| | | | | | | |
|---|
| 1 | Record Zoom | | | Ellen | | | |
| 2 | Review | Team members are up to date | 5m | Ellen | | Decision: The work plan represents our current plan, work components and various deadlines/timeline. | Action: ALL - if you have edits to the update to SILS-LG, please enter those as tracked changes by end of day. |
| 3 | Tidy data - compare and contrast two Google sheets + Q&A | Information about best practices is shared | 10m | Ellen | Resources: | Decisions: We will seek to be mindful and proactive about taking a shared, tidy data approach. We’re going to standardize as much as possible. | |
| 4 | Harmonization Prep subteam check-in | Harmonization Prep subteam gets feedback on draft. Next steps are decided. | 15m | @Danielle Westbrook @Heather Hernandez (Unlicensed) @Michele Potter@Sarah Sheets | Initial in-scope/out-of-scope analysis and notes (google sheets link) Discussion Regarding intercampus lending (part of Schedule C), a recent Resource Sharing Analytics Project Team advanced harmonizing our Alma reporting. So this harmonization work may be entirely/largely completed; some technical (and hopefully temporary) limitations might persist. We’ll need to check the RS-A PT decision page and potentially consult. No flags/concerns were raised with data requirements flagged as out-of-scope (i.e., those stats not in/related to Alma at all - as in, no place to capture it and entirely separate from our ILSs) Agreement that for some category types currently collected, in practice those data are historical and carried forward each year; so we’ll collect/identify those cases and consider functional options; we also know that we need a more thorough analysis of what category types we recommend moving forward (more details on this future work below, in row 6).
| | Update: Please see Resource Sharing Analytics Project Team Schedule C decision page here (dww will also share on Slack). |
| 5 | Survey prep check-in | Survey Prep gets feedback | 15m | @John Riemer @Chan Li @Lisa Wong | Subteam discussed the timeline for surveying (they agree with later January start) Subteam plans to create shared folders for sharing reports/approaches. Then the survey will ask whether Alma Analytics was used for reporting a stat or if an alternative approach was used (together with or in lieu of Alma Analytics). Plan to use Google form for the tool; to establish controls and a standardized reporting approach. Draft approach due to project team by Jan. 10 (for review/feedback).
Discussion: Request to collect data reporting approaches for all in-scope stats (i.e., all data that has been reported via AA or one assumes could/should be, though it may not be the case); that way, we can have evidence for final recommendations regarding why we don’t recommend keeping a certain approach or stat. If we share reports in a central/shared folder but don’t compile what/how we are all reporting each stat (which table, data points, filters, etc.) - then for later subteam harmonization work, we’ll still need to compile those specific approaches (line up what all of us are doing, standardize, and then analyze and determine where/how we can harmonize).
|
|
|
| 6 | Wrap up | Review actions and decisions | 5m | | | | |
| 7 | Parking Lot | Capture important topics for future discussion | | | In our work plan, we’ve flagged that in January we have an opportunity for the harmonization and survey subteams to change membership (swap, expand, etc.). The stats represent a moment in time; we know clean-up is ongoing and impacts counts. We need to still discuss this further and represent this in our documentation/notes/recommendation (reported stats are not exact; but we are seeking to understand/validate what they do represent). A later step for the harmonization subteam (and broader project team review) is to analyze where definitions/instructions can be improved (e.g., with examples and greater clarity), where UCL/UCOP data requirements might be altered to align with other third-party reporting obligations (ARL, ACRL, CEAL), where data requirements might change for other reasons (e.g., category/type is super dated, no long meaningful, too granular and can be rolled up, etc.); some such changes, before being formalized as a project team recommendation, would benefit from local check-ins (confirming project team members don’t know of local need to maintain) and OP check-in (with budget, risk management - dww can help here).
| | |