[OPEN-ILS-DEV] Holds Prioritization Development

[Elizabeth Longwell]

Lori,

I may be misunderstanding hard and soft boundaries, but I thought that they
were used to limit targeting. I don't want to limit targeting, just
prioritize it.

Beth

On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Lori Bowen Ayre <lori.ayre at galecia.com>wrote:

> 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/20120406/5aa40017/attachment.htm>