(Test /Go-Live) Are we going to configure the UC Libraries as a fulfillment network?

Legend: not started IN PROGRESS STALLED decided

Recommendation

The Fulfillment and ILL FG recommends setting up the UCs as an Automated Fulfillment Network in Alma. A fulfillment network will allow for UC harmonization that directly benefits our users. Examples include borrowers visiting other UC institutions without a separate library card needing to be created, blocks and patron notes shared between all UCs, and a decrease in workflow complexity for staff. 

While setup between the UCs and non-UC institutions is outside of the scope of this decision, it is worth noting that fulfillment networks can be set up with any institution that uses Alma while also being set up with broker-based or peer-to-peer setups. The CSUs have set themselves up as a fulfillment network, so there is potential to establish a fulfillment setup with them in the future. 

During the Vanguard and Test phases of the implementation process, the Fulfillment and ILL FG will need to determine whether the fulfillment network will be set up for patrons to make title or item-based requests. This group's initial approach for Vanguard was to configure a title-based fulfillment network to allow for a hands-on opportunity to explore the more complex configuration method and the customization abilities of the rotas. We were able to configure two randomized rotas (One for the northern UCs and NRLF and One for the southern UCs and SRLF), that worked as expected so that patron requests would favor the state region in which their home campus resides ahead of attempting to fill the request with material from an institution in the other region. ExLibris confirmed that we are not able to configure the rotas in a way that prioritizes the RLFs ahead of the campuses in each region, since they do not have their own IZs.

During configuration and testing, the FG discovered that the Fulfillment Network could be configured to simultaneously have an automated fulfillment as well as a direct request feature. The testing of both features during Vanguard were successful, but could be confusing for the end-user. For Test, the FG will be configuring a title-based Automated Fulfillment Network only, to test if it would be an improved experience for the end user, or not.

We asked Ex-libris about what it would take to make a switch later on from title to item-based configuration, if at some point a year or two post migration, usage reports strongly support a need to switch. We believe that by tackling title-based setup first under Ex-Libris’ tutelage, it better equips us for any future adjustments.

Item-based

• Pro-Patrons will be able to see and request a specific serial volume number without specifying the number in the note field of the request (current request experience for UCs)

• Pro-minimal configuration work required for setup

• Pro- patrons enter requests directly in the catalog.

• Con- Does not allow for rota setup for workload balancing to be achieved between institutions.

• Con-Granular display and ability to request specific serial volumes will depend on clean holdings

Title-based

• Pro-Allows for rota configuration (randomized, multiple) for workload balancing to be achieved between institutions.

• Pro- Can be configured to favor RLFs ahead of the institutions, similar to the current ILL setup for UCs. 

• Pro- patrons enter requests directly in the catalog

• Con- Greater amount of configuration work required for setup (amount will depend on number and complexity of rotas)

• Con- Patons who would like to request a serial volume, will need to include the desired volume number in the note field of the request (current request experience for UCs).

Background

The UCs currently operate as an ILL network. Randomized rotas that prevent patrons from being able to make item-based requests ensure workload balances for lender institutions. When lenders send their titles to borrower institutions, the borrowers must create on-the-fly records for the items in order for them to be loaned to the patron who made the request. These records have to be deleted by the borrower institution once returned. Billing for lost or damaged items are handled indirectly by the borrowing institution.

In order for UC patrons to borrow when visiting UC institutions outside of their home campus, they must be issued a separate library card. Currently, there is no way for institutions to share patron block information with each other when a patron loses an item or has overdues.

Dependencies

• Can randomized or location based rotas be established to accommodate location, courier costs, turnaround time, and workload imbalance?

  • We may need guidance from Ex Libris on establishing multiple rota configurations.

• How customizable are fulfillment networks in terms of title vs item based requesting.

Questions to consider

1. What requirements does a Fulfillment Network place on harmonization and management of patron records? A. Institutions within a fulfillment network can decide to maintain their own patron databases locally. They will need to decide which patron information fields to share with each other (minimum required fields: user group, expiration date, and patron purge date) and harmonize loan periods for borrowed items.

2. What are the implications for staffing (are these requests managed by ILL or by Circulation)? A. Since randomized rotas can be established in a title-based fulfillment network, staffing could continue to be handled as is locally.

3. What are the implications for lender selection and load balancing (can we still favor RLF holdings, etc.)? A. Randomized rotas with title-based requests can be established, keeping workloads balanced between institutions. An item-based fulfillment network configuration does not allow for the use of rotas. 

4. What are the implications of moving from title-based requests to item-based requests? A. While allowing patrons to make item-based requests may cut down on the time it takes to fulfill a request (patron chooses from closest lender), they could also lead to an imbalance of workload between institutions. For a full breakdown of implications, see pros and cons section above. 

5. Do the differences between each campus's identifiers pose any issues for the sharing of the patron data? A. Exlibris confirmed that this will not be an issue.

Action Log