26 June 20131Enhancing life-long learning, teaching and research throughinformation resources and services
26 June 20132Dorothy Atherton, Services Manager - Resource Acquisitions and SupplyJohn Harral, Senior Library Assistant - ...
In thebeginning………..• RLMS rolled out in August 2010• Carrot and stick approach to ensure academic engagement• Single rout...
Each of our lists had to go on a journey:26 June 20134ALT• SanityCheck• Mark upexceptions• Mark upitems forattention ofcor...
Review Workflow tracking: the pros•Workflows were complex, but suited our needs•In house solution = Spreadsheets– Evolved ...
Review Workflow tracking: the cons• Only a snapshot• Difficult to deal with last minute changes• Lots of cutting and pasti...
What did we want?•Ability to work within Aspire to:– Track easily and quickly where a list is– Provide a clear audit trail...
Did we achieve what we wanted?  26 June 20138Ability to work within Aspire Get rid of spreadsheets Track easily and qu...
Moving to Stages - a brief demo.26 June 20139
26 June 201310• Testing out Stages has generated further ideas for how we’d like towork in future• Would like to work with...
Thoughts / starters for 10…….(1)• Instead of whole list review, we’re thinking about the following:A system which:Directs...
Thoughts / starters for 10…….(2)A system which:Provides a mechanism for showing that a task has beencompleted and can com...
Any thoughts / questions?• helen.adey@ntu.ac.uk• dorothy.atherton@ntu.ac.uk• john.harral@ntu.ac.uk26 June 201313
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Thinking through Library Review: Spreadsheets, Stages and List Review at Nottingham Trent University (Dorothy Atherton, John Harral and Helen Adey, Nottingham Trent University)

641 views

Published on

Thinking through Library Review: Spreadsheets, Stages and List Review at Nottingham Trent University (Dorothy Atherton, John Harral and Helen Adey, Nottingham Trent University)
This session will describe the evolution of list review workflows at Nottingham Trent, covering the early days of Excel spreadsheets, the origins of the concept of Stages, the challenges of workflow change management and NTU's initial findings from trialling the new software. There will be a short demonstration of the functionality of Stages followed by NTU's current thinking on ways to enhance and improve the List review process.

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Thinking through Library Review: Spreadsheets, Stages and List Review at Nottingham Trent University (Dorothy Atherton, John Harral and Helen Adey, Nottingham Trent University)

  1. 1. 26 June 20131Enhancing life-long learning, teaching and research throughinformation resources and services
  2. 2. 26 June 20132Dorothy Atherton, Services Manager - Resource Acquisitions and SupplyJohn Harral, Senior Library Assistant - Monograph AcquisitionsHelen Adey, Resource Acquisitions and Supply Team ManagerThinking through Library Review:Spreadsheets, Stages and List Reviewat Nottingham Trent
  3. 3. In thebeginning………..• RLMS rolled out in August 2010• Carrot and stick approach to ensure academic engagement• Single route for recommending items for acquisition• Management of process– Behind scenes workflows which would encompass all processes– Each step involved a different team and a different process– NO tracking, audit log, workflow within Talis Aspire• Choice – radical change to process or adapt?26 June 20133
  4. 4. Each of our lists had to go on a journey:26 June 20134ALT• SanityCheck• Mark upexceptions• Mark upitems forattention ofcorrectteamAcquisitionsTeam• Look for e-availability• Purchaseappropriateformat andquantity• UpdateRLMS andLMS inparallelDigitisationTeam• Transferdetails toPackTracker• BeginProcessing• Edit RLMSLink CheckingTeam• Improvequality ofdescriptivemetadata• Updateelectroniclinks to bepersistent• Ensureaccessavailablefrom anylocation
  5. 5. Review Workflow tracking: the pros•Workflows were complex, but suited our needs•In house solution = Spreadsheets– Evolved and developed to suit our processes– Provided an audit trail– Allowed tracking and notes– Archived to refer back to as necessary– Clear workflow26 June 20135
  6. 6. Review Workflow tracking: the cons• Only a snapshot• Difficult to deal with last minute changes• Lots of cutting and pasting• Working with lots of windows open• Only one person could work on a sheet at a time• Had to maintain it ourselves – risks of single person dependencies• File storage• Not ideal to work outside our preferred systemSo – began to think about changes26 June 20136
  7. 7. What did we want?•Ability to work within Aspire to:– Track easily and quickly where a list is– Provide a clear audit trail for each itemon each list•In addition:– Confirm achievement of KPIs (date stamps)– Provide accurate information across teams•Needed to be flexible enough to work across allinstitutions26 June 20137
  8. 8. Did we achieve what we wanted?  26 June 20138Ability to work within Aspire Get rid of spreadsheets Track easily and quickly where a list is Provide accurate information across teams ?Provide a clear audit trail for each item on each list Confirm achievement of KPIs (date stamps) Flexibility across institutions 
  9. 9. Moving to Stages - a brief demo.26 June 20139
  10. 10. 26 June 201310• Testing out Stages has generated further ideas for how we’d like towork in future• Would like to work with Talis and User Group community tocontinue conversations about the List Review process andAcquisitions workflows• Email discussion from March 2013 on LIS-TALIS-ASPIRE suggeststhis is an area of interest to many Aspire Users• Needs to overlap with work of the developer group to see what ispossible• A few thoughts and starters for 10…..So where do we go from here?
  11. 11. Thoughts / starters for 10…….(1)• Instead of whole list review, we’re thinking about the following:A system which:Directs resources to the work that is required, rather thanchecking whole lists – lots of redundant effortProvides reports / daily logs showing changes to lists brokendown by new items added to lists? / Items that have beenedited? / updated?Breaks down reports in a way that identifies the task and itsowner e.g. if new and not linked to the catalogue it goes toAcquisitions…...26 June 201311
  12. 12. Thoughts / starters for 10…….(2)A system which:Provides a mechanism for showing that a task has beencompleted and can come off the next daily reportIncorporates time / date stamping functionality for KPI reportingand monitoring purposesAllows use of Stages for redirecting tasks within the workflowe.g. Link checkers may need to pass back to Digitisation stageor to Acquisitions and vice versaRather than try and build into Aspire purchasing rules / formulaapproach to acquisition, use Aspire to highlight what work needsdoing.26 June 201312
  13. 13. Any thoughts / questions?• helen.adey@ntu.ac.uk• dorothy.atherton@ntu.ac.uk• john.harral@ntu.ac.uk26 June 201313

×