[OPEN-ILS-DEV] Hold prioritizing for branches within a system

[Mike Rylander]

On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 1:43 PM, Ben Shum <bshum at biblio.org> wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
> Oh that's quite interesting.  I had forgotten about that blog post, but now
> in reviewing it, it does sound like it could potentially solve the situation
> I'm describing.

Indeed.  It's nice and general, and covers many situations, I think.

>
> How far along are the plans to port features from Fulfillment to Evergreen?

The plans are just plans.  Recently we've been focusing on the three
months of Acq work we completed in one, for 2.3, and I've received
very little feedback (one email, I believe) regarding that proposal
specifically, so while I think it would be a great thing to side-port,
there's been little-to-no interest and no free time to work on it.

> Maybe something that we could help to test in the future.
>

Absolutely, if any active interest develops (ha! see what I did
there?) so we can work on it.

--miker

> -- Ben
>
>
> On 07/30/2012 01:17 PM, Mike Rylander wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Ben Shum <bshum at biblio.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi folks,
>>>
>>> So here's a situation.  A library system has multiple branches, and each
>>> owns their own copies/patrons.  Library A owns a copy of an item and
>>> Library
>>> B does not.  But patrons from both A and B place holds against the
>>> material.
>>> Because of how holds target / opportunistically capture, the patrons at
>>> Library A receive the item first while the item continues to circulate in
>>> and out of Library A, while the patrons at Library B never get their
>>> holds
>>> fulfilled.  It would be preferred that Library A's copy be used to fill
>>> holds for both Library A and B's patrons in the order the hold was placed
>>> regardless of pickup location.
>>>
>>> While we understand that having additional copies for each branch could
>>> solve the issue, it may not be possible for the library to purchase and
>>> assign copies to each branch.  Instead, they're hoping that it is
>>> possible
>>> to re-prioritize holds within their system to follow a stricter first-in,
>>> first-out (FIFO) policy.  However, the concern has been made as to how
>>> FIFO
>>> might adversely alter how the library system shares material with the
>>> rest
>>> of the consortium.
>>>
>>> Does anyone have any suggestions about other solutions or are we looking
>>> at
>>> some sort of development to change how holds target within different
>>> groups?
>>>
>> The Custom Best-hold Selection Order part of
>> http://blog.esilibrary.com/2012/04/16/sharing-code-is-caring/ would
>> handle that, if I understand correctly what it is you want to do.
>>
>
> --
> Benjamin Shum
> Open Source Software Coordinator
> Bibliomation, Inc.
> 32 Crest Road
> Middlebury, CT 06762
> 203-577-4070, ext. 113
>



-- 
Mike Rylander
 | Director of Research and Development
 | Equinox Software, Inc. / Your Library's Guide to Open Source
 | phone:  1-877-OPEN-ILS (673-6457)
 | email:  miker at esilibrary.com
 | web:  http://www.esilibrary.com