Overview
Background
The Library team currently load visitor patron records into Alma from the Visitor Registration System (VRS) by running scripts. Only those records that have ‘Library Feed (Lib_FEED)’ ticked in the VRS system by the VRS authorised user registering the patron will appear in the feed.
One example of problems met with the feed is when an official visitor should be marked as ‘Library Feed’ but isn’t so their record is not uploaded to Alma. This means that the visitor cannot carry out actions in Alma, for example, an official visitor who is also an instructor on a taught course needs to be able to have access to create Resource Lists for course reading. This leads to problems as the Library staff cannot edit a VRS record in order to trigger a download to Alma and to ensure that the visitor can create a Resource list they have had to implement a workaround by either finding who added the record to VRS and asking them to amend the record or by adding the patron record manually to Alma. Neither is a good solution as this leads to a mismatch in data on VRS and Library for the same patron.
By having these records available in Alma will provide the opportunity to encourage all members of the teaching staff to create Resource Lists for their students giving a more consistent student experience for core reading information and a wider uptake of the Resource List service.
This project will identify other issues found with the current process and will make changes to processes to remove manual effort and delays with the current process.
Also to be discussed is the level of access of those included in the feed. The Library has two levels: basic door access and access to online materials. Only visitors who are part of the teaching staff should be given access to online materials and this is because of agreements signed with e-journal suppliers which state that material can only be used for Academic teaching.
Scope
- Investigate the current processes
- Identify and implement process solutions
- Identify and implement any technical solutions
Not in scope
- This project will only affect new additions to the feed. Existing records will not be changed.
- Visiting students are not in scope for this project as they come through Euclid
Objectives & Deliverables
The deliverables are prioritised using the MoSCoW prioritisation method:
M=Must Have; S=Should Have; C=Could Have; W=Want
- (M= has to be satisfied for the final solution to be acceptable in terms of delivery dates, compliance, viability etc.
- S= high-priority requirement that should be included if possible -workarounds may be available
- C= a nice-to-have requirement
- W= want but will not be part of this project)
|
Objectives and Deliverables |
Priority MoSCoW |
Owner |
|
O1 To investigate current processes and agree a solution to ensure all visiting academic staff who require access to Library Services gets those services and gets the correct services |
|
|
|
D1. Review current process |
M |
Kirsty Lingstadt |
|
D2. Review the level of access given to visiting staff included in the feed |
M |
Kirsty Lingstadt |
|
D3. Conduct an audit of cases in different areas of the university |
M |
Alex Carter/Susan Cooke |
|
D4. Identify solution for ensuring the appropriate people have the correct access |
M |
Kirsty Lingstadt |
|
O2 To update business VRS processes |
|
|
|
D1. Review any relevant business process documentation |
M |
Alex Carter/Susan Cooke |
|
D2. Update relevant documentation |
M |
Alex Carter/Susan Cooke |
|
D3. Obtain agreement from InfoSec and update privacy and equality documentation |
M |
Alex Carter/Susan Cooke |
|
O3 To update business Library processes |
|
|
|
D1. Review any relevant business process documentation |
M |
Kirsty Lingstadt |
|
D2. Review Resource List/s process documentation |
M |
Kirsty Lingstadt |
| D3. Update relevant documentation | M | Kirsty Lingstadt |
| O4 To update USD Helpdesk business processes | ||
| D1. Review any relevant business process documentation | M | Barry Croucher |
| D2. Update relevant documentation | M | Barry Croucher |
|
O5 Deliver the solution |
|
|
|
D1. If a technical solution is recommended, delivery of that solution |
M |
Bill Lee |
|
D2. Move the Library feed deployment into Bamboo |
S |
Bill Lee |
Benefits
|
Benefit |
Recipient(s) |
How Measured |
Owner |
|
Delivery of a streamlined process A new process will make it easier to fix problems |
Helpdesk and staff |
Reduced support calls |
Alex Carter/Susan Cooke |
|
Improve visiting staff experience of using the Library – having a transparent process |
Staff |
Feedback from staff |
Kirsty Lingstadt |
|
By having this information available will provide the opportunity to encourage all members of the teaching staff to create Resource Lists for their students. This will give a more consistent student experience for core reading information and will provide a wider uptake of the Resource List service.
|
Staff & students |
Reduction in support calls relating to visitor access |
Kirsty Lingstadt |
Success Criteria
- All relevant visiting teaching/academic staff are included in the Library feed to Alma
- All relevant visiting teaching/academic staff get the correct access
- Processes and supporting documentation are available
Project Milestones
|
Milestone |
Due Date |
Comments |
|
Planning |
15-Nov-19 |
|
|
Analysis of current processes and solution agreed |
20-Dec-19 |
|
|
Process and help documentation identified and updated |
21-Feb-20 |
|
|
Build of technical improvements of VRS to Library feed |
28-Feb-20 |
|
|
Integration testing |
6-Mar-20 |
|
|
UAT |
27-Mar-20 |
3 weeks for UAT and rework |
|
Delivery |
3-Apr-20 |
|
|
Delivery review |
17-Apr-20 |
|
|
Close |
24-Apr-20 |
|