Download MinutesRScomm27Jan2014

Project WIN Resource Sharing Committee
Minutes from January 27, 2014 meeting
Attending: Amy Marsh (Eau Claire PL); Hollis Helmeci (Ladysmith PL); Jim Trojanowski (NWLS); Jo
Ann Gustavson (Neillsville PL); Linda Donaldson (Hudson PL); Lynn Garrington (Ashland); Maureen
Welch (IFLS); and Susan Heskin, Chair (Superior PL). Bruce Smith (WiLS) joined for a portion of the
meeting.
Absent: Augo Hildebrand (WVLS); Shirley Lehr (Owen PL).
Meeting called to order at 10:01 am.
Quorum (majority of committee members) present.
Agenda approved (Hollis motion/Maureen 2nd).
Previous meeting minutes approved (Jo Ann motion/Amy 2nd).
Business
Discussion: Delivery Outside System Boundaries
Sue emailed out Bruce’s written answers to the delivery questions we had created (document in our
Dropbox folder also). Discussion started with going through the written questions & answers.
Question 1: How long will items be in transit in delivery going from one library to another?
Transit time depends on 1) frequency of delivery and 2) the connection between the 3 systems. How
the ILS is configured to fill a hold will make a difference. First fill from pick up library (no in transit
time); then is it available at regional libraries (concentric circle approach). It will depend on the ILS
and if it can cluster. If we can’t control the discovery, we can’t control the volume.
Question 2: Will providing delivery to such a large area be cost effective and fuel efficient?
Two separate questions. First, cost effectiveness depends on volume. You look at total cost of
delivery but also cost per item. More volume can lower your cost per item but there is a tipping point
when larger capacity trucks are needed and then the total cost can go up and the cost per item may
even out. The second question of fuel efficiency, our couriers probably already have routes between
our larger areas and if they have space on their current vehicles traveling between these hubs, there
will be no mileage increase. For instance, WVLS and IFLS already have delivery between our hubs
through WALTCO, but if the volume goes up then cost may be affected.
Question raised about courier across our current system borders like between Barron and Burnett
counties – would looking at the routes geographically instead of just within our system borders make
sense? If the same courier is used, then we would go with their routes or could look at it as a singular
service and negotiate.
Question 3: What will be the delivery load impact on local library staff?
There will be growth but we don’t know what the level of growth will be. May not be drastic but good
question for Heartland/Illinois system.
Question 4 & 5: What will delivery cost and how will it be paid for? What will be the logistics of
organizing delivery over three systems?
Discussed how the current connection between NWLS and the other 2 systems is through the South
Central Delivery Service in Madison. Hub to hub delivery for our three systems would be something to
discuss. Cost of the statewide service/cost of courier could change if statewide service moved to a
different hub system (5-8 hubs instead of the 17 for library systems plus all the universitiesl; for
example if statewide service dropped at an Eau Claire hub and then local carriers delivered to the
library system, the UW, CVTC, etc.).
How to pay for delivery is our decision.
Question 6 & 7: Will there be more days of delivery available for libraries? Will this improve ILL
delivery time between the three systems?
Additional days should always be an option but what will be the cost? If we combine contract, may be
able to get a better cost with more days of delivery. More days would speed up things for patrons.
Question 8: Will having more volume traveling between three systems impact the cost effectiveness of
delivery?
If we are talking about cost per item, yes. But a tipping point where increased capacity is needed
would also have impact. Do have to consider more items to sort also.
Question 9: How would sorting work...would there be any en route sorting?
Involves balancing what libraries are willing to do and what the courier is willing to do. ILS discovery
may be able to facilitate. Possibly reciprocal sharing (for example: Sun Prairie & Middleton is each
paged first for each other’s items so they can have pre-sort bins for each other). Where are the
sorting hubs? Possible ways of improving sorting may be a little more work for libraries such as presorting for specific library or group of libraries (example: in South Central, presort bins for Madison
PL, A-M libraries, and N-Z libraries help cut sorting time at the the sorting hub).
Question 10: What will be the packaging standards for delivery items?
Bruce is for the least amount of packaging possible. South Central libraries use post-it notes with 3
letter codes. Labor is more expensive for all the pre-packaging versus the small amount of
replacement cost paid out for damaged materials.
Question 11: How will connection happen with SCLS, Minitex....will the delivery hubs change?
May not change but could. SRLAAW is looking at lean practices; as mentioned above, would it make
more sense to have 7-8 hubs in the state with libraries in those areas delivered locally? That kind of
change would reopen the statewide delivery formula. If our three systems went to 1 hub versus 3
hubs, the formula would have to be looked at also. Question from Jo Ann about NWLS materials
going to Madison. Currently, no direct connection between NWLS and other 2 systems except through
South Central Delivery Service statewide delivery because they use different courier vendors. South
Central Delivery Service has the NWLS materials delivered directly to Ashland (uses WALTCO).
WALTCO does the delivery to UW-Barron & UW-Superior as part of the South Central Delivery
Service also. Two local couriers – WALTCO (used by IFLS & WVLS) and Action Logistics (used by
NWLS and starting for CESA 12).
Jim asked Bruce where he would start looking as far as the set up of delivery. Answer: Locations and
volume. You need to map – balancing capacity with the amount of mileage possible on a route.
Where am I going and how much needs to be taken? You can only cover so many miles on one route
but also how much can you fit in the vehicle per route. Also for frequency, how much flexibility do you
have for which days/what times?
Maureen asked about statewide service is now at 4 days per week, what are the chances of going
back to 5 days a week? Answer: may depend on the possibility of reducing regional hubs to get the
savings needed to get back to 5 days.
Sue asked Bruce if he had suggestions for additional questions we might want to ask Heartland
consortia. Volume growth may be the biggest question. How is their delivery organized? How
discovery works for holds?
Discussed asking questions of Heartland about delivery. They have a newly hired head of delivery.
Sending a separate set of questions may get more specific answers.
Sue thanked Bruce for wonderful overview. (Bruce left the meeting after delivery discussion).
Continue List of Potential Impacts
We reviewed our current list. Jim was editing during the meeting and will put our current list in
DropBox.
Potential Impacts Deleted from List (other committees are handling):
What will happen with downloadable services offered by only one system such as Freading?
How will it show in the catalog? For all systems or can they be suppressed to borrowers in the
other systems?
Would there be new patron cards or could current cards be kept?
Potential Impact Amended on List (broadened or narrowed as needed):
Would paging requirements change [for IFLS libraries]?
[Take out general statewide delivery question] Amend inter-system delivery impact with Is there a way
to tie inter-system delivery into change in the statewide delivery model.
Potential Impacts Added to the list at this meeting:
What would the funding model be for delivery?
Handling damaged items: patron/library/courier.
Packaging for courier.
Discussed the autonomy/standardization impact – thought this impact relates to how we serve our
patrons. Some of these potential impacts may be covered by other committees too. For example,
patron experience committee is likely looking at patron experience placing holds also. Jim added tags
with other possible committees and he will check in with them.
For the placing of holds, possible info overload if all owning libraries seeing? How are patrons shown
if it is available in the library they are at so they don’t need to place a hold? (Maureen will ask Lori
software question about what system can do to highlight local items).
Review of Information to be gathered and actions taken for next meeting
Sue emailed the WIN Committee Report & Survey Template document (also in DropBox). Our
ultimate goal is to draft a report with our recommendations which will become a survey. The template
should help us with structure for presenting our conclusions. At our next meeting, we need take some
time recapping and then begin coming to some conclusions for our topic areas.
Overview of questions for next meeting and info needed.
Jim/Sue will discuss best way to approach next week’s meeting and starting to make our
recommendations.
Jim/Sue – questions for Heartland about delivery
Maureen – talk to Lori Roholt about two software questions (discovery/holds and whether software
can highlight location patron is in).
Jim checking in with other committees about overlapping topics (noted on our list of impacts).
Meeting adjourned at 11:56 am.
Next Meeting: Monday, February 3, 10am.