Bob Buckwalter, Carrie Kent, Kathy Klemperer, Ted Pappadopoulos, Jon Rothman, Lynne Schmelz (chair), Hinda Sklar, Dorothy Solbrig, Judy Warnement, Robin Wendler (recording)
Absent:Marianne Burke, Michael Fitzgerald, Rod Goins, Eva Moseley, Mark Van Baalen
Guests:Larry Dowler, Suzanne Kemple, Mary Beth Kendrick, Barbara Mitchell
June 21, 10:00-12:00 OIS Conference Room
Barbara Mitchell presented a proposal to develop patron-initiated recall in HOLLIS. This function would allow a user to issue a request in HOLLIS that an item charged out to another patron be recalled. Now this function must be performed by staff at the circulation desk. This is a common function in automated library systems, and can be expected in HOLLIS II. Larry Dowler explained that part of the impetus for this request came from discussions in the FAS Library committee, where faculty have consistently asked for improvements in book availability, including changes in circulation policies to insure that more materials stay in the library and enhancements to speed up back- room functions which impact availability.
The proposal states that this capability is a logical follow-on to FETCHERRS, the project which will allow patron-initiated retrieval from HD. Kathy noted, however, that recalls are much more complex than retrieval from HD in that HOLLIS would have to reconcile the rules governing not only the requester's privileges, but also those of the current borrower and the owning library. It also requires a level of interaction between HOLLIS and HULPR which is not now supported. The difference in hours of operation between HOLLIS and HULPR would also pose some problems. Asked to quantify the work required, Kathy guessed that patron- initiated recall would require an additional 75% of the work FETCHERRS requires, or 2-3 man-months in addition to FETCHERRS 3- 4 man-months.
Jon Rothman questioned the wisdom of displaying the requester's address on the recall screen. Since only a name and Harvard ID would be necessary to issue a recall, it would not be a very secure transaction and displaying the address associated with the ID may not be desirable. HAAC agreed that the address should not be displayed.
Kathy raised the question of how this request relates to the final HOLLIS changes approved by the Automation Planning Committee and by HAAC and ULC last year. If this request is approved, where does it go in the queue of outstanding developments? If it goes at the end and therefore does not get programmed for a year or more, will it still be worth doing? If it is to be done sooner, what projects does it displace? How should this committee respond to future requests for additional development? If this request is approved, should other requests be entertained?
All HAAC members agreed that patron-initiated recall would be a valuable function and that this was a good proposal. Some members expressed reservations about the timing, and felt that OIS staff resources could be better spent working on developments which would be transferrable to HOLLIS II. HAAC agreed to forward the proposal to APC for discussion at its next meeting, asking that APC consider both the merits of the proposal and the practical implications of adding projects to the "final" HOLLIS changes list.
[NB: On 24 April, Larry Dowler requested that the proposal for patron-initiated recalls be withdrawn from consideration. After the discussion with HAAC, he decided that the time to have made the proposal had passed. He remains concerned, however, that HOLLIS II adequately address user needs for a sophisticated circulation system.]