2018-08-06 Reporting SIG notes

Meet the new Reporting Product Owner, Nassib Nassar!

-welcome, introductions

David Dahl and other members of the Consortia SIG will join us to discuss Consortial Reporting Needs.

Dahl began by explaining that the consortia SIG had been discussing 2 possible implementation models for consortia: 1) a multitenant model in which each library has its own FOLIO instance; 2) a single tenant in which multiple libraries share the tenant. He mentioned that the 5 colleges are looking at the single shared tenant model. NNassar raised a question about the 2 consortia models, saying that he thought it would be useful to come to an agreement as to which was preferable. Dahl responded that there are reasons for libraries to be interested in each, although the trend seems to be going in the direction of a multi-tenant environment. Nassar said that this is an important element of development that the core team needs to be involved in; Dahl agreed and said perhaps it could be referred to the Technical Council.

Discussion turned to the Consortia SIG's enumeration of desired reports. Dahl explained the various column headings, pointing out that the last few had not been filled out due to lack of time. Then he began talking about the functional needs which are listed at the top Emphasizing the importance of shared report templates and shared reporting capabilities in general. SBeltaine confirmed that the Reporting SIG concurs strongly in the benefits of a shared environment for reporting.

At this point the discussion turned to the question of how the Consortia SIG reporting needs should be incorporated into development priorities. Should they be represented by JIRA tickets or incorporated into the Reporting SIG. master spreadsheet or both? SBeltaine said that HMistlebauer had emphasized that the reporting needs should be represented by JIRA tickets, so it was the consensus that the Consortia needs would be entered into JIRA and that Sharon would work with Holly on meshing the categories of reports already established and those required for consortia. HKaplanian pointed out that if the consortia reports are put into JIRA that in-app reports need to be differentiated from data warehouse reports, because the former would be the responsibility of developers and the latter not. SBeltaine said that this need is being taken care of through the assignment of a 'DW' label to data warehouse reports.

DDahl then started on an explication of the individual reports on the list. The discussion closed with a question from HKaplanian on what is the frequency of most of the reports, thinking that the frequency would help set the priority. Dahl replied that most of them would be run at least monthly and some of them would require real-time data. SBeltaine added that as the reports are moved into JIRA a priority review will be required. HKaplanian pointed out that the community will have to bring resources to bear to get the DW reports created; KWalker contributed that a major need at this point is to make sure that the appropriate data fields are incorporated regardless of priority.

As for next steps, Dahl said that it appeared that it was appropriate for Consortia SIG to go through each report, fill-in additional details, look at existing reports in JIRA and assign details as needed or create a JIRA ticket if none exists, but Consortia SIG will wait for a final go-ahead from Sharon or Holly before putting their report needs into JIRA.

Review and update Topics for Future Reporting SIG Meetings

Topics for next meeting:

• Penn Libraries Metridoc solution