Local Holds Workgroup Notes

October 4, 2022, 11 am

Phone/video conference

Action Items:
None

Present: Erin Foley (ACL) Cluster 1, Cluster 2, Lindsey Ganz (COL) Cluster 2, Eddie Glade (PCPL) Cluster 4, Meagan Statz (PDS) Cluster 5, Jill Porter (MFD) Cluster 7, Bailey Anderson (BER) Cluster 8, Nate Snortum (DCL) Cluster 9-10, Molly Warren, Susan Lee, (MPL) Cluster 11-13

Absent: Renee Daley (ROM), Kendra Kimball (WID), Heidi Cox (MCF), Michael Spelman (MAD)

Excused: Margie Navarre-Saaf (MAD)

Recorder: Michelle Karls (SCLS)

SCLS Staff Present: Amy Gannaway, Heidi Oliversen, Vicki Teal Lovely, Cindy Weber

1. Call to Order at 11:04 am

a. Introduction of guests/visitors.  None.

b. Changes/Additions to the Agenda.  VTL – review draft survey to SCLS libraries as 3e. 

2. Approval of previous meeting notes: 9/6/2022

a. Motion: E. Foley moved approval of the September meeting minutes.  S. Lee seconded.

b. Discussion: none

c. Vote: motion carried. 

3. Discussion

a. Updates from libraries.

i. Discussion: B. Anderson reported that a few BER patrons have expressed that they like that there are more new titles on their shelves.  One patron was hold #900 and they got the title right away and were very grateful.  This was entered in the response form. Another patron who usually relies on staff to place holds really appreciates Local Holds/Use.  E. Glade reported feedback from PCPL and branches. STP staff haven’t heard a lot either way from their patrons. Laura at ALM believes local holds are not really helpful for their branch because they are so small. 75 percent of new books are just sitting on the shelf.  PLO reported mixed reaction.  ROS is enjoying it.  They reported that 25 percent of titles stay on their shelf while 75 percent of these items are checked out by patrons. J. Porter reported being stopped by a common council member after a recent meeting and asked about this project. She explained the concept of the Local Holds/Use project and they were very pleased.  They (council member) have been reluctant in the past to place holds. MFD recently changed their 90 day setting for Local Holds/Use to 60 days. They were the original pilot library. 

b. Review draft of Survey to send to Wisconsin public library systems (and libraries).

i. Discussion: H. Oliversen reviewed the draft and the comments that were submitted.  Most responses said it was OK and there were just a few suggestions.  There were no additional changes from the group. 

c. Further discussion about proposing the extension of Local Holds/Use pilot project.

i. Discussion: V. Teal Lovely reported this came up at the meeting last month.  It was sent to IC and LINKcat library directors.  We are hoping clusters have had the opportunity to discuss and that it can be voted on at the IC meeting tomorrow. It will shift the timeline if this is extended.  The wording for the extension won’t include a date of an All Directors meeting, this can be set by the ILS Committee. The recommendation pertains to how the vote will be taken (weighted at All Directors or cluster votes at the IC).  We have found a software functionality problem that impacts the project slightly so we also need time to review it and work through it.  E. Foley understands the concerns about extending the pilot.  She asked, would libraries be more comfortable if we included more than one format in the pilot? We are only looking at one type of data. ACL would like to have DVDs added as an option because they are heavy use items. ACL staff would also like to be able to extend this to their hotspot lending ability in the future. This is perhaps a separate discussion topic; H. Oliversen will contact E. Foley.  ACL would like to see the libraries in control of what items to choose for Local Holds/Use.  B. Anderson reported confusion in cluster 8 about the reason for the extension. Hopefully this will be discussed at the cluster meeting. J. Porter wants to extend the pilot because we do not have enough data. The software limitations prevent MAD from being able to participate and we have to keep in mind that this may skew the data. S. Lee pointed out the software development wouldn’t be completed during the pilot. It would need to work going forward.  V. Teal Lovely said that if there a commitment to move forward, development takes about a year after you write the spec. MAD might not be able to participate right away. MAD is OK with extending the pilot. E. Glade asked if there are separate things we want to test like a different format or parameters. Would it make sense to call this pilot finished and then start a new one? What improvements can be made with the current software? We haven’t tackled this yet. The Multipart DVD workgroup process took longer than we originally thought it would so we could deep dive into the issues. That project had support for around half of the libraries. Some members of that workgroup changed their viewpoint because they worked so closely with the issues and the focus was on consensus.  V. Teal Lovely recommends that we not start a new pilot. She indicated that we understand that adding more formats is the ideal for both testing and evaluating, but this would result in issues with software, workflow, and management.  Also, we just began the Multi-part DVD change and it might affect data. E. Foley reported DVDs have always been an issue for their library. They buy two of everything. This project may effect Dane County less because of streaming.  ACL has internet issues so the DVDs are still very popular.  They want to give each library a chance to personalize Local Holds/Use to their library and patron needs. We can possibly extend to other formats after the pilot and if Local Holds/Use passes. It is helpful to know that there may be other uses (local hotspots). 

d. Review data Tim is able to provide.

i. Discussion: C. Weber presented the data today as T. Drexler is out at training.  He was able to add the September data, so we are looking at three months of data. The first tabs were the number of holds filled against number of days it took to fill them (does include some suspended holds that weren’t active the whole time).  There is not much discernable difference.  There is a peak in between 4 and 7 days and this has not changed for years.  The overall number of holds filled is going down but that is a trend that has been happening for years.  We are filling holds faster on average than prior years but there is not much difference.  The difference between the Total Loaned for the net lending libraries and Total Borrowed for the net borrowing libraries has also narrowed but this was also a bit of a trend before the Local Holds pilot.  Monthly vs. Weekly Item Circulation, Loaned vs. Borrowed and Percent Checkout all with Pilot vs. Non-pilot libraries were included in the dashboard.  Link to the dashoard: https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/scls/viz/LocalHoldsPilotProjectPreliminaryData/DaystoFillFrequencyDistributionDots

e. VTL – survey for SCLS Libraries

i. Discussion: V. Teal Lovely went over the draft survey.  The results will be discussed at the November All Directors meeting.  (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_XmiN0Dm2lZ4-Uh3IjGzVUK8avIRS03GY6xhu5cAyd4/edit?usp=sharing).  RTH has a major effect on distribution of holds, but perhaps not everyone understands how it works. The system looks to see if a check-in location has an active hold for that item placed within 60 days of the first active hold. In the pilot, we discovered that RTH trumps the Local Holds hold policy. The goal of this work group is to reach consensus, and perhaps compromises can be made. You can add comments to this document. What are people concerned about the most? We might be able to have results by the November meeting if it is sent out next week.    

4. Action Items

a. None.

5. Review Timeline

1. April 6, ILS Committee discuss project and approve forming a work group

2. Form work group to identify issues to study (including data)

3. May 3, Work group meets

4. May 10, Circulation Services Subcommittee: discuss parameters for pilot

5. May 17, Work Group meets

6. May 19, All Directors—update on project

7. May 24, Work Group meets

8. June 1, ILS Committee vote on pilot project (June 15 through December 30)

9. If pilot is approved, the project progresses as follows

10. Recruit pilot project participants and begin setup

11. July 1, Pilot project begins

12. Work group continues to meet to study issues through November 30

13. July 21, All Directors—update on project

14. October 5, ILS Committee decides if vote should be done by ILS Committee cluster reps at November 17 All Director’s meeting or December 7 ILS Committee

15. November 17 All Directors meeting: Work group provide information on project

16. November 17 or December 7 vote

17. December 30, pilot ends

6. Plan for Next meeting:  November 1, 2022 at 11 am via phone/video conference

a. Adding other formats to the pilot project (ACL)

7. Adjournment at 12:35 pm

Parking Lot:

a. Marketing / Talking points for patrons—done for pilot; tabled for now

b. Data—tabled for now

For more information about the Local Holds Workgroup, contact Heidi Oliversen.

SCLS staff are available to attend cluster meetings to share information and answer questions pertaining to this committee meeting and other departmental projects.

Local Holds Workgroup/Notes/10-04-2022