Page Comparison

The historical data migration survey has been sent to relevant SIGS. Requested due date of the 14th . The "historical data migration" folder is here:

https://drive.google.com/drive/u/1/folders/1nCZjRK8riF6lO0_jpNUof2X8UjPi4g2y

Vendor Gaps

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1MuC87SgE5XHYzu9ZtaRk0atQJhWIU2q7B73WUw8CQA4/edit#gid=1200473008

Are there questions to send back to the SIG after the analysis? Is anyone plan to load vendors into a test instance? Using a script or how?

Notes:

Uschi has reviewed. Cornell review in progress.

Uschi was able to ask Ann-Marie some specific questions (to be continued during the next meeting on Monday Sept 10th):

Why is country required? → it is a filter for vendors. Is there any case where a vendor would not have a country?
Language is also a filter but not marked required. Ann-Marie will look into this.

Why is the phone number (within contact required)? → What is meant by this is if a vendor has a phone number ALL of the pieces of the phone number will be required. (country code, area code, phone number in three fields). We discussed the possibility of putting the entire phone number into one field. The migration to three fields will be difficult for anyone that has the information in one field.

Does the agreements/discount override the general discount? Currently the agreement section only contains the minimum because they anticipate coordinating with ERM on these fields. If one or more discounts is available you can express it there.

Is erp_code (from the spreadsheet) the vendor number in the external financial system? Yes...however the label on the screen is currently Accounting Code (changed from erp code) and it has moved up toward the top of the screen. Ann-Marie also mentioned a possible new name – Financial System Number.

Vendor types...why these vendor types? Are they connected to any logic? Ann-Marie will follow-up with Dennis. A filter based on these types would be useful.

Vendor description is a simple non-searchable text field. Tags can be assigned to vendors. This will provide the ability to filter by those tags. If you want to gather vendor records as a group, you would need to use a tag.

Ann-Marie and possibly Dennis will attend the next meeting (9/10) so we can continue this discussion.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JhTWFaykVXslBIKioDTkfZWBCXJ2MRwc2RQYUxY5XNM/edit#gid=197030882

We are giving people a couple of more weeks to review. We'll check back on this during a future meeting.

What are people working on loading into test environments? Should we keep track somewhere? Do we need Slack channels? Are people developing implementation project plans or just winging it? Can we get a bit of a plan for this group through the end of the year?

Notes:

The group discussed a need for a place where we can share datasets with each other. Patty will form a subcommittee which will create a requirements document for this need. Possible participants are Patty, Tod, Anne, Wayne. Patty will email them (cc Sharon) to begin putting this subgroup in place. The thought is this requirements document won't be ready for the entire data migration group to review until mid Sept. Topics discussed around this new sub-group and the general need to have a shared spot for datasets:

• possibility of interviewing SIG groups to flush out edge cases (e.g. weird marc records).
• It would be useful if each implementer would record details about their attempts to load data. This could be under the data migration group in the wiki or maybe a spreadsheet.
• Maybe add this requirement (need for shared datasets) to the migration tools epic?