2020-05-07 Meeting notes

Date

May 7, 2020 2-2:30 pm

Attendees

@Tom Bustos , co-chair
@Carlo Medina (Unlicensed) , co-chair
@Ramon Barcia
@Susan Boone
@Greg Ferguson
@Lynne E. Grigsby
@Robin Gustafson
@Bill Hackenberg (UCLA) (Unlicensed)
@Gillian Keleher
@Sarah Lindsey
@Caitlin Nelson
@Alison Ray (CDL)
@Alison Elizabeth Regan (Unlicensed)

Not attending

@Jeremy Hobbs

Future agenda items

Discussion items

	Item	Desired Outcome	Time	Who	Notes	Decisions	Actions

	Item	Desired Outcome	Time	Who	Notes	Decisions	Actions
1	Check-in / Logistics	Report any major changes in availability / circumstances	10	Chairs	Nope - business as usual
2	Timeline review	Stay up to date on timeline / deadlines	5	Caitlin	Basecamp scheduled items: https://3.basecamp.com/3765443/buckets/15553579/schedules/2379093803 Will be meeting
3	ILS Data cleanup / Patron Data groups	ICs know how it’s going with these groups	5	Chairs
4	1st ExL payment milestone	ICs know how to assess the payment critieria	15	Caitlin	We have been assigned to assess the payment criteria and make a recommendation for payment. The deadline for approving payment is May 15th to UCOP, in order to get it available in this fiscal year. We need to review this list: https://3.basecamp.com/3765443/buckets/15553579/messages/2627639289 Each IC needs to sign off on agreeing “yes these have been done satisfactorily” or “no they haven’t been done.” deadline May 12, 2020 Then we write a report for WG recommending paying or withholding paying. May 13, 2020 Then WG approves CDL to send the money. May 14, 2020 CDL sends money May 15, 2020 Implementation Fee: i. 33% of the Implementation Fee is due on the vanguard implementation kick-off date Description of Deliverable: The vanguard implementation kick-off date marks the completion of the onboarding phase and is the meeting during which the parties commence the vanguard implementation phase. The following activities will have already taken place during the onboarding phase: Delivery of Alma Sandbox with Primo VE; “Getting to Know Alma” training series; Delivery of project Basecamp site; Initial project analysis; High level milestone planning/scheduling; Data migration preparation; 3rd party integration preparation; Implementation readiness checklist. ii. 33% of the Implementation Fee is due following delivery of the full implementation test load Description of Deliverable: Delivery of the full implementation test load consists of the following deliverables as it relates to the full implementation phase: (i) delivery and receipt of the environment (including access address and credentials), (ii) data migration reports, (iii) provision of test load review instructions. iii. 34% of the Implementation Fee is due on the Go Live Date. Description of Deliverable: Customer begins using Alma and Primo VE in production, after cutover load of library data to Alma.	The IC’s in attendance concur via a fist-of-five vote it is OK to proceed with the process for the first payment.
5	Decision priorities	Understand and agree on priority terms	10	Caitlin	Decisions will be marked with a priority that indicates when we need this by (well before go-live, before go-live, immediately after go-live, well after go-live) etc. ICs need to confirm that this list looks okay for now for use in triaging Decisions. Neil placed some suggested priority values in some of the Decision pages. Choose one: Mandatory before Go-live Useful before Go-live Within one year after go-live Post-live (1-5 years) Greg: Patron Data chair: I almost had a coronary!!! because many items will be mandatory before Go-live, but need to be decided now! Lynne: useful to know: People working at home want data cleanup work. Alison, Susan: priority shouldn't equal a date Carlo: a little confused, there’s a Priority field, and then a due date field Alison: what if we took out the 'before golive', then it's just "MANDATORY" Susan: Is the “due date” driven by contingencies? Alison: I'm really not thrilled with the ties to 'golive'. it's a distraction from the meaning of priority Bill: suggested the following for items even higher priority than the Mandatory above. suggests placing a number before the priority values so people know their relative importance and they’re easy to sort. Something like this: 1 - Critical - project can not proceed until decision made 2 - Urgent - some portion of project can not proceed until decision made 3 - etc… Alison: like Bill's "project MUST have X to go forward." Dates vs priorities vs dependencies Needs: What has to get done in order to go-live? And what doesn’t. Designate a task as “fundamental” - i.e. has a lot of dependencies. How many other decisions or tasks does this drive? Difference between the importance and priorities (priority order). Mandatory yes or no then of the mandatory 1-2-3-4 priority	ICs don’t love the list as it’s written, need more discussion!	@Caitlin Nelson to take the priority terms back to PPC for more discussion.
6	Addressing Decisions	Plan and assign next steps for Decision pages	20	Chairs	What are the actual next steps for this issue: Will SRLF and NRLF records load with campuses or separately? Circle back to ILSDC to clarify the ramifications of cleanup / OCLC numbers issue. Is this right? not really --> Ask ExL about details of duplicate OCLC numbers, per source file or per IZ in total. Who does this? @Alison Ray (CDL) Deadline Alison May 8, 2020 ExL: We need this info by May 12, 2020 Confer with UCB about technical feasibility: can NRLF records be extracted separately from UCB? Is this right? Sort of - it’s about understanding the migration needs, so this isn’t that easy a question to answer quickly. Who does this? @Lynne E. Grigsby Deadline Confer with UCB about suitability: Even if it’s technically feasible to separate the records, what is the quality of the records and what happens if they are loaded separately re: “master” records? Is this right? The basic assumption of ILSDC seems to be that the NRLF record should be the master record. Not sure that’s the preference. Who does this? @Lynne E. Grigsby Deadline Ask ExL if each IZ has to go in w/itself. Could UCs mix & match files, eg. part of UCB, then part of UCSB, then rest of UCB…. @Alison Ray (CDL) ask ExL May 8, 2020 Ask ExL about the OCLC master record loading thing. (this is on the “Order of Network Zone Record Loading” decision page already…) @Caitlin Nelson ask this today May 7, 2020		@Alison Ray (CDL) Ask two ExL questions May 8, 2020 @Caitlin Nelson Ask one ExL question per NRLF/SRLF May 8, 2020
7	Questions for Alma/Primo campuses	Get some answers to the topics from the Slack poll	10	Chairs / other	Alison: 3rd party implementation form: Are we going to implement a DAMS, import DAMS records in Alma? Have any campuses brought digital asset records into Alma or Primo. UCR/UCD/UCSC: We have not added items into Alma/Primo yet. UCB: We have a lot of records in III that point to DAMS and we assume we’re migrating them. UCSC: We implemented a new DAMS at the same time, so they just weren’t going to be ready, and we haven’t done it yet. UCSC: It all comes down to time: it’s not about what’s allowed per se - it’s more about what you and your team can actually hookup and implement. In our situation we lost time to do integrations before go-live because of our accelerated schedule. You can get help with this later on.
8	Network Zone investigation	Discussion of what we learned from the video and readings	10	Caitlin	Anything else can we need to prepare for the 11th? Meeting will be recorded.
9	Other / Homework		5
10		TOTAL	85 / 90