Attendees:

Carol Sterenberg
Jeff Daniels
Darsi Rueda
Karen Newbery
Martina Tumulla
David Bottorff
Alissa Hafele
Margaret Hughes
Leah Anderson
Ryan Tamares
Linh Chang
Natascha Owens
Tara Barnett
Michelle Futornick
Soobum Kim
Laura Krueger
Richenda Brim

Topic	Notes
Materials tracking strategies	Stanford’s long list o’ questions: How are you sending materials to bindery or repair? What do you do when you need to mark something missing and then be prompted to search for it occasionally? How are you handling new book shelves? How do you track newly received materials through cataloging/end processing -> shelving location? How is the relationship between the main library and a remote storage facility set up? What are the pain points in that system for you? Are you setting up Technical Services units as service points? Advantages/disadvantages? How to put something in transit from one unit to another? Is anyone “tracking” digital/electronic materials? How to see the history of an item’s movement? What notification capabilities exist for materials tracking?
	Service points: some activities require technical services staff to have a service point (Chicago made a Technical Services service point, haven’t found multiples for the different units necessary). Placing orders, changes to item state. Bindery: coming back from bindery, if it’s going to the Main Library it does not go intransit. If it is going to a branch it does (managed by service point). For each location, you select at least one service point (and one is primary). Have service points for self-checkout kiosks (good for statistics), ILL. Looking for an item in-process, look for the last user that touched the item. Chicago allows holds on in-process and on-order materials.
	Chicago: In-house review/repair, no tracking when send to local preservation unit (creates a hole). If it will be longer than a few days, use a pseudo patron. For bindery, use a pseudo patron (separate pseudo patron for each shipment (create one for each week so they know which shipment it was sent with - reuse week2 for the next year). Why pseudo patron: Service point doesn’t do anything with the item state, is easier to charge out than to manually go in and mark items as in-process. Preservation staff can them simply check items in and out. Tech Services at Chicago - No notes added, Does not correspond to service point necessarily, Manually flipped to in-process if sent back to cataloging etc, Will look to see last user to touch item to understand where something physically is.
	3 part item state model - status (exists now), needed for (internal), process (e.g. cataloging/preservation). When check in at end it would clear process. Really needs workflow engine to function optimally.
	Notifications have been discussed in RA SIG, being able to say “this item is needed for x” but hasn’t been developed. Hard to develop this without the flexibility of a workflow engine, too many differences between institutions. Also desired is ability to assign tasks to individuals.
	Item history is a question right now. Versioning? There’s the circulation log, but otherwise no kept history of where an item’s been, who has last touched it. In UI you can see who last touched a record but not all history. All historical edits are saved, you could see in LDP, but not “quick and easy" to get that info out.
	Digital materials, does anyone track these items through “on-order” “in-process” to “available”? Duke uses Trello for this tracking
	Missing: we can mark as missing in Actions dropdown (changes item status), then would run a report “if marked missing longer than x time ago” to search for them. Also is a long-missing status you can use and run reports on.
Q&A

Browser not supported