DOCUMENT DELIVERY GROUP
August 16, 2000
Present: Mary Angelotti, Matthew Beacom, John Gallagher, Holly Grossetta Nardini, Sue Lorimer, Danuta Nitecki, May Robertson
Absent: Susan Burdick, Mike DiMassa, Carol Jones, Maureen Malone Jones
Sue reported briefly on the EDD demonstration that the Library Systems Office and Dan Chudnov from ITS/Medical presented on Monday, August 14:
- Carol Jones, Mary Angelotti, Holly Grossetta Nardini, Karen Reardon, and Dan Chudnov will work on implementing a pilot program utilizing the EDD software and Prospero in the Medical and Science libraries during Fall term. This pilot will involve an assessment mechanism as well as actual implementation of the service.
- Carol Jones asked (via Sue) for input on three aspects of the service:
- Do we think that two weeks is sufficient time for an item to reside on the server for delivery to the reader?
It was suggested that documents remain on the server four weeks but that the message sent to readers report that the document will be available only two weeks. There was comment that in the event the program is expanded to include the social sciences and humanities, two weeks may prove too short a time for full use of an item by faculty and students. The possibility of holding the documents in Ariel rather than deleting them upon posting was also mentioned.
- Do we think that having an item locked for further access after five uses was acceptable?
No dissenting comments were raised.
- Would we want to review the text of the message that will be sent to readers reporting the availability of the document on the server? (The pilot program group will begin with the text which Medical has been using, with some possible revisions.)
The Group agreed that it would like to review this text.
- Discussion of the proposed August 9 to August 30 timetable
- The timetable was accepted as distributed.
- Further clarification and expansion was made on two items:
- Action item for the week preceding the August 23 meeting: Review the reports of the Criteria Work Groups [which will be available in their final form through the Orbis2 website on August 21] to be sure we’ve included in our system evaluation document all items relevant to Document Delivery and ILL.
This work was divided as follows:
Business Criteria (Denise)
Readers Criteria (Mary)
Records Criteria (Matthew)
Reports Criteria (Holly, with assistance from Carol, who chaired this Criteria Group)
Systems Criteria (Sue)
- Agenda item for August 23 meeting: Discussion of how we’ll weight the factors we’ve identified for evaluation of each document delivery management system
In the brief discussion of how we might weight the importance of each section, or step, of the process we developed the following procedure:
As a Group, will decide in the August 23 meeting how many points (from 10-1) we will assign to the importance of the elements in each step in the selection of a document delivery system (if necessary we may have to then assign points to various elements within each step)
Then each vendor dyad will review their system and, after completing the evaluation form for their system, will assign a point count from 10-1 on how well their vendor’s systems performs in each category (or step). This will allow us to compute overall relative scores foreach system in each area and as a whole.
- Discussion of each section of the evaluation document
- The Group had not received copies of the following sections, so they couldn’t be reviewed:
- Step 1 (revised): Patron submits request
- Step 6: Item delivered to patron
- Step 12: Financial management
- Comments were made on Steps 2 through 9; revisions should be made and distributed via email; copies should be brought to the August 23 meeting
- Step 7 : Patron returns item and Step 8: Item is processed for return to provider were combined into one step (now called Step 7/8: Patron returns item and item is processed for return to provider) by eliminating the first three parts of Step 8 and adding the remaining item as the last item of Step 7
- Adopt the format of the Step 10 document.
4. Review of the system evaluation document will continue with Steps 10-15 at the August 23 meeting.