2020-10-23 Resource Management Meeting Notes

Jesse Lambertson

Sara Colglazier Julie Brannon (old account) all

• Focus has shifted to mostly e formats
  • what is ongoing?
  • What are one-time purchases
• multi-disciplinarian is the standard 'new' focus
• folio will allow some new  things
• with groups
  • groups can be displayed
  • what types of things that need to be seen across funds
  • while expense classes are used within funds
  • expense classes allows for some flexibility (year to year)
  • selectors vs patrons
  • still using liaisons - this structure needs to be represented
  • but if after 2 years, something could change and thus the structure could easily adapt to reflect the changing fund ecology
  • this way, funds get tracked - while groups allow for tracking across funds
• mentioned Thunderjet (testing instance)
  •  1 ledger or 2 ledgers
  • operational or restricted
  • these two things  (operational or restricted) need to be seen in the same place
  • instead of splitting these, grouping allows to view together
  • there are a lot of groups - but this allows for the flexibility and to answer questions most likely asked
  • question Kristin M from chat ("When you say restricted, are these endowed funds with restrictions on what you can spend them on?")
  • caps for spending can be added (names & amount can be added to help manage amounts spent)
  • Again, trying to draw out, and distinguish what needs to be tracked across funds vs what needs to be tracked within funds
    • ref: streaming one-time licenses or perpetual streaming licences
    • question about where an order gets connected
      • humanities, streaming, etc, where would order info get attached
      • but, is moving to multidisciplinary model for streaming materials (rather than being tethered to specific disciplines)
      • testing can be done in thunderjet (updated as of 22 October 2020)
      • demo in thunderjet instance
      • adding fund IDs
      • Would love to see space used better for GROUPS in the Finance App
      • Q: Michael from Alabama:
        • likes the grouping
        • Are some of the groups actually larger groups (to create relationships between groups)?
        • Some groups are in a hierarchy (there needs to be a way to see these relationships
        • Supergroups?
        • wants to be able to view relationships w/o having to go out and search for everything
        • This needs to be managed at the group level
        • the hierarchy needs to be better represented
        • from Kristin M in chat ("You might need to name your groups based on hierarchy")
        • Dennis B from chat (" have started working on a feature for organizing groups. see here for more info :) UXPROD-2562 - Getting issue details... STATUS ")
        • from chat ("Michael is referring to UXPROD-2715 - Getting issue details... STATUS which aims to expose the “Initial allocation” number and reorganize the budget values so they are easier to read and follow")
        • sometimes tags could be used - but some folks want to search by selector
          • or is it preferred to use group or fund?
          • DB: (suggests there may be a feature to add a user to a fund) <needs to verify> 
          • does that selector need to have money directly allocated (or to use a larger fund that multiple selectors use)
          • wants to use a URL to pass to people who need to dig into the data
          • Is the descriptions being used to describe funds (such as gift funds)?
            • or is it a note?
          • some descriptions for gift and endowment funds are long and are pushing the descriptive info down (expandable view?) (trying to use screen real estate better)
          • some comments about budgets and years (specific years)
            • some notes need to carry over while some are tied to s specific year
            • how to manage or interact with these notes will vary
            • liaisons get swapped around in departments sometimes 
            • group 1 or group 2 (hierarchical groups to use the hierarchy for efficiency)
            • most often used by Michael Arthur from Alabama
              • ref: 
                • UXPROD-2562 - Getting issue details... STATUS
              • can associate a color or shape to add groups or categories
              • this would allow some more filtering
                • controlled vocab?
                • it is currently a bit cumbersome to add funds to groups
                  • ref: 
                  • UXPROD-2715 - Getting issue details... STATUS
                  • reorganizing the budget detail (bringing details to groups ad ledgers)
                  • Showing a number for total funding.
          • Expense classes would be a characteristic of a fund, but you could have multiple expense classes in a fund. Use of expense classes in any way is optional
            • Might want multiple expense classes to provide a different slice of a fund, and differentiate at a different level (e.g., format versus subject)
            • Can see a summary of the expense class across all of the funds within a single group.
        • General thoughts: what's more important: subject organization or format organization?
          • MH prefers format, because the distinction of format matters more, and more purchases feel interdisciplinary
            • Want this at the top of the hierarchy
          • Chicago/Alabama funds are organized first by subject for selectors
          • Still would like some ways to organize better, especially multiple ledgers: should the ledgers be a silo or can we allow groups to fluidly move across ledgers?
            • Acquisitions units could help deal with multiple libraries/ledgers
              • New issue to help control access with Acquisitions units: UIOR-618 - Getting issue details... STATUS
            • A fund can be part of multiple acquisitions units