DOCUMENT DELIVERY GROUP

August 30, 2000

Minutes

Present: Matthew Beacom, Susan Burdick, Holly Grossetta Nardini, Carol Jones, Sue Lorimer (Chair), May Robertson

Absent: Mary Angelotti, John Gallagher, Denise Hersey, Maureen Malone Jones, Danuta Nitecki

  1. Announcements

There was a brief discussion of the EDD demonstration site that Carol emailed to all of us. Carol commented that the quality of the document printed is directly dependent on the quality of the image originally transmitted (as has always been the case). There seems to be little or no degradation of the image quality when printed from the website, and Sue mentioned that she thought the print quality was an improvement over the image displayed in Acrobat.

  1. Due to the combination of some of our documentís original sections (Sections 7 and 8 and Sections 15 and 16), the sections have been renumbered as follows; please make the change in all future documents and communications:
  1. Patron submits request [Carol]
  2. Search for item and determine its availability in an on- or off-campus collection [May]
  3. Request for item sent to provider [John]
  4. Provider locates the item and sends it [Holly]
  5. Item received and processed [Mary]
  6. Item delivered to patron [Mike]
  7. Patron returns item, and itís processed for return to provider [Susan]
  8. Item received by provider [John]
  9. Tracking status of request and item [Denise]
  10. Reports and statistics [Mary]
  11. Financial management (accounts receivable and payable, both patron and institutional
  12. [Carol]

  13. Notification (communication of tracking) [Matthew]
  14. Business performance [Denise]
  15. Systems and Protocol requirements (ISO, NISO) [Holly, Sue]

3. How to deal with the Criteria Work Groupsí (CWG) requirements

The following Group members are working on identifying criteria relevant to document delivery and interlibrary loan from among the requirements defined by the Criteria Work Groups:

Business Criteria (Denise)

Readers Criteria (Mary)

Records Criteria (Matthew)

Reports Criteria (Holly, with assistance from Carol, who chaired this Criteria Group)

Systems Criteria (Sue)

It was decided that to expedite the work of the Group, each of these Group members (Denise, Mary, Matthew, Holly, and Sue) needs to deal with their Criteria Work Group requirements in the following way:

      1. Review the requirements and select only those GENERAL requirements which you believe have a very specific application to some area of document delivery (national, consortial, or intra-campus delivery) AND which may not be covered in another Demonstration Work Groupís (DWG) demo situations, particularly Circulation and Reports (in other words, donít include things like "System must support the production of email notices in designated situations" since the Circulation Demo Situation Work Group will address this general requirement)
      2. Select all criteria directly and specifically relevant to document delivery
      3. Compile a list of the criteria selected in A. and B., using the exact language of the Criteria Work Group document
      4. Decide for which of our documentís sections (Sections 1-14) each criterion is relevant; you may decide that a requirement is relevant to more than one step
      5. Report your criteria in ONE email message to everyone, formatted the following way:

Subject line: Criteria from the [ ] Working Group

Step A:

[Language of the criterion as it appears in the CWG requirements] [What CWG produced it] [The criterionís rating (Essential, Important, Desirable)]

e.g. Material appears magically Readers CWG (E)

Step B:

[Language of the criterion as it appears in the CWG requirements] [What CWG produced it] [The criterionís rating (Essential, Important, Desirable)]

  1. The Request for Solution, the System Evaluation Worksheet, and the Demonstration Situation document

The production of each of our Groupís sections or worksheets will become the individual responsibility of one Group member. Since the text of the Request for Solution is the basis for both the System Evaluation Worksheet and the Demonstration Situation document, ownership of the various sections of each document has been assigned as outlined in item 2 of these minutes (above); these assignments reflect original responsibility for the writing of the sections.

  1. Incorporating or editing criteria identified in the Criteria Work Groupsí documents
  1. We voted on the weighting that each section of our RFS will be given in the evaluation of each ILL management system. This is the outcome (the numbering reflects the new section numbering of our RFS):
    1. Patron submits request [10]
    2. Search for item and determine its availability in an on- or off-campus collection [9.5]
    3. Request for item sent to provider [9.0]
    4. Provider locates the item and sends it [8.7]
    5. Item received and processed [8.7]
    6. Item delivered to patron [8.5]
    7. Patron returns item, and itís processed for return to provider [8.6]
    8. Item received by provider [8.3]
    9. Tracking status of request and item [10]
    10. Reports and statistics [9.7]
    11. Financial management (accounts receivable and payable, both patron and institutional)
    12. [9.1]

    13. Notification (communication of tracking) [10]
    14. Business performance [9]
    15. Systems and Protocol requirements (ISO, NISO) [10]

6. We reviewed and modified the timetable for the Groupís work, extending it through September 20. The revised timetable is attached to these minutes.