Discovery: renaming their testing page to VE User Interface. Should a new page be made for future testing? From chat: Liz M votes for making a new page. Per Xiaoli, will probably need 2 testing spreadsheet pages.
DCFG testing spreadsheet is here. It might change a bit!
Fulfillment: The config form was submitted today. Yay!
ACQERM: Might need another session with ExL, but would like to review the session on 8/27 and work in the VG a bit before deciding if they really need another session. TBD. Feels like they are not quite ready with their testing. This will be iterative. Xiaoli suggests that after we test for a couple of weeks, another PPC meeting can be set up to examine the workflow.
Add “vanguard” to the title if decisions/testing are for that to identify it.
The PPC Steering Committee would like to have all groups complete documenting their testing scenarios by Aug. 28.
This will most likely be an iterative process
If it's necessary, the SC will meet with individual groups to prioritize their testing cases after Aug. 28
(From Liz) Suggestions for ensuring timely feedback from local campus groups?
RMFG: the priority of the decisions does not necessarily indicate how quickly decisions will be made; some decisions are easier to make than others, regardless of priority. RMFG also added the groups that would need to be consulted with. They are also linking to the ILSDC data cleanup sheet to indicate which decisions inform cleanup. How do you feel about the time you have to test? Time will feel crunched. Just because they make a decision doesn’t mean that it will be a harmonization decision. Harmonization would take a lot of back and forth, especially with larger campuses. Policy development will take time. There is not a lot in RM that has to be standardized from day 1.
Discovery: taking page 6-8 of Alma Primo testing checklist as basis for testing. The functions that should be tested for are the broader strokes: what needs to be harmonized? What does Discovery need to test at a consortial level v. what should be tested by local groups? Per Xiaoli, Discovery is responsible for looking at the NZ Primo VE. Make a new sheet for NZ testing.
Fulfillment: considered overarching categories that need to be tested. Focusing on fulfillment network at a high level. Local groups will test checking materials in and out. Fulfillment will test the Rota, fields for patron accounts, blocks and fines (to harmonize loan rules). The fulfillment config form helped to focus in on what to test. Testing decisions they already made to see if they worked. If not, what is the decision coming out of that?
From Lisa in chat: “Fines for replacements may need to go through campus approval for rates if I'm not mistaken (like a cost recovery policy)”. From Liz R in chat: “Yes, we really would like to keep our own replacement costs and not harmonize on that at this time. When we asked Ex-Libris if we could leave the replacement fine amounts blank on the config form so we could input specific amounts in the individual campus ALMAs, they said we could do that.”
ACQERM: they have been consolidating and distilling their scenarios. Added a column indicating the broad area that the test is designed for. Still need to prioritize.
DCFG testing spreadsheet is here. It might change a bit!
CDL-managed data group: will also be testing in the NZ; there is overlap with Discovery. Does it make sense for both groups to test the same things?
Every data point cannot be tested for. What are the decisions we actually need? What is most important for day 1? Each group has to use the idea of an MVP rather than striving for perfection. What can’t be reversed? Test that first.
Do we want the PPC group to review all the spreadsheets? Maybe everyone takes another pass at completing/finessing their test scenarios
What is the deadline for testing scenarios?
Discovery to make a new sheet on the PPC testing spreadsheet for NZ testing
PPC - if anyone wants to meet with the SC, email Xiaoli to set up a time.
3
PM updates
Sep 3 special meeting
Awareness of requirement to complete the data security form
9/3 office hours: As of now, there have been no questions submitted and ExL would appreciate the extra time to work on preparing the VG environments. Would you and your teams be ok with canceling this meeting?
Data security acknowledgement forms - everyone (includes local campus testers, ICs, FGs) will need to complete the form before getting an account. Note: completing the form does not guarantee that you will be given an account. Accounts are created at the discretion of the Implementation Coordinators. This verbiage does not apply to FGs.
If ICs have any questions about the accounts from ACQERM and Fulfillment, they did what they did to create flexibility to be able to see a variety of data.
Thank you for taking the poll. The 9/3 meeting is going to be canceled.
@Christine Barone (Unlicensed) will send an email to the PPC listserv about the data security form.
4
Homework
5
Parking Lot
For September: revisit whether PPC should cancel any meetings in Sep/Oct to accommodate testing.
When can we finalize a date for FG decision-making?
6
TOTAL
/ 80
Future agenda items
The SILS mission is to transform library services and operations through innovation and collaboration. The future is shared!
Question? Contact AskSILS-L@ucop.edu