2021-07-23 Acquisitions Meeting notes

Owned by Heather McMillan
Last updated: Mar 22, 2022
6 min read

Date

Attendees (37)

Agenda

  • Housekeeping (5 minutes - Susan) 
  • FOLIO Roadmap: Revisiting the FOLIO Roadmap (20 minutes, Martina S.) 
  • Discuss editing POL instance connection 

Discussion items

TimeItemWhoNotes
HousekeepingSusan
  • In the future, Slack call will be our back up for zoom if for some reason the Zoom call is not working for us. If you have a question about how to do this, contact Susan or Heather for instructions. 
 8:05FOLIO Roadmap: Revisiting the FOLIO Roadmap Martina

Roadmap Themes - Google Sheets

Martina the features of the roadmap and it's features. 

Grouped the features into theme's. 

Column C is the theme we are aiming for. 

At the moment just trying to get an idea what this might look like. 

Should include dependencies

Roadmap may cover several years. 

This is a living document. 

Maybe an annual cycle of revisiting the roadmap. Do you think the group should revisit this more often or less often?

Dennis: This is more of a vision for the project. Does it tie into the pointing or rankings?

Martina: Ideally yes it will be. It should be a vision of a list of wishes as well in alignment with the po's and development team plans.  

Dennis: It may influence what you want the SIG's to talk about?

Martina: Yes, it's something the community needs. 

From Owen Stephens to Everyone:  08:12 AM Dennis - I’d asked a similar question at equivalent roadmap presentation at the ERM SIG

Martina: The process of what the roadmap will be will be developed over a period of time. Maybe discuss in the SIGs what they would like to see in the roadmap. 

From Owen in chat: I think being clear what is “vision” (guiding our direction) and what is “description” (this is what the various groups are currently working on) are made clear
Sorry - I mean - the roadmap should be clear which is being done in any particular statement or description

Dennis: Being clear on what's being implemented vs what is being discussed should be clear. 

Dennis: Will The different theme's relate to the different SIG's?

Martina: Some will be, some will be cross apps. 

Dennis: It will be helpful to highlight what Apps are involved with the theme. 

From Alexis Manheim to Everyone:  08:15 AM
It seems like the roadmap should be updated at least every time there is a release if not more often? I'm new to this, so maybe that doesn't make sense, but annually does not seem often enough.

From Susan.Martin@mtsu.edu to Everyone:  08:15 AM
Toward your first question about annual cycle - I think that time cycle is reasonable. It would allow for adjustments in the succeeding years based on what has happened.  6 months may not give enough retrospective time to be useful and any longer would not be agile enough

Owen: Alexis can you clarify what you are expecting from the roadmap? 

Alexis: If the roadmap is a vision, but if the vision doesn't match reality, what happens? There will be several releases between reviews. 

Owen: If the roadmap is more of an annual vision, then it doesn't really matter how many releases there are.  The roadmap seems to be very granular and something you see a JIRA on. To me, the roadmap is more of a higher level. 

Dennis: I agree with Owen. It looks feature based, and that is to granular to have an annual review. 

Susan: How long do you envision each iteration of this process will take? That should be considered in deciding how often to meet. 

Martina: Owen and Dennis, would you rather the roadmap be the epic level?

Owen: The epic level would be a reasonable level to focus on.  In the ERM development we don't focus well on the epics right now. 

From Dennis Bridges to Everyone:  08:24 AM Acquisitions is completely in the same boat.  As they having been really used, the epics require grooming to be useful.
Haven’t really been used*

Martina: The roadmap team will come to the po's and the community to put it together. 

Martina: If you have anything to add to the roadmap, then please let the group know. 

Susan: Will put this back on the agenda for teh 6th. 

This is the link to the roadmap questions:  - thanks all for your input!

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1L7E_YCnYwRMBebWQLUadwyK67WByvUeq_zMvHU1iGds/edit



From Julie Brannon (she/her) to Everyone:  08:33 AM
@Martina - So if we have input for the list of questions should we add them directly to the "Roadmap Themes - ACQ" document linked above?

From Martina Schildt to Everyone:  08:34 AM
Yes, that would be great. Thanks!

8:26Discuss editing POL instance connectionDennis: 
  • Do users need to be able to decide whether an instance is created rather than found (based on product ID). Currently this is automatic. If you have not chosen an instance while creating the POL. The system uses product IDs (Like ISBN) to try and find an instance in inventory. If it cannot find one it creates a new instance for your order. Are there use cases where it would be important to specify when you want it to always create a new instance because matching would be problematic?
  • If we allow users to edit the connection, we need to manage the relationships. 
  • When editing the pol in an open order, the options are limited. 
  • There are times when you need to connect the pol to a different instance. 
  • Even in the open state have the ability to link to a different instance. 
  • What do you do with any of the holdings or items that were created as part of this order and linked to the instance? Should they stay or move with the link?
  • So far, there seems there is so much nuance, orders should either move everything (all of the item records, the holdings would stay the same) for you, or nothing. Reason, you can go into inventory and move what you want individually if you need to pick and choose what is moved or not moved. 
  • Dennis: Is it important to provide a way for the user to say, even though my setting is to create an instance, I want to be able to say I want a new one, or I want the system to find one?
  • Virginia, There are many times the matching could go wrong. I would always want to select it. ISBN's are so bad, especially for e resources, I think it would create to many wrong matches. 
  • From Bill Verner to Everyone:  08:36 AM
    +1 Virginia, strongly agree
  • Julie, I also agree. You talked about a mechanism, is that like an API? 
  • Dennis: It would be a flag of some kind. Right now, that logic is built in. Its find or create. There is no way to turn it off. We could allow you to turn it off for all orders, or for individual orders.  We have a use case for "I want to turn this off for every order". 
  • From Virginia Martin to Everyone:  08:39 AM
    turning it off for FOLIO sounds fine to me
    • Lots of people agreed with this. 
  • Susan: We are thinking about not setting up Gobi until this automatic matching is resolved. 
  • Dennis: If you don't have matching, it will automatically create a new order. 
  • Susan: We will just have to clean up the records. 
  • Julie, There is a way to control this through the vendor. We can order without ordering a record. 
  • Susan, we do not buy our records from Gobi. We want the short record coming over, but we do not want the bad matching. 
  • Julie, we would want to be able to turn the matching off. 
  • Dennis:  If you are loading records along side the integration, if you download the records, you may want a match point. It is still important to have that type of match point?
    • Yes
  • Julie - or overlay
  • Dennis, you want to overlay a more detailed record over the instance that was created?
    •  Yes
  • Virginia: serial records often include ISSNs for both print and electronic versions, and often the wrong one is on the wrong record, particularly within the context of MARC record services
  • Virginia: serial records often include ISSNs for both print and electronic versions, and often the wrong one is on the wrong record, particularly within the context of MARC record services 
    From Bill Verner to Everyone:  08:49 AM Not only is that option great, but critical
    From Owen Stephens to Everyone:  08:49 AM
    @viriginia also ISSNs used for wrong titles in a title history
  • Dennis: So we definitely need in the settings area the ability to turn off the order matching. It needs to be clear about how matching is done if you leave it on. 
  • From Scott Perry (he/him) to Everyone:  08:50 AM
    Or to tell me that there is a match
    From Susan.Martin@mtsu.edu to Everyone:  08:51 AM
    A possible match so the human could decide.
    From Scott Perry (he/him) to Everyone:  08:51 AM
    Exactly
  • From Virginia Martin to Everyone:  08:51 AM
    +1 Scott and Susan, if this functionality were to be maximally useful
  • Virginia: Returning to moving items, it would be nice if you could display the list of items that would be moved. 
  • Dennis: That sounds logical. 
  • From Jackie Magagnosc to Everyone:  08:54 AM
    Or some of them, but not all of them should move. As long as we're asking for the moon
    • Dennis: The thought is you would go to inventory to do that. 

Action items

  •