On Mar 8 at 12:42 PM, Ryan P. wrote:
Documents the objectives, activities and results, highlighting floating collections.
On Apr 19 at 11:20 AM, Susan Johnson wrote:
Don't some branches end up with sparse collections, while others have shelves bulging with too many volumes? Also, don't the patrons at smaller branches complain about depleted collections for browsing purposes?
On Apr 19 at 12:26 PM, Phil F. wrote:
Yes, there can be a significant amount of collection "drift" with floating, although for us the general trend is for large libraries to lose material and smaller libraries to gain.
We use two methods to control collection drift: manual and automatic. The manual method relies on individuals in each of the libraries to recognize that they have too many or too few items on the shelf and take appropriate action.
We also developed an automatic system that checks on how much material is in each location and will send redistribution requests to move material from libraries with a surplus of material to libraries with a deficit.
On Apr 20 at 1:06 PM, RICK . wrote:
Is it possible to create a "hierarchy of needs", or an algorithm that would automatically decide at check in whether the book would stay where it was returned, or be rerouted to another branch? The algorithm would go through the criteria everytime a book is returned, so you would be redistributing/balancing more gently, and continuously.
On Apr 23 at 12:55 PM, Phil F wrote:
Hi, Rick. This is exactly how it should work. Unfortunately, this is an enhancement that could really only come from the ILS vendor and developing good functionality for floating collections has never been a high priority for our vendor (SirsiDynix Horizon). Another thing to keep in mind is that it's pretty easy to redistribute material based soley on quantity...it's much more difficult to try to keep a floating collection balanced in terms of content.
On Mar 26 at 2:35 PM, Vivy wrote:
was the automatic system developed in house? can you share more details about how it works?
On Mar 29 at 12:22 PM, Phil F. wrote:
Hi, Vivy. Yes, the automatic system was developed in-house (although it is no longer in use at HCL). Essentially, a snapshot was taken every night to count the number of items on the shelf in each library. Each library has a pre-determined amount of shelf space the for collection in question. Comparing the number of items checked in to each library's "target" collection size, those libraries with a "surplus" were asked to pull a tub and send to a library in "deficit".
On Mar 29 at 12:51 PM, Vivy wrote:
Thank you Phil. Have you since come up with a better system to balance your floating collection?