These are raw notes from the 4 focus groups for Acquisitions/Serials that PINES held throughout Georgia. There was attendance by non-PINES libraries, academic libraries, and vendors. These bullets should be treated as thinking and discussion points, and not as a cohesive design document or roadmap. Some of these express desired features, or gripes with existing systems, and some are just questions that got posed. There may be duplicate and contradicting points.
ISBN (but not attached to many media records) Choices…OCLC # Title Author Pub Date ISBN – 10 or 13 digits (must handle both)
University of Windsor has committed to be the Evergreen development partner for Acq.
Baker & Taylor VP for product development also in the audience.
Evergreen starter list on core Acquisitions “Circle of Fulfillment” functionality:
What about Amazon? Windsor uses Amazon heavily; most of the PLs in this audience do not. When used, price and delivery are important. Amazon orders in the SE may be filled from B&T warehouse in Georgia. Amazon is not used by many libraries because its billing model doesn't work as well as traditional book vendors.
Art Rhyno brings a business perspective because he and his wife run a small business (newspaper); he sees OSS OffBiz as a possible component of the Acquisitions module of Evergreen.
B&T envisages a delivery system (“license plating”) where the order/invoice information will be represented on a barcode or RFID on the outside of the box, tied to ASN (Advance Shipping Notification). Interest expressed in using RFID tags on items to allow scanning and receiving without opening the box. Vendor error rates are critical for this to work; B&T reports their error rate is 0.2%; i.e, 99.8% accuracy. In a batch receiving process of this sort, library staff need special notifications for exception handling; e.g., rush, hold, special bookplates, etc. However, whenever possible, items should be able to go from receiving directly to shelf with as little intervention as possible; i.e. bypassing cataloging.
B&T argues that there is an insufficient business case for EDI-based monograph order claiming; therefore, claiming functions in the local acq system are an important functional requirement.
Extended discussion and mixed messages on accepting holds for on-order materials because of delayed fulfillment, cancellations, lots of holds on high-demand materials, etc.
The Acq system should be able to provide a single user interface to both the local system and multiple vendor systems, based on web services. Search, select, and order, but enter data once, no matter which vendor actually gets the order. This is impractical for dealing with smaller vendors (esp. without online presences), but would reduce learning requirements for staff, who would only have to learn the local system, rather than each vendor separately.
PINES does not currently permit batch loading of catalog records, but this is a policy issue (to minimize duplicates), not an Evergreen design constraint.
Partial receipts and partial payments complicate things, especially when multiple funds are involved, and credits are needed for damaged/wrong items.
% not fulfilled analyze vendor performance time frames damaged goods
I think one of the most important features and one of the biggest challenges of an acquisitions system will be standardizing as much as possible, yet allowing local control and flexibility over accounts. Acquisitions will need much more local leeway than a circulation or opac.
We use a home grown system with drop down boxes for budget year, fund name, branch, type of material, and category (adult, juv, etc). We are then able to manipulate the data for each purchase order, and each copy within that purchase order. We can easily correct and change any one piece of data.