Next year COLD will begin another cycle of strategic planning.
1:10-1:30
Functional Committee Reports
All
Resource Sharing
Met with Fulfillment committee to discuss feasibility of allowing Cal State walk-in users to request CSU+.
The best way to allow CSU+ requesting for walk-in users is still unclear. Decision to ask advice of Steering Committee.
Launched two new task forces
The ILLiad Updates task force
Will review and test new features released with ILLiad 9.1 and share what they learn with our community of practice.
CONTU Guidelines task force
As a result of recent paper on the outdatedness of the CONTU guidelines, there is interest from our community of practice in looking at whether it is appropriate to draft and recommend new guidelines for the CSU libraries to follow.
If the task force determines it appropriate, the guidelines will go to COLD for review.
We met with Tim Jackson of the SUNY libraries to discuss the possibility of an Alma resource sharing partnership with them.
We’re beginning to revisit a project the Resource Sharing committee was working on before COVID hit which was to improve cooperation between the CSU libraries and the UC libraries through expanded reciprocal agreements and courier services. We are investigating our options for adding courier service to the UC libraries not already on the Unity contract.
Resource Management
Many in the group are participating in the Primo VE evaluation.
Discussing process for adding large collections to the Network Zone.
Exploring some practices around local fields.
Exploring ways to provide warnings to users about troubling or offensive content.
Working with Resource Sharing committee to determine whether walk-in users will be able to use CSU+ in our current environment. The current configurations and workflows are posted on the Fulfillment Confluence site.
Reviewing digitization workflows for a possible Spring open forum.
ERM
ERM asked the Analytics committee for guidance on mixed COUNTER 4 and 5 Reports for ACRL report.
The advice was to use only R4 OR R5, but not to include numbers from both reports for the same resource.
They reminded us that R5 metrics are not comparable to R4 metrics, and so our numbers will be different from last year, and that's okay.
Kate and Jessica Joined Brandon Dudley on a call to Ex Libris to discuss the user satisfaction survey.
ERM reminded Ex Libris (again) that simply explaining how things work will not resolve all of our issues with CDI.
CDI functionality needs improvement, not just user education.
Discovery
The evaluation of Primo VE continues apace.
Since beginning 2021, we have held three forums regarding the evaluation.
A general forum introducing campuses to the process on January 22nd
Two others detailing specific tasks that are part of Ex Libris’ Go VE task list.
Past forums are available here. Future forum topics and dates are visible at the prior link as well.
The most affected individuals are enrolled in Basecamp and can contact Ex Libris through that platform.
There is a slack channel at #primo-ve-evaluation where people are sharing information and tips.
An outline of the evaluation that the Committee will ask campuses to perform, once they have configured VE to their satisfaction, is linked from the December 18th meeting notes.
Testing will primarily take place in April, though if campuses are ahead of schedule they should feel free to begin earlier and the Discovery committee will get final plans with instructions and testing data submission forms available in a timely manner to facilitate the process.
Due to the time sensitive nature of the VE evaluation and the complexity of the project, most other business of the Discovery committee has been tabled.
Assessment & Analytics
Working on satisfaction survey. Gathering specific examples and issues around:
cost usage data being incomplete
performance of NZ analytics
being unable to do overlap analysis with print and electronic records in NZ
Will be conducting another usage data survey to better understand practices across the CSU.
Task force evaluating Tableau has completed its work:
Acquisitions
Working on identifying top issues from satisfaction survey.
Challenging to find shared issues.
1:30-1:35
NO_DEDUPE Code
@Mark Braden (Unlicensed)
The intention is to moderate use of the 988 NO DEDUPE setting by a Library.
When used by a Library, it keeps the Library’s own version separate from other versions of the same work.
The policy offers two examples where use of this command is appropriate.
Broad-scale use of the command would result in multiple records displaying in OneSearch, for the same essential work.
Think of 50 records of Lord of The Rings displaying in your OneSearch results. But they’re all the same version/edition/year.
Feedback included suggestions:
language of the policy be more precise
musical scores as an example
Steering Committee should review and give Mark feedback by end of next week.
1:35-1:45
Follow up with ExL on Customer Satisfaction Survey
@brandon dudley (Unlicensed)
Ex Libris has proposed three responses to the Satisfaction Survey:
Improvements to Content support, which is going well.
A series of webinars on CDI to ensure there is no knowledge gap.
We need to get through this before recommending improvements to CDI.
Like last year, meeting with committees to work through top issues.
Unlike last year, will include more product management support.
The faster ULMS committees compile their top three issues, the sooner Ex Libris can start working on them.
Even if we don’t get everything we want, this is a useful way our voice can be head.
1:50-2:05
Walk-in Patrons Policy
@Jamie Lamberti (Unlicensed) @Natalya Magazino
The Fulfillment committee and the Resource Sharing committee discussed feasibility of offering CSU+ requesting to Cal State walk-in users.
While we would love to do this, there is unfortunately no good solution at present.
Since walk-in users cannot log into Primo which they would need to in order to submit a CSU+ request, the only solution we can come up with is for each campus to create a form for walk-in users to submit requests.
Staff would monitor submissions and place the requests on the backend in Alma.
There are concerns about asking each campus to do this and so we are hoping to get the Steering Committee’s opinion.
This reflects an important direction in the spirit of a shared system.
Other potential solutions:
Will share this as a major issue with Ex Libris
Could advocate for this via Idea Exchange or via ELUNA
Explore an API-based solution
2:05-2:15
Rialto
@brandon dudley (Unlicensed)
Ex Libris wants to demo Rialto to campuses
Rialto is a selection tool
no cost
integration with Alma is very convenient
campuses must commit to purchasing a certain amount through Rialto
Of interest to collection development and acquisitions folks
