2022-11-02 RS OST meeting notes

record meeting

make sure Alison records meeting

1

Alison

Update from “which hybrid model” lightening team

• Definitely ruled out direct FN (too much impact on patron workflow)

• Next project: configuring P2P (assumption? high priority b/c reduces things falling out of AFN)

  • needs another partner for configuring & testing (either non-sb Tipasa (M or SF), or would limit Alma/Tipasa testing for piloter); NZ involvement not recommended b/c of simultaneous different test in different IZs (some investigation on configuration started)

  • Getting ExL’s help/assistance/guidance with configuring

  • Timeline? What coord with Tipasa golive? start now? how much effort? how often?

25

Sabrina, Mallory, Alison

Do P2P partners have to be Alma? Yes, I think so. several systems supported for P2P; there is an option to have our fulfillment network outside the UCs, which would have to be an Alma partner

If a library wanted to arrange P2P relationships with other libraries on their own could they do so? Certain aspects of doing it together make it much easier. CDL wouldn’t be in a position to say “No you can’t”. That would probably be the purview of RS-OST. Question: what’s the benefit of doing it on your own?

Next steps

UCSF (Ryan!) could help and be an additional partner. UCM (Demitra!) also interested but needs to assess bandwidth.

Impact on Tipasa? Pilot technically ends at the end of January. Go live aimed for July or August. March/April start for Tipasa go live stuff to start.

Timeline? could start now, could wait until the New Year, can wait until after pilot ends. March is a soft deadline to be done with P2P config.

“lightening team” to document & configure testing for P2P: UCSC, UCR, UCSF, UCM, CDL

Mallory and Alison to meet & figure out how to structure exact next steps for next meeting.

what needs do we have for tipasa patron interface (what is “My ILL Requests” being used for now)

Get a set of hypothetical use cases for potentially utilizing (or decommissioning use of) separate extra-consortial requests UI

15

All

UCR: article request notifications & downloading in MIR; renewals in Alma

UCSD: international partners (lenders) requests - patrons to view pending status prior to receipt

UCI: rn looking to phase out MIR → using article exchange for downloading (removing MIR info from docfetch message)

UCD: VDX notifications (docfetch) removed MIR info, patrons only get AE information (or other delivery method)

UCSF: only use AE for delivering to patrons; MIR only for looking at looking at loans status

UCB: looking at pending status; downloading articles; renewals

renewals:

MIR: sends emails to campus to do renewal

UCR: time period to renew in Alma & recall if not come in

UCSB: renewals go automatically; CNR, not in Alma rn

UCSC: patrons place renewals in PrimoVE account → VDX reqs go to form & sends email to ILL office (like MIR rn, but with PrimoVE)

sum up:

• CNR notifications & downloading

• checking status of pending reqs

• renewals

Tipasa testing

how’s testing going - any more information needed?

need more info about what info is needed for ill req transfer

how’s RTA going? - not so good… different stuff on different sites; how does multivolume sets go?

ask OCLC what these fields are for ill request transfer:

ii. API key from OCLC

iii. Server from OCLC

iv. Requesting Agency ID from OCLC

Wrap up

Review actions and decisions

5

Bike Rack

Capture important topics for future discussion

‘pu anywhere exceptions’: review shared messages, what would be next steps
metrics on how often ‘pu anywhere’ requests have to be changed to home campus (Jason) → may lead to: editing pu loc for this requests → may lead to: harmonizing bookbands

is the “randomized” part of the rota building actually randomizing things? Jason has a hunch that within the geographical groups it’s creating them alphabetically. (discovered in reviewing schedule c report)

NRLF/SRLF rejected stuck at B/LA follow up: SH’s ‘guide’; test with what B/LA see; more escalation with ExL (scott, Mallory, Jason, patrick)

ExL’s solicitation to “contribute to the Resource Sharing Directory”. Kind of a huge thing that we should think about? (Mallory) → maybe after P2P investigation…

x/x