CAPT Summary- May 28, 2013

May 28, 2013

CAPT Committee Summary
1:30 – 3 p.m. 428 Library

Present; Beth Sandore; Jenny Emanuel,, Michael Norman, Sue Searing; Robert Slater; Jim Dohle, Jenny Johnson, Tom Teper, Lynn Wiley; Tim Cole; Beth Woodard joined later

Agenda  CAPT committee

1.  Primo update and conversation about integration into production search and discovery environment
2.  Aeon draft implementation charge review
3.  Finalize the membership of the Web Advisory Group. 

 

Additional actions that need to occur:

 

Additional promotion of Primo this summer. How best to engage with Library for the most effective way  to utilize Primo for users
Timing: Library would have time to incorporate any changes for beginning of Fall Semester

Norman reviewed where the Primo Implementation Team (PIT) was on the current work with PRIMO. There was a discussion about Illinois Harvest and also Content DM integration. If integration is not expected soon then these separate platforms search and discovery will need more attention.
Norman reported that there is still concern over the large and misleading results returned in Primo. This is due to the lack of adequate relevancy ranking as the central index covers all that full text meta data. The deep index is both a plus and a minus depending on a library’s size and collection. All agree that relevancy ranking is not optimal in PRIMO. PIT also agree that users are not fazed by high returns in Google however so this is not a show stopper as yet. PIT wants to continue with Primo with an expectation of additional options to provide for cleaner search results. Ideally ExLibris will develop better relevancy ranking using Google techniques. 

Michael updated the group on his discussions with Ex Libris on their ranking algorithms and other potential options for UIUC to help limit the deep indexing search results such as an option to expand to that after a known item search set results were reviewed. Also asked them about option to turn it off completely or to do an OR search in fields the client can designate.  Another option may be to develop another Primo instance without the Central Index tuned on for searching  Micahel notes PIT is currently working with Ex Libris on possibilities.

User studies indicate high use and preference for Easy Search but also desire to use PRIMO.
PIT reviewing offering both but with way to direct more to PRIMO if possible

 
Discussion turned to how to better highlight PRIMO to direct more users to that to see how they use it and to explore more refinements. Did note that directing more to PRIMO will mean focus in instruction cases will to teach how to narrow search results. Discussed options and a consensus emerged to add a new tab to have Primo search follow Easy Search tab.

Possible tab name discussed: Easy Search “Books and more” , with Primo an then “everything” type of label . Phase II will seem more work directed to the potential of  swapping the default search box to Primo.

That Tab change can be done this summer.

Primo goals: All agreed that Primo at end of Phase I, PIT will report back formally on the end of Primo Phase I and  outline what  Phase II will cover
PIT co-chairs Jenny Emanuel and Michael Norman will also  review membership.

 

 

 CAPT discussed membership for this group to include representatives from RBML
And IT. Recommendations were made. May need to add in liaison to work with Primo team and with Archon group.

3.  Finalize the membership of the Web Advisory Group. 
Discussed any changes to the charge which Sue will send out subsequently based on previous discussions.  Reviewed the issues of content versus design. Discussion on membership and agreed to remove Ex Officio designation  and simply note permanent membership of key staff.
Sue Searing will send in suggestions

 

Appendix

Documents associated with this meeting
Charter:  Digital Newspaper System Migration: distributed to CAPT by Beth Sandore Namachchivaya 5-29-2013
Overall charge: develop a project plan and a time line for the implementation of the Veridian newspaper access and management system.  The project implementation should articulatethe following information:

1.  What resources, financial and personnel, are required to accomplish the implementation and the migration; if they are not secured, then indicate what steps you are taking to get them or what assistance you need to do so.

2. The date when the implementation can begin (ie when the necessary personnel can begin the project); the expected time frame for implementation; the expected time frame for migration;

3.  Any dependencies on external efforts (e.g., contract review, virtual server setup) and the expected time frame it will require to secure them;

4. How you intend to assess the success and completion and success of the project and the service that is being implemented.

5.  Service commitment:  draft a Library IT service commitment for the service that identifies the individual outside of Library IT who is the point person for the service, the IT support plan, and the availability  of the service;

6.  Identification of project leads (technical and service) to work in tandem on managing the project resources and time line.

Beth and Tom would like to have a draft project plan by May 15 so that any requests for support can be discussed with the University Librarian, the Executive Committee, or the Budget Group.

Project Lead:  Kyle Rimkus 
Technical Lead:  Kirk Hess
Team members:  Jim Dohle, Tom Habing, Kyle Rimkus, Kirk Hess, Jennifer Teper.

 

Charter:  Aeon Special Collections Management System Implementation

Overall charge: develop a project plan and a time line for the implementation of the Aeon Special Collections management system.  The project implementation should articulate the following information:

1.  What resources, financial and personnel, are required to accomplish the implementation and any necessary data integration with Voyager, CONTENTdm, Archon, and other systems in the Library;  if they are not secured, then indicate what steps you are taking to get them or what assistance you need to do so.

2. The date when the implementation can begin (ie when the necessary personnel can begin the project); the expected time frame for implementation; the expected time frame for migration; This will depend on the availability of staff in both Library IT and the RBML, possibly other units as well.

3.  Any dependencies on external efforts (e.g., contract review, virtual server setup ) and the expected time frame it will require to secure them;

4. How you intend to assess the success and completion and success of the project and the service that is being implemented.

5.  Service commitment:  draft a Library IT service commitment for the service that identifies the individual outside of Library IT who is the point person for the service, the IT support plan, and the availability of the service, including the vendor support commitment, if the service is hosted.

6.  Identification of project leads (technical and service) to work in tandem on managing the project resources and time line.

Beth and Tom would like to have a draft project plan by June 30, 2013 so that any requests for support can be discussed with the University Librarian, the Executive Committee, or the Budget Group.

Project Lead:  Tony Hynes, RBML
Technical Lead:  Tom Habing
Team members:  Marten Stromberg,  Dennis Sears, representative from Archives, representative from Library IT, others???

29 May 2013

Proposed Charge for the Web Advisory Group (WAG): Distributed to CAPT by Sue Searing 5-28

Background

This group will supersede the Web Content Working Group (WCWG). The WCWG began with the intentions that all members would be directly contributing to the development of web content, but over time the group shifted into a largely advice and consent role, with a small minority of members responsible for creating content based on the recommendations of the group. This new group and charge will better reflect the advice and consent role into which the WCWG has evolved.

Governance

The Web Advisory Group is under the umbrella of the Content Access Policy and Technology committee.  It is co-chaired by the Associate University Librarian for User Services / Associate Dean of Libraries, and the Technical Architect for Web Content. The group will coordinate its activities with other working groups and library departments, as warranted. Any proposals that WAG develops requiring policies must be approved by CAPT. Any proposals generated by WAG that require funding for implementation must be referred to the Library's Budget Group for funding approval. The co-chairs are expected to update CAPT on WAG’s activities on a regular basis.

Charge

The charge of the Web Advisory Group is to:

Proposed Membership [REVISED 5-28-13]

The membership of WAG will be appointed by CAPT.

Permanent Members

Rotating Members (staggered 2-year terms)

Resource People

Major Tasks Slated for WAG in the Next Two Years (2013-2014)