Collaborative Technical Services Team WebEx meeting minutes
December 5, 2013
Present at the meeting were: Beth Burnett, Beth Thomas (for Jeff Carrico), Bill Clayton, Cathy Jeffrey, Chris Huff, David Evans, Guy Frost, Hallie Pritchett, 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 no additional comments had been made in response to the Collaborative Technical Services blog posts.
The next order of business was the recently distributed draft of the Next Gen RFP outline and RFP objective. Cathy pointed out that this was a document agreed to by the RFP Team Leaders. She asked Bill Clayton if he had any comments on the document. He said that this document was based on the information submitted by the Team Leaders in November. He pointed out that the Objective used in the outline was based on the introductory statement submitted by the Collaborative Technical Services Team which was used with only minor changes. There was no additional discussion on this topic.
The group moved on to a discussion of the RFP questions. The decision was made to use a heading with or without explanatory text followed by bulleted questions under each topic. Chris Huff suggested that for the final document the headings should be numbered with some method of sub-numbering underneath to aid in identification and discussion. The group decided to wait until the end to establish the order/numbering of the questions.
The group continued the work of developing questions for the RFP. The draft of questions as they appeared at the end of the meeting is included below.
The group began a discussion of reports and reporting. Bill Clayton pointed out that this group should focus on reports related to collaboration. Chris Huff suggested that we should focus on reports that span multiple institutions looking at the entire collection and usage statistics. Bill Clayton agreed that we should ask more specifically about reports that are focused on consortial activity. Sherida Crawford added that she would like to have reports that allow you to compare circulation data or collection data. Discussion on reports continued and additional questions on reporting were identified.
The next group of questions discussed related to shared records. The group focused on what types of records can be shared and if local customization was possible. In addition to asking the vendor if local customization was possible, the group wanted to be sure that we asked the vendor which records could include local data.
The third group of questions discussed covered the topic of Electronic Resource Management. Bill Clayton suggested that the group should focus more on back office functions than on user access which would be more related to discovery which will not necessarily be included in this RFP. Sherida was concerned that the system should allow comparison of what is locally licensed with what is available through Galileo as a collection development piece. The group struggled to determine how to ask questions about electronic resource management that are related to the consortia and collaboration but are not about the discovery piece. A discussion of the management of license agreements resulted in the addition of a question on license agreements. Sherida would like to know if there would be a knowledge base for this type of information.
The group quickly added two additional categories.
Cathy indicated that she would send the questions that had been drafted to this point out in the minutes. The plan will be for the group to continue working on the questions through e-mail. Cathy told the group that a new deadline for submission had been provided. The RFP questions are now due on Jan. 6, 2014. Cathy said that it would her hope that we could complete work on the questions during our Dec. 19th meeting. She would then be able to prepare a document for submission after the Christmas break and send it to the Planning Team on Dec. 30 or 31.
The next meeting will be Dec. 12, 2013 at 12:00.
The meeting was adjourned.
Below is the list of questions as they stood at the end of the meeting.
In answering the questions below, please include how your implementation will support work in a consortial environment and enhance collaboration.
Granularity of Security. The solution should support administrative and functional authorization and security at multiple levels: individual staff or patron, single institution, subset consortia, and consortium-wide.
- Describe how your solution handles system security in the assignment and creation of administrative and functional accounts.
- Describe how the solution insures that identifiers that are unique at an institution are unique throughout the consortia. This includes but is not limited to item and patron barcodes, university identification numbers, and staff authorization codes.
Shared Records. Member libraries of the USG Consortium understand the benefits of using shared records. We also value the additional service to users that local customization can provide. We seek a solution that can make use of shared records while still allowing each institution to make local additions.
- How does your solution manage shared records?
- What types of records can be shared by member libraries (bibliographic, vendor, license, other)? Please provide a complete list.
- Does this solution support the addition to shared records of local data such as local notes, access points and other unique metadata?
- What types of records that are shared by member libraries can include local customization?
Electronic Resource Management. The USG Consortium includes electronic resources owned collectively and individually. The successful solution must facilitate the management of all electronic content owned or subscribed by USG libraries.
- Describe how your solution supports the management of electronic resources at both the local and consortial level.
- How will your solution assist in the movement of ownership data into associated systems like discovery systems or link resolvers?
- Describe the workflow for loading records owned by all members of the consortia.
- How will your solution clearly expose the resources a user has the right to access and connect users with the appropriate electronic or digital resource?
- Does your solution include a method to manage license agreements locally as well as at the consortial level? Is there a way for member libraries to share license agreements that they have negotiated?
- Does your solution include an open URL resolver?
- Describe how your solution works with an OpenURL resolver in managing both local and consortial resources.
Reports and Reporting.
- What reports are available to compare data among member institutions?
- Can different subsets of institutions be selected for comparison?
- How are locally customized reports shared with the rest of the consortia?
- Describe how shared reports are accessed and by whom.
- Which of your solution’s technical services workflows can be integrated across institutions to avoid repetitive data management?
- How does your solution support the collaborative management and maintenance of a shared authority file?