Page Comparison

FOLIO Face-to-Face meeting plans:

Goals:

• Settle on what groups/individual should plan to attend

• Discuss and decide on meeting times/organization

• Identify any significant gaps in the program

-June 17-19 in DC, $100 registration fee

-120 attendees is the target

-hotel registration must be done by May 11

-Location of June meeting: DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel Washington DC - Crystal City,

300 Army Navy Drive, Arlington, VA 22202

-large WolfCon Conference is planned for January 2020

Working document for the Face to Face meeting:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JELsHTfu_xYA1yTsyRCorZzEVofd8Njsg1Lo32rm_3s/edit#gid=1359585528

Notes: Please let Sharon know if you are attending or not the FOLIO face-to-face meeting

Reporting SIG is under "Who Should Attend" tab

Meeting List tab: Road Map - Reporting issues - project management type of work

Meeting details tab: Session on working on report prototypes - members of that group may want to attend the FOLIO face-to-face meetings to continue working on building prototypes

Another session: In-depth analysis of in-app reports

Session: Meet with Resource Management/Metadata Management app-interaction group

Who's planning to go: ..., U Chicago - still figuring out who will go, ..

Other questions?

Holly will review a spreadsheet that shows what reporting features need to be ranked by each institution. Please use this template at your institution to complete your analysis, then submit it to your Product Council representative for the Gap Analysis. The Gap Analysis must be completed by April 30, 2019; check with your institution on specific deadlines for submitting your feature rankings.

Please download and use the Reporting Features for Ranking spreadsheet to rank reporting features for your institution.  (Note:  The full Gap Analysis and Feature Ranking spreadsheet includes instructions.  The Reporting Features for Ranking spreadsheet is an extract of only the reporting epics.)

------

Thanks to Holly, we have a new spreadsheet just for the Reporting gap analysis; we will work with our institutions to make decisions/vote on items

Go to JIRA issue filters, then Reporting Epics - we have tried to capture all of the Reporting work under 6 tickets (reviewed in April 1 meeting) - reporting feature requests, data warehouse reports, LDP reference implementation, misc functionality, in-app reports, and analytics and audit logging

Full gap analysis (full Gap Analysis and Feature Ranking spreadsheet) is a very big spreadsheet; people are going through features that are still open and applying a rank for each institution (go-live, quarter after go-live, up to a year after go-live, fiscal year rollover, do not need) - note, this is go-live for your institution

Different institutions may be doing this differently, but if you're not already involved, please be proactive, but do talk to our Product Council person to let them know that this is happening, be on the same page, then they will pull the data into the full gap analysis

There is a version of the full gap analysis that only has reporting features in it (Reporting Features for Ranking); many are in-app reports

If your institution is not included yet, you can just make a copy of the final column

Please edit the Reporting spreadsheet directly, but it's just a working sheet - make sure Product Council rep from your institution pulls it into main gap analysis

Going through some specific issues:

• issues under Epic UXPROD-1128
• issues under Epic UXPROD-1449

Deadline for gap analysis is April 30, so talk to Product Council rep ASAP to see if there is an internal deadline for feedback

Notes: Epic Issue UXPROD -1128 - develop core platform - these features should not be ranked, they exist to support the front-end (per Nassib). The 4 features  on the Open Reporting Features tab are mandatory. They are misnamed as UXPROD. Sharon added a note in the comments field: "Do not rank"

UXPROD-1244 - Build data warehouse reports

Lines 6-10: Is waiting up to 1 year a reasonable rank for these? If there a feature request that people feel fairly urgent, we should to prioritize some reports higher. If pushed out to 1 year or more, means less critical. Take a look ate UXPROD-1284 to see if they are prioritized correctly.

UXPROD 1285 - Use FOLIO to create a saved list of items - different institutions have prioritized this differently. The description is unclear - waiting for Angela to clarify. - Tod added a comment in the UXPROD 1285 issue.

Sara: Using Olive - can set up recurring reporting to run and emailed to requester jobs that automatically email to requesters on a schedule (attached to emails) - would like to have that kind of functionality. Nassib thinks that this/report could be pushed to email. Most important is to identify the top 10 priority reports - he is working with a group to build the most critical reports. People are encouraged to put comments on any issue.

UXPROD 1286 -862 - each institution may think of their infrastructure. It could be Tableau

Joanne: reports will be first created in the data warehouse. The dashboard feeds from the reports created in the data warehouse.

Nassib:  troubleshooting - another category of reports - we'll discuss in the future

Sharon: When will we be able to qry the data warehouse?

It's hard to discuss about troubleshooting, which is a huge activity - we should be more specific. At the time being we should have a clear understanding of the features and a clear description to be able to rank them properly.

We should not add any other JIRA issues to the Reporting Master Spreadsheet until we finalize prioritizing existing reports, unless there are missing reports that are important to your institution.

UXPROD - 865 - Build a FOLIO Data Dictionary for reporting

Joanne: In Voyager we know what type of data element it is (txt, number). Will FOLIO do that? It's helpful to know those things.

SMEs in our functional areas are asking how we will report on custom fields that are being included in FOLIO applications. Let's explore how to do this.

-process of building up data model works for standard reports, but what about new apps

-hoping that this group will continue, that reporting efforts will continue beyond Phase 1 day

-but it seems to have implications for both database schema and data load scripts

Data Privacy for the LDP Data Warehouse

-need to form a subgroup of the Reporting SIG to work on Data Privacy for Reporting

-capture "Reporting Data Privacy" requirements and issues in the Reporting SIG wiki

-what data should be removed from extraction as we build the LDP Reporting Data Warehouse?

-request that Reporting SIG make a set recommendations on approach to anonymizing data

-European standard for GDPR

-capture in JIRA as an LDP feature?

-build survey about current practices

-may need interaction with UM and Privacy SIGs

-may need to bring to Product Council

Notes:

-update on action items from last meeting

Review and update Topics for Future Reporting SIG Meetings