PPC meeting updates and review of any action items from last meeting
Quick share of any local team updates
All
Zoom meeting recording (keep for one week). Since we cannot allow others to attend in our stead, recording the meeting can help everyone stay informed.
Last week we had questions about whether or not we’d have access to a sandbox to test functionality. Elizabeth tried but it appears that this is not currently set up for us. She has reached out to see if Ex Libris could configure a sandbox.
We also had questions about testing during the vanguard, which Elizabeth has passed along. She expects to have more information tomorrow regarding this question.
Elizabeth opened the floor to see if anyone had anything to share from local groups. Linda Michelle reported back on her correspondence with the RLF group. They are going to be integrated with the SILS 4 cohort, but are currently a satellite group. They will talk about rotas at their meeting next week.
Keep recordings on Zoom meetings for two weeks and then delete.
Linda Michelle Weinberger Will ask the RLF group if they have any concerns generally regarding possible rota decisions.
The group agreed that our Visioning Statement is complete.
3
Fulfillment Network Decision
Revisit last week’s discussion about releasing the decision page and item-based vs. title based (rota) request setup
All
UCB users are already accustomed to being able to request a specific item from RLF. Mark shared his concerns that it may be a step backwards for patrons for us to choose a title-based (rota) setup.
Joe F. asked about serials vs. monographs. Mark confirmed that patrons request specific volumes and monographs, not just serials as items.
Elizabeth asked the group if we want to configure title-based during the vanguard, and based on testing make a decision to move into item-based setup? Scott asked if we will be allowed to switch our decision at that time? Elizabeth’s understanding is that the vanguard allows for an extra test phase (vanguard and then general testing), so switching should be fine.
Joe F. acknowledged that even with testing we already have a good sense of the trade-offs between the two. If we test title-based, we can learn more about how the rota works. If we test item-based, we can get a better sense of the patron experience.
Scott brought up one issue with item-based is that requests will be cancelled if the selected library cannot supply the item. Judea agreed, especially since holdings are not always accurate.
Sahra asked about patrons using notes when requesting in the title-based system. Patrons could indicate specific items, volume numbers, etc. in notes.
Mark brought up that without data we can only really speculate. Is it possible to make a change a year or so after we go live after being able to assess how our system is really working for our users? Jason felt that we could make a change, but it would also take a certain amount of work. Elizabeth can indicate in our decision page that we are making our decision without data from our patrons and that we revisit our recommendation in a year or two.
The group decided to move forward with a title-based fulfillment network during the Vanguard phase.
The group watched the video linked in the document.
Joe F. introduced the draft decision page. OCLC has committed to keeping VDX around for several years, so a high-level decision was made to keep VDX. It would be great if we could directly integrate Worldshare ILL with Alma, but that is not an option. WIthout that option, we have three options: direct VDX integration (this has already been proposed in the third-party integration sheets, but was not approved by this group), create a general electronic service link, to Request, or create a general electronic service link to MyILL. Option three might be the worst option, with none of the advantages of either option one or two, but it is an option.
Based on use cases, Jason would select option two. We could be doing our patrons a disservice without WorldCat Discovery. If UC e-links might become Alma link resolver, it may not be an issue. Sahra suggested presenting all three options to Ex Libris.
Joe F. suggested that this could be a harmonization problem, as it seems like this needs to be configured at the institutional level.
Everyone can add questions directly to the decision page created by Joe F.
5
Harmonization work discussion
Take the temperature on starting to tackle this
All
Since we most likely will not be able to test configuration of a fulfillment network in a sandbox, Elizabeth asked if we wanted to begin discussing harmonization of loan rules for a fulfillment network.
Mark was on the initial harmonization group. It began as a conversation with CDL wanting the loan rule to being 365 days. Mark disagreed, and felt everyone should review current practices. The focus was originally on students, but it was problematic in not considering other user groups. He feels we should start by asking what is the longest loan period we are comfortable with and then returning to our local campuses for discussion. The work with the initial harmonization group could have been more flexible and efficient.
Sahra suggested we also begin collecting other decisions that will need to be made related to the configuration of the fulfillment network. Elizabeth agreed.
Mark asked if we were going to try to come to an agreement on the definition of user groups? Elizabeth said yes, we would consider all user groups who would be impacted by a fulfillment network.
Joe F. suggested potentially harmonizing document delivery and scanning. UCI may be a good model to see if their practices could work systemwide.
Everyone take a look at the critical issues document and post to Slack what we want to start decision pages for next.