Collaborative Technical Services Team WebEx meeting minutes November 7, 2013

Collaborative Technical Services Team WebEx meeting minutes

November 7, 2013

Present at the meeting were:  Beth Burnett, Bill Walsh, Cathy Jeffrey, Donna Bennett, Guy Frost, Jacquiline Vickers, Miriam Nauenburg, Sherrida Crawford. 

Cathy Jeffrey welcomed everyone to the meeting. She opened the meeting by requesting approval of the minutes from the previous meeting.  The minutes were approved.  Cathy indicated that the minutes would be posted to the Next Gen Blog. 

Cathy reported that there had not been any blog responses to the minutes of Team meetings nor any comments through e-mail other than sharing some information.  

Cathy stated that the first item of business would be to determine what sort of structure the Team’s RFP should have.  She suggested that we seem to have three choices:

            -produce our own section of the RFP with an introductory statement along with requirements and questions
            -submit our questions/requirements to the functional groups to be included in their sections of the RFP
            -submit a list of questions and let the committee drafting the RFP include them where they deem appropriate

Cathy asked for discussion on this topic.  Sherrida suggested that the last option where we work on our questions and allow the committee writing the RFP to position them where they made the most sense seemed acceptable.  Cathy stated that if we send them to the functional groups that we would lose control.  They could edit them, or leave them out.  She speculated that the group might be unhappy with that outcome.  Guy stated that he thought that the Orbis Cascade RFP had a separate section on collaboration.  He was reluctant to lose control of our suggestions for the RFP.  Bill Walsh stated in chat that he thought we should have a brief section on collaboration.  Sherrida said that she does not believe that it has to be either/or.  The Orbis example clearly shows that there is a section on collaboration but also questions that were integrated into the rest of the document.  Cathy summarized that we could have a dedicated section for some questions but also have questions that appear in other parts of the document. 

Cathy polled the group on the decision for how the Collaborative Technical Services section should be structured.  The poll question was:

Please select the statement that seems most appropriate:

a.    We should produce our own section for the RFP

b.   We should contribute our questions to the functional groups for inclusion in their sections

c.    We should submit a list of questions to be used where appropriate.

Results:

a.    5 votes

b.    1 vote

c.    1 vote

Following the vote Bill commented in chat that he had voted “a” but believed that we could submit less broad questions to other groups if we come up with any.  Donna made a similar comment in chat.

The next topic of discussion was in regard to what should be included in our RFP section.  Cathy referred to a document that Bill Clayton had sent to the group earlier which provided a template that could be used.  Cathy described this template as having 3 basic elements which were:

1.    Introductory description

2.    List of required functionality

3.    List of questions about functionality

Cathy asked the group if this was the template that we want to follow and reminded everyone that we are supposed to submit our structure by Nov. 30^th.  Sherrida stated that we should concentrate more on questions than required functionality. Cathy agreed and asked what everyone else thought. Bill, Donna and Miriam all agreed through chat.

Cathy then asked the group how they felt about including an introductory statement.  Guy said that an introductory description of what our intentions are for collaborative technical services and all it encompasses would be nice to have for those who have questions about it.  Guy thought it would be useful.  Bill and Donna agreed in chat.  Cathy asked for a vote on this issue. A show of hands approved the inclusion of an introductory statement.  Cathy summarized that the Collaborative Technical Services RFP should include an Introductory statement and questions but probably not any required elements.  

Cathy then asked for volunteers to write the introductory statement. Sherrida suggested that we use the Orbis statement as a model.  Bill pointed out that the statement Sherrida had referenced was for Collection and Resource Management rather than Collaboration.  Cathy suggested that we could try using Google Drive to craft an introductory statement.  She offered that she could write an initial draft that could then be edited on Google Drive and discussed at our next meeting.  In Chat Donna Bennett volunteered to help. When put to a vote the group agreed with this plan.  Sherrida pointed out that it would be acceptable whether this statement stands alone or is incorporated somewhere else.  Cathy stated that we should work on this statement over the next two weeks and finalize it at our next meeting for submission before the deadline on Nov. 30th.

The group moved to a discussion of the RFP questions.  Everyone agreed that while working on the introductory statement we should begin work on the questions.  Cathy asked the group if they preferred breaking into working groups or working as a committee of the whole.  She suggested that if we select working as a committee of the whole that those who had been willing to serve as group leaders could make sure that specific topics are not overlooked. Jacqueline commented that she liked the idea of working as a single group with some members focusing on specific sections.  By a show of hands the group approved that idea.  

Cathy mentioned the list of questions that Bill had sent out earlier this week that he had culled from the Orbis RFP and suggested that these might be a good place to start.  The group agreed to use Google Drive to edit the document.  Housekeeping issues for Google Drive were discussed.  The group agreed that the questions from Orbis needed to be edited and made our own.  Cathy encouraged the group to add to the list of questions from Orbis. Sherrida stated that just reading these questions might spark other ideas. Cathy said that she hoped that we do better sharing solutions to problems with the next gen catalog than we did with Voyager.  Sherrida used the need for a PO to make a check-in record as an example of things that need to be managed differently.  In chat Miriam emphatically agreed.

Cathy asked if there was anything else about the RFP that we needed to cover today.  No other items were mentioned.  Cathy summarized the work planned for the next two weeks which included a document that presents our structure and an introductory statement.  The group will also begin editing the RFP questions.

Cathy asked the group if meeting twice a month seemed sufficient everyone agreed that it did.

Before closing the meeting Sherrida wanted to discuss discovery and whether we should use a single record approach rather than a composite record. She wondered how others felt about that to distinguish print and e-resources.  She also asked how people felt about outsourcing e-serial records at the consortia level.  She felt that some institutions have that from their link resolver.  Bill stated that Georgia State uses sfx marcit.  Cathy expressed some concern that smaller catalogs could be overwhelmed by adding so many records.  Sherrida said that she thought it could help prevent purchasing content that was already available and would help with collection development.  Sherrida felt that it could help an institution know what was available to them at the local level or consortially.  Cathy discussed the issue of how many databases there will be in the new system and the distinction that seems to be made between the database and the institution’s catalog which may be the database with a local filter applied.  Sherrida agreed that it was important to have the language to describe what we are expecting. We need to figure out what terms are being used in the field and in the state.

Cathy mentioned that she would be filling in for Gordon Baker at the November RACL meeting and had been asked to comment on the work of this Team.  She asked if anyone had any ideas about what we should share with RACL.  There were no suggestions.  Cathy stated that she thought people are interested in the work we are doing.

Donna asked if the Cataloging/Metadata survey had been launched.  The answer was yes and Bill supplied a link for it.

Cathy announced the next meeting for Nov. 21 at 12:00. The meeting was adjourned.

Submitted by
Cathy Jeffrey