July 26, 2011

minutes: Nicole

1. We discussed the process and the problems with proposals getting stuck at the Full proposal step. Some people who propose ideas (and get them approved) don't have the time or resources to flesh out a full proposal. 

We agreed to invite Keith to our next meeting for a discussion of this and to brainstorm about possible solutions. In addition we'll get back to those who have been approved again and see what other help they might need to move things forward.

- Marlene will invite Keith to our next meeting.
- Christine will get in touch with Roshni and Melissa.
- Rich will follow up with Richard Rogers and Tom.

2. We discussed the new proposal from Peter M. (wufoo #25) We agreed to approve it and send to SC for next step.

- Marlene will email Keith to pass it along and also inquire about the last two we sent him.
- Rich will tell Peter that we've passed it to them for approval.
- Nicole will add his proposal to our wiki page.

3. Housekeeping items;
- Nicole will merge all minutes into one page of our wiki with the newest items on the top.

Next meeting: August 23, 4 - 5 pm. (at that meeting we'll discuss changing the time slot to something not so late in the day)

June 28, 2011

In attendance:  Barbara (recorder), Marlene, Nicole and Rich. 

Announcements:

1.    Marlene added the last three proposals to the wiki and added information about earlier proposals that have been referred or are in process.

2.    Barbara shared Kevin Sheehan’s concerns regarding the difficulty in locating our wiki link and his suggestion that we make our wiki page easier to find. 

Discussion:

1.    Discussed ways to assist submitters with completing their full proposals.  Decided we would encourage submitters to work with the experts identified around specific areas.  For proposals that have been submitted and advanced to the next level the PRC will assist in finding experts to help shepherd proposals.

2.    Reviewed the Tablet Signage project, Nicole will follow up with Kevin.

3.    Reviewed the Digitization of MIT-related Film/Video/Sound Recordings at the Annex project and the Discovery Service project and agreed to move them both to the next stage.

Action Required:

1.    Barbara agreed to populate the “Approved by PRC” column on our wiki.

2.    Rich will create a short cut link to our proposals.

3.    Nicole will ask Marion to link our wiki to the Lib Staff page and then Nicole will publicize the link in a message to all-lib.

4.    Nicole will talk with Kevin about the Tablet Signage project.

5.    Marlene will inform Keith of the projects we are moving forward on.

March 22, 2011

Minutes: Barbara

The six proposals submitted to the Project Review Team were discussed to identify where more information was needed and to share our general impressions.  After our discussion we decided that we would each take responsibility for following up with the proposal’s submitter to obtain additional information, which we will compile and share with each other on a wiki.  If possible the information should be obtained by our next scheduled meeting, which is April 6th.

The committee contact person (CCP) is responsible for gathering additional information based on the follow up questions listed below.  People should feel free to add additional questions or ones that I missed. 

1st Proposal:  SIMILE Exhibit/ Timeline – CCP Nicole

  1. What is the value of redoing the timeline in SIMILE when it has all ready been done in Dipity?
  2. Are you seeking resources to engage someone to program for this project or to bring someone in to train and create in house expertise?
  3. What specific problem are you trying to solve, why have you chosen SIMILE? 

2nd Proposal:  Add E-book to new book RSS feeds - CCP Rich

  1. Is there someone in house that can determine if this project is feasible?
  2. What is the underlying problem you are trying to solve?
  3. Can Springer or other e-book vendors supply us with records that have call numbers?
  4. This project maybe a good candidate to receive funds for the purposes of analyzing this proposal. 

3rd Proposal:  Cataloging and processing of the industrial Relations Pamphlet Collection – CCP Barbara

  1. Who in cataloging is a good person to discuss this proposal with?
  2. Is there someone in house able to scope this proposal out in terms of cost?
  3. Are there other internal or external sources of funding available to fund this project?
  4. Why not digitize this collection? 

4th Proposal:  Local Document Delivery Service (from campus libraries) CCP – Barbara

  1. Could Hathi-trust be useful with this proposal?
  2. This proposal should be forwarded to Keith, then to SC with the recommendation that the submitters be asked to complete a full proposal. 

5th Proposal:  URMS (Universal Request Mgmt. System) CCP – Nicole

  1. Is there someone in house able to scope this proposal out in terms of cost and specifications?
  2. Are you requesting funding for someone to do this or to provide training
  3. Mobil interface?

6th Proposal:  Maps in Barton CCP – Christian

  1. What type of research is Ben Abrahamse doing that might be related to this proposal?
  2. Are there libraries out there that have already done this and can be used as a model?
  3. What is the extent of this effort, in terms of what all is involved?
  4. What is the connection between the records in Barton and places to display those records?

Dec. 16, 2010

Minutes: Marlene

At today's meeting we agreed that:

  • I will have Julia set up two meetings a month through May.
  • Nicole will work on an auto reply form for our template thanking people for their submission and saying that we will get back to them within 30 days.
  • Nicole will also work on a full template and send us a link when she has something ready.
  • I will wordsmith the accompanying text document and send it out when I've finished.
  • We agreed we will call them "brief proposal" and "full proposal."
  • We agreed we will try out the form (we already began).
  • I will send Nicole Keith's documentation and slides.

Nov. 30, 2010 

minutes: Christine

1- Discussed Template components:

  • Submitted by 
  • (maybe Department)
  • Date submitted
  • Project description
  • Title or Project Name
  • Suggested project leader who will...
    • make sure project gets done 
    • manage project schedule
    • communicate out about project status 
    • ensure that assessment happens
  • Potential benefit/impact 
    • to MIT Libraries users or staff
    • what problem does this solve or what will it do that is new?
    • why does this matter? 

2-Methods of getting proposal

  • want to go through form
  • keep proposals to few sentences only 
  • make iterative, do via discussion or meetings? 
    • ask questions like:
      • what institutions are already doing this? 
      • what inspired you to get this idea?

3- Revised text to explain the template 

Draft Text to Accompany First Template (11-29-10)

The Project Review Committee is accepting proposals to develop new services, capabilities in the Libraries. We are creating a new process with the goal of making it easier to take good ideas from conception to reality. Proposals are welcomed from any and all members of the staff.

 

Defining a Project:

Projects should meet at least one of the following criteria:

-       It requires input and buy-in beyond the originating unit.

-       The staff time required goes beyond the usual work of affected staff

-       The costs associated with it are beyond what can be supported by existing local or central budget lines.

Project Process

  1. Any member of the staff can submit a simple "pre-proposal" to the PRC (Project Review Committee). Pre-proposals will consist of 1 to 2 pages (template provided). The PRC meets as needed and approves pre-proposals that seem worth further development. Pre-proposals approved by the PRC will be forwarded to Steering Committee.  Pre-proposals not approved will be returned to proposers with the reasons they did not advance and advice on potential changes or alternate routes/approaches.
  2. Pre-proposals which have been approved will then be enlarged to full proposal with a second template.
  3. A small pool of expert staff will be designated to help proposers flesh out their follow-up proposals.
  4. Proposals must be specific about who supports the project (e.g. faculty, donors, senior managers, outside agencies).  Letters of support will be encouraged to demonstrate support for ideas, although they are not required for proposals.
  5. Once completed, full proposals would be re-submitted to the PRC, including a budget, timeline, staffing resources, project and assessment plan. The proposal could be for a one-time project or a new service, but in either case all components would be required.
  6. Proposals approved by the PRC would be forwarded to Steering Committee for final review and funding prioritization.
  7. Funded projects would be overseen by a standard project management process. 

process:

  1. fill out the simple template, get auto-reply
  2. project review committee (PRC) will review submissions, as needed
  3. PRC will respond in a timely fashion
    1. turn down, indicate why
    2. submit as a recommendation
    3. ask for more info, clarification 
    4. refer to other options like grant proposal/funding sources, other groups, etc. 
  4. PRC will list status of proposals on wiki for public viewing 

November 18, 2010

minutes: Nicole
present: Rich, Christine, Barbara, Nicole, Marlene

1. housekeeping:
- We will rotate minutes alphabetically. Nicole is first.
- Yes, we want a wiki. Nicole agreed to set one up. The wiki will be open for all staff to view. If there are specific pages that needs to be protected for some reason, we can protect just those.
- We have meetings scheduled for Nov. 30 and Dec. 16. We agreed to have Julia find open times for us (2 in Jan. and 2 in Feb.)... rather than having a certain day of the month that we meet.
- Marlene will follow up with Keith to see if he created an email list for us.

- Idea: we send out a welcome email to all-lib after our 2nd or 3rd meeting... just to introduce ourselves and let them know we're working on the templates, etc.

2. Templates (short and long)
- We need to draft the short one first.
- Let's look at Harvard Innovation Labs as an example. (CQ will add link)
- There may also be something we could use in our list of how to submit a beta and how to graduate from beta. ((NH will add link)

Brainstormed ideas for the short template:
- what need or problem does it solve?
- what is the impact?
- description of the service?
- why do this?
- potential stakeholders
- time sensitivity

3. To do
1. Rich agreed to draft the first short template and email the group for discussion.
2. Marlene agreed to draft the first bit of explanatory/introductory text to go with it. And to ask Julia to schedule 2 meetings in Jan and 2 in Feb.
3. Nicole agreed to set up the wiki and enter the minutes.

  • No labels