Lori, I may be misunderstanding hard and soft boundaries, but I thought that they were used to limit targeting. I don't want to limit targeting, just prioritize it.
Beth On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Lori Bowen Ayre <[email protected]>wrote: > Elizabeth, > > Can't this be implemented using the hard and soft boundaries? I'm > disturbed if the answer is no because I certainly thought that was exactly > the type of Use Case it was designed for. > > Lori > > > On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 10:26 AM, Elizabeth Longwell <[email protected]>wrote: > >> 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 >> > >
