(Test-Go-Live) Records Retained for Items Deposited in RLFs

Legend: not started IN PROGRESS STALLED decided

Recommendation

See decision.

Reasoning

When a UC institution deposits an item in an RLF, they have the option of retaining a record for this item in their IZ (which we will call a “phantom item”). This potentially causes problems related to fulfillment workflows, patron experience, and accurate holdings assessment.

Fulfillment workflows

If the deposited item is requestable at the depositing institution, the following problems are created in the fulfillment system:

• The item, if not suppressed in Primo, can be requested locally by a patron, but the request cannot be filled using any Alma-supported workflow.

• The item, if not suppressed in Primo, can be requested by through the fulfillment network by a patron at another institution, but the request cannot be filled using any Alma-supported workflow.

• If the item is requested through the Automated Fulfillment Network (AFN), the institution that holds the record, but not the physical item, will be included in the rota constructed by the resource sharing system. This happens even if the record is suppressed in Primo. Again, the lending institution will not be able to fill the request.

All of these problems would cause delays, unnecessary work, and frustration. We have therefore recommended that the fulfillment unit governing the TOUs for these items prevent them from being requested.

Patron experience when discovering phantom items

Assuming that items deposited to RLFs are not requestable at the depositing institution, the following problem remains if the items are discoverable in searches: patrons will have the expectation that items are requestable, or at least physically present at the library. Allowing the “phantom” items to be discoverable creates the false impression that the items are physically present at the library.

We therefore have recommended that the “phantom item” be suppressed from discovery in the library search.

Distinguishing phantom items in holdings

Current and future systems (resource sharing as well as collection analysis and decision support systems) will need to have a way of distinguishing these “phantom” records to accurately determine holdings in the UC system. To simplify processing by these systems, we have recommended that the standard location codes SRLF and NRLF be used by all IZs.

Background

Individual UC institutions have different practices with regard to records retained for holdings deposited to the RLFs. In the legacy Melvyl/Request system, special workarounds prevent these records from being requested.

In the Alma consortial system, we will not have the granular control that will enable UC to code workarounds to prevent request of the phantom items, but some simple harmonization practices can eliminate the problems without resort to coded solutions.

Action Log