Versions Compared

Old Version 6

changes.mady.by.user Sarah Houghton

Saved on

compared with

New Version 7

changes.mady.by.user Josephine Tan

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.
Legend:
Status
titlenot started
Status
colourYellow
titleIN PROGRESS
Status
colourRed
titleSTALLED
Status
colourGreen
titledecided
Page Properties
label

Status

Status
colourYellow
titleIN PROGRESS

Scope

Description

Should we create a public Consortia Union View?

Decision

Owning group

Discovery FG Josephine Tan and Jess Waggoner, co-chairs

Approver

Stakeholders

R = Discovery FG
A =
C = Campus Discovery groups, Resource Management (if consortia union view is recommended), IC (for SAML? if consortia union view is recommended)
I = Cohort

Decision-making process

Priority

Mandatory before Go-live

Due date

TBD

Recommendation

Reasoning

Background

The Discovery Functional Group is charged with the delivery of, “A Primo VE instance for the UC Libraries Network Zone (NZ) will also be developed to provide centralized indexing, shared customization of views via a Central Package, and centralized configuration of mapping and code tables, allowing for the discovery of records and holdings across the NZ, and services such as fulfillment and resource sharing.”

Local campus Primo VE instances can allow the discovery of records and holdings across the NZ and facilitate requests for resources via the DiscoveryNetwork search profile (aka Discovery Network Scope). ExLibris technologies also provide the option to create a Consortia Union View; a view created at the network level that provides a “neutral view” that can include consortia specific branding. The union view provides no additional functionality for staff or end-users.

...

  • Each campus Primo VE will include a DiscoveryNetwork search profile

  • Consortia union views do not include features or functionality not available via DiscoveryNetwork search profiles (confirmed by ExLibris)

Dependencies

Understand dependencies – are there any? Or can this decision be made anytime before go-live?

Questions to consider

What is the experience/process for end-users for the discovery and request of network holdings via the Discovery Network scope?

Would a consortia union view improve user experience for the discovery and request of network holdings?

Options considered

NO Primo VE NZ Union View

YES Primo VE NZ Union View

Description

Pros and cons

(plus)

  • Do not have to maintain a union view instance of Primo VE

  • Consortial (“UCS Network”) scope meets all the needs for a union view

  • Everything can be found or accessed in one place (the campus IZ instances of Primo)

(minus)

  • Training and communication “screenshots” would be different for each campus.

(plus)

  • Would have a central UC branding: can be helpful for producing end user learning and communication materials.

  • Training and communication “screenshots” could be consistent across all campuses.

  • A possible SEO advantage in having one site to promote instead of 10

(minus)

  • No added value

  • Require end users to sign in before use

  • Not optimum for shared fulfillment

  • Contributes to user confusion in understanding scopes

  • Would require users to go to more than one place to access materials

Action Log

Action/Point Person

Expected Completion Date

Notes

Status

Create document summarizing Discovery Network Scope functionality and appearance and Consortia Union View functionality and appearance / Jess Waggoner

6/23/2020

Discovery Network Scope and Consortia Union View Summary document in Google Drive

Complete

Deliver summary document to campus stakeholders and discuss end user needs for discovery and request of network holdings / All Discovery FG members

In Progress