| | | | | |
|---|
| 1 | Record Review previous notes and tasks | 5m - Ellen | |
| |
| 2 | Webinar - celebrate! And follow-up | 5m - @Danielle Westbrook | Webinar went super well! Yay! Over 75 attendees! Tons of positive feedback; folks are happy about these changes. Reps can continue to share locally within appropriate channels (local Slack, teams channels, etc.); team members should share helpful approaches on the AASA-PT slack.
| | |
| 3 | Proposed crosswalk | 5m @Daisy Nip (Unlicensed) and @Danielle Westbrook | | | |
| 4 | Feedback so far on instructions and prototype | 10m - @Danielle Westbrook | MMSID and Title Normalized - we selected Title Normalized originally because we were looking to reduce duplicate records. The broader shift to Alma Analytics (from prior ILSs) is resulting in changes to stats; clean-up is ongoing; different approaches to systemwide data too (how we identify and report DDA).
Roundrobin UCB is meeting weekly; currently trying to understand eBook counts. Come prior hand-counts, still determining how to handle that (use what’s in Alma Analytics or continue to report hand count). Will be reaching out to Bancroft to collect their data. UCD: Will begin local meetings soon. We were an early Alma adopter - it’s been a moving target and iterative. We’re ok with that. Happy with prototypes. We’ll meet to confirm and then advance the campus-based data. UCI: No feedback specific to instructions - Ellen plans to reach out to folks. UCLA: I’ll be leading campus stats work this year. Prior approach (last year) was just using Alma for added and withdrawn; so the Prototype is also the first item using Alma to count totals. UCM: New to Alma; but campus has the shared understanding that these are early years in the new system and it won’t be perfect (still a work in progress). Sarah is continuing to touch base with local folks - so far, everyone is good with Prototype. UCR: Interesting, between last prototype and this - total count increase. Potentially due to work occurred over last month; or edit by Daisy in response to some UCR-specific needs. Not working by committee - just immediately with AUL. No concerns. UCSF: We have a lot of legacy data - so it’s not surprising that we have new/changed numbers. Nothing is alarming - we know we don’t have item records for local journal volumes; sending most to NRLF, so they’re getting those item records. UCSB: Prototypes have been well received. Great feedback so far. SCA will be a bit more challenging, just with a new director and needing to understand what to report and how to exclude next year for reporting. Have reached out locally. Will be doing the campus-stats soon. UCSC: Relaxed stance (everyone knows that iteration and change will happen, as clean-up happens and with the new process), but the feedback good so far. Showed data to circ staff - they thought it looked good. Happy to have a centralized prototype to respond to and not run it ourselves. Will have a meeting soon with supervisor.
| | |
| 5 | Next iteration of the Team | 10m - Breakout rooms | | | |
| 6 | Wrap up - Review actions and decisions | 1m @Danielle Westbrook | | | |
| 7 | Parking Lot - Capture important topics for future discussion | | | | |