2019-02-15 Meeting Agenda & Notes

Acquisitions & ERM

• Shared our Getting Started document at the TS Open Forum. There’s a link to it from our Acq/ERM page on the wiki (above).
  • Hoping to get feedback from people in order to update, fix, or improve the document.
• A Google Doc was created for committee members to review old Acq/ERM policy and procedure wiki pages.
  • It should help us keep track of which ones need updating, those that are no longer relevant, and which ones are still current.
  • The goal is to review them before April 1^st
• Still waiting on the ERM and Acq contact lists from Wendy.
• Discussing if Acq and ERM should still be merged.
  • The combination of the two may reflect the historical connection from the implementation project, but concerns post-implementation have focused almost entirely on ERM.
  • Most of the members are ERM-only.
  • Could split out a separate Acquisitions group
    • may not need to meet as regularly, given interest

Assessment & Analytics

• Continued to support ACRL reporting as survey period closes
• Karen Schlesser and Lauren Magnuson will coordinate with RM group to provide some training through the Tech Services Open Forum
• Policies:
  • Guidelines to include topics such as naming, sharing, backup, retention, and removal of outdated reports
• The group will update/refresh policy regarding access to NZ Analytics; original was never formally adopted, so will submit updated version to Steering Committee
• The group is also working on a new policy and set of best practices around use of the Analytics Community folder
• Training:
  • Viability of options is dependent on availability of funds, trainers (CSU or Ex Libris), and opportunity (in-person meetings, etc.)
• The group understands that training is an ongoing need within the CSU
• The group is working with Brandon to consider the best options for providing training, including webinars, in-person, or a hybrid approach

Discovery

UX

• Working on a recommendation for adding default and optional features to OneSearch

Link Resolver

• Work continues on developing a better implementation of the link resolver in OneSearch. Desired outcomes include more user-friendly display of holdings information and an improved resource sharing request link. A demo of the new link resolver will be presented at an open forum later in the spring semester. Testing and/or pilot will take place over the summer.

A Discovery Open Forum was held on February 23. Presentations and topics included the following.

• Ryan Schwab shared results of Primo UX testing conducted at CSU Chico
• Zacharry Williams shared new course reserves app in production at CPP.
• UX TF recommendation
• Dave Walker discussed goals and timeline for link resolver project

Fulfillment

• Representatives from FFC and RSFC presented their CalState Walkin Patron recommendations regarding what services are offered, what user data is shared, and how we can allow CSU+ items to be requested and picked up at other institutions. This was followed up with testing sessions and discussions. The recommendation draft is getting close to something the whole committee can agree on.
• We are working on creating and testing Network Zone analytics to identify what institutions have particularly robust course reserves programs.
• Members of the group are investigating the impacts of anonymizing patron borrowing and request history as well as letter retention as regards protecting patron privacy versus troubleshooting and the ability of patrons to view their loan history in Primo. After we understand all the implications, we will come up with recommended history and letter retention.
• FFC and RSFC members are being identified who will come up with recommendations for standards of condition for books lent to other institutions and books returned to borrowing institution.
• The next Fulfillment open forum is on Feb. 26. We will have multiple demonstrations with tips and instructions, including some of the newly released Alma features, offline circulation, and the enhanced course reserve search that now includes electronic reserves.

Resource Management

• Policies Review: Continues to review technical services policies and best practices.
• Resource Type Field: Reported problem to Ex Libris (identified by East Bay) related to the order of application of rules for encoding resource type (Book--Physical Book vs. Digital File--Text);
• NZ Management Group:
  • NZ record cleanup completed for e-resources. Marcus Jun completed the deletion of approximately 965K records. Next phase: Group will assess approach to remove about 450K NZ records for print resources without inventory.
  • is currently checking the daily OCLC Loads and troubleshooting multi-match records;
  • worked with Marcus Jun to change load settings for Marcive, as previously presented to the Coordinating Committee. This will ensure updating of exiting portfolios whenever URLs change. Group will check records to ensure process worked as expected.
  • is troubleshooting problem records in NZ, as reported by campuses (e.g., presence of local fields in NZ records; host records saved to NZ; brief records and record templates saved to the NZ; etc.)
  • monitoring electronic resource records in NZ without a portfolio – about 20k currently.  May require reexamining this in OCLC.
• Technical Services Open Forum
  • Collaborating with Analytics Committee to schedule two training sessions on Analytics for Resource Management;
  • Acquisitions/ERM Committee presented “Getting Started” document.

Resource Sharing

• We are prepping for a discussion on CSU+ with COLD on March 1^st
• Beginning work on improving/clarifying the Lost/missing/damaged workflow recommendations (including working with the Fulfillment Functional Committee)
• Discussed views on floating collection and we have some further questions:
  • We would like to see the workflow to gauge the difficulty for Resource Sharing staff to implement.
  • How does load balancing work?
  • How does this look from the patron perspective?
  • Why is a floating collection necessary to facilitate the increased discoverability of the CSU collection - can we implement that piece before moving to a floating collection?
  • For this to work we would need to further emphasize that we are truly a unified library.
  • How will this be managed? Would there be a centralized management team?
  • More questions/concerns listed in our minutes. 
• Testing new conditional message functionality  for CSU+ requests

CSU Technical Services Monthly Release Group

• Each month Alma brings with it new functionality.
• Informal group has been meeting to test out monthly releases on sandbox.
• This group feels this work should be made more formal within governance structure.
  • Work can continue under Resource Management for now.
  • In future, could be folded into each functional committee.
  • Other committees have mentioned the need for this as well.

• Brandon working on reorganizing policies.
• Several campuses have expressed problem finding relevant content in Confluence in general.  Need further assessment of this.
  
  • ULMS content is the lion's share and often viewed by folks outside CSU
• To date, CO has driven most of the (re-)organization
• May want to consider a task force to rethink Confluence's organization.
  • Christina and Nicole/Susana will start this up.
• Would likely entail a more formal template for each committee space

• Carlos sent this out to the group after the last meeting
  • Feedback from a few groups, including Resource Sharing.
  • Raises a lot of technical questions, mostly around how it would work.
  • May want to first determine the technical feasibility of this
• First questions are philosophical
  • Shared print → floating collections → shared collection development
    • Can floating collections be separate from a broader decision to have a kind of shared "print core collection"?  If not, raises lots of concerns about high-demand local collections going elsewhere.
  • Would likely require feedback from campus stakeholders.
  • COLD may not be ready to discuss.
  • Collection Development group will want to weigh-in
  • Need a major change in how we think about our libraries.  ULMS has helped develop a shared sense of collaboration, but this would take it to the next level.
• Initial step might be to get campuses to include CSU results in initial Primo scope
  • 2/3rds do this now
• Recommendation from Fullerton was to run a pilot.
• Net borrowers
  • Some campuses are going through renovations and/or looking to reduce space devoted to books, might complicate the planning for this.
• Net lenders
  • Is it because some campuses have strong programs/collections for specific disciplines.

• Susana may be back at next meeting
• Need to start thinking about nominations, which go out in April
• Changes in the structure may need approval from COLD Exec