Collaborative
Technical Services Team WebEx meeting minutes
January 16, 2014
Present at the meeting were:
Beth Burnett, Bill Clayton, Bill Walsh, Cathy Jeffrey, Donna Bennett, Hallie
Pritchett, Jacqueline Vickers, Jeff Carrico, Miriam Nauenburg, Sherrida
Crawford.
Cathy Jeffrey welcomed everyone to the meeting. Minutes for
the Dec.19th meeting were approved.
Cathy indicated that the minutes would be posted to the Next Gen Blog. Cathy asked if anyone had noticed if there
was any blog activity. No one had
checked the blog. Cathy indicated that
she would check.
Cathy initiated a discussion of the meeting schedule for
2014. Hallie Pritchett suggested that
meeting once a month seemed sufficient.
Others agreed. Bill Clayton said
that once a month should be fine unless other tasks related to the NextGen
process come up. The group voted to meet
once a month on the third Thursday at 12:00 noon.
The next item of business on the agenda was a report from
Bill Clayton on a meeting of the Functional Group Team Leaders during which
they discussed the draft RFP. Bill
Clayton reported that the Team Leaders Group met to discuss the RFP timeline
and the combined RFP document. Bill
stated that each group submitted an RFP document covering their sections. Bill
Clayton and Merryll Penson merged the individual documents into a single RFP
document which they have now given back to the team leaders to review and
determine if the combined document represents what they were submitting and
that they don’t have questions or issues with the overall document. The Team Leaders will have two weeks to
review the document and provide feedback and to identify any omissions or
organizational issues. After the Team
Leaders have had a chance to comment on the document. It will be distributed to all of the team
members. An online meeting of all the
team members is planned before demonstrations.
Bill Clayton pointed out that the Collaborative Technical
Services questions were distributed among the functional areas so that they
would appear in the document with related topics. In some cases a Collaborative Technical
Services question was repeated in multiple places in the combined document. So the document that the Collaborative
Technical Services Group drafted is scattered across the overall document. There is a collaboration section for broader
topics. The Group’s introductory
statement is included as the introductory statement for the collaboration
section and as the Value Statement for the overall document. One question put to the vendors is how does
their system address our value statement.
There were a few other broad collaboration questions in the
collaboration section. Bill reminded the
group that this is the first version of the document and that there will be opportunity
for people to provide feedback on both how their sections were represented but
also on the overall document. The Team
Leaders have been asked to look at the entire document of missing, redundant or
unclear sections. Bill asked if there
were questions on the information that he shared regarding the document.
Bill Clayton then moved on to a discussion of the Next
Generation Library System Planning Time Line which was shared with the
group. The planning progress is
currently at number 12 on the timeline which was Team Meeting Discussion of
Document Review Process. Bill described
the document format that the Team Leaders will be reviewing. Bill stated that perhaps after making some
additional changes to the document after the Team Leader review it will be
distributed to all of the team members and soliciting feedback from all of
them. Regarding the timeline, Cathy
asked Bill if the timeline implied that the NextGen system would be implemented
in January 2015. Bill Clayton answered
that based on the information that he had the governor’s budget included $2.5
million requested by the University System for Galileo initiatives including
money for e-books and affordable learning Georgia. It does not appear at this point to include
funds for a NextGen system. Bill stated
that FY16 is when we might have the money to move forward with the NextGen
system. He stated that Merryll had
pointed out to the Team Leaders at their meeting that RACL wanted to move
forward with a NextGen system regardless of whether additional funding was
immediately available. Bill stated that
this does not negatively impact the current plan and that supplemental money
might be available in FY15 but we will not know that until the end of 2014. The current worse case would only delay the
current plan around 6 months. Bill
pointed out that he was not the best source for budget information.
Continuing down the time line Bill Clayton said that vendor
demos will be scheduled with the six primary vendors (not including open source
vendors) on six dates in March 2014. The
purpose of the demos will be for USG staff to learn from the vendors the
capabilities of their systems to help us refine our document. It will not be an evaluation of the
systems. Evaluation of the systems will
be after we generate the RFP. Bill
pointed out that this was an important distinction. Bill asked if that was clear. Sherrida summarized that the demos would be
fact finding exercises. Bill agreed and
stated that it would be to help us improve this process on our end. Bill stated that these would be online demos
that would be open to all team members and probably other USG staff. It is hoped that each vendor will have one to
one and a half days to demo their projects with a schedule for each area of functionality
so that USG staff could attend the presentations that are of most interest to
them or the entire session if appropriate.
Bill pointed out that the timeline also includes a meeting
for all team members to discuss the document before the vendor demos in
March. A date has not yet been set for
this meeting but it is likely to be late February or early March. It will also be an online meeting.
Hallie asked a couple of follow up questions regarding the
demos in March. As part of that
discussion Bill Clayton indicated that the demos would be open to USG
staff. It will be an online meeting and
people can come and go to the meeting.
Cathy stated that she thought it should be available for everyone. So that all USG library staff could feel that
they were part of the process. Bill
stated that the feedback for these demos would not be for people to pick the
system that they thought was best but to identify features that would be
especially helpful.
Bill asked if there were other questions about the timeline
or any other questions for him. Hearing
none, he concluded his presentation to the group.
Cathy asked the group if there was any discussion or comment
regarding the RFP draft that we submitted on Dec. 19. Hearing none she asked if the group was ready
to move on to a discussion of non-system collaboration issues Sherrida Crawford
and Bill Clayton agreed that there was nothing more to do on the RFP at this
time.
Cathy suggested that there were several topics related to
nonsystem collaboration that could be discussed. She asked the group what sort of outcome was
desired for this work. Cathy suggested
that the outcome could be a list submitted to RACL of recommendations that
would enhance and encourage collaboration.
Sherrida agreed.
The group listed the following areas that could be included
in a report to RACL on ways USG staff could improve or enhance collaboration
regardless of which system we are using:
·
Collection Development
·
Developing Best Practices
·
Identifying recommended Equipment or
Peripherals that are available from
E-pro
·
Developing shared cataloging options for special
or difficult formats or languages
·
Floating Collections
The group agreed to
begin working on these topics at the next meeting beginning with Collection
Development. An example that Bill
Clayton mentioned would be agreeing on a number of copies available in the
system that would be mean no additional copies should be purchased. Cathy agreed that was the idea she had in
mind and stated that she believed we would need to develop specific
recommendations of policies that RACL could adopt for the system. Sherrida said that possibly we should aim at
practices or procedures rather than policies.
The group also discussed floating collections as another example of
collaboration that we could consider.
Cathy asked if there were additional suggestions for the
next meeting. The next meeting will be Feb.
20, 2014 at 12:00. No additional
comments were made.The meeting was adjourned.
Submitted by
Cathy Jeffrey
Cathy Jeffrey
No comments:
Post a Comment