| 3 | MVP Review | Reviewed MVPs and | 15 minutes | | PPC has asked all groups to their review MVPs Reassess timelines Make sure all columns/rows are complete. If the column cannot be filled in, a brief explanation will suffice. If you are unsure of what to put in a given column, enter your best guess with a question mark. If any columns have the designation “TBD”, pls indicate what needs to be done.
Delete rows that are blank and fill in any that are place holders. Resolve comments Review your categories and ensure they are properly tagged e.g, a service is something your FG is providing (like loading OCLC records); a policy which is a decision. There could also be a hybrid situation where something is a service and a recommendation (policy). Add links for any items that have a decision page Look at all the items you’ve listed to see if they are actually something your group has to do or decide e.g., if a campus wants to request analytics, what is the process? The MVP should only be added to if your group has to either enable something or make a decision about it. Move anything that is part of a checklist for testing to an internal document
| | |
| 4 | CDI | Discussion & next steps | 35 | all | Check in on Question 3: How is it going? Has everyone reached out on their campuses?
Focus on Question 4: What has the experience been of other consortia (CARLI, SUNY, CSU, etc.)
PSELG has been asked to pursue Questions 3 and 4. Question 2 has been answered (see CDI decision page). Questions from CDI decision page: Do we have a choice of which CDI model to use (FullyFlexible or EasyActive)? Will EasyActive settings be saved from Test Load to Go-Live? (i.e., if we turn off CDI collections in Test, will that “stick” through Go-Live) Is there a difference for the already-Alma campuses? How much work will need to be done right after go-live?
What are the concerns of each campus?
See: Discovery FG: CDI Findings What has the experience been of other consortia (CARLI, SUNY, CSU, etc.).EasyActive is a recent development so there may not be many consortia to talk with about it. Note: DFG asked on the Primo list but only heard from one consortia in Australia. They were happy with EasyActive CDI. PMs asked on the ACAG listserv and only heard back from CSU. They are using the FullyFlexible model for local reasons and have found it tricky. Their advice is to watch the latest webinars on CDI. Which CDI method are they using (EasyActive or FullyFlexible)? Why? How is it working? What advice would they give us?
Note1: The PMs started a sheet with one response from a consortium about CDI, Jessica from CSU. It’s in the PPC “CDI testing” folder. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1DRwdlXSTd8I_IGox4fj4DwbKjcxqUFsB3h8FRIN80VY/edit#gid=0 Note2: Question 3 needs to be answered and shared back with Ex Libris in a Sales Force ticket. They want to know what our concerns are with EasyActive. | | |
| 5 | Standing item: As campuses start deeper discussions about SILS, can/should questions come to PSELG as information-sharing. | Support learning & transparency. These discussions will help inform members of PSELG re: decisions made by the functional groups. | 5 | all | Document for reference: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lhjZILResvHFpZp11wgJk2Ac74HxD4U3Qo3JIyRMBO4/edit?usp=sharing | | |