Hi Chris,

I can understand where you are going with the review outcomes and that 
sounds interesting and very useful, but wouldn't most libraries want to be 
able to report on the number of items / new titles ordered for a list?  Our 
dilemma in terms of recording the number of items in the standard comment 
field is that, recording in this field means that we cannot scan down the 
list under review, see how many items we want to order and gauge the likely 
cost of a list . On long lists, say for example in English and History 
courses, there may also be large numbers of students on a course and we 
need to easily see, over the whole list, how many orders are required for 
an item so that we can make decisions on whether we buy less of particular 
item etc. In a sense we need to see an overview.  Is there any other way 
this could be achieved?

Annette

--On 03 August 2010 08:28 +0100 Chris Clarke <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Hi Annette,
>
>
> At the moment, free text in the outcome field isn't possible. One of the
> things we wanted to be able to do with the review outcomes (eventually)
> is enable reporting on them (like "importances" in the Item Detail
> Report). This becomes more difficult and unwieldy if the review outcome
> is free text. We'd also like to keep our options open in terms of
> providing specific workflow or integration around outcomes - again very
> difficult if they are free text.
>
>
> Could you record number of items ordered in the standard comment field in
> the log when setting the review outcome?
>
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> On 2 Aug 2010, at 16:05, Annette Moore wrote:
>
>
> I will be posting a summary of our feedback on the new Review process on
> Monday as several Library staff at Sussex have been looking at the new
> functionality during the week, however, I just wanted to pick up on your
> discussion around the complexity of maybe several librarians being
> involved in various stages of the review process and recording Review
> Outcomes.  Outcomes that we want to record and be able to see in the
> Outcomes column include the number of items ordered.  This is
> particularly important in terms of getting an idea of the overall cost of
> a long list with high student numbers.  On order is not sufficient
> information.  As you have said Chris, we could customise the drop list
> and maybe have 'On order for Core Collection', 'On order for  Short Loan'
> etc. but this still wouldn't be flexible enough to include how many items
> have been ordered. Is it possible to have a free-text field as well that
> would show in the Outcomes field?
>
> Annette
>
>
>
>
>
> One, two, many librarians -
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> This first iteration of the Review process does enable different
>
>
>
>
> librarians (with relevant Role/scope permissions) to add comments to the
>
>
>
>
> Review Log and set (or indeed unset and reset) the Review Outcome value.
>
>
>
>
> This means that, already, more than one librarian can engage with the
>
>
>
>
> review process - which is good. If we wanted to leverage Aspire for all
>
>
>
> the
>
>
>
> reporting and admin tasks around Resource Lists that we might want, we'd
>
>
>
>
> probably need greater levels of complexity in the Review process. For
>
>
>
>
> example, budget holders may need to review and make purchasing
>
>
>
> decisions;
>
>
>
> acquisitions librarians may need to order items; digitisation librarians
>
>
>
>
> may need to scan and store electronic copies of things; technical
>
>
>
>
> librarians may need to fix dodgy URLs in Item records so that they work
>
>
>
> for
>
>
>
> off-campus users, and so on. In short, 'library review' may be a process
>
>
>
>
> rather than a single 'buy/don't buy' decision - with librarians
>
>
>
> assigning
>
>
>
> review tasks to each other along the path towards 'completion'.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> There are many, many combinations of this and the precise workflow will
>
>
>
>
> depend on your local processes. We don't want to create a complex
>
>
>
> toolset
>
>
>
> to solve this but perhaps there are tweaks we can make to support? I.e.
>
>
>
> you
>
>
>
> could use the outcomes more as a status to indicate what stage the
>
>
>
> review
>
>
>
> of an item is at. I can imagine an outcome set including items like
>
>
>
>
> "Awaiting budget holder approval" or "Awaiting Digitisation" that could
>
>
>
>
> help here. The status could be moved along as these items are completed.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 16:49:50 +0100, Chris Clarke <[log in to unmask]>
>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Richard,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Some initial thoughts on your comments below...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 27 Jul 2010, at 16:07, Cross, Richard wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Further to Chris Clarke's comments on the new 'Submit list for Library
>
>
>
>
> Review' option in Aspire (and the enhancements to this process already
>
>
>
>
> identified by Talis) here are some comments following an initial review
>
>
>
> of
>
>
>
> the new functionality. I should preface these by saying that the ability
>
>
>
> to
>
>
>
> record resource outcomes in Aspire (and to track a library dialogue
>
>
>
> about
>
>
>
> those resources prior to a final decision) is a very significant, and
>
>
>
>
> welcome, enhancement to the Acquisitions side of the Aspire solution.
>
>
>
> Some
>
>
>
> refinements to the presentation of the work-in-progress data could, I
>
>
>
>
> think, add some significant additional value. At the more functional
>
>
>
> level,
>
>
>
> the new option raises some interesting questions about how much further
>
>
>
>
> Aspire might evolve to support the library management of the resource
>
>
>
>
> workflow.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The Review -
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> At the higher level of the functionality, what is in scope and out of
>
>
>
>
> scope in terms of the Review process as currently perceived by Talis?
>
>
>
> For
>
>
>
> example, the first two default 'outcomes' of the Review process ('Will
>
>
>
> not
>
>
>
> order' and 'Existing stock sufficient') record decisions; the third ('On
>
>
>
>
> order') records a decision and an action; but there's no space to record
>
>
>
>
> the final ordering event or supplier response (such as 'Arrived',
>
>
>
>
> 'Activated', 'Out of print', 'Not yet published'). Currently, Aspire
>
>
>
> will
>
>
>
> be able to record what we decided to do, but not what we succeeded in
>
>
>
> doing
>
>
>
> to completion for any Item (such as successfully acquiring something).
>
>
>
> For
>
>
>
> newly acquired items, an action on the Aspire side might involve the
>
>
>
> adding
>
>
>
> of a LCN to a List item that previously did not have one - that event
>
>
>
> might
>
>
>
> be bundled in to the 'On order' action, but not if the 'decision maker'
>
>
>
> is
>
>
>
> a different librarian to the one submitting the order to a supplier.
>
>
>
> Aspire
>
>
>
> is not attempting to take on any of the acquisitions roles of the LMS,
>
>
>
> but
>
>
>
> how do Talis conceive the end of Aspire's involvement in the supply
>
>
>
>
> workflow?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The existing outcomes are just samples - we can configure your own
>
>
>
>
> outcomes here to tailor to your local process - the defaults are just
>
>
>
>
> samples. I should have mentioned this earlier (it is in the accompanying
>
>
>
>
> video and blog post due out later this week)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Reporting -
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> To match with the existing Item Report functionality, two additional
>
>
>
>
> reports based on the new Review functionality could be potentially
>
>
>
>
> extremely useful (at the Tenancy level).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> * Submission to Completion reporting - for a given date range, report on
>
>
>
>
> how long library reviews took from the time of academic request of a
>
>
>
> review
>
>
>
> of a List to library completion. (Currently the All Reviews screen
>
>
>
> itself
>
>
>
> does not timestamp the Completed action; but libraries are likely to
>
>
>
> want
>
>
>
> to report on their processing times for submitting lists [perhaps
>
>
>
> against
>
>
>
> SLAs, KPIs and the like].)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> * Review decisions - for a given date range, an all-List Item report on
>
>
>
>
> Review Outcomes (e.g. 'How many "On order" items were created from
>
>
>
> Review
>
>
>
> in August 2010')
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Both of these are great ideas - can you add to Aspire Ideas?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Actions column -
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Could the 'View Log' link become a dynamic [Create Log / View Log] link
>
>
>
>
> which indicated whether an Item log existed (i.e. no log entry = Create
>
>
>
>
> Log; one or more log entries = View Log)? At present, there's no way of
>
>
>
>
> seeing, without drilling into each Item, if anything has been recorded
>
>
>
> in
>
>
>
> the Log short of an Item Review Outcome decision - and therefore if
>
>
>
>
> anyone's taken a first look and recorded a note.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Unfortunately, changing the link to "Create" for items without any log
>
>
>
>
> statements would mean querying to see if every item on the list had any
>
>
>
> log
>
>
>
> statements issued against it. Given the lists can run to hundreds of
>
>
>
> items,
>
>
>
> we felt this would be a performance issue.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> However, one solution would be to wrap up all the actions for a item
>
>
>
> under
>
>
>
> a generic "Actions" link. The user doesn't see the available actions
>
>
>
> until
>
>
>
> they click on this link. On clicking on this, an AJAX request is fired
>
>
>
> back
>
>
>
> to the system to see what actions are applicable for the given item and
>
>
>
>
> these are displayed in a drop down menu. At this point we could see if a
>
>
>
>
> log already exists for an item - if it doesn't we can display "Create"
>
>
>
>
> instead of "View". This gets round the performance problem as we can
>
>
>
>
> retrieve the available actions one item at a time "on demand" rather
>
>
>
> than
>
>
>
> having to know all the actions for all the items before we load the
>
>
>
> page.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> View Log -
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> In the 'Review outcome' drop-down - are the labels customisable; if so,
>
>
>
>
> what is the maximum number of available fields? We'd certainly be
>
>
>
>
> interested in alternative and additional labels.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yes they are 100% customisable - please let us know if you'd like them
>
>
>
>
> changed.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Review summary -
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> It could be extremely useful to have a List level summary (both in
>
>
>
>
> progress and completed) to give a snapshot view of the review process at
>
>
>
>
> the List level. For example:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> List 1234
>
>
>
>
> Review: Started
>
>
>
>
> Number of items on list: 24
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Review outcomes:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On order: 10
>
>
>
>
> Will not order: 2
>
>
>
>
> Existing stock sufficient: 10
>
>
>
>
> Not yet reviewed: 2
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Review started: 01/08/2010
>
>
>
>
> Last review action: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> -
>
>
>
>
> 05/08/2010
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> In such a summary, it would be great if those outcome counts were
>
>
>
>
> clickable links to filtered views of the matching Items in the List
>
>
>
> (e.g.
>
>
>
> 'Show only those Items without a Review Outcome decision')
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Also great ideas - a summary in the header would definitely help.
>
>
>
> Perhaps
>
>
>
> there could be a progress bar or percentage indicator, too?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> End user feedback for List in Review -
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> For a logged in List owner looking at their list, the indicator that "A
>
>
>
>
> review was requested for this list on 27/07/2010" is certainly a very
>
>
>
>
> helpful indicator which helps the academic monitor the speed of library
>
>
>
>
> turnaround on their list. (The terminology may be seen as potentially
>
>
>
>
> contentious in some contexts, however. What's been requested is not
>
>
>
>
> necessarily a pedagogic peer review, but more often a library sanity
>
>
>
>
> checking and selection/acquisition decision making - how about "A
>
>
>
> library
>
>
>
> review of the items on the list was requested...").
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> But it's less obvious to me that that's a helpful message to show a
>
>
>
>
> student accessing the list as an end-user (which is what now happens).
>
>
>
> What
>
>
>
> action might an undergraduate be expected to take when seeing this
>
>
>
>
> notification - is this not yet an approved list; has some problem
>
>
>
>
> (requiring a 'review') been uncovered; should they wait and come back
>
>
>
> and
>
>
>
> look at this list later?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Now, of course, if academics could submit for Review without Publishing
>
>
>
>
> their list (hint, hint) this particular source of possible confusion
>
>
>
> would
>
>
>
> disappear...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Agree on the wording. Also I don't think students should see that
>
>
>
> message
>
>
>
> at all (just like they don't see the unpublished changes message) - we
>
>
>
>
> should raise that as a defect as the fact there is a library review
>
>
>
> pending
>
>
>
> is not relevant to them.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> One, two, many librarians -
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> This first iteration of the Review process does enable different
>
>
>
>
> librarians (with relevant Role/scope permissions) to add comments to the
>
>
>
>
> Review Log and set (or indeed unset and reset) the Review Outcome value.
>
>
>
>
> This means that, already, more than one librarian can engage with the
>
>
>
>
> review process - which is good. If we wanted to leverage Aspire for all
>
>
>
> the
>
>
>
> reporting and admin tasks around Resource Lists that we might want, we'd
>
>
>
>
> probably need greater levels of complexity in the Review process. For
>
>
>
>
> example, budget holders may need to review and make purchasing
>
>
>
> decisions;
>
>
>
> acquisitions librarians may need to order items; digitisation librarians
>
>
>
>
> may need to scan and store electronic copies of things; technical
>
>
>
>
> librarians may need to fix dodgy URLs in Item records so that they work
>
>
>
> for
>
>
>
> off-campus users, and so on. In short, 'library review' may be a process
>
>
>
>
> rather than a single 'buy/don't buy' decision - with librarians
>
>
>
> assigning
>
>
>
> review tasks to each other along the path towards 'completion'.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> There are many, many combinations of this and the precise workflow will
>
>
>
>
> depend on your local processes. We don't want to create a complex
>
>
>
> toolset
>
>
>
> to solve this but perhaps there are tweaks we can make to support? I.e.
>
>
>
> you
>
>
>
> could use the outcomes more as a status to indicate what stage the
>
>
>
> review
>
>
>
> of an item is at. I can imagine an outcome set including items like
>
>
>
>
> "Awaiting budget holder approval" or "Awaiting Digitisation" that could
>
>
>
>
> help here. The status could be moved along as these items are completed.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Richard Cross
>
>
>
>
> Resource Discovery and Innovation Manager
>
>
>
>
> Libraries and Learning Resources
>
>
>
>
> Hollymount House
>
>
>
>
> Nottingham Trent University
>
>
>
>
> Nottingham NG1 4BU
>
>
>
>
> t: +44(0)115 848 4878
>
>
>
>
> m: 07789 983916
>
>
>
>
> e: [log in to unmask]<blocked::mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> DISCLAIMER:
>
>
>
>
> This email is intended solely for the addressee. It may contain private
>
>
>
>
> and confidential information. If you are not the intended addressee,
>
>
>
> please
>
>
>
> take no action based on it nor show a copy to anyone. In this case,
>
>
>
> please
>
>
>
> reply to this email to highlight the error. Opinions and information in
>
>
>
>
> this email that do not relate to the official business of Nottingham
>
>
>
> Trent
>
>
>
> University shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by the
>
>
>
>
> University.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Nottingham Trent University has taken steps to ensure that this email
>
>
>
> and
>
>
>
> any attachments are virus-free, but we do advise that the recipient
>
>
>
> should
>
>
>
> check that the email and its attachments are actually virus free. This
>
>
>
> is
>
>
>
> in keeping with good computing practice.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from the LIS-TALIS-ASPIRE list, click the following link:
>
>
>
>
> http://jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=LIS-TALIS-ASPIRE&A=1
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Head of Product
>
>
>
>
> Talis Education
>
>
>
>
> http://www.talis.com/education
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Talis Group Limited
>
>
>
>
> Knights Court,
>
>
>
>
> Solihull Parkway,
>
>
>
>
> Birmingham Business Park,
>
>
>
>
> United Kingdom
>
>
>
>
> B37 7YB
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Direct Number: +44 (0)870 400 5423
>
>
>
>
> Mobile Number: +44 (0)7595 022154
>
>
>
>
> Office Number: +44 (0)870 400 5000
>
>
>
>
> Email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
>
>
>
> www.talis.com<http://www.talis.com/>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>
>
> Please consider the environment before printing this email.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Find out more about Talis at http://www.talis.com/
>
>
>
>
> shared innovation(tm)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Any views or personal opinions expressed within this email may not be
>
>
>
>
> those of Talis Information Ltd or its employees. The content of this
>
>
>
> email
>
>
>
> message and any files that may be attached are confidential, and for the
>
>
>
>
> usage of the intended recipient only. If you are not the intended
>
>
>
>
> recipient, then please return this message to the sender and delete it.
>
>
>
> Any
>
>
>
> use of this e-mail by an unauthorised recipient is prohibited.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Talis Information Ltd is a member of the Talis Group of companies and is
>
>
>
>
> registered in England No 3638278 with its registered office at Knights
>
>
>
>
> Court, Solihull Parkway, Birmingham Business Park, B37 7YB.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>########################################################################
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from the LIS-TALIS-ASPIRE list, click the following link:
>
>
>
>
> http://jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=LIS-TALIS-ASPIRE&A=1
>
>
>
>
>
> Annette Moore
>
> Library Resources Supervisor
>
> Library Building
> University of Sussex
> Falmer
> BRIGHTON
> BN1 9QL
>
> T: 01273 877046
> E: [log in to unmask]
>
>########################################################################
>
> To unsubscribe from the LIS-TALIS-ASPIRE list, click the following link:
> http://jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=LIS-TALIS-ASPIRE&A=1
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Head of Product
> Talis Education
> http://www.talis.com/education
>
>
> Talis Group Limited
> Knights Court,
> Solihull Parkway,
> Birmingham Business Park,
> United Kingdom
> B37 7YB
>
>
> Direct Number: +44 (0)870 400 5423
> Mobile Number: +44 (0)7595 022154
> Office Number: +44 (0)870 400 5000
> Email: [log in to unmask]
> www.talis.com
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Please consider the environment before printing this email.
>
> Find out more about Talis at http://www.talis.com/
> shared innovation™
>
> Any views or personal opinions expressed within this email may not be
> those of Talis Information Ltd or its employees. The content of this
> email message and any files that may be attached are confidential, and
> for the usage of the intended recipient only. If you are not the intended
> recipient, then please return this message to the sender and delete it.
> Any use of this e-mail by an unauthorised recipient is prohibited.
>
> Talis Information Ltd is a member of the Talis Group of companies and is
> registered in England No 3638278 with its registered office at Knights
> Court, Solihull Parkway, Birmingham Business Park, B37 7YB.
>
>
> __________________________________________________
>
> To unsubscribe from the LIS-TALIS-ASPIRE list, click the following link:
> http://jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=LIS-TALIS-ASPIRE&A=1



Annette Moore

Library Resources Supervisor

Library Building
University of Sussex
Falmer
BRIGHTON
BN1 9QL

T: 01273 877046
E: [log in to unmask]

########################################################################

To unsubscribe from the LIS-TALIS-ASPIRE list, click the following link:
http://jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=LIS-TALIS-ASPIRE&A=1