Left Menu Right Menu

Approved minutes

Present: Gordon Aamot (University of Washington), Amy Coughenour (Concordia University), Jill Emery (Portland State University), Corey Murata (University of Washington), Mike Olson (Chair, Western Washington University)

Absent: Kathi Carlisle Fountain (Program Manager, Orbis Cascade Alliance), Tina Hovekamp (Council Liaison, Central Oregon Community College)

The meeting was called to order at 1:05 p.m. Members approved the minutes from the July 9 meetings: Shared Content Team and Shared Content Team with Representatives.

We held an informal discussion to determine how we would proceed through “Phase 2” of SCT. Mike started by conversation by stating that part of our job in the near future is to try to wrangle the thoughts and recommendations expressed at Summer Meeting into actionable items that we, either as a group or in sub-groups with others, could work on. We would need to develop prioritizations, timelines, etc. Mike also suggested the possibility of an in-person meeting to better define the list.

Gordon suggested focusing on the items that are both the most doable and will add the most value. To that end, we would need to determine the parameters of value: what will be valuable to the members, what will demonstrate value, etc. Mike followed up with using the “doable” factor to filter out items that we cannot do (because of time constraints, publisher resistance, etc.).

Jill suggested going through the notes taken with the institutional reps to see if there’s a way to format the items in consideration of impacts, how closely they tie in to our charge or the Alliance strategic plan, and how doable they are. After taking these filters into account, we should be able to narrow the list relatively quickly to at least a dozen or less things. We would then determine the final list with the new members. Jill recommended picking no more than about three items, based on experience with CDMC in the past.

Mike suggested that the ideas could also be broken down into two categories focused on either bookkeeping items that would be a matter of implementation (such as a wish for a conference call system) or items that would involve the work of the team.

The team agreed that we need to wait for both Kathi’s input and the presence of the new members before finalizing any lists.

Jill suggested we might want to narrow the list to just two items for the remainder of the year because of SCT’s potential involved with the process of hiring a new director, which would be an activity in and of itself. Mike agreed that selecting two solid items to complete by Summer Meeting 2016 would be a good goal. Jill followed up by reminding the team of the work from the Ebook Working Group that will occasionally be coming up to SCT for review, as well as SCT’s involvement in the two Center of Excellence (CoE) initiatives related to analytics and workflow.

Corey mentioned that several recommendations are related to one or both of the CoE initiatives. And to the extent that the teams are working together to support the CoE initiatives, it might be that we think about which of those activities our team can take on that would contribute the most to the CoE initiatives, using it as one weighting factor for prioritization.

Mike then asked how we would answer the question of how the team can contribute most valuably. Corey responded that Alliance-level analytics could be one area. Do we look at aggregate or institutional levels? Or look at collection overlaps and strengths and Summit activity. He asked if there’s a way to identify requests coming in to other teams to have a larger point of view or open opportunities for additional collaboration.

The team also discussed the potential of an Alliance model license, which would require Kathi’s input regarding the priority and other impacts. There may also be some requests that would have to be set aside because processes aren’t yet fully in place, such as several analysis pieces.

From here, the team discussed how we would go about organizing the lists: in person with whiteboards or online via electronic documents. One option would be to try to meet together before the start of fall quarter. We could start developing the list via email to have a smaller set of items before meeting in person.

All agreed that an in-person meeting would be helpful. The geographic locations of the current team members would mean somewhere along I-5 in the middle, possibly around Tacoma. Mike asked Gordon and Corey if they could reach out to people at UW Tacoma to see if they could provide us with space. Gordon responded that he was sure they’d have space, and Corey said that most spaces in the second half of August would be likely to be free.

Gordon suggested having a Doodle poll once the new members have been appointed to the team to determine when a good date and time would be.

ACTION ITEM: Mike volunteered to look at the SCT minutes from the Summer Meeting and compile ideas that would be of potential future relevance to SCT. He asked the other team members to review the notes, too.