The FOLIO Implementation Team met with the leads of the Five College Libraries working groups and representatives from FCLC earlier this week. We discussed the current FOLIO software development plan released by the FOLIO Product Council at the end of September and what we perceived as gaps in software functionality. Based on the pace of the software development and the set of features that will be available in early 2020 the Five College FOLIO Implementation Team has decided to focus our efforts on Electronic Resources Management and Acquisitions. The new plan we are developing will propose implementing parts of Electronic Resource Management and Acquisitions in FOLIO during the summer of 2020.
The plan is to continue work on implementing the other modules with the goal of having all modules live by the summer of 2021. The FOLIO community will simultaneously continue to complete and add new features which we think are important for our implementation as a consortium.
We plan on presenting a detailed project plan that reflects these changes later this fall.
A message From FOLIO Product Manager Harry Kaplanian of EBSCO Information Services:
As of Monday, Chalmers University is up and running on FOLIO!
Thank you all in the FOLIO community for all your hard work and effort over the last 3 (or more) years to make FOLIO real. You have volunteered your knowledge and experience of libraries, workflows and defined the key problems that needed to be solved in order to make FOLIO viable. This first “go live” milestone is the result of all your hard work, and the entire community has participated in this achievement.
Chalmers University is actively fulfilling loans, requests, adding and updating users while maintaining physical inventory and maintaining e-resources with the following applications:
FOLIO applications running at Chalmers
FOLIO integrations to
Check in, Check out & Requests
EBSCO Holdings IQ
Bibliotheca selfcheck machines
The union catalog of Sweden
EBSCO Discovery Service
In return, this has provided the community valuable feedback for FOLIO which will make FOLIO substantially better for the next round of early adopters in the following areas:
Critical performance & reliability issues
UI concerns and improvements
Critical security defects
General defects and feature “misses”
I would also like to specifically call out and thank:
The FOLIO POs and UI designers who ensured that FOLIO features were prioritized, defined and ready for development and tested
The hours of testing from staff librarians from the community libraries and at Chalmers
Special thanks to Holly for her tireless efforts in helping organize priorities to get FOLIO into a usable state
I would also like to thank the community developers for helping to accelerate FOLIO feature development by:
Being active participants in the community with quality code
By adapting industry standard best practices
For unblocking releases in a timely manner so that the release timeline was not impacted
For being on call when needed to investigate and fix problems often going above and beyond in solving key performance, security and stability issues
I would also like to thank the PC for it’s hard work in providing oversight in community process, roadmap alignment and organization of SIG structures and governance to define the requirements critical for FOLIO and the community developers to build the features needed by the greater FOLIO community.
Everyone who worked on this project in big and small ways please take a moment and celebrate, you are a part of academic library automation history.
The 5C Record Merge Working Group is currently working on a match profile, which we sometimes refer to as a mapping. This match profile will include all the MARC fields in our bibliographic records that are part of the merge and notes on what to do on merge. In short, these notes will be the decisions that we make for each field. For example, for 590 field, do we map this to a 500 note and add a subfield 5 with the code for the owning institution? The merge profile will also add comments on the type of behavior we’d like to see on merge, whether certain fields need to be normalized, what to do with like or exact matches, etc.
One of our first steps towards this match profile is to look at our collection codes. Our decisions are not based solely on location. However, this first entry will help us see what collections and/or locations we have across the 5C and ask questions as to what should be included and excluded. This process is just fine tuning what we recommended in our Recommendations Document.
Alongside this work, the members of the group will be doing small tests with Backstage to tease out more questions and start forming a decision narrative for the merge profile. You can follow our tests from our Sample Tests with Backstage spreadsheet.
The Five College Inventory Working Group is picking up steam. We started back at the beginning of June, with the task to review the MARC to Inventory instance record mappings. Our goal is to decide if the standard FOLIO mapping will work for what we want and need to see in our Inventory instance records.
Members have been reading through MARC mapping suggestions, searching for records in our Five College FOLIO instance and testing if we have what we think staff will need when using Inventory. Stay tuned! We’ll be reaching out to colleagues in each of the colleges to view and test sample Inventory records soon!
The Five College Record Merge Working Group submitted its Recommendations report to FIT and FCLC in June of this year. If you remember, the charge of this working group has multiple phases. The first was to create a recommendations document on how to merge bibliographic records in preparation for the migration to a single tenant FOLIO. The second phase is to act on those recommendations to deduplicate bibliographic records.
FCLC endorsed the decision to use Backstage Library Works (BSLW) as our vendor to help us deduplicate bibliographic records within the scope of the record merge. Because of the number of bibliographic records involved, approximately 5 million, FIT and FCLC have decided to forgo authority control loads until this can be handled by FOLIO. The entire file will be reset at that time.
The group has a number of items to address in these early stages to prepare for deduplicating bibliographic records. We will be working with BSLW on refining the contract, timeline of events, algorithm used for deduplication, and testing samples. The working group is also beginning to work on a testing procedure and mapping document.
The last records merge open discussion focused on special collections, analyzed sets, bound-with, and electronic resources. A recording, summary, and images of notes can be found in the FIT Documents folder for the Record Merge Working Group. A word of warning about the recording – we broke out into groups which didn’t translate to the recording. The beginning and end was captured. If you were unable to attend or have more you’d like to contribute, post your comments to this form which is anonymous and only for internal use.
We are in the process of scheduling two additional open discussions. Save the date for these upcoming events:
April 30, 2019, 1:00 pm – 2:00 pm, The Annex: Open Discussion on (Not) Merging Suppressed Records
May 10, 2019, 9:30 am – 11:00 am, Mt. Holyoke: Open Discussion on Merging and What steps should be taken to prepare to Merge (or Not) on: Special Collections, Analyzed/Bound-withs/Cat Seps/etc., a third topic to be announced
We encourage everyone to continue the discussions on merging and how to prepare for the merge with their colleagues. If you have a group and a topic for the May 10th discussion that isn’t special collections or the analyzed/etc, let us know via the form, by email (firstname.lastname@example.org) or Slack #5crmwg.