[OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Hold targeting behavior - Always Try a new copy

[Thomas Berezansky]

As far as I know, stalling should never apply if the copy is for  
*local* pickup. That is, if the library is pulling copies (or checking  
in returned copies) that match holds for pickup at that library the  
stalling code says "oh, that is local" and skips the stalling period  
entirely. Based on that your collection of "would not capture" were  
either all going into transit or had been captured elsewhere before  
they captured the local copies.

As for the "option to not exclude the current copy" I don't see that  
as overly beneficial. At that point running the hold targeter would  
only really update the opportunistic capture list or find another copy  
when the previously selected one became ineligible (checked out,  
marked missing, etc).

Quoting Josh Stompro <stomproj at exchange.larl.org>:

> Hello all, I was recently working on a reported problem with the  
> hold targeting.  Our largest branch didn't run their evening pull  
> list because of low staffing one day, and the next morning between  
> the time when they ran their hold list and tried to capture the  
> item, 20 copies has been re-targeted to other branches.  Since we  
> are currently using hold stalling, none of the copies that they  
> pulled would capture.
>
> This caused me to figure out that the hold targeter always excludes  
> the current copy when re-targeting if other copies exist.  I wasn't  
> aware of this fact, and I don't remember seeing it mentioned in any  
> of the docs or presentations on holds design.
>
> This is not optimal in our situation because our targeting priority  
> is very specific.  All our branches are ranked according to number  
> of open hours, staffing and delivery proximity.  We have a wide  
> variety of locations, those that are open 6 days a week to those  
> that are open 1 day a week.  We also share materials between two  
> regional system, so we always want to get the copies local to the  
> system if possible.  So it doesn't work very well to have holds  
> bouncing back and forth between the two lowest proximity locations,  
> since the optimal one is always targeted first.  The hold may bounce  
> between a location that is open 80 hours a week, that is only 24  
> hours delivery time away, to a location that is open 8 hours a week  
> that may take 10 days for delivery.  It would be somewhat based on  
> luck if the customer got their hold filled in 1 day vs 10 days in  
> this admittedly worse case scenario.
>
> The options that I think we have are.
>
> 1.       Design change so that the hold targeter optionally doesn't  
> exclude the current copy.
>
> 2.       Change the re-targeting interval to something longer, 72  
> hours, to give the first location 3 days to pull the item.  I think  
> this may have other negative impacts though.
>
> 3.       Stop using hold stalling, this would help in the situation  
> where the holds get retargeted after the pull list is run.
>
> Does anyone have any other suggestions?  Would anyone else be  
> interested in having the targeter not exclude the currently targeted  
> copy?
>
> Thanks
> Josh
>
> Lake Agassiz Regional Library - Moorhead MN larl.org
> Josh Stompro     | Office 218.233.3757 EXT-139
> LARL IT Director | Cell 218.790.2110


-- 
Thomas Berezansky
Assistant Network Administrator
Merrimack Valley Library Consortium
4 High ST, Suite 175
North Andover, MA 01845
Phone: 978-557-8161