DOCUMENT DELIVERY GROUP

August 9, 2000

Minutes

Present: Mary Angelotti, Matthew Beacom, Susan Burdick, Mike DiMassa, John Gallagher, Holly Grossetta Nardini, Carol Jones, Sue Lorimer, Danuta Nitecki, May Robertson

Absent: Maureen Malone Jones and Lisa Thomas

  1. Announcements
  2. Lisa Thomas had to resign from the Group; Sue Crockford-Peters will appointment another representative from Access Services.

    The demonstration of the Electronic Document Delivery system developed by the Library Systems Office will be demonstrated in the Electronic Classroom in CCL on Monday, August 14 from 3:00-4:30.

    Susan Burdick and Denise Hersey volunteered to assume responsibility for reviewing the system capabilities of RLG’s ILL Manager.

    Danuta announced that upgrades to Fretwell Downing’s VDX system, which is being considered as a possible replacement for the current Borrow Direct software, may influence our desire to consider this system for document delivery as well. She also reported on a conversation with Steve Gilbert, CEO of the company that developed the locator software for the LSF; his company may be interested in developing document delivery software for our specific needs. We’ll need to decide if we want to send his company a copy of our Request for Solution.

  3. Audrey joined us to review the overall Orbis2 timetable and to discuss the responsibilities of the Orbis2 Document Delivery and ILL Demonstration Situation Work Group.

The detailed Orbis2 timetable is available at http://www.library.yale.edu/orbis2/public/Orbis2pp.htm, but Audrey mentioned these key dates:

The new LMS will be selected in early January 2001

Criteria documents developed by the Criteria Work Groups, as well as the environment statements

written by these Groups, will be distributed to vendors in late August, early September

During September, vendors will send pricing estimates; there will be technical visits by the

vendors with LSO and ITS staff; the question will be asked "Is there a reason not to continue

with the selection of a new LMS?"; the decision will be made whether all systems currently

being considered will remain contenders.

End of October to mid-November

Vendor visits and extensive demonstrations; these are the visits for which the demonstration

situations are being scripted.

Audrey also outlined the nature of the various documents being prepared for vendors:

Environmental statements (written by the Criteria Work Groups) will outline how we want to do business and will ask the vendor to specify how they will be able to help us.

The Criteria Work Groups have been asked to develop checklists of specific system requirements but not to specify functions in their documents that would easily or routinely be covered in a vendor demo.

The job of the Demonstration Work Groups, working with the documents created by the Criteria Work Groups is (1) to create scripts that will direct the detailed demos required of each candidate vendor in October and November, and (2) to present these scripts in a form that can be used as a standard checklist that will facilitate the final comparison of competing systems (see http://www.library.yale.edu/orbis2/public/wkgroup/dmochrg.html for the complete Demonstration Work Group charge). The defined situations must include both basic tasks not covered by the Criteria Work Groups and more elaborate scenaria.

 

3. Discussion of the requirements document

We continued discussion of the form and content of the system requirements document and accomplished two things:

    1. Sections that define the progress of a request or item
      1. Patron submits request [Carol]
      1. Search for item and determine its availability in an on- or off-campus collection [May]
      1. Request for item sent to provider [John]
      1. Provider locates the item and sends it [Holly]
      1. Item received and processed [Mary]
      1. Item delivered to patron [Mike]
      2. Patron returns item [Susan]
      3. Item processed for return to provider [Susan]
      4. Item received by provider [John]

[This outline defines the progress of a request/item in a filled/found scenario; be sure to enumerate requirements when a search or a process is unsuccessful as well.]

    1. Sections addressing other system requirements
      1. Tracking status of request and item [Denise]
      2. Reports and statistics [Mary]
      3. Financial management (accounts receivable and payable, both patron and institutional) [Carol]
      4. Notification (communication of tracking) [Matthew]
      5. Business performance [Denise]
      1. Protocol compliance (ISO, NISO) [Holly, Sue]
      2. Systems requirements (NT, Unix, etc.) [Holly, Sue]