| 1 | Q&A (recurring) - urgent questions | Do you have a question to discuss at the meeting? Add it below with your name. (Sarah) Analytics point persons and configuration setting (Caitlin) Competing interests: winding down phase 4, and growing interest in ongoing SILS as staff start working in the SILS. Is this true? (Carlo) Items and holdings on the wrong bib that need to be corrected by campuses. Carlo shared the SF case.
| time-permitting | Sarah | Question about named Analytics group ((Post Go-Live) Analytics Point Person role in FGs) and the configuration option that would allow NZ to share information with member institutions https://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Alma/Product_Documentation/010Alma_Online_Help_(English)/100Managing_Multiple_Institutions_Using_a_Network_Zone/Analytics_When_Using_a_Network_Zone/Configuring_Analytics_to_Display_Network_Zone_Information Gem: On this setting: only includes subject area and e-inventory per ExL. A recommendation should go to the ICs. Gem will draft it. A formal Analytics subgroup did not proceed for phase 4. Instead, a point person for each FG will be appointed. It’s the link above. Decision was to take an emergent approach to see what issues emerge and for the ongoing shared gov to take up analytics since it’s already included in their charges. A slack channel was created for the analytics point persons. (#sils-analytics)
Seeing more burnout than rising energy. Also, staff are being asked to redirect their attention to other non-SILS work that’s been waiting (deferred work and new projects). At some campuses, it’s the same staff who were on phase 4 and will continue on the ongoing UCLAS SILS teams. Staff are eager to have new practices and policies in place (like they had in their old system.) We used to ask IT to run reports and now we can self-serve. How are staff dealing with this? Are they overwhelmed or empowered? Those who have been on Alma for years have figured it out - some staff need to ask for help with reports, others are comfortable. Change management has been a big deal - knowledge sharing, co-creating policies, deciding on configurations, etc. Caitlin shared the SILS Ops Center https://cdlib.org/services/d2d/sils/sils-operations-center-at-cdl/ and asked what things would be helpful to discuss systemwide? Or, are many things local issues? Carlo noted how many different options exist in Alma to accomplish the same thing which makes deciding even more complex. would be great to discuss things that are done by all campuses such as HathiTrust. CDL could start/facilitate the convo to discuss with campuses how it should work. The work is not always done in the obvious functional group. Eg, LHRs are managed by IT at UCB. Another example was given of an FG making a decision but technically it could not be done.
So what I wasn't clear with this response is this was a job that was automatic or if someone at Ex Libris was being "helpful". This job ran as a surprise nationally... we heard about it from a librarian at another institution. Ask for a root cause on why this job ran. At the same time, ask what ExL’s policy is on changing customer system configs. We want control of our system changes. Have this discussion with the ongoing Customer Support also.
| | |
| 2 | Timeline review / PM update Support during Implementation: Document Alma/Primo slowness in Salesforce, see instructions Alma/Primo known issues page on Confluence For escalations: Essential to include case numbers - make sure that ICs provide those to PMs when asking for escalations. PMs need to ensure IC has pinged the consultant asking for a status update before escalating. Escalations can go into 2 categories: it’s urgent, or there’s a lack of communication.
SalesForce case OR Basecamp post? Please share this with your local implementation teams: If it’s a general question, post on BC If it’s problem, open a SF case
| | 0 | Lena | Batch Jobs Benchmarks: Key deadlines: Special meetings | | |