| 25 mins | Functional Committee Updates | | Acquisitions & ERM- TS Open Forum presentations: Jessica presented on NZ Trials. Christine and Kirstie revisited PCI and Alma interactions for the benefit of those who couldn’t attend the SoCal Tech Services Meeting. We had a few follow up questions from it. The topic seems to be a bit confusing for people, so we’ll try to cover it as best we can in our Getting Started document as well.
- Work continues on our Getting Started document. We’d like to have it ready by the end of this semester, but for sure by the beginning of next semester we should have something solid.
- Wendy is working on compiling a list of ERM contacts at all the CSUs, which we hope can be used to improve the dissemination of information to ERM staff who are not on the EAR or Collection Development CO listservs. Information related to e-resources, authentication, e-resource trials, etc that pass through these listservs very often doesn’t get forwarded to the appropriate ERM staff at each campus. I’d also like to post the contact list on the wiki as well, just as Resource Management did for their Cataloging Contacts, and might create a separate one for Acquisitions contacts too. The Safari authentication situation is a good example of when this list would come in handy. Many of the ERM staff at campuses didn’t hear anything about this until Jessica forwarded the webinar invite from Ying.
- I’m working on getting someone to agree to be Vice Chair. We only have 3 options since everyone else on the committee is in their 2nd year. Ya declined, so I’m waiting to hear back from Linda. Will provide updates once I get a response.
- Our next meeting is scheduled for Nov. 21st.
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.
DiscoveryUX task force
Link Resolver task force - The group has met several times to discuss best technical approach. Dave Walker has developed proof-of-concept examples that employ either PHP or AngularJS (or combination).
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- Committee Members have created four “How-to” articles, which are currently under review. Once review is completed, articles will be posted online. (How to add a local field; How to create a holdings record for a single-part items; How to create a portfolio; How to transfer an item to a different bibliographic record).
- Resource Management Guide is under review. Committee Members will identify links to relevant policies and best practices to be added to the Guide. To be completed by December 10.
- Additional “How-to” articles will be created as topics are identified.
Recent discussions focused on: - Status, tasks, relationship of the NZ Management Group to the Resource Management Committee. Members agreed that the rationale for creating the NZ Management Group was to ensure that there would be a Group dedicated and equipped to manage NZ records (daily loads, NZ record clean-up) without burdening the Committee. The CO has provided support in this area as Marcus has taken on much of those responsibilities. Committee agrees that the Group should reconvene to review tasks, plan for an upcoming NZ record clean-up and provide support, as needed.
- Open Access and Freely-Available Electronic Collections. Committee addressed question related to a potential recommendation about management of open access e-collections systemwide. Questions raised included selection, criteria, and decision-making process. Currently campuses use different criteria for activating collections depending on activation of collection (CZ vs. PCI); source of records; article-level vs. journal title-level linking. To be discussed further if recommendation is needed.
- ULMS NERS Enhancement Process. Input by Israel Yanez, “I think we could be a bit more involved and organized, as a consortium, to harness our collective power and promote those enhancements we feel strongly about among the campuses who also cast votes as single institutions. It will take some work, but I think it would be worth it.”
Related Activities: - TS Open Forums presentations included: Best practices and procedures for Encoding Accession/Shelving Control Numbers; ProQuest Ebook DDA Integration Profile; PCI an Alma; NZ Trials; and a brief presentation about Library Acquisitions Code for Media, by Nathanael Bryant (CO).
- Upcoming presentations: Getting ready for the new Ex Libris Identity Service (Christina Hennessey) and Alma Weekly CKB Updates (Jessica Hartwigsen) on November 29.
- On December 13, TS Open Forum, open to Discovery, will discuss “Notes” vs. “Description” Label in Primo: Back to “Description” Label?
Background: Based on our decisions documented here Display of Notes (MARC 5XX Fields) in Primo: Some Recommendations, the Primo label display change from “Description” to “Notes” caused all summaries/abstracts in PCI records to display under the label “Notes.” Changes we make to map data from MARC bibliographic records impact the display of data from PCI records. Since we cannot control the mapping from PCI records, one option is to revert the label display back to Description Resource Sharing- Tricor error and missed shipment reporting is up and running. We are tracking complaints to look into any consistent or widespread issues with Tricor.
- Met with I-SPIE Steering Committee to clarify roles and approved Meghann Brenneman as a liaison between both groups. The Resource Sharing Functional Committee (RSFC) is focused on CSU+, Alma, Primo, and things that interact with those areas. The RSFC also drafts policy for approval. I-SPIE has a general resource sharing focus and may bring things to the attention of the RSFC and work on areas of resource sharing outside of CSU+/Alma/Primo.
- Held an open forum showing some analytics functions for Resource Sharing as well as some optional workflow changes caused by the November update. We also had ample time for questions and answers.
- Researched a new configuration for stopping duplicate requests that rolled out in the November update. This new configuration stops all duplicate items on a persons record while one copy has been requested or checked out. This workflow may be overly aggressive for some libraries since there are some common reasons for patrons to request a second copy of an item (example: a patron checked out a copy of Physics 101 and still need the book after the due date comes. The patron may request a second copy before the due date and return the first copy when the second copy arrives.) Alma already has a built in feature to block duplicate requests requested within a few minutes of each other, which works for most libraries.
- In the final editing stages of a Resource Sharing plan document written by Mallory. This will help keep our group focused for the rest of the fiscal year.
- We are looking into the ability to set ILLiad as a last resort to see if this is a viable workflow. If we can get this to work as outlined by Ex Libris institutions can just have one request link on their websites for all of resource sharing instead of a link for CSU+ and a link for Interlibrary Loan. We think this may boost CSU+ usage but testing and tracking analytics is needed to know for sure. This is in early testing phases.
- Contacted the Fulfillment committee to work together in creating a policy draft for walk in patron workflows and policies for approval.
|
| 10 mins | Regular Policy Review | David Walker | It is a challenge to keep policies from different committees up-to-date, easy to find, and consistent. Also, it would be helpful to make a clearer distinction between policies and "best practices." Library staff want to know if something is "required" or "suggested." Also, they want to know if something was explicitly approved by COLD. Discussion at the meeting clearly indicated a need for improvements. We will follow up with a discussion about the best strategy for addressing this need at the December meeting. |