| | | | | | | |
|---|
| 1 | Record Zoom meeting Review previous notes and tasks | | 3m | @Ellen Augustiniak | Actions from last meeting are still under development. |
| |
| 2 | Harmonization | Feedback form; discussion | 15m | Harmonization sub team | Regarding reporting for manuscripts, some campuses have raised that there are potential issues with reporting from Alma Analytics directly, in terms of what that data can/does mean. Manuscripts might still need to be a manual count for reasons that go well beyond our project team charge and work. Regarding renewals, many campus circulation departments have been consulted with (many thanks!); general question – why would we care about renewals? Subteam was coming from a place of curiosity as opposed to expertise (no circ folks are represented on the subteam); if some campuses are interested in this data point and it’s easily reported via AA – we could still report it (easily distinguished/separate from initial circ and course reserves. Campuses are largely in favour of the proposed changes in the Useful Data Elements Poll (yay!). Even though some campus submissions are still forthcoming, there is enough data for the subteam to begin next steps (investigating how to functionally implement this in the NZ). Creating decision pages and documentations about changes pursued: We should reflect our discussion in that documentation – including our shared ownership of this process, the various facets considered. For potential new data points (e.g., databases), it might require some re-coding. In shifting to more fully rely on Alma Analytics, some short and longer term work might focus on re-coding and further harmonizing our practices to improve data/stats quality. Specific to federal reporting requirements, we believe that the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) Academic Libraries survey (data submissions are managed by each campus and OP) is an annual obligation to meet those fed. requirements. Regarding the California Education Code, Sec. 92670 – there don’t appear to be library-specific stats.
| | [Action carried forward from last week: Campus reps will continue to complete the form, consulting locally as they think best. Folks will aim to wrap up the form this week.] |
| 3 | Refinement process update | | 15m | Harmonization sub team | Still planning/underway; subteam will meet this week to begin developing NZ reporting. When we build out how we can functionally run UCL/UCOP reporting from the Network Zone, we’ll need to confirm and sort out the extent to which the use of fields/filters can be standardized. Further refinements (systemwide and campus level) could be considered based on further potential seen in the Network Zone (potential recommendations).
| | |
| 4 | Considering our final report | | | | How do we best make our pitch, for proposed edits? What are the legal requirements, best practices and current literature? How do we share/show all of the angles that we’ve considered? High-level lit review - could look at what’s been shared for others reporting within Alma Analytics. Ellen, Chan, Gem will carry out some high-level research to see what other consortia and systems have been doing in this space, to ensure we’re not out of step.
| | |
| 5 | Wrap up | Review actions and decisions | 5m | | | | |
| 6 | Parking Lot | Capture important topics for future discussion | | | Regarding accreditation - how do statistics currently feed accreditation requirements? Potentially a future action (recommended action) to further simplify reporting, including accreditation. “New Books lists” automatically reported out - another use of cataloguing/stats. (Chan has UCB approach that she will share).
| | |