2014-05-30

TSI Admin Team "Summit" Meeting

Date: Friday, 30 May 2014

Location: 111B Olin Library (LTS Conference Room next to Jim's office)

Background Document: Bob's summary of problems and objectives[

Attending: Kate Harcourt, Jim LeBlanc, Xin Li, Bob Wolven

Agenda:

9:00 - 9:30     The Problem

• Significant barriers to "true" TSI
• Delay in implementing Alma
• Morale and motivation
• Obligation to Mellon (see link to "Project Description" from the TSI wiki home page)
• Perception, visibility, and reputation of our libraries
• Other issues?

9:30 - 10:15     Objectives (brainstorming)

• Identify pressure points (e.g. Cornell's no-backlog policy, succession planning)
• Set realistic goals for next 19 months (i.e. starting June 1st)
• Identify known constraints
• Identify promising initiatives with clear, lasting benefits
• Identify alternative approaches to pursuing these initiatives
• Explore the idea of creating a separate organization for TSI

10:15 - 10:30     Break

10:30 - 11:15     Objectives (brainstorming -- contd.)

11:15 - 12:00     Outcomes, Next Steps

• Possible scenarios
• Immediate actions
• Longer-term actions
• Action plan to accompany survey results

********************

Notes:

Xin distributed copies of Cornell's "Check-Up for Existing Partnerships" tool as additional guidance for our discussion.

There seems to be a disconnect between the original vision for TSI and institutional-level limitations to realizing that vision.  There is still belief that the future of libraries is in collaboration since no library can manage on its own.

Maybe we need to lower expectations and redefine the project with more realizable goals.

The Slavic record exchange was discussed as an area where one side (Columbia) benefits more than the other. Columbia will get Cornell records and there may be some benefit in learning about record loading issues and creation of collections within Blacklight or potentially Alma.

The word "integration" may be threatening from a legal point of view.

We will change the project name from 2CUL Technical Services Integration to the 2CUL Technical Services Initiative (still TSI). 

The Proof registry is still viable for recording successful and non-successful initiatives.

We know there are two things we cannot do: supervise each other or spend each other's money; however, we need to better define these restrictions (i.e make the invisible fence more visible).

Agreement that once the by-laws and addenda to the 2CUL MOU have been worked out, we shouldn't need to run anything further regarding TSI by Columbia or Cornell lawyers, unless it's something unusual.

2CUL communication across library divisions (collection development, IT, technical services) isn't working as well as it should.

We've inadvertently created a lot of suspicion about 2CUL and 2CUL TSI.

We've touted certain ideas just for the sake of doing something and implying that 2CUL is a wonderful thing in itself.

Can we come up with some desirable characteristics for projects we wish to pursue -- for example, Jim Neal's four drivers: quality, productivity, improvement, innovation?

We need to assess whether the re-imagination of TSI is a factor in Alma planning. It should at least stand as a warning about invisible fences.

Action Items:

1. Xin and Bob will share the conclusions from our meeting with Anne and Jim Neal; Kate and Jim L. will share them with JSMIN.
2. Finish by-laws and addenda to the 2CUL MOU (Xin, Bob, Anne, Jim Neal, Ezra, Kris)
3. Move forward with current and future TSI projects and collaboration with four drivers in mind: quality, productivity, improvement, innovation (JSMIN and others).
4. Reconceptualize "integration" as "initiative"; draft new vision for TSI (JSMIN; Kate and Jim).
5. Pursue discussions regarding differences in individual institutional practices and why they vary (JSMIN and others). We should imagine benefits of change. For example, what if Cornell stopped classing books going to its Annex in the same way that Columbia does not class PreCat books going to ReCAP?
6. Encourage and support teams that have already built up considerable integrative traction, like the E-Resources Working Group (JSMIN).
7. Share and discuss differing and mutual pressure points/priorities (TSI Admin Team, JSMIN).
8. Draft cover memo for survey distribution, including new direction for TSI (Kate and Jim, following JSMIN meeting on June 5th).
9. Post cover memo, along with survey results, as next TSI Occasional Progress Report (Kate and Jim)
10. Follow up with Columbia regarding recent advances at Cornell in enhancing inadequate ebook records with subject headings and classification (Jim -- DONE, 6/2/14)