November 21, 2013

Cloud Team Meeting Minutes 2013-11-14

Present: Bob Trotter, Bill Clayton, Philip Fitzpatrick, Doug Goans, Chris Helms, Glenn Leavell, Caryl Nemajovsky, Craig Schroer

Editing Section E for RFP
Bob introduced a new draft version of Section E and has reworded parts E1 - E3. Cloud Team members are invited to edit the document (using colored text to indicate edits).

Questions to be considered for RFP:
Data Center – We will want to ask about nature of cooling in vendor’s data center?

Backups and Security (Section E4)
We should make an agreement that there is a backup dataset in USG’s possession (maybe on a weekly or monthly basis). 

It’s understood that vendor would have much more regular backups.

If vendor is using Oracle and redo log we’d want to know that those redo logs are backed up offsite.

How frequently does vendor do backup? Is there a remote data duplication feature in use? Is this something that we write into the RFP and in what level of detail? (Bob - we may not want that level of detail in RFP, rather, ask what vendor offers and the follow up with additional questions as needed).

Caryl suggested asking vendors if they have any examples of how they’ve handled a disaster and what changes have followed as a result of what they learned from the experience. Bob mentioned that there were probably some LC and Ex Libris systems in NOLA during Katrina.

We need to know whether vendor maintains their own data center or contract out with another provider?

Caryl suggested that Beate Rusch Library director in Berlin has been working with ALMA and others on link data and data security. Some of the elements they’ve been looking at might be relevant to us.

RFP Deadlines and Level of Detail
There was a question about deadlines for preparing the RFP and Bill said his understanding is that we’ve set some initial deadlines to get started but teams continue to be involved with and fine tuning their documents and requirements even beyond proposed deadlines.

Bill mentioned that here will be some things we have to specify as an RFP requirement but we’ll likely get more detail from vendors if we ask them in broader terms about their systems rather than telling them "you must provide X." It’s too easy for vendors to say, "oh yes, we provide that" if we’re too explicit in our requirements.

ADA Compliance (staff and public) and mobile support
Doug suggested we include questions about whether platform is ADA compliant for users and Bob recommended we’d also want to confirm its compliance for our own staff who will be using the system.

There was also a question about the extent of responsive web and mobile device support.

Posting NextGen Cloud Team minutes to blog
It was decided that we want to put our minutes up so that other NextGen teams will be able to stay abreast of our progress, ideas and questions. Bill mentioned that team Leaders meeting this morning had some questions about cataloging area and need for data security. They weren’t sure which group was covering this topic (concern that multiple groups might be addressing the same issues). For this reason, sharing meeting minutes is important.

Alternate Lead for Cloud Team Meetings
Doug volunteered to be team leader if Bob can’t lead the meeting.

Modules included and defining vendor’s system
Section E3.6 - What are the modules that define their system? Which modules are included on their platform and what’s on the horizon? (Doug added this to our RFP)

User authentication (shared instances)
Caryl brought up topic of dealing with duplicate patron records. Bob suggested that it might be more of a Fulfillment Team RFP item.

Glenn asked whether we’re asking that individual institutions be able, under robust identity management and authorization management, to separate institutions’ staff and user records.  If multiple institutions log into service, do we want a model in which the UGA portion of the service can attach to UGA directory management (and likewise for Valdosta, etc.)?  Bob said we also need to look at its functionality for catalog instances that are shared by multiple institutions. Glenn asked whether it’s a Multi-Tenant service we’re looking for? What if the vendor can only integrate with one identity management system? Might that mean that USG would have to create a single identity management system?

Bill cautioned that if our demands are too stringent at this we might end up greatly limiting our options.

Bob suggested that we reword the E5 section and also request description of services to support multiple authentication services/models.

No comments:

Post a Comment