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.
Unique Identifiers.
- 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.
Workflow
- Which of your solution’s technical services workflows can be integrated across institutions to avoid repetitive data management?
Authority Management
- How does your solution support the collaborative management and maintenance of a shared authority file?
Submitted by
Cathy Jeffrey
Cathy Jeffrey
No comments:
Post a Comment