Collaborative Technical Services Team WebEx meeting minutes
December 19, 2013
Present at the meeting were: Beth Burnett, Bill Clayton, Bill Walsh, Cathy Jeffrey, Donna Bennett, Hallie Pritchett, Sherrida Crawford.
Cathy Jeffrey welcomed everyone to the meeting. Approval of the minutes for the Dec. 12 meeting was delayed to give more members time to arrive. The minutes for the Dec. 12th meeting were approved at the end of the meeting. 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.
Cathy asked if there were other topics to discuss before the group moved to a discussion of the RFP questions. No other topics were suggested.
The group moved on to the discussion of the RFP questions. The final version of the draft RFP document that will be submitted to the Planning Team is included at the end of the minutes.
Cathy described changes that she had made to the organization of the document and briefly discussed clean-up needed. The group agreed with the numbering format and removal of extraneous information.
The group moved on to a discussion of three new sections of the RFP. These were Authority Management, Collection Development and Serials Management. Cathy mentioned that Miriam Nauenburg who could not attend the meeting had sent suggestions regarding serials management for the group to consider.
The first section discussed was Authority Management. Cathy mentioned that she had included three suggestions from Adam Kubik who handles authority management for Clayton State University. The Group discussed and edited the four authority management questions.
Next the group considered the Collection Development question that had been suggested. It was approved without changes. Later in the meeting the group added a second question to this section dealing with floating collections (i.e. collections of physical items that can be housed in any of the member libraries).
The group reviewed the two questions on Serials Management suggested by Miriam Nauenburg and decided to include them in the document.
As a housekeeping issue Cathy asked if each group of questions needed introductory explanatory text. Some questions have it, others do not. The group decided to leave the explanatory text where it existed but not to add it for those sections that were lacking it. As a follow up Cathy asked if each set of questions should include text that asked for answers to address how the solution would support work in a consortial environment and enhance collaboration. Bill Clayton said that since it was likely that the questions would be split up that adding this statement to each section made sense. The other team members agreed.
The group approved the questions as edited and indicated that these should be submitted to the Planning Team. Cathy offered to prepare the final document and submit it to the team through e-mail for approval. With the winter break upon us, the group felt that it might be difficult to get the replies needed in a timely manner. The decision was made to submit the document as it exists at the end of this meeting and send a copy to the Team members with the understanding that this is a first draft and additional work can be done later if needed.
The next meeting will be Jan. 16, 2014 at 12:00.
The meeting was adjourned.
Below is the final version of the draft RFP document that will be submitted to the Planning Team.
University System of Georgia Libraries
Next Generation RFP Draft
Collaborative Technical Services Section
Dec. 19, 2013
Next Generation RFP Draft
Collaborative Technical Services Section
Dec. 19, 2013
Collaborative Technical Services
Introductory Description. The University System of Georgia (USG) Libraries continue to seek operational efficiencies and are committed to collaborating with each other in ways that will improve services to our students and faculty. Improved services will result from streamlining workflows and reducing redundant procedures. The USG Libraries seek a solution that will support shared data and reduce or eliminate duplicate record-keeping and repetitive tasks while preserving options for individual institutional preferences and local customizations. The solution should facilitate the sharing of best practices among member libraries and allow them to collaborate in shared processes and assessment.
1. 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. Address how your implementation will support work in a consortial environment and enhance collaboration.
a) Describe how your solution handles system security in the assignment and creation of administrative and functional accounts.
b) Describe how the solution will provide tracking of and accountability for staff editing of all records within the shared environment.
2. Unique Identifiers. Address how your implementation will support work in a consortial environment and enhance collaboration.
a) 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.
3. 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. Address how your implementation will support work in a consortial environment and enhance collaboration.
a.) How does your solution manage shared records?
b) What types of records can be shared by member libraries (bibliographic, vendor, license, other)? Please provide a complete list.
c) Does this solution support the addition to shared records of local data such as local notes, access points and other unique metadata?
d) What types of records that are shared by member libraries can include local customization?
4. Reports and Reporting. Address how your implementation will support work in a consortial environment and enhance collaboration.
a) What reports are available to compare data among member institutions?
b) Can different subsets of institutions be selected for comparison?
c) How are locally customized reports shared with the rest of the consortia?
d) Describe how shared reports are accessed and by whom.
5. Workflow. Address how your implementation will support work in a consortial environment and enhance collaboration.
a) Which of your solution’s technical services workflows can be integrated across institutions to avoid repetitive data management?
b) Describe how your solution manages duplicate data across institutions.
c) Are there automated processes that encourage the use of existing records or data across the consortia?
d) Describe workflows for updating local holdings in WorldCat for consortially owned titles.
6. 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. Address how your implementation will support work in a consortial environment and enhance collaboration.
a) Describe how your solution supports the management of electronic resources at both the local and consortial level.
b) Describe how your solution would handle trials at the local or consortial level.
c) How will your solution assist in the movement of ownership data into associated systems like discovery systems or link resolvers?
d) Describe the workflow for loading records owned by all members of the consortia.
e) 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?
f) 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?
g) Does your solution include an OpenURL resolver?
h) Describe how your solution works with an OpenURL resolver in managing both local and consortial resources.
i) Describe how your solution provides usage statistics for electronic resources.
j) Describe any features your system provides to facilitate and manage the lending of e-books and possibly other e-resources to users at non-owning member institutions.
7. Authority Management. Address how your implementation will support work in a consortial environment and enhance collaboration.
a) How does your solution support the collaborative management and maintenance of a shared authority file?
b) Describe how the solution allows changes to authority records to be efficiently and accurately loaded into the shared environment.
c) Does the solution allow institutions to make local decisions on the use of specific thesauri (e.g. MESH, FAST), or utilize local headings?
d) Describe how the solution promptly incorporates relevant authority data in a shared database environment as bibliographic access points are added, removed and updated by local institutions.
8. Collection Development. Address how your implementation will support work in a consortial environment and enhance collaboration.
a) Describe how your solution supports collaborative collection development among USG libraries.
b) Describe the mechanisms you offer for managing Floating Collections (i.e. collections of physical items that can be housed in any of the member libraries).
9. Serials Management. Address how your implementation will support work in a consortial environment and enhance collaboration.
a) Describe the solution's support for the reuse and sharing of date prediction patterns and enumeration prediction patterns for check-in purposes.
b) Describe the solution's support for generating local- and consortial-level statistics from serial records for collection development purposes (e.g., number of active or canceled subscriptions, number of pieces received, number of issues claimed, etc.).