2CUL TSI E-Resources Troubleshooting Team
Report - PHASE 1: Investigation
Create an inventory of all policies, practices, tools, and workflows related to e-resource troubleshooting at both institutions;
The team updated the existing 2CUL Systems used for E-Resources (updated March 1, 2013) - This spreadsheet describes the tools and systems used for various aspects of e-resource management at each CUL. E-resource troubleshooting can require access to information and the ability to make changes to records in any of these systems, depending on the source of the problem.
Each CUL maintains a Confluence wiki site to maintain policy, procedures, workflows, and best practice information for handling troubleshooting tasks. Each wiki contains a considerable amount of information. Work is underway to updating these wikis to a matching organizational scheme with special focus on making troubleshooting information readily available to staff at both CULs.
Identify dependencies and limitations inherent in working with different systems, user populations and e-resource packages and licensing;
The team has concluded that our overall goals are essentially the same regarding e-resource troubleshooting, to provide quick and effective response to e-resource access problems. Our user populations and our collections share many similarities. Our libraries share some similar organizational complexities, such as semi-independent health science, law and other libraries that perform some independent e-resources work in addition to being part of the larger institution. Success in e-resource troubleshooting is dependent on access to and skill with a number of different systems and tools to diagnose and fix problems, track and refer complex issues to the appropriate experts, and a broad understanding of the nature of e-resources at each institution.
Review policies, practices, and workflows related to e-resources troubleshooting at both institutions to identify points of harmony and points of discord;
The team developed a list of points of Harmony and Discord to keep track of where we can make early impact and where we will have to invest more time and resources to bring our tools, policies, and procedures together. The Points of Harmony center on the common tools we have in Voyager and some Serials Solutions services and on our observations that our overall goals and basic procedures are very similar. The Points of Discord have a lot to do with a number of different tools we use to perform similar functions, most significantly, our ERM systems. We also have different ways of users initially reporting their problems and what information gets reported. This discrepancy right at the beginning of the troubleshooting process is significant in that it has an effect on all of the work we perform downstream.
Establish baseline productivity and staffing at each institution to allow for future assessment of changes and development.
The team gathered information about FTE involvement, troubleshooting job responsibilities, typical top-level workflow, and volume of incidents handled. We have concluded that staffing and productivity levels related to e-resource troubleshooting are very similar between Cornell and Columbia. Both partners currently have front line staff scheduled to address incoming issues, refer to specialists, and follow up from approximately 8am to 5pm, Monday-Friday. Supervisory level staff handle some high-priority incidents over evenings and weekend. Each CUL handles a similar volume of troubleshooting traffic. From January to March 2013, Columbia received 244 incidents and Cornell received 251. Precise comparisons are limited by the varied ways in which each partner receives incident reports. More detailed information about this can be found on the Problem Examples and Staffing levels and general workflow pages.
Continuing work:
The team has begun working on Phase 2 objectives, particularly in the areas of better harmonizing points of discord and recommending tools to enhance the potential for joint 2CUL troubleshooting. A few of the eventual recommendations we will be making will be dependent on other 2CUL efforts, such as the timeline for a joint LMS. Some of the specific topics or tools we have been exploring are:
- Off-campus access and variable browser configuration testing - BrowserStack - implementation underway.
- Troubleshooting tracking system - A single incident tracking system for all troubleshooting reports to automatically populate (Jira? other?).
- LIBIT-L@cornell.edu and cul-eproblem@columbia.edu or other appropriate sources of reports should feed directly into the system to avoid re-entry.
- Easy to identify Cornell or Columbia issues
- Ability to route issues
- Common ERM/LMS - Information access and data normalization? Variables include:
- Serials Solutions ERM Suite and Consortial add-on - cost, implementation & migration workload, gain vs. loss regarding Alma migration
- Alma implementation timeline
- Workflow and information access - We are working to better organize and eventually consolidate useful information about policies, procedures, and best practices.
- Develop guidelines of what to handle at 2CUL level, what to route to "owning" library.
- Provide a dashboard of common responses, access to troubleshooting tools, and contact information for us4e by all troubleshooting staff.
- Automated link/access checking - Callisto - http://sharpmoon.com/callisto/
- This product has to potential to improve our pro-active troubleshooting efforts by helping us identify access problems before our users report them and ensuring that IP address ranges are properly implemented by vendors. Callisto allows for a consortial view, allowing us to compare access to resources across the 2CUL partners.