[OPEN-ILS-DEV] Holds Prioritization Development

[Lori Bowen Ayre]

Elizabeth,

Can't this be implemented using the hard and soft boundaries?  I'm
disturbed if the answer is no because I certainly thought that was exactly
the type of Use Case it was designed for.

Lori


On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 10:26 AM, Elizabeth Longwell <blongwel at eou.edu>wrote:

> Development Community,
>
> Sage is considering contracting for some development in the area of
> regional holds prioritization and I would like to make sure that we are not
> duplicating an existing or planned effort. The way that holds are currently
> targeted beyond the System level isn't cost effective or timely for us. Our
> org structure is set up alphabetically for ease of patrons and staff
> locating individual libraries within the consortia. Below are the specs
> that I wrote up for our development (use case eliminated for sake of
> brevity, but available upon request)
>
> Development project - Regional Prioritization of Hold Fulfillment
>
>
> Intro:  Resource sharing within consortia can mean serving libraries over
> a wide area geographically and by means of several courier networks to keep
> costs down. If an item has to navigate more than courier network to arrive
> at its destination, it can significantly add to the delivery time and cost
> of the ILL request.
>
>
> Goal: Reduce courier delivery time and fulfillment costs by prioritizing
> fulfillment options for each library. Libraries would still be able to
> borrow resources from all other libraries (except in-house collections such
> as museum libraries) but the goal would be to make hold fulfillment order
> more controllable.
>
>
> Proposal:  Create a table in which each org unit would establish zones or
> tiers of libraries (or systems) to be targeted for hold fulfillment. This
> table would then be queried when selecting a hold target. Each library or
> system could be assigned a priority level to be used when filling that org
> unit's holds. Depending on the ease of coding integration, this logic could
> come into play after the patron’s home library is targeted and the patron’s
> home System (county/type of library in our case) is targeted.
>
> Although not necessary in our case, this logic could also be used to
> restrict resource sharing on regional basis. If consortia libraries are not
> listed in the org unit’s table then hold target requests would not extend
> to them.
>
> Please let me know if the above development proposal is similar to
> anything in the works.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Beth Longwell
> Sage Library System Manager
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://libmail.georgialibraries.org/pipermail/open-ils-dev/attachments/20120406/064f623d/attachment.htm>