Vendor Records in the Network Zone

Legend: not started IN PROGRESS STALLED decided

Recommendation

The ACQ/ERM FG recommends a limited implementation of Option 1 as posed below, using a select set of vendors from the IZ matching to the global vendor file established in the NZ, with subsequent manual set-up of shared vendors from the NZ to the institutions post-migration in the Vanguard stage. This will allow for the review of vendor data loaded from CDL’s instance of 360RM into the Network Zone, and adding any records or data needed to create a more comprehensive global vendor file. The FG recommends that Vanguard institutions, other than CDL and identified institutions testing matched vendors at time of migration, load their vendor files into the IZ without making adjustments to link with the NZ’s global vendor file. This will not entail wholesale clean-up of vendor files before migration at the Vanguard stage.

FOLLOW-UP: The FG will test vendor file functionality during the Vanguard stage and make additional recommendations related to shared vendors for the test stage. See https://uc-sils.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/AEF/pages/570294438 as Follow-Up Decision Page to IC for more details and recommendations for vendor data migration.

Background

Question posed by ILSDC.

1. Which option is UC going with in terms of vendor data loads? 

   1. Providing a global vendor file for the NZ and then loading the institutions and connecting the local vendor name to the global vendor name?

   2. Loading vendor names from local institutions with no linking to a shared NZ?

Reviewed by PPC on 5/1/2020 and assigned to ACQ/ERM FG.

Resources:

Ex Libris document Sharing Vendor Records in a Network Zone

CSU documentation on Procedures for NZ Consortial Acquisitions for Multiple E-Resources on One Vendor, note on Vendor Records, Funds and Ledgers

Ex Libris document Managing Vendors

Questions to consider

• What is the impact (particularly on systemwide reporting/searching as well as cross-system navigation) of not sharing/linking to a network zone vendor record? What are benefits, for example spend for a single vendor across the system? => To be tested in Vanguard stage

• Will an authority resource (like say https://www.lib.ncsu.edu/ld/onld/ ) help prevent duplication of vendors due to variant names? (How would a global vendor file be chosen, and how can local systems cleanup data to match/link with it most reliably?) => FG to discuss harmonization of vendor records post-migration

• What has the discussion been re: the Financial System Code and functionality at Network Zone vs. Institutional Zone? => At FG 6/3/2020 call, it was confirmed that Financial System Code can be customized at IZ in the vendor account level (child of vendor record). This will be tested in Vanguard stage.

• What are implications for Vendor Codes at IZ level if we choose Option 2? Do we need to distinguish between campuses? => Per documentation, there would be no need to distinguish if vendors are loaded separately for each institution. There may need to be updating of vendor codees to implement shared vendor linking - this will be explored in the Vanguard stage.

• How are we managing CDL purchasing, cost-share management? Multi-campus but not UC-wide purchases? Collating systemwide statistics? What are other implications not related to the ERP payment? What are the other hooks/related records? => FG will explore each of these areas in the Vanguard stage. Some areas, for example managing CDL purchasing, may be led by CDL team in collaboration with ACQ/ERM FG.

• What does "payment" mean in this case for systemwide resources? Campus payment to CDL? Campus payment to the vendor directly? CDL payment to vendor? See CSU’s reimbursement process: https://calstate.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/UAE/pages/499712002/Negotiated+License+cost+update+for+new+FY+for+libraries => To be explored in Vanguard, likely between CDL and ACQ/ERM FG team members.

• What is stored in the vendor record? => For sandbox, with UC data testing in Vanguard.

• What is propagated from the network’s record, versus what is customized locally? => Ex Libris provides answers to this in documentation and Q&As. Can test “inheritance” between NZ and IZ in shared vendors during Vanguard.

• What fields can be customized locally? => Same as above.

• How are vendor records affiliated between the network version and the campus version? => Per Ex Libris documentation and Q&As, there is a distributed job to update NZ data with local versions. Link is by vendor code.

• What else does the vendor record control? => Tabs for contact information, usage data, EDI file management, see Managing Vendors. To build out testing needs for Vanguard.

Action Log