This Regional Design Workshop took place at University of Kansas, in Lawrence, KS, on December 16-17, 2008.

Photographs from the workshop are located on Flickr, with tags oleproject and universityofkansas.

Day 1 (agenda & presentation slides)

Participants, braving an unexpected snowstorm, were welcomed by Library Dean Lorraine Haricombe.

Attendees included 33 participants from:

• Art Institutes International (MO)
• Colorado State University
• Emporia State University (KS)
• Haskell Indian Nations University (KS)
• Kansas State University
• Linda Hall Library (MO)
• Rice University (TX)
• Texas A&M University
• University of Arkansas
• University of Kansas
• University of Missouri
• Washington University (MO)
• Witchita State University (KS)

Library departments or roles represented included:

• Acquisitions
• Administration
• Archives
• Collection Development
• Cataloging
• Circulation
• Digital Projects/Initiatives
• Reserves
• Interlibrary Loan
• Electronic Resources Management
• Serials
• Systems

ILS’s in use at these libraries are

• SirsiDynix
• Innovative Interfaces, Inc.
• Voyager from Ex Libris, formerly from Endeavor

Beth Warner then gave a presentation about the overall goals, activities and timeline of the OLE Project.  Questions following the presentation included:

• What will be the time line for the build project?
• Governance Issues. How will the project determine the priorities for the build?  Who will be involved in making those decisions?
• How will the project work with other campus IT systems and vendors?  Blackboard, PeopleSoft/Oracle, etc.
• How will the build phase be paid for?  Would libraries contribute developers? Who would pay for the development?  Would it come through a grant or libraries or some mix?
• How with the public interface be addressed?
• Will public library and consortia needs be addressed?  What about small specialized educational institutions (ex. Art Institute)?
• How / will ILS vendors be included in the project? OCLC?  What’s been their reaction so far?

The participants then split into small breakout groups to identify major business processes and workflows the library was involved in.  The breakout groups came back together to discuss the processes identified, group the processes into broad categories, and add any missing processes.

During a working lunch, participants were given colored dots (5/category) and asked to prioritize processes into the following categories:

• Core: a process that is an absolutely necessary part of any system, which all libraries perform
• Significant: not a core process, but still important
• Shift: a process that could be shifted to another unit / system outside the library
• Stop: a process that we could stop doing completely

Following voting, facilitators tabulated the results while the group listened to presentations on Service-Oriented Architecture, and Business Process Modeling.

The results of the Process Prioritization exercise were presented to participants and reviewed.  Questions the group considered during the discussion included:

• Review categorization of processes
  • Do the categories make sense?
  • Are there processes that need to be combined?
  • Are there processes that are duplicated across functional areas?
  • Are there processes missing?
  • Are there processes which we should get rid of?
• What are the rewards and risks of pursuing these priorities?
• How would you limit the scope of what is core vs. what is not core given these priorities

The participants then split into one of four small breakout groups to model one of the “Core” business processes identified in the previous exercise.  The processes modeled were:

• Incorporating Digital Collections
• Acquiring Materials
• Circulation
• Resource Description & Access

Coming back together as the full group, participants reviewed the process maps, and discussed any missing tasks, potential changes, efficiencies, etc.

We wrapped up the day with an open discussion or what worked well, and what could have been improved about the day’s workshop.

Participants adjourned to an optional dinner gathering at Free State Brewery for a well-deserved break after a long day!

Day 2 (agenda slides)

Participants were welcomed back to Day 2 of the workshop with a discussion of lessons learned and outstanding questions.  Outcomes of the discussion included:

• Difficult to translate a format into a process. (in reference to trying to create the digital process)
• Broad agreement to stop claiming, serials check-in, and binding.
• We are all transforming our views on how we handle print serial collections
• Challenging to get out of “how we operate now” to get to new ideas.
• Service Oriented Architecture – what it is – thought it was similar to object oriented programming
• Different method for mapping
• Difficult to go from “HOW we do it” and focus on “WHAT we do”
• Scope of ILS is fuzzy
• Helps to think about “WHY” we do things
• Home grown vs. current ILS vs. increasing collaboration
• The teams worked really hard
• Recognize “traditional” activities even as we move into the future. Even something new will go through a growth period.

The participants then split into one of four small breakout groups to model one of the “Significant” business processes identified in the previous exercise.  The processes modeled were:

• URL management (2 groups)
• eResource management
• Collection analysis

Coming back together as the full group, participants reviewed the process maps, and discussed any missing tasks, potential changes, efficiencies, etc.

Following a short break, we spent the remainder of the morning developing and discussing “blue sky” ideas for the future ILS.  Participants were encouraged to Dream big – if you could created a system to do the work of the library, what would it be? and Pretend it’s magic and there no restrictions.  Results of the discussion can be found at here.  Additional ideas pulled from mapping sessions can be found here.

The workshop was adjourned with a big thank-you to participants for their input and to the facilitators:

• Mary Ball, consultant
• Jeff Bullington, Colorado State University
• Dalene Hawthorne, consultant
• Mary Roach, University of Kansas