Consortia (Cross Tenant) (UXPROD-794)

[UXPROD-799] Systems staff can add/remove member libraries (easily) Created: 05/Jun/18  Updated: 18/Dec/23

Status: Open
Project: UX Product
Components: None
Affects versions: None
Fix versions: None
Parent: Consortia (Cross Tenant)

Type: New Feature Priority: P5
Reporter: Cate Boerema (Inactive) Assignee: Unassigned
Resolution: Unresolved Votes: 0
Labels: ecs-candidate, loc, suppress-from-capplan
Remaining Estimate: Not Specified
Time Spent: Not Specified
Original estimate: Not Specified

Issue links:
Cloners
is cloned by UXPROD-4524 Administrator can ADD member librarie... Open
Epic Link: Consortia (Cross Tenant)
Front End Estimate: Large < 10 days
Front End Estimator: Khalilah Gambrell
Front-End Confidence factor: 20%
Back End Estimate: Large < 10 days
Back End Estimator: Khalilah Gambrell
Back-End Confidence factor: 20%
Kiwi Planning Points (DO NOT CHANGE): 1
Rank: Chalmers (Impl Aut 2019): R5
Rank: Chicago (MVP Sum 2020): R5
Rank: Cornell (Full Sum 2021): R5
Rank: Duke (Full Sum 2021): R4
Rank: 5Colleges (Full Jul 2021): R5
Rank: FLO (MVP Sum 2020): R4
Rank: GBV (MVP Sum 2020): R4
Rank: hbz (TBD): R4
Rank: Hungary (MVP End 2020): R1
Rank: Lehigh (MVP Summer 2020): R4
Rank: MO State (MVP June 2020): R4
Rank: TAMU (MVP Jan 2021): R5
Rank: U of AL (MVP Oct 2020): R5

 Description   

Description:
Systems staff can add/remove member libraries (easily)

Notes:
can do it = critical, can do it easily = low,



 Comments   
Comment by Hkaplanian [ 11/Jan/19 ]

I find myself wondering what this really means and what is required to support this software wise.

For example:
A new library can be added as a tenant in FOLIO today via command line. Once complete, apps and integrations can then be configured and data loaded for that library. Is that enough for adding a member? How often is this done? if this is rare, such as a few times per year is anything beyond command line required?

The more difficult question might be what does it mean to remove a member library? I would assume a series fo steps such as this:
1. Library chooses to leave consortia and notifies the correct contacts to do so
2. Plan agreed upon and put in place that both parties agree to (consortia and member library that is leaving)
3. About to be ex-member library configures replacement ILS system.
4. Consortia starts export of all relevant data to meed agreed upon date (or does the library or vendor do this themselves?).
5. Library test new configuration and notifies all external vendors about the upcoming changes (SSO, SMS, Finance, etc).
6. At some point the library notifies the consortia that it's ok to remove tenant
7. Consortia conducts last tenant backup and configures/terminates all tools and processes that automate any part of the ex-library's workflow
8. Tenant removed and all data deleted via command line

I assume this could take months for an orderly migration that includes planning and shutdown. How often does this happen? It almost feels there is enough functionality in place to support this today. I believe the non-easy parts of this are the planning and time involved between the library and consortia in a multi tenant situation.

This seem extra interesting in a multi-library single tenant situation. Steps 1-7 pretty much stay "as-is", but starting at step 8:
8. Remove all remote connected to external services or reconfigure as needed to eliminate any data transfer to external systems
9. Remove all patrons and items of the ex-member
10. Remove all location data
11. How would the acquisitions/budget data be handled? I assume much of this should stay for historical/tax reasons?
12. What else?

Again, how often does this really happen? It seems in this case that as long as we have a batch operation feature in place so one could remove all holdings, instances and patrons fro the shared files, we should be ok. The tenant tools are not even needed.

Data may need to stay in the system for up to 10 years. But patron data will need to be removed or obscured enough to not track an individual.

Its more likely for an institution to close.

In both cases, what am I missing?

Comment by David Dahl [ 18/Jan/19 ]

I just listened to the SIG discussion about this and had three things to add:

  1. in addition to a set of tools/features, this Jira issue exists to inform the project's decisions about data modeling and sharing data across tenants; I think the key is to make sure that it's _possible _ (even if not easy) to target a specific libraries data for removal, which seems relatively straightforward in a cross-tenant environment.
  2. I agree that this activity does not happen too often (and probably is handled slightly differently every time it does happen). I would feel sorry for any consortia that might have to do this more than once every 2-3 years, but maybe it happens more frequently for some consortium out there.
  3. this Jira feature and the others that we're reviewing are listed under a cross-tenant epic ( UXPROD-794 Open ), so the assumption is that they're for a multi-tenant environment; there is a single tenant epic ( UXPROD-872 Draft ) as well
Comment by Hkaplanian [ 22/Jan/19 ]

in reviewing and updating UXPROD-795 Open , I think there are two definitions of adding and removing member libraries as a feature. If we ignore the tenant for the moment, the second definition represents a feature that allows a tenant library to configure a list of other external libraries that FOLIO applications should be able to go out and gather data from. Ex. Circulation searching member libraries for a patron barcode that was scanned at circulation but does not exist in the local system.

Comment by Hkaplanian [ 24/Jan/19 ]

Lowered priority since this occurs rarely and is complicated from the perspective of planning between the consortia and member library. We will come back to this one once the other consortia features have been further defined as they appear to happen much more often. Once others are further defined, this can be reviewed for any additional tools or features that might be needed for a consortia to carry this out. That said, the command line tool that Okapi provides may be all that's needed once some of the FOLIO batch data operation tools are built (even though it appears the library data will need to be kept for years after the separation).

The multi-library/single tenant might prove that a feature is needed to hide all items and title records that are exclusive to those items. There might be more so UXPROD-872 Draft will need to be reviewed as well.

Comment by Khalilah Gambrell [ 14/May/23 ]

Hey Dennis Bridges. Is this feature addressed by another ECS feature?

Comment by Khalilah Gambrell [ 18/Dec/23 ]

Hey Dennis Bridges and Joseph Reimers  - I added the loc label. I removed the old LC1 label as I am unsure if that is still the priority. 

Generated at Fri Feb 09 00:10:29 UTC 2024 using Jira 1001.0.0-SNAPSHOT#100246-sha1:7a5c50119eb0633d306e14180817ddef5e80c75d.