10:00-10:05

Call To Order

@brandon dudley (Unlicensed)

10:05-10:15

Introductions

Everyone

10:15-10:25

Review of Steering Committee expectations

@brandon dudley (Unlicensed)

10:25-10:40

COLD Update

@Adriana Popescu (Unlicensed)
@David Walker

10:40-11:10

Review of Committee Agendas

Everyone

11:10-11:30

Committee Business

All

From Jill:

• Request for normalization rule to change internment to incarceration

• Draft of inclusive cataloging statement

• Recommendation on headings for Indigenous Californians

  • RMFC is interested in getting this conversation started.

  • RMFC feels that the CSU’s are uniquely positioned geographically to look at addressing this topic

  • The project may tie in with DEI work being done by ExLibris

• Alternate Vocabularies for LGBTQ+

Assessment & Analytics

@Kevin Phillips (Unlicensed)

• The Assessment and Analytics committee will be reaching out to the Resource Sharing committee for collaboration on creating a Rapido Dashboard. Natalya Magazino will be sharing with the committee going the mechanics of the dashboard and how to create an analytics dashboard.  

• We will continue to monitor and update the ACRL IPEDS reports as needed.

• There may be opportunities to work more directly with SRDC on collection development analytics as well.

Discovery

@Ian Chan (Unlicensed)

Evaluate Primo VE

We should evaluate Primo VE and assess whether it offers improvements over Primo Back Office. The CSU Libraries elected to migrate to VE because of Ex Libris described it as offering greater functionality over BO and solutions to problems found in BO.

Discussion

• There has been feedback describing performance issues with VE.

• How will we use the findings from the evaluation?

• When framing our questions, we should keep in mind that shortcomings or missing functionality might not be attributed to differences between VE and BO.

• Should survey have one broad question or address the major areas of Primo (e.g. user interface, search engine results, and other areas)?

• What issues carried over from BO to VE?

• A survey addressing Primo positives and negatives, separate from ULMS satisfaction survey, would be helpful in addressing issues with Ex Libris.

• The survey results would also be useful in comparing findings with peer institutions and coordinating discussions aimed at seeking improvements from Ex Libris.

Establish Test Sites

Establish 2-5 campuses that can monitor release notes and test new discovery features when available. This was proposed by Christian Ward to the ULMS Steering Committee.

Discussion

• The committee is supportive of this proposal and members indicated strong interest in participating.

• Christopher Novak, @Hannah Lee (Unlicensed) , Julie Shen, and Keven Jeffery have offered to participate.

Update Wiki Content

Some pages in the Discovery area of the ULMS wiki require updates and possibly pruning.

Discussion

• One example is the Primo VE Known Issues - Not updated as of August 2022 page. Others might include pages found within the Primo VE Customization section.

Apply Findings from UI/UX Evaluation

Discuss findings from UX studies such as those conducted by Gabriel Gardner and Heather Cribbs, and provide a set of recommendations.

Discussion

• How does filter usage compare across campuses?

• How do CSU library websites direct users to Primo?

• How have campuses elected to include/exclude and expand/collapse facets?

• Should we consider A/B testing?

• Should we compile a list of Primo-related UX studies that have been completed, are under consideration, and in-process?

• Ex Libris conducts UX testing but does not have the capacity to conduct studies that would replicate the scope found within the CSU consortial and campus environments.

Address uResolver Matching Issues

Many consortia campuses are reporting records with uResolver matching issues. These include: 1) over matching of results, 2) under matching of results, 3) different format matching, and 4) title matching issues.

This priority is one of the three top issues presented to Ex Libris last Spring. Committee will address this at next meeting.

Address Features Not Working as Expected

Features are not working as expected or as we understand them to work. For example:

• LC subject browse does not return expected results,

• Date Newest facet only works when specific metadata is present in records, which is inconsistent in CDI and Alma records,

• Search within journal feature is nice, but only works when ISSN is present and can only be disabled using CSS,

• Ranking configuration still eludes many campuses in the consortia, and

• Performance issues with indexing, front-end load times, and feature activation.

This priority is one of the three top issues presented to Ex Libris last Spring.

It would be most helpful if campuses can describe the negative impact on their users.

Committee will address this at next meeting.

Investigate Improvements to Analytics Gathering and Analysis

This priority is one of the three top issues presented to Ex Libris last Spring. Committee will address this at next meeting.

ERM

@Austin Lenzen (Unlicensed)

The ERM committee will be reaching out to the Discovery committee about the continued crossover between our two areas.  Given her background in Discovery, Christine Holmes could be a useful liaison.  Our ERM members have agreed that merged records should be our first point of conversation.

We have also begun identifying broken links and outdated information on the Wiki.  Quite a bit of our documentation has not been updated in the past two years.

Fulfillment

@Rachael-Joy Davis (Unlicensed)

Goal 1: Finalize Walk-In User Policy

Overview:

Over the past few years, the Fulfillment Functional Committee (FFC) and Resource Sharing Functional Committee (RSFC) successfully convinced Ex Libris to make the necessary updates in Alma to make it possible for walk-in users to use CSU+. In the 2021/2022 FY, FFC’s goal was to write up a policy for approval by COLD that will ask all CSU libraries to use the new workflow and allow walk-in users at all campuses. Our goal for 2022/2023 FY is to finalize the policy language in collaboration with RSFC, submit the proposed policy to the Steering Committee for review/feedback, then hand it over to COLD for final review and approval of policy.

Assessment:

This goal is complete when a policy is submitted to COLD.

Goal 2: Alma/Primo Release Notes

Overview:

Keep the Access Services community aware of Alma updates by reading through Ex Libris release notes and testing new updates.

Assessment:

This is an ongoing goal. The goal is considered complete if the FFC disseminates information on Alma updates.

Goal 3: Satisfaction Survey

Overview:

Assist with dissemination of surveys and gathering and evaluating data from survey responses. FFC will identify areas of improvement with current functionality as it relates to Fulfillment, as well as what features are missing from the current product.

Assessment:

This is an ongoing goal. The goal is considered complete if the FFC gathers, compiles, and disseminates survey feedback to improve the user experience.

Goal 4: General Fulfillment/Access Services Survey

Overview:

Gain insight from Access Services staff as we work towards navigating post-pandemic library environments: structure, services, and user experience. Survey questions may include:

●      Discontinued services

●      New services

●      Service models

●      Staffing

●      Student employment

Assessment:

This goal is complete if survey results have been evaluated and disseminated across the CSU libraries, and a resource is provided for all libraries to gain insight into how other libraries are structured and how fulfillment service models differ across the 23 CSU libraries.

Resource Management

@Jill Strykowski (Unlicensed)

• Look at Periodical records in Alma/Primo to see if there is anything we can do about the mismatched and duplicative records that appear when one searches for a Periodical by title in OneSearch.
  Jill will follow-up next meeting with recommendations for master or weighted records

• Recommend that we discuss the practice of putting what used to go in a 655 for electronic books into a local bib data field (Nerissa Lindsey, seconded by Jill)
  To look into for follow-up: Do we know how heavily facets are used? - do we use genre at all?

• Use of new secondary resource type feature - is this useful?

• Are we commenting on Metadoor? - getting involved in open access MARC record repository? minting record numbers for collocation - getting involved in Data excellence initiatives?

• Pulling people together to recommend greater cohesiveness in metadata between groups (ULMS, DAMS, IR’s, etc.)

Resource Sharing

Tina Dwyer

• Improving patron communication and marketing of Rapido and other interlibrary services

• Create more ways for resource sharing staff to report issues and possible improvements for RAPIDO

• Cleaning up and improving the WIKI

• RAPIDO content moved forward

• Archiving content that is no longer relevant 

• Reinvigorate task forces 

• Finalize walk in policy