2025-07-14 10AM AASA-PT Meeting Notes

Assemble

• Record meeting

• Designate Note taker

Note Taker:

• @John Riemer (Unlicensed)

5

CDL Personnel Changes

5

Lisa

Daisy Nip leaving CDL. Last work day is 7/18.

NZ level output

Defining the review process for this year

40

All

• Affirm: Purpose of the NZ-level output

  • Proposal: The NZ-level output is not the final stats output. This review is to check our work and confirm there are no glaring issues with the NZ-level data/build that we need to investigate/correct, and serve as a gut check that we are headed in the right direction for “good enough” stats (which the co-chairs propose be defined as within 5% of last year’s NZ-level total, or with a sufficient explanation for a larger change--this proposal will be discussed next).

    • There will be opportunities to review final stats for all obligations (and the criteria they're based on) later, after the NZ data has been combined with the non-ILS data. We will develop a process for those reviews when we get there.

• Discuss: Defining "good enough" for annual stats reporting

  • Proposal: Define "good enough" as being with 5% of last year's counts for specific high-level data points, or with a sufficient explanation for changes greater than 5% (CDL automatic investigation)

    • Campuses are welcome to adopt a tighter definition of 'good enough' for themselves if they feel 5% is too big a change. CDL can help with investigations as needed, at campus request; there will not be automatic investigations by CDL for changes less than 5%.

  • Why 5%? A bit of an arbitrary threshold, but it 1) assumes that there will be changes in each campus's collections that are the result of regular collection development and 2) establishes a baseline definition for 'good enough' that 3) lets CDL and campuses focus staff resources on investigating the highest priority items (data points with really significant changes).

• Discuss: Review process for NZ-level output

  • What's reviewed - in meeting poll

  • Who reviews

    • Proposal: Assuming the team agrees that this review is a gut check to confirm there are no major issues with the build that need to be addressed and that the results are "good enough", this process can be relatively light-weight for campuses: CDL will review, will provide snapshot comparison and detailed NZ-level data to campus stats contacts (AASA-PT will be cc’d), with explanations for any significant changes, defined as greater than 5% (if possible; if CDL can’t explain the change CDL will note that in the snapshot comparison, for local review/investigation).

  • What does 'review' actually mean

    • Proposal: At a minimum, each campus reviews the snapshot comparison; more detailed data will also be provided, for campuses to review at their own discretion. If the review of the snapshot comparison raises any concerns, campuses should flag those for investigation (either locally or by CDL, or both) and request changes from CDL as needed. Campuses will not be asked to provide affirmative acceptance of the NZ-level data: if there are no concerns or change requests by a certain deadline (tbd) we will move forward with using the data.

No questions raised about the “gut check” purpose of the NZ-level output.

We were comfortable with the 5% threshold, of data being that close to the prior year’s data.

Poll on What is reviewed: The majority support (83%) was for Detailed NZ-level data. Partial stats had 17% support.

Who reviews the NZ-level output? Both AASA-PT members & the campus contacts.

What this initial ‘review’ actually means: Looking at the data to see if any portion raises significant concerns.

Workstream project debrief (if time)

Answer any questions about ExLibris' proposal to make NZ data more accessible in Analytics

5

Lisa

Workstream Improvement Project for NZ Analytics met for webinar on 7/11.

Wrap up

Review actions and decisions

5

Parking Lot

Capture important topics for future discussion

60/60