Versions Compared

Old Version 1

changes.mady.by.user Ellen Augustiniak

Saved on

compared with

New Version Current

changes.mady.by.user Ellen Augustiniak

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

Regrets

Item

Desired Outcome

Time

Who

Notes

Decisions

Actions

1

Meeting notes & , times, attendance

Previous meeting notes are reviewedok’d 2022-12-01 AASA-PT Meeting Notes

Tasks reviewed: Tasks

5m

Ellen

  • Notes are public & imperfect

  • Speakers confirm content of notes

    		• Thursdays at 12 noon was the only available time for December

    Decision: We agree that for meeting notes, we’re not seeking perfection but to capture major topics and decision/actions. If folks feel something has been incorrectly represented, they are welcome (and expected) to make the edit.

    Action: All - in advance of each meeting, we will review the agendas and any documents circulated (which should be ready 2-3 days prior). Agenda links will be made available in email, calendar invites, and Slack.

    2

    Work plan draft review - discuss and share suggestions

    Any agreed-upon Work plan elements are recorded.

    Priorities for next meeting’s discussion & further work are developed.

    Let’s establish clarity. Potential goals for final plan:

    • Meet tight deadline.

    • Distribute to subgroups so that work can happen in parallel?

    • Clarity on campus & CDL needs from deliverables

    • Alignment from committee members on realistic approaches to fulfilling charges

    15m

    Ellen, All

  • Agreement: We will spend December establishing shared agreement on how we’re fulfilling this charge, what our final deliverables are.

  • Impact of material type issues: Can we all put our material types on the table (looking at the data we have) and consider how we might harmonize (including issues with doing so, potential actions/needs that might stem from it)?

  • Agreement: For those data points that are not viable or meaningful, this group could make a recommendation to stop counting/reporting (similar to how schedule B was dropped for 21/22 - it was a recommendation put forward to CoUL; we can do that again). But we are not charged to revamp what data we collect.

  • Do we want to compile how we currently all report fulfill the UCL/OP data requirements for statistics, to see our differences/similarities? Or do we establish a central report now, and then seek to validate/change?

    • Agreement: First we want to look at what we are all doing (how we’ve designed our reports - what data points, from which tables, we’re using); where do we have commonalities on how we define/report? what are our differences?

    • How can we flag the gymnastics and workarounds? How can we assess whether we should stop doing the gymnastics? One outcome is doing things more simply.

  • How might we format and compare our compiled data? If we have a shared form/template where we cleanly compile out data (tidy data - save us from parsing SQL), how do we organize that?

    • Regarding material type, could use historical reporting to identify migration issues and seek changes. We will also need to consult with SSCP, potentially local cataloguing teams, regarding current practices.

    • Hand counting - how can we move away from that? (We are empowered to make this recommendation - our first principle, assigned by CoUL and DOC is: We seek to reduce unnecessary manual and duplicative work.

  • How can we define what is good enough? This is about order of magnitude.

    • This is also about changing what people expect from statistics; how do we change perceptions and get folks more open to order of magnitude reporting (how do we set expectations)?

    • Shared reporting for Statistics is a goal; we haven’t yet talked about how this might be a shared service and what that shared service might look like (done centrally, and then connected to systemwide group)?

    If overall Work Plan is ok’d, Subteam membership is established for Harmonization Review and Survey Subteams.

    40m

    Ellen, All

    • Decision pages serve as the public repository for decisions.

    • A march deliverable will be centered around a report (see linked work plan narrative for proposed report components). We are also building out an overview (potentially a detailed table) of how we presently report data through Alma and how we propose harmonizing and what’s functionally possible (i.e., how/who reports it).

    • Activity: Based on what we know about our charge, does the work outlined in the work plan make sense? And, based on our timeline, does this feel doable? (The project team divided into 3 breakout rooms to discuss.)

    Decision: Overall, the project team endorses the work plan; it represents what we’re charged to do.

    Decision: The timeline is very tight; there’s potential to work within it; to the extent we also need to rely on others for collecting how we currently report in analytics (the data we’re pulling, filters, additional calculations, etc.) - we might need more time.

    Decision: Harmonization review subteam 1: Danielle, Heather, Sarah, Michele

    Creating survey instrument subteam: John, Chan, Lisa

    Decision: The two subteams do not need to complete their work before winter break, but are expected to meet and make as much progress as is possible

    •  Ellen Augustiniak will confirm the end of April timeline extension with Lynne/SILS-LG
    •  Ellen Augustiniak + Steering, Danielle will update the timeline/workplan (pending the April extension is approved by SILS-LG)
    •  Danielle Westbrook will schedule harmonization subteam 1, to begin their work.
    •  Chan Li will schedule survey instrument creation subteam, to begin their work
    3

    Wrap up

    Review actions and decisions

    5

    Danielle

    4

    Parking Lot

    Capture important topics for future discussion

    ...