2017-03-02 Resource Access Meeting Notes
Date
Mar 2, 2017
Attendees
@Andrea Loigman
@Joanne Leary
@Wendy Wilcox
@Mark Canney
@Deb Lamb
@Filip Jakobsen
David Bottorff
@Rameka Barnes
@Charlotte Whitt - note taker
@D Ellen Bonner
Discussion items
Time | Item | Who | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
55min | Discuss Workflow Differentiation | Andrea | |
5min | layout agenda for 3/6/17 meeting | Andrea |
|
Meeting Notes
Began review of the document Use cases for a workflow engine, and went over differences and similarities for each topic:
1) Office delivery / cross campus delivery / paging
Three different tasks. Andrea pointed out that 'Paging' probably would be the most common, except that Chicago, Cornell and Lehigh doesn't do 'Paging' (see more notes in the document).
Deb mentioned 'Ubiquitous return', the possibility for a patron to return where ever the patron wanted to.
Andrea added the category: 'Transitting' - in a case of floating collections.
Joanne explained the 'Request' option, which enables patrons to do requests in Cornell's catalog. This cover the feature to choose campus delivery. Cornell have se up a grid for which libraries have responsibility for which delivery. This solution is solved outside of Voyager is kind of chunky, but the patrons love it.
Mark explained how Lehigh's Office delivery, and Express delivery both are services with an integration point with ILLiad. Office delivery is tracked with Relais software.
Rameka went over the workflow of a request, which can be send to different libraries in a prioritized queue. It's all done from TAMU's catalog as manuel processes through ILLiad.
Andrea told about UPenn's handling of these tasks. Which are all very manual processes - 'shoe leather delivery'
Filip summarized as follows: "Which item type to be delivered to which people - that is the rules to be set":
a) Eligibility
b) Various level of integration, e.g. using the addition framework in ILLiad or more manually processes
c) Various type of notifications to the patrons, e.g. the notifications in Relais
d) Various need of tracking - from completely manually processes to full automation
2) Proxies
The differences here
a) Eligibility
b) Tracking
Mark mentioned the possibility to certify all actions
c) Placing requests vs. Pick-up
Trying to gain a better understanding of Filip's information need: Filip explained that his process is to pose very open ended questions, and by doing so, he is trying to get the SME's to think about how to think about the challenges they face, and how FOLIO can support it - kind of a “double loop learning” approach. Filip don’t have the answers for what the RA people need to specify; so part of the task is figuring out how to specify it.
Next meeting will be on Monday 3/6/2017 at 11 am EST / 5 pm CET.