Collaborative Technical Services Team WebEx meeting minutes December 12, 2013

Collaborative Technical Services Team WebEx meeting minutes

December 12, 2013

Present at the meeting were:  Beth Burnett, Bill Clayton, Bill Walsh, Cathy Jeffrey, Chris Huff, Donna Bennett, 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.  

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 document to this point is included at the end of the minutes. The group began the RFP discussion by returning to a discussion of Electronic Resource Management.  Several additional questions were added to this section.  An additional question was also added to the Granularity of Security section. 

 

The group moved on to the new Workflow section.  Several questions were discussed with the final version of the Workflow section including four questions.

The group discussed two new questions suggested by Chris Huff one on patron privacy issues and the other regarding special collections, archives, digital artifacts.  The group decided to forward these questions to other groups. 

Remaining topics to be discussed at the next meeting are Authority Management and Collection Development.  Those sections as they currently stand are included below.

Authority Management

·         How does your solution support the collaborative management and maintenance of a shared authority file?

Collection Development

·         Describe how your solution supports collaborative collection development among USG libraries.

Cathy indicated that she would send the questions that had been drafted to this point out in the minutes.  Cathy said that it would be her hope that we could complete work on the questions during our Dec. 19^th 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. 19, 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 will provide tracking of and accountability for staff editing of all records within the shared environment.
   

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.  
• Describe how your solution would handle trials at the local or 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 OpenURL resolver? 
• Describe how your solution works with an OpenURL resolver in managing both local and consortial resources.
• Describe how your solution provides usage statistics for electronic resources.
• 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.

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?
• Describe how your solution manages duplicate data across institutions .
• Are there automated processes that encourage the use of  existing records  or data across the consortia?
• Describe workflows for updating local holdings in WorldCat for consortially owned  titles.

Submitted by
Cathy Jeffrey

GIL Next Generation Cataloging/Metadata Team Meeting Notes December 13, 2013

GIL Next Generation Cataloging/Metadata Team Meeting Notes

December 13, 2013, 2-3 PM

Present: Erin Grant (team leader), Amy Eklund, Kelly Holt, Neil Hughes, Linda Jones, Adam Kubik, Jessica Lee, Jenifer Marquardt, Debra Skinner, Susan Wynne

There was no formal agenda for the meeting. The primary goal was to assess our progress on the document due on December 20 (draft of RFP questions).  We’re also planning to submit an appendix of supporting and explanatory material, which Jenifer Marquardt has been editing.

Erin Grant shared an RFP writers’ guide with the group via email.  This document may be helpful as we continue working on draft RFP questions.

I.  Topics needing attention in the RFP questions.

A.  Interoperability with campus or external systems

• The group agreed that although general interoperability is an important issue, we should remove references to systems such as Banner, PeopleSoft, etc., that are primarily of interest to other functional areas, from our submitted documents.  Jenifer will remove the mentions of systems that deal with student or financial data that is tangential or not directly relevant to most cataloging functions and send to Viki Timian. (We have already addressed interoperability that is more directly related to cataloging, metadata, and authority work.)
• The group acknowledged that daily workflows for many individuals, especially in smaller libraries, often overlap multiple functional areas.  We thought that interoperability with campus systems should be addressed somewhere in the RFP, even if our section is not the best place.

B. Interaction between modules in the system/interdepartmental workflows

• Jenifer noted that we’ve included questions about interaction between modules within the system.
• Susan Wynne mentioned that several survey respondents had mentioned dissatisfaction with interaction between modules in the current system.
• Amy noted that the flow between systems is more important for some functions, especially reporting, e.g., by circulation, cost, call numbers, etc.
• Susan noted that Amy’s comment is also relevant in light of potential future uses for data, as more and more we’re being asked to demonstrate how libraries benefit students.
• Neil Hughes noted that interoperability of modules within the system depends heavily on permissions and asked whether the current draft adequately addresses permissions in light of this concern.  Often, we don’t need editing permission, but do need permission to view or access data for reporting purposes only.
• Erin suggested that we might look to the Cloud/Systems group to address this aspect of permissions.  She’s been corresponding with them and has already shared a list of questions related to archives & metadata.  

C.  Migration issues

• Jessica Lee asked about suppressed records and migration.  The group agreed that additional questions regarding migration were desirable, addressing the issues of suppressed records and the ability to choose which records are migrated.
• Amy suggested adding a question about what happens to records lacking OCLC numbers during migration.

II.  Editing the RFP questions and appendix for the December 20 deadline.

• The group will continue working on the draft document(s), either making edits or comments directly on the shared document(s) or sending comments or questions to the email list.
• Erin asked for all changes to be submitted no later than December 18 to allow her time to prepare the document(s) for submission on December 20.
• Erin reminded the group that the December 20 submission is still a draft and we will have opportunities to edit.  

III. Update on the survey.

• Susan is currently coding/categorizing responses in NVivo and preparing a summary for possible sharing beyond the Cataloging/Metadata team.
• Jenifer noted that the survey also revealed areas for further education, training, etc.  We can use the survey to discover possible topics to cover at GUGM.
• Amy noted that the survey responses are a good source of questions for the planned FAQ on the USG website.
• Jenifer indicated that the survey results reinforced that we’re covering the important issues and points that people are thinking about.

Erin thanked everyone for their work.

Cloud Team Meeting Minutes 2013-12-12

Attending: Bob, Bill, Caryl, Craig, Doug, Phil

Looked at document “Support and interoperability of data standards and formats”

• Discussion of whether system is open and thus a candidate for such things as OAI harvesting.
• Are some of the items listed in Cataloging’s RFP
• Cataloging has a seven page overview of questions for RFP. They also have a twenty three page document that will likely be an appendix to their portion of the RFP.
• Discussion of whether the level of detail in Cataloging’s RFP is more specific than what we’re proposing to ask. As per our earlier conversations, we may want to ask more open-ended questions to let the vendors respond.
• Doug is going to talk to Cataloging group some more to clarify our understanding of their approach to RFP.

Discussion of Cloud Team RFP

• Do we need numbers to describe the total number of items in USG collections? Number of circulations? ILL?
• Bob is going to look up number of bibliographic items, number of items circulated and number of patrons and add those numbers to the “Scalability and Performance” section of the document.
• Caryl recommended that we also mention institutions using shared resources (e.g., instances of Voyager)
• Bob renumbered the document to make it simpler (i.e., removed the “E” section references that had been borrowed from Orbis Cascade)
• Current document is only editable by Bob but people can add comments. The group agreed that this is a good way to work at this point.
• Discussion of “Reliability” section of RFP
• Discussed “Consolidation” (2.8) under “Scalability and Performance” section and whether vendors would understand that language. Bob may insert a parenthetical mentioning the merger of institutions.
• Discussion about clarifying “user names” in item 2.4
• Discussion of Architecture (3). Much discussion of item 3.2 - resolved

Editing of RFP as a group

• The group reviewed various sections of the document for editing and re-wording.

Other Items

• Our group will meet next week (December 19th). We should all continue to review our draft and make comments or edits.

GIL OPAC / Discovery Meeting 12/16 - Recording

Here is the archive link for our GIL OPAC / Discovery Meeting.

Fulfillment Team meeting 12/11/2013

Fulfillment Team meeting 12/11/2013 via WebEx
Cynthia Fears, Cynthia Frost, Karen Glover, Denita Hampton, Sean Purcell, Sofia Slutskaya, Viki Timian, Susan Vines

Update from Leadership Team meetings:
• Discussed the structure of the final, combined document.  Sent out a very basic draft of what it will look like.
• Importance of broadly defining what we want the vendors to demonstrate
• Limiting specific requirements
• Understanding that if what we want may not be available currently
• Please continue to keep abreast of other demonstrations/presentations by vendors
• Denita is attending ALA Midwinter.   If you attend any sessions that would be applicable to this endeavor, please report back points of interest.


Survey results (39 responses):
• Most of the improvements suggested are actually things that Voyager can do but that we don’t do because of policy decisions.  Since we have grown and matured with GIL Express for 10 yrs, we should revisit some of those policies that were made.
• Better efficiency – seeing relevant information on a single screen, fewer clicks
• Better/easier reporting capabilities
• To be able to connect with Banner and/or the Bursar’s Office

Draft review
• Continue to use the outline from Orbis Cascade
• Make sure the themes from the survey are reflected in the outline
• Continue to make edits on the Google doc.  The goal is to have a working draft done by next Monday for folks to review and make final comments before it goes to the Leadership Team/Merryll.

Timeline
December 20th  we turn in our second draft
The drafts from all the teams will get combined and edited and we will probably get that draft around mid-late January. At that point we’ll have feedback and more details on what our team needs to revise. Our timeline and output expectations for the next few months will be clearer then. It is expected that we will continue to contribute to this process throughout its entire course.

Collaborative Technical Services Team WebEx meeting minutes December 5, 2013

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. 19^th 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

Cloud Team Meeting Minutes 2013-12-05

Present: Bob, Bill, Caryl, Chris, Craig, Doug, Phil

(Bill) Update about status of NextGen project. Many of the groups have already contributed drafts of their initial RFPs. At Tuesday’s Team Leader meeting it was decided not to distribute initial contributions of various teams to all teams since many of them are still in an early draft format and might, therefore, create more confusion than clarification.

The schedule is that in early January (6th) the various drafts will be put together into an initial version of the RFP. December 20th remains as the date for all groups to contribute their first RFP drafts.

Hard deadline of team leaders putting together first pass of draft is January 6th. A team leaders meeting is scheduled for January 16th where they will be using a compiled version of the RFP. The RFP will be distributed amongst the various groups on either Jan. 16th or 17th.

(Bob) Our draft has not been turned in yet pending our group’s approval of existing document. Bob is going to work on the draft after our meeting to remove elements from the Orbis Cascade document that aren’t relevant to our USG needs.

(Doug) Question about whether Jan 6th first draft is close to final version. Bob clarified that it’s expected that the Jan. 6th draft (to be released to all groups on Jan. 16th or 17th) will still require a significant amount of editing; it is just an initial draft. Bob mentioned that the draft will also be shared with specialized libraries (e.g., medical, music) to make sure their needs are also reflected in the RFP draft.

(Bill) It was discussed whether it’s OK to use exact wording of Orbis Cascade document. Merryll has had extensive contact with Orbis Cascade and they are OK with our use of their document as a template. Our group, Cloud Team, agrees that we feel OK about using existing wording of OC document when it matches the points that we need to address.