Minutes of April 10, 1997 Meeting

Peter Graham, Ann Montanaro, Rhonda Marker, Bob Warwick, Tracey Meyer, Nancy Hendrickson, Mary Page, Judy Gardner, Harriette Hemmasi, Mark Witteman

1. Contract update (Peter)

Contract progress has been good. At this point only some "business language" issues need to be worked out. Recently made some changes as per suggestion from University Counsel. Also attempting to clarify issues surrounding the test system.

2. Verifying target live date (group)

A general descussion of whether to continue to aim for the target live date of August 8 comprised much of the meeting. Committee members asked if both Sirsi and the Systems department felt confident that they could make the deadline. Mark reported that Judy Culpepper (our Sirsi project manager) remains perfectly confident that August 8 is workable. Mark and Ann reported that Systems too feels they can complete their work on time. Other committee members pointed out it's hard to know if August 8 is a tenable live date since they have not yet had access to the test system and do not know how much work will be taken done in data migrations as opposed to staff effort.

Committee members were reminded also that delaying the live date meant extending maintenance payments on the Geac and/or INNOPAC systems. The Sirsi implementation is being paid in part with expected savings from turning off Geac and INNOPAC, so monies would have to be found or secured to maintain them.

In the end, LIS-Imp decided to keep August 8 as the target date, but to remain watchful for signs that RUL will need to delay the live date.

3. Training needs (Bob & Tracy)

Bob and Tracy will coordinate LIS training. They are in the process of meeting with committee members in order to:

Bob and Tracy also have a call in to Mary Powers-Nikola in the Office of Employee Relations.

The group discussed the possible timing of a second week of on-site training from Sirsi (which has been budgeted but not included in the contracted) and decided that somewhere between August 8 and September 1 -- shortly after our projected live date -- would be the optimal time.

4. Access to test database: who, when and where (Mark)

Mark reported that server software and data for the test system have been installed. He is currently working with PC support members of the Systems department on a method of installing the client software within the TSB conference room and for LIS committee chairs and members. The plan is to deliver the client software early the week of April 14. Depending on success of the client installation methods, access may be granted to committee chairs only at first, and all other LIS committee members shortly afterwards.

Other members of the LIS Implementation committee reiterated their strong need to have access to the test system and it's gui client.

5. Making the test system mirror the production system (Mark)

Systems department staff are currently entering policies from draft Circ committee worksheets into the test system. It is hard to know how long entry of this information will take, but Systems will work with all due haste to enter them. Updating policies is a necessary prerequisite to loading RUL's test data on the test system. Systems will work with other policies as they are turned in to Mark in time for the April 25 worksheet deadline.

6. Migration of non-bibliographic data (Mark)

Mark is writing specifications for extract of serial control and checkin records from INNOPAC to Sirsi Unicorn. [Note, specification was emailed Friday April 11.] Mark will also send a data sample to Sirsi to see if they can work with INNOPAC data. He will extract using INNOPAC's "Create Lists" printing function with CUTCP and innoprn.

Other data migrations that Sirsi supports that may be of interest to RUL are: vendors, vendor cycles, funds, fund cycles, orders, users (patrons), charge (current checkout) transactions, renewal transactions, bills, holds. Mark asked Judy to have circ group look at what types of data they would like to have migrated.

Mark also cautioned that the Sirsi Unicorn system and INNOPAC systems are very different in nature. Thus, many fields that Unicorn System requires are either not present in INNOPAC or reside in various INNOPAC records and would probably be difficult to pull together in an extraction program.

7. Cooperation with Newark and Camden law libraries.

Peter reported that he had been received a request from Kristina Kuhlmann, Documents Librarian at Rutgers Law Library, Newark that she be allowed to join one or more LIS implementation committees in order to begin to consider sharing of RU LIS resources. Peter will send an invitation to Anne Dalesandro, Director, Camden Law Library asking her to designate someone to join the implementation committees.

The LIS Implementation committee thought it best if the respective law librarians join the Implementation committees because it would be the best way for them to keep abreast of progress in the implementation and learn about the functionality of RUL's Sirsi Unicorn system.

Website Feedback  |  Privacy Policy

© Copyright 1997-2013, Rutgers University Libraries   (Further Copyright Information)