Chair : Michele Potter
Notetaker: Susan Boone (UCSF)
Attendees
Regrets: Alison Lanius
Item | Desired Outcome | Time | Who | Notes | Decisions | Actions | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Assemble
| Susan Boone (UCSF) will be taking notes. | 5 | ||||
| 2 | Schedule C updates |
| 20 | All | UCB: digital borrowing internal tracking numbers don’t match exactly with the Analytic report (Alison Ray provided templated for campuses). Will use the Analytic numbers. UCB: physical lending statistics Investigating why there are discrepancies, particularly for lending with non-UCs. Final numbers used are a composite of the Analytics and internala tracking numbers. UCB NRLF: Caia loan data more accurate than Alma’s. If the physical lending discrepancies for ILL numbers (internal tracking compared with analytics reports), we may want to discuss further. Half the campuses have submitted their numbers for Schedule C (UCB, UCD, UCI, UCSB, UCSF, NRLF and SRLF). Forthcoming : UCLA, UCM, UCR, UCSC, and UCSD. The Resource Sharing Operations Subteam has approached ExL to develop standardized templates for improved reporting. Not certain what’s causing NZ generated data discrepancies. NZ-generated data for physical circ has a “null” user group. Maybe we could roll this up into prior user groups as we’re investigating the cause. RLFs have higher confidence in Caia lending data accuracy: for a decision page, it would be helpful to document why Caia is preferred right now for reporting RLF lending. | a cross functional subteam (e.g. representatives from Fulfillment, Intercampus Resource Sharing, and AASA) to investigate discrepancies in NZ reporting for ILL and Physical lending. | In the AASA-PT update report, CL will ask SILS-LG whether they endorse a cross functional subteam to investigate NZ reporting for ILL and Physical lending. |
| 3 | FY22-23 UCL/UCOP annual stats summary discussion | UCL/UCOP Statistics Fiscal Year 2022-2023 (Google Doc Version) UCOP Stats Summary (Google Spreadsheet) | 20 | All | This will be a public document: Do we need to run the summary and detailed reports by CoUL before they’re published? (These reports do not contain confidential data. They are drastically different from previous reporting years in their level of granularity.) Who’s the audience? Audience is essentially reversed from pre-Alma: CDL extracting data for campus review (we are the audience for the detailed sections). The summary is for external parties. Do we also make source data accessible? (Delimited files for data analyses.) | AASA-PT is proposing Summary table would be distributed to campuses. Set up view-only access to full files on request. DN confirmed what’s included in summary and detailed reports. Reports will be separate documents. Published in pdf and google spreadsheet versions. | TASK this week : look at written report for clarity. Review and make edits directly in draft (suggest mode) DN and DW: will propose edits for review |
| 4 | Wrap up | Review actions and decisions | 5 | ||||
| 5 | Parking Lot | Capture important topics for future discussion | Start flagging what needs to be added or modified in current report in order to supply data for ACRL and ARL (due in Spring) | ||||
| 6 | Total | 50 |