All of our libraries resource share; that is a requirement of our consortium. So when I say that they aren’t resource sharing below, it is merely on specific items/titles that they’ve restricted use to local availability due to scarcity or fragility usually. And yes, patrons do get frustrated when they see something they want that isn’t available for transit, but that has less to do with parts than transit holds in general. Our reason for encouraging parts to be placed on all materials, regardless of transitability, is that we found that libraries were losing local circs because the patrons wanted to be able to say what they wanted when placing the hold, so if the local library chose to skip creating a part on a parted record, their patrons were bypassing the local materials in favor of those that were parted because they knew what they were getting.
For your manga example, if one of my libraries doesn’t want to part, they have to put their holdings on separate (individual volume) bibs rather than the record that’s parted. Can hit all of the bases then so patrons can still place holds on what they want, regardless of whether they search for the full run or the individual issue. It means more bibs and a lot more searching for some patrons, but it’s worked for us so far as it appeals to two different search styles. As more and more of the libraries have parted their materials, we are getting less frustration about not being able to get the part desired (because now there are 12 or 15 copies available rather than just the 1 at the library that started parting the record) and reverting to frustration about why we can’t just ship everything all the time! ☺ I believe our error code is something along the lines of the item not transiting that far rather than maxholds, but there’s always room for improvement on the error messages! -Anna Anna Goben Evergreen Indiana Coordinator Indiana State Library 140 N Senate Ave Indianapolis, IN 46204 317-234-6624 Fax: 317-232-3713 From: Open-ils-general [mailto:open-ils-general-boun...@list.georgialibraries.org] On Behalf Of Sylvia Orner Sent: Monday, June 04, 2018 9:04 AM To: Evergreen Discussion Group <email@example.com> Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Monograph Parts in Consortiums **** This is an EXTERNAL email. Exercise caution. DO NOT open attachments or click links from unknown senders or unexpected email. **** ________________________________ Thanks, Anna! Our problem is that we do not engage in resource sharing at the consortium level. We have some libraries and library systems that share with each other, but not across the board. Like you said, we’d like to see patrons able to view only those parts that are available to them. It sounds like you have libraries that don’t share resources but make use of monograph parts. Do their patrons ever experience issues requesting parts that are not available to them? Right now, we’ve noticed that if a patron places a hold on a part that’s not available to them, they get an error message stating that they have reached the maximum number of holds which is kind of confusing because we don’t have a maximum number of holds. From: Open-ils-general [mailto:open-ils-general-boun...@list.georgialibraries.org] On Behalf Of Goben, Anna Sent: Monday, June 04, 2018 8:10 AM To: Evergreen Discussion Group Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Monograph Parts in Consortiums Hi Sylvia, In Indiana, we use parts heavily for resource sharing, so scoping to specific branches/systems would actually work directly against our goals to maximize the pool of available targets. What we have talked about instead is a way to scope the holds on parts to only show those parts that are available to the patron (either via transit or locally). Due to the complexity of our holds rules, we do not anticipate that will happen any time soon though. We have shared style guides to build our parts so that there aren’t unnecessary duplications of parts and for sorting purposes. Also for high demand/heavily parted titles, we have asked that even those libraries that aren’t resource sharing use parts so that patrons have a consistent experience. It does mean some extra work for your catalogers, especially up front for any major collection, but in the long run, our patrons have indicated they really appreciate the ability to request the specific part they want regardless of who owns it. (And generally, they don’t care who owns it as long as they can get it and get it quickly.) -Anna Anna Goben Evergreen Indiana Coordinator Indiana State Library 140 N Senate Ave Indianapolis, IN 46204 317-234-6624 Fax: 317-232-3713 From: Open-ils-general [mailto:open-ils-general-boun...@list.georgialibraries.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Lussier Sent: Friday, June 01, 2018 11:25 AM To: Evergreen Discussion Group <firstname.lastname@example.org<mailto:email@example.com>> Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-GENERAL] Monograph Parts in Consortiums **** This is an EXTERNAL email. Exercise caution. DO NOT open attachments or click links from unknown senders or unexpected email. **** ________________________________ Hi Sylvia, I do not know of a way to limit the display of parts to the scoped library without development. Just to give some background on this feature, one of the primary reasons it was developed was precisely so that holds on a specific volume or disc could be applied across the entire consortium. Prior to the existence of parts, the only way to place a hold on a specific volume or disc was to place a volume-level hold, which targets copies that share the same call number owned by the same org unit. For our consortia, this was too limiting because we want our part holds to be fillable by all libraries just as we do with title holds. We don't use any hard or soft hold boundaries in our consortia that might limit which libraries can fill a hold. If you want to limit the holds to just holdings within the library or system, you could probably refrain from adding parts, make the volume hold link available to the public, and encourage them to place holds that way. However, I think this would be very unintuitive and would lead to a lot of title holds on the record that could be filled by a random volume. Barring that, I think development would be required to get what you're looking for. Kathy -- Kathy Lussier Project Coordinator Massachusetts Library Network Cooperative (508) 343-0128 kluss...@masslnc.org<mailto:kluss...@masslnc.org> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 10:58 AM, Sylvia Orner <sor...@albright.org<mailto:sor...@albright.org>> wrote: Hi everyone, We’ve recently had a couple of libraries in our consortium (SPARK) move towards using monograph parts for things like manga. We are now noticing that when patrons go to place a hold on a record with monograph parts, they can chose from all parts that exist within the consortium, not just those with holdings at their library or library system. I understand that the parts are shared at the consortium level, but is there any way to hide parts that are not associated with any holdings at the scoped library or library system? If it’s not possible, I would be interested in hearing how other consortiums deal with monograph parts. Thanks so much! Sylvia Orner Head of Technical Services Scranton Public Library 2006 N. Main Ave.<https://maps.google.com/?q=2006+N.+Main+Ave.+%0D%0A+Scranton,+PA+18508&entry=gmail&source=g> Scranton, PA 18508<https://maps.google.com/?q=2006+N.+Main+Ave.+%0D%0A+Scranton,+PA+18508&entry=gmail&source=g> 570-207-2379 sor...@albright.org<mailto:sor...@albright.org>