Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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.