PHASE 1: Investigation – To be completed by April 15

• Create an inventory of all policies, practices, tools, and workflows related to e-resource troubleshooting at both institutions;
• Identify dependencies and limitations inherent in working with different systems, user populations and e-resource packages and licensing;
• Review policies, practices, and workflows related to e-resources troubleshooting at both institutions to identify points of harmony and points of discord;
• Establish baseline productivity and staffing at each institution to allow for future assessment of changes and development.
  • Productivity - Appear to be very similar levels of troubleshooting volume and nature of incidents
    • January-March 2013 - Columbia 244, Cornell 251 (very close month to month totals) - Accuracy of these is limited by different sources of information.
  • Staffing - Very similar numbers of individuals and time spend handling troubleshooting work
  •  

Recommendations to come:

• Off-campus access and variable browser configuration testing - BrowserStack
• 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 - Consolidate useful information into parallel wiki's or consolidated wiki?
•