Prioritization scenarios for title vs. item level requesting

Small group discussion -> back to RA SIG

Many thanks!

Before we start, thanks from Stephanie and I to Marie, Thomas, Bob and Kimie who helped flesh out this slide deck and prioritization discussion over the past few weeks to bring back to the larger SIG

Goals for our discussion today

• Find consensus (or move towards consensus) on how item level and title level requests will be fulfilled if a library is doing both types of requesting
• Identify gaps or things we aren’t thinking of as we move through the different prioritization options
• Identify what potential approaches would work best for our institutions

Assumptions

• Libraries need requesting rules that are easy for staff to understand and are perceived as equitable by patrons.
• If title-level requesting is enabled on instance A, it applies to all the items attached to all of the holdings attached to instance A.
• For some scenarios, patrons who want a copy of the items attached to a holding on instance A may need title-level requesting only. (E.g., a new release of a popular memoir.)
• For some scenarios, patrons who want a copy of the items attached to a holding on instance A need item-level requesting only (e.g., a specific volume of a multi-volume set.)
• For select specific scenarios, patrons who want a copy of the items attached to a holding on instance A need both item-level and title-level requesting (maybe?)
• If title-level requesting is enabled on instance A, Library staff must be able to also do item-level requesting for items on instance A.

Patron User Statements for Title Level Requesting

• As a requester, I want a copy of an available book as soon as possible, so that I can start using it to achieve my research / reading goals.
• As a requester, I want to get a copy of a book that is not available right now as soon as possible, so that I can start using it to achieve my research / reading goals.
• As a borrower, I want to keep the book I’ve borrowed as long as possible, so that I can continue using it to achieve my research / reading goals.
• As a borrower, I want to be able to place a request for a specific item via the discovery layer when I know the specific item is what I need, so that I can get the item as fast as possible and not have to ask library staff for assistance.

Library Staff User Statements for Title Level Requesting

• As a library staff member, I want to be able to place a request for a patron to get the specific item that I know they need, so that they can quickly access needed information for research / reading.
• As a library staff member, I want to request a specific item for special processing / attention, so that I can quickly address issues with an item copy and get it back into circulation for patrons.

​

Factors to consider in prioritizing

• Must have factors:
• Type of request (item vs. title)
• Date of request creation
• Position in queue (can translate to date of request creation, but not always)
• Nice to have:
• Patron group (would be nice to have immediately, but is not critical)
• Pickup location (perhaps you want to prioritize requests that are going to a faculty office drop off)
• Item location (perhaps you want items in a popular reading location to circulate more than items in a remote storage location, or vice-versa)
• Request expiration date (maybe not needed, since for almost all scenarios it would mirror the date of request creation)
• Fulfillment option (perhaps you want to prioritize requests by mail, since you know they will take longer to reach patrons)
• Custom field on a patron record (ultimate library flexibility)

Scenario 1: First in, first out (by request creation date)

• Meets goal of easily understood and “fair” process for a request queue that has both item and title-level requests for items on a single instance
• We would need to choose one or more factors to use as a tie-breaker when one or more item level requests have the same timestamps as one or more title level requests
• Not sure what kind of tie breaking may or may happen right now in item level requesting
• Some tiebreaking possibilities - item always takes precedence over title, certain patron groups take priority, or FOLIO randomly selects one to fulfill.

Scenario 2: First in, first out by multiple relevant factors

• Allows potential for mapping request priority by type, date, patron group, item location, fulfillment option, or even patron custom field
• Implies need for setting similar to circ rules table - specific combinations to prioritize in a specific order, with a defined fallback scenario if no combinations match a request
• Much more complex approach to implementation

Open questions

• Do we have use cases where a patron, placing a request via the discovery layer, would want to be able to do both item level and title level requests on a single instance?
• Are there additional assumptions we should be making about title vs. item level requesting and if so, what are they?
• Are there other factors to this that we haven’t thought of?
• If Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 are the options that we think are best, which solution would best for your institution?
• If we initially develop Scenario 1, could it be built on to eventually get to Scenario 2?