Legend: NOT STARTED IN PROGRESS STALLED DECIDED
Recommendation
Background
The work of the Patron Data Cleanup group, as well as others potentially, will be highly impacted by this decision. A single unified patron database will demand a higher level of harmonization decisions being made as it pertains to user fields in Alma and the data being migrated from the current integrated library systems. A decentralized model allows each campus to essentially focus more on “cleaning their own house” and make decisions about “their patron data” locally within the scope of what can and cannot be technically migrated.
Dependencies
The Should expired patron records be migrated to Alma? (PDCG) decision depends on this decision.
If the shared patron records will exist in the NZ, then these 3rd party integrations will need to be listed for the NZ 3rd party integration form due May 29th.
technical consideration: can the NZ (if that is where the shared patron records will be) have ten SIS integrations? (posed to ExL on May 8 )if not, how will the shared patron records be ingested into Alma?
Questions to consider
What are the operational or functional benefits of either option?
What happens to loading Stanford users from UCB?
CSUs have implemented separate databases.
(long term consideration) Who (which UC entity/office) would manage NZ patron database?
ICs: After some thinking on this, it seems like having multiple databases would be significantly LESS work for the same “bang” - we tentatively recommend this course, but defer to the experts.
Action Log
Action/Point Person | Expected Completion Date | Notes | Status |
|---|---|---|---|