2019-10-11 Meeting Agenda & Notes

1:00-1:10

Welcome Agenda Setting

@John Wenzler (Unlicensed)

1:10-1:30

Committee Updates

All

Fulfillment:

• The date for the next open forum has been moved back to 11/7 to allow for full participation by the functional committee members and to allow for more time to work on Letter/Notices templates. The topics will include discussing the pros and cons of Anonymization and the steps to take to enable the feature. Other topics will include release highlights over the last few releases, as well as purging users and Letter/Notices.

• There had been a few campuses mentioning that they had patrons with role expiration dates. This was usually a function of manual record creation, but a report was put in the Institutional Analytics Verified folder to allow campuses to check if they have any patrons with expiring roles. This includes staff within Alma that might have expiring roles(Shared Folders -> Community -> Reports -> Institutions -> CalState -> Fulfillment -> Vverified Reports -> Users). Another report that was put in the unverified folder for further testing was one which produces all patron records with purge dates (Shared Folders -> Community -> Reports -> Institutions -> CalState -> Fulfillment -> Unverified Reports -> Users).

• Course Reserves Environmental Scan interviews are ongoing. There have been 7 campuses interviewed so far with 4 more scheduled over the next 2 weeks. Last week’s meeting minutes will show some of the highlights from these conversations. The goal is to produce a report highlighting the unique practices of the Course Reserves units and make recommendations for best practices.

• Fulfillment -talked about extending loan rules for CSU+. There are some strong opinions on this, but there is more support. The general feeling of frontline service people is that they would really like this. Media items could be an issue (some campuses have more restrictive media policies). The group is gathering data to help determine what the ideal loan period should be. Some users think 60 days is too short. There will be charts.

Resource Management:

1. Committee member Lia Ryland will be presenting at the next Tech Services Open Forum, 10/10/19, 11am, on “Using Python to Edit/Populate Enumeration”.
   
   
   

2. NACO funnel project update- Samuel (NACO funnel project coordinator), Israel, and Luiz are working on a way for CSU campuses with authority control needs, but no funnel project participants, to submit name authority record requests.
   
   
   

3. LCSH topical heading Illegal aliens- In 2016 the Library of Congress decided to cancel/revise this term. The House of Representatives then ordered LC to continue using the term. Recently, a call went out from the ALCTS Subject Analysis Committee to libraries and consortiums asking whether any of us have sought any local alternatives. This call prompted conversations within our consortium. Luiz and Israel have prepared some options for potential approaches. Luiz will present these options at the next TS Open Forum on 10/10/19. See: https://mycsun.app.box.com/s/epp8dwdzee2mmiu7f70ewvzqp9mn6937

The Resource Management Functional Committee’s next meeting is this coming Monday, 10/14/19.

Analytics & Assessment

• The Analytics and Assessment Functional Committee will meet Wednesday to discuss task force assignments and deliverables.

• Analytics FC members identified a coding error in the XML output of the patron load processing scripts resulting in display issues in Alma patron statistical categories. A fix was forwarded to David for the CMS group.

• two groups focusing on SUSHI. One group will be conducting a survey. Another group is pulling together the datapoints. A more detailed summary is forthcoming

Resource Sharing

1. Developed and publicized (via I-SPIE TV) a workflow for dealing with Long Overdue CSU+ loans. We did a study and found that after 90 days overdue a CSU+ loan is extremely unlikely to be returned. We want to be able to inform Collections Development people at the owning library that the book is unlikely to come back and that they can repurchase the book if so desired. The next phase in this project is to connect with the Resource Management Functional Committee to discuss the best workflow for replacing these books while still holding the borrowing patron responsible. Israel should expect to hear from me soon about his initiative.

2. Currently exploring an Alma job that would clean up Resource Sharing request queues of old transactions. However, running the job may have negative consequences for Network Zone analytics. We are still currently exploring whether we should recommend campuses turn on the job or not.

3. We did a release testing session on a recently released Resource Sharing functionality called “Reactivate Request.” During the testing session we noticed that parts of the Alma manual resource sharing request functionality is not working properly, which halted testing. We opened a Salesforce support case about the issue. Testing will resume when case is resolved (or maybe earlier if we find a workaround).

4. Developed a new analytics report that should find items that were Completed but never Received (these are items that “Reactivate Request” functionality would be good for). There was an issue with the report generating some false positives so we are working on weeding those out if possible.

5. One RSFC member has just left the employment of the CSU, but a replacement member was found post-haste. (Thanks Brandon!)

6. Revived the discussion about CalState Walkin users (via I-SPIE TV). Explained why Fulfilment Network (Alma’s pickup and return anywhere system) will not work for CSU+ and why we need an alternative solution for CalState Walkins to use CSU+ at a visited library. This picks up on a discussion we had at the last ULMS Steering Committee Meeting: developing some kind of webform solution to CalState Walkins using CSU+. There is a document that went through the last Steering Committee about CalState Walkins, but it never officially made it out. I will be sending that to ULMS Steering Committee for review and comment.

Discovery

• Zach Williams from Cal Poly Pomona has been furiously working on bug fixes on the custom uresolver. If you experience any issues with it, please let us know in Slack or contact Zach or Dave. Dave recommends testing in the sandbox for now. Not ready for production yet.

• We are planning an Open Forum for the end of the months, details forthcoming

Acquisitions

· We are fine tuning the Open Forum “Alma to PeopleSoft Financial Integration”

· We are also independently reviewing the “ACQ ULMS Policies”. We will be discussing this during our November meeting to see if there are any adjustments to be made. We understand this due by end of the year.

Working on a getting started document sort of like an onboarding document. Current document is ER heavy, so they are bulking up the acq part. This should be complete by the end of the year. The steering committee liked the document and said this could be done for other areas as well.

ERM

Doing an inventory of all the information that is out there on all our various channels. VPAT (Voluntary Product Accessibility Template) for electronic collections -they are looking at this.

1:30-1:40

Survey Results – Steering Committee Priorities

@John Wenzler (Unlicensed)

See Results

Open

• John shared the results of the ULMS Steering Committee survey with the steering committee

• The top priority for the group is to vet discussion topics for upcoming contract negotiations with Ex Libris

• Clarifying the process for ULMS policies and procedures was number 2 on the list, followed by proposing solutions to issues under discussion by COLD that would benefit from ULMS data or functionality.

• Collaborative collection development was also ranked high

1:40-2:00

Ex Libris Contract Negotiations Surveys

@brandon dudley (Unlicensed)

Surveys to review:

• Dean’s Survey – goal is to get the decision-makers’ perspective on Alma/Primo performance as well as what issues they have heard from their library

• Functional Committee survey – goal is to get a sense of the issues, missing features and functionality that every part of the system is experiencing. I expect this to be completed by the Chairs with input from other committee members and practicioners. Link is here: https://forms.gle/iD3JFkuqkoRkFsB5A

• Staff survey – goal is to get a sense of the individual perception of Alma and Primo as well as cross-functional issues or anything that otherwise would not “fit” in a functional committee survey. Link is here: https://forms.gle/rViRZRERAMsrkRG39

Notes:

• EL would like us to renew for two additional years

• Brandon is sending out three different surveys to three different groups: Deans, Functional Committees, and library staff. This should provide us with a well rounded view of how everyone is liking Alma and Primo

• People filling this out should focus on the present. If something was broken and EL fixed it, then don't focus on that

• These will be sent out Monday. The surveys will be open through November 1st. Steering committee members will look at the data in November

2:00-2:10

Confluence Permissions

@David Walker

· We pay for confluence. Usually it is by user count (we currently have a license for up to 100 users). These are editors. Anyone can view the content, but only these users can update or create content. Most of these users are from the ULMS functional groups. Each member has historically been given access.

· Other people want to start using confluence. COLD wants each Dean to have an account.

· The ScholarWorks and Archives people are also now using confluence.

· How do we pay for this? Buy more seats? Too expensive because the education discount has changed.

· Ideas: maybe not every ULMS functional committee member should get an account. Move to a just-in-time model where we dole out accounts to those who actually need them. Many committee members liked this idea.

· Dave will send out an email to each functional committee head asking them how many seat they need for their committee.

2:10-2:30

Clarifying Process of implementing ULMS Policies and Procedures

@John Wenzler (Unlicensed) @brandon dudley (Unlicensed)

· How and when to get feedback from the communities of practice

· What makes the difference between best practices and policies? Some of our documents seem to straddle both.

· Couple of issues: how do you enforce policy across the system? (ULMS Police!) and how to you have a unifying policy when all of our campuses are so different?

· Once you have a policy, how do you communicate it?

· Brian, Brandon, Dolly, and Joe will work on guidelines for functional committee chairs regarding policies and procedures. Communications strategies as well.

2:30+

OneSearch Logo

@David Walker

· Community Colleges want to use our logo for OneSearch

· Who owns this? Is this a COLD issue? Yes. Dave will take it there.