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
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.
Questions.
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.).
Submitted by
Cathy Jeffrey
