...
We now have ready-made sounding boards for sharing information and ideas and for solving problems of mutual interest, which in turn create potential opportunities for further collaboration. Bob Wolven's request that the E-Resources Team investigate slow response time for accessing Serials Solutions titles at Columbia is a good example of this kind of opportunity. This investigation is still ongoing (it's a mysterious problem), but has led to the development of joint WebEx video practices within 2CUl 2CUL E-resources for demonstrating to vendors real-time performance of their systems.
The Non-MARC Metadata Team finds the model of TSI as initiative a "more natural fit" than integration. The Cataloging Team is engaged in several projects, including a small but noteworthy leadership role (as 2CULCornell/Columbia) in organizing multi-institutional Zepheira training for the BIBFRAME initiative, an effort that lowered led to a reduced registration rates from $1,500 to under $500 per participant. The Batch Processing Team continues to share information about areas of mutual interest in biweekly phone calls. Alan and Deb are about to begin have begun work with Kate and Jim on a print serials workflow study at both institutions.
Lois Purcell is working on a tabular inventory of procedures for use by both institutions and has chatted with Irina about platforms for documentation. We also talked about There is a tension related to the question of flexibility in documentation methods with the need to archive TSI project information centrally. We will invite Lois to the next JSMIN meeting (on Nov. 13th) to pursue further our plans for documentation.
Joyce raised suggested the need for creation of a central location for recording issues under investigation at Columbia, Cornell, and TSI. We will continue discussion of this idea at the next JSMIN meeting as well.
We talked a bit about whether the need for measurement and assessment, especially through empirical methods, has changed since our change in perspective on TSI. The answer seems generally to be no, but we still want to be careful not to pursue collaborative work that yields no clear net value for the 2CUL institutions, apart from the "intangibles" we stand to gain through relationship-building during the project period.
The Phase 2 functional working group charges, which date back to last spring, are starting to become out of date as we move forward with TSI as initiative. We should probably review them in the new year. In the meantime, working groups should feel free to flip their charges – that is, to let their progress in the new TSI model generate their goals rather than vice versa. Since we see our current work as more "natural" and fluid, as well as experimental, working groups should feel comfortable engaging in this kind of tinkering.