NOTES FROM THE REGIONAL DESIGN WORKSHOP AT LEHIGH UNIVERSITY
DECEMBER 15-16, 2008

Photographs from this workshop can be viewed at http://www.flickr.com/photos/oleproject/sets/72157611400021934 with the tags oleproject and bethlehem and lehigh.

DAY ONE

Tim McGeary and Doreen Herold welcomed attendees.  Lehigh University’s Vice Provost for Library & Technology Services, Bruce Taggart, also provided a welcome, as did Christopher Mackie of the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation.

Thirty-four people were in attendance, from the following institutions:

• Bucknell University
• Cedar Crest College
• DeSales University
• Lafayette College
• Lehigh University
• Moravian College
• Muhlenberg College
• Northampton Community College
• Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine
• Swarthmore College
• Villanova University

Attendees were representative of the following functional areas:

• Access services
• Acquisitions
• Administration/Business processes
• Archives/ Special collections
• Cataloging/Metadata
• Collection resource management
• Computer technician
• Digital projects
• Director
• Electronic resources
• Government documents
• Help desk
• Lending services
• Resource management
• Systems
• Technical services

And their libraries have the following ILS’s installed:

• Horizon (SirsiDynix)
• Millennium (Innovative)
• Unicorn (SirsiDynix)
• Voyager (Ex Libris)

Doreen Herold then provided a presentation on the OLE Project.  After a break, attendees were broken up into five groups to work on identifying processes.  This provided for everyone to note five tasks that they perform in the ILS, from a high-level perspective.  The processes were then collected, like items were grouped together, and then given the following descriptive names:

• Acquisitions/financial
• Acquisitions
• Acquisitions/budget
• External communication
• Collection management
• Circulate materials & equipment
• Circulation/access
• Inventory control
• Cataloging
• Data extraction
• Data management
• Database management
• Serials
• Reports
• Institutional administration
• Analytic support/user experience
• Systems.

Afterwards, the breakout groups rejoined to share their activities.  The work done among the breakout groups was then consolidated and then given the following new descriptive names:

• Acquisitions/financial
• Analytic support/user experience
• Data analysis
• Data management
• Inventory control

The group then broke for lunch.  A lively session on determining core processes then took place, with individuals using sticky dots to make determinations on the processes as to whether they are core, significant, could be shifted to another unit/system, or should be stopped.  Discussion following this activity included: making use of tools already available, outside of academe, such as business intelligence solutions that provide statistical analysis and graphics, the need for a matrix to show how processes might be done across functional areas, and the need for decision support.  Issues that had not been addressed included: warehouse storage, suppressing records, publication patterns for serials, fiscal year rollover, and a new Z39.50 or something like it.

Sharon Wiles-Young (Lehigh University) then offered a four/six presentation on electronic resource management, after which, Tim McGeary presented a slideshow on SOA and BPM.  Attendees returned to their morning break out groups to experiment with unpacking a core process.  All groups worked on the same process, checking out a book, and then returned to our large group for a review and confirmation of the process.

DAY TWO

A snowstorm influenced attendance for day two, with 25 people in attendance.  They were welcomed back with a review of the previous day’s activities and a look at upcoming activities.

Breakout groups then formed based on the functional areas determined the previous day.  The breakout groups had two sessions of unpacking a core process.  The core processes chosen for unpacking were:

• Search for bibliographic record
• Tracking expenditures
• Inventory control
• Generate circulation reports, transaction reports, and patron notices
• Delete item/bib record
• Find pathways to licensed materials
• Receiving & invoicing

A four/six presentation was given by Christine Roysdon and Gail Kriebel (Lehigh University) on project management for dealing with mass volume projects.

Breakout groups formed again to dream of what they envision for a new system.  We gathered again to share these blue sky thoughts as a group.

Before leaving for the day, the group discussed what well:

• Functional groups vs. random/mixed groups [breakout groups for exercises 1 and 2] were useful in different ways; functional groups made it easier to focus, which was important in some exercises; disparity in viewpoints worked well in randon/mixed groups
• Geographic options for attendance were important
• Types of groups well matched to activities; liked first activity with diverse group
• Exercises with diverse groups brought out commonalities
• Good organizers!!

And what didn’t:

• Didn’t like functional areas; think outside box; forcing func area made us stay in tracks; don’t assign us, let us choose
• Not working on OPAC puts some constraints on blue skying, etc.
• Eliminate duplication
• Dot activity: short amount of time to provide significant impact; not sufficient time, maybe have smaller number of dots, hard to put importance on a task with which you’re not familiar
• Didn’t talk about search engines but peripherally a good search engine should be avail to staff; you want really good search, you architect you’re system within the development of the system
• Not incl. opac: question not raised was what do we picture opac doing for our users; if we don’t know how opac fits in…what info we’re storing in our system that opac makes use
• Exercises themselves were good; fleshing out; concern about those we weren’t able to flesh out, hopefully number of workshops will fill in gaps
• If func groups were bigger, could have had additional input