For the Reading Room presentation, Kristin is going to share the “Evaluation” page with the presenters. That way they can tailor their presentation. There’s a need to tailor presentations and liaise with those presenting.
Do we want to define new functionality? This sounds like a good idea. How do we scope this in terms of the change?
goals:
Clarify guidance in terms of scoping work appropriately and ensuring clarity for what is required from those who present new functionality.
Phase I: Work on this as a concept
Phase II: How to we get people engaged? How to communicate it out?
Clarify main document that explains process
What requires a formal review process? Is there a reason for PC to review new functionality?
Decision tree (checklist)
When does new functionality need to be considered for review
Clarify PC’s role for review (inform and support and not accept or deny)
How do we define new functionality? Impact versus New
Should this be implemented in another module?
What are the duties of the liaison for those presenting new functionality?
Identify examples where new functionality needed and not needed (Reading room vs Bindery functionality and in addition UI wise changes such as the donor accordion)
In the past, this has been difficult and groups have had difficulty doing that. We have the process and in what ways does this process change in evaluating new functionality versus a new app. Any new App is new functionality.
We could mimic what the TC has done with their checklist. This could include the deadline when the PC needs to evaluate the new functionality. Self evaluation checklist is a good idea. Helping people with the checklist identify the downstream consequences and where PC could take on the burden of coordinating information rather than the POs.
What do we mean by new? Why are we evaluating software? Is it about impact or newness?
Community council answers the who, PC answers the what, and TC the how. It seems like the PC has a role to see what we want in the future, if this is a direction we want to go in. Self evaluation is essential and takes a huge burden off the evaluators.
In the past, we didn’t require a self-evaluation. Having a self evaluation might make this more defined. It was a little too lose.
2 ways to definite new: impact and news
What should we check for? Any time a new module is proposed, I would like to be sure in the right place in FOLIO.
It might be interesting to have a consulting step to make sure people know what’s going on.
Often there is a RFP (or RFI) and that process is spearheading this to get the information with the customer.
The PC has an important role to play to see things have cohesion.
Providing support is part of the part of the PC rather than top down control. We can interject ourselves as the PC to provide value.
A lot of functionality is already almost fully developed when they come to PC.
What is the functionality of the Apps? Is there a new functionality that isn’t an App but that raises to be reviewed?
For larger libraries that have a gaps list when adopting FOLIO, how could the PC provide options of where the software is going?
How often are people creating tickets? If you are a development team, all the features are all well defined before the release.
With agile, it is hard to avoid duplication of effort. It allows rethinking. But the approach has duplication inherent in it. It is often better to do the reworking to the cheapest things.
How can we support the POs better? Maybe the checklist comes earlier on with ideation.
Some things might be a fool’s errand to look at everything. How do we find that balanced spot of what needs to be reviewed?
What would be the purpose of our review? Is there a reason why we need to review it? Why would we weigh in on the donor accordion? Is the purpose communication rather than review? We need to do communication. This could be a phase II.
Some of the dashboards might help with that. People are getting surprised by new functionality. There are changes who work great for new users but those who have been on FOLIO for some time doesn’t work as well. Sustainability, App interoperability, group. Create filters to watch the boards and easy to read things that aren’t watching JIRA. Could there be a digest?