Answer the following for each workflow step:
- Can this be dealt with remotely, or do we need stacks access?
- How often does this need to be reviewed?
- Can a regular process be built?
Workflow Steps:
- Request communicated to remote storage
- Pickup from shelf
- On hold shelf
- Transit item
- Undefined
- Waiting for Remote Storage
- In process
4/2/20 Updates
- About half In Process–seem to be cataloging
- About half In Transit–a large portion originated in Technical Services
4/17/20 Updates
- 18,000 items in transit to off-site storage
- 12,000 items in transit to RD
- Collection management workflows from the last 6 months
- Is this stuff sitting somewhere that hasn’t been sent and/or processed
- What is the end product of this work?
- Jackson Childs Recommendation of how each category should be reviewed going forward.
- ReCAP data is now in Cognos
- Send the list as a ticket and cross-compare to Cognos data
- Is there stuff at Iron Mountain? Believe everything has been sent. But Amy can confirmed.
- ReCAP is not staffed, so they aren’t accessioning
- Patron physical item hold requests that were really old. Do they need review? Jackson: doesn’t seem to be a large number.
- 20,000 transit to reshelving seems to be originating from Tech Services. Is this part of their workflow? They could be on the shelves… are there outstanding work orders.
4/30/20 Updates
- List of items in transit to offsite storage (18K items) sent 4/20/20 to LTS so they can run a batch check of items at depository. Awaiting response.
- List of items in transit to Resource Sharing, Borrow Direct, and ILL (~10K items) given to Resource Sharing for review. Possibly most or all of these items can be deleted. Awaiting response to see is RS can batch check items that have been removed from their system.
- Spreadsheet of workflow steps updated.
- Undefined requests are being reviewed individually.
- Approximately 20K in transit requests appeared to have originated in Technical services unit. Many of these appear to have internal or temporary barcodes, suggesting the items were not in hand. We need to develop a communication strategy for collaborating with these units to reduce or move these requests. We should also consider creating a best practices document going forward that would exclude creating an "in transit" request before the item is actually in transit to the permanent location.
4/30/20 FuWG Meeting notes:
- Jackson set some lists to LTS, made updates to the page, emailed a list to Jason for items in transit to RS
- "Undefined requests" with 3,000 requests
- Some are to pseudopatrons, some aren't
- Most are on loan
- Some of these items were lost in Aleph, but the status was different, and then they were no longer lost in Alma
- Not much ExLibris documentation on these types of request, hoping to learn more
- Option for resolution: if they are really old requests, we could probably delete them; apply the Absent Items workflow to these items
- In Transit from Tech Services
- Many have temporary barcodes
- Suspect that the request status was being used in "not the best way" given that these requests haven't been cleared
- From Jaime: The transit to reshelving charges would need to be reviewed, but many are probably on red trucks in Widener waiting to be checked in, in bins/pallets of bins at HD waiting to be accessioned, and/or in boxes at ReCAP from DTD workflows waiting to be scanned in.
- Priorities for now:
- End Goal: How often do these queues need to be reviewed for cleanup? What is the process for future cleanup?
- Old patron requests
- Waiting for Remote Storage
5/14/20 FuWG Meeting notes:
12/14/20 FWG Meeting action items:
- Put copy fo Jackson's report onto the project page's wiki
- Amy Boucher brings recommendations to ELT – particularly regular maintenance of "old" requests
- Jason Clarke , or surrogate, should look at some of these "in transit RS" requests to make sure NCIP is working as expected
- KY to cancel stale LOST requests; waiting on list
- KY to cancel all requests older than 1 year if possible? Waiting on list
4/8/21 FWG Meeting review