Location Renaming Project

Goals

Background and strategic fit

In January of 2023 we were contacted by Library Communications with a request of updating the unit names in the discovery layer to be in line with CUL naming conventions¹. After a review of the naming conventions, locations in FOLIO and name mappings for the discovery layer a few trends were noted.

1. There are locations that are no longer used or wanted by unit libraries.
2. The discovery layer has its own set of locations that are extrapolated form a FOLIO location code and extra data like call number prefix or notes.
3. Some locations have been repurposed which has resulted in a name mismatch. Example ENT (entomology) is labeled Mann New Bookshelf.
4. Units have requested new locations to manage special locations and departmental collections.
5. There seems to be no consistency in the naming of location codes.
6. Location codes do not match location names.

One contributing factor to the above trends was in Voyager, our previous system, the addition of new locations or removal of locations was a very difficult task. Locations needed to be added to an ini file and circ matrixes needed to be created and updated for each location. The nature of FOLIO’s circulation rules and location management system makes the creation and renaming of locations a trivial procedure. That said there are multiple departments that would be directly affected by any changes to locations and must be included in any purposed changes so they can update local systems and workflows accordingly.

Because the request to update the names in FOLIO and the discovery layer touches so many locations it was a good opportunity to fully review locations in FOLIO and perform an overall cleanup. Normally the scope of the project would be limited to what was requested, but because of the number of effect systems and workflows it may be more efficient to address all the above issues at once instead of multiple smaller changes. This point will be one that will be explored during our fact-finding mission. If it is deemed to be to large of a task to do at once this project will be split into smaller sub-projects done over a length of time.

¹Naming Conventions: https://www.library.cornell.edu/about/staff/central-departments/library-communications/communication-tips/style-guide/#names

Assumptions

Requirements

Affected Parties

#	Department	System  Workflow
1	ILS	Illiad, ReShare (Borrow Direct)
2	Library Annex	CiaSoft
3	Data Import	Mapping profiles
4	LTS / TS	Marcos, Workflows
5	Access Services	Workflows
5	Discovery and Access	Solr Mappings, UI

User interaction and design

Questions

Below is a list of questions to be addressed as a result of this requirements document:

Not Doing

• This project will not create, edit or update any policies around the creation, modification or deletion of locations within FOLIO. Information gathered from this project will be passed along to the appropriate parties so that they may craft a policy to guide future changes.
• The project team will not update, create or move any library records to new locations. It will be up to units to coordinate this work with LTS / TS after the locations have been updated in FOLIO.
• The team will not directly edit any other systems or write any workflow changes but will notify affected parties to ensure that those systems and workflows are updated to coincide with FOLIO system changes.

Time Line

• Fact finding – 1 to 2 months. This part of the timeline will vary greatly based on being able to get on committee agendas, staff availability etc.
• Data collation – 1 week. The bulk of this work will be done in parallel with fact finding. A final week will be needed to finalize the report, for review and signoff by the affected parties.
• Communication – 1 week.
• Prepare and test changes - 2 weeks. Scripts can be crafted at the beginning of the project to update, change and delete locations. Scripts can be finalized during the communication period and applied to the test systems after its competition. The 2-week period is to allow staff to review and sign off on changes.
• Deployment – Variable. All affected parties will have to agree on a deployment date. Deployment may also need to be held off based on if code changes will need to be made to accommodate purposed changes.