[OPEN-ILS-DEV] Holds Prioritization Development

[Kathy Lussier]

Hi Beth,

We don't have a project like this in the works, but I wanted to mention
something we did for a consortium that was in a similar situation. This
consortium built a regional level into its hierarchy that was directly below
the consortium to accommodate different courier routes. However, as you
mentioned, this structure makes it difficult for patrons and staff to locate
individual libraries within the consortia.

Overall, we found that using the OU hierarchy in the catalog library
selector didn't work for us in a variety of circumstances. In addition to
the above, in our area, the system usually only contains one branch. In
those cases, the option to select both a system and branch in the library
selector is a little redundant.

We addressed these issues by sponsoring a project that gave us more
flexibility in ordering the OU's available in the catalog's library
selector. In the case of the consortium with the regional level in the
hierarchy, we intend to hide that regional level from the library selector
and to integrate all of the consortium's libraries into one alphabetical
list in the tpac catalog. This will allow us to utilize the hierarchy for
the purposes of holds prioritization while making that extra level in the
hierarchy invisible to your average user. 

This development is now available in 2.2 beta -
https://bugs.launchpad.net/evergreen/+bug/954310. I don't know if it will
give you the flexibility you need for your holds prioritization, but I
wanted to offer it up as another potential solution.

Kathy  Lussier



-------------------------------------------------------------
Kathy Lussier
Project Coordinator
Massachusetts Library Network Cooperative
(508) 756-0172
(508) 755-3721 (fax)
klussier at masslnc.org
IM: kmlussier (AOL & Yahoo)
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/kmlussier
 
 

>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: open-ils-dev-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org [mailto:open-ils-
>>dev-bounces at list.georgialibraries.org] On Behalf Of Elizabeth Longwell
>>Sent: Friday, April 06, 2012 1:26 PM
>>To: Evergreen Development Discussion List
>>Subject: [OPEN-ILS-DEV] Holds Prioritization Development
>>
>>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