Delivery Workflows Work Group Minutes

August 26, 2021, 10 am

Phone/video conference


Action Items:

Present: Renee Daley and Cassi Williams (co-representatives) (ROM; Cluster 1), Eddie Glade & Janet Schroeder (STP; Cluster 4; Self Check + RFID),  Eric Norton (MCM; Cluster 6; Self Check + RFID ), Stacey Burkart (VER; Cluster 8; Sorter + Self Check + RFID), Emily Noffke (MTH; Cluster 8; Self Check), Nate Snortum (co-representatives) (DCL; Clusters 9-10), Margie Navarre Saaf (MPL; Clusters 11-13; Self Check + RFID)
Excused: None
Absent: Roxanne Staveness (RIO; Cluster 2; RFID), Jennifer Foster (FCH; Cluster 8; Sorter + Self Check + RFID), Todd Cox (DCL; Clusters 9-10)
Recorder: Michelle Karls (SCLS)
SCLS Staff Present: Vicki Teal Lovely, Heidi Oliversen, Corey Baumann


1.      Call to Order at 10:03 am

a.      Introduction of guests/visitors

                                                              i.      None.

b.      Changes/Additions to the Agenda

                                                              i.      None.


2.      Approval of previous meeting minutes: June 24, 2021

a.      Motion:  M. Navarre Saaf moved approval of the June 24 meeting minutes.  E. Norton seconded.

b.      Discussion: none.

c.       Vote: motion carried.

3.      Approval of previous meeting minutes: July 22, 2021

a.      Motion: M. Navarre Saaf moved approval of the July 22 meeting minutes.  N. Snortum seconded.

b.      Discussion: none.

c.       Vote: motion carried.


4.      Action Items

a.      None.


5.      Discussion


a.      Jamboard

                                                              i.      Discussion: SCLS staff is not ready to start discussing presorting and holds sequences, which were listed on the Jamboard as important topics.  Today, we will go over the current Holds Sequence in LINKcat and Delivery route information.  H. Oliversen reviewed the Holds Sequence.  We have a linear holds sequence.  We have made tweaks over the years to try to get the system to do what we’re calling “clustering” in this linear sequence.  There is duplication of locations within the entire sequence.  H. Oliversen used the example of a BER patron.  The algorithm looks for available materials at that pickup location before moving through the holds sequence.  If there isn’t one, it moves through the sequence looking for an available item.  Once it’s found, it ends up on that library’s Hold Shelf report.  When the item is checked in at that location it is “trapped” for that hold request and foes into transit to the requesting patron’s pickup library.  There are a number of variables and it does not always seem to be hugely efficient.  We are open to talk, looking at it using the comments on the Jamboard to help to make it more efficient.  We can’t predict when an item will be returned (or where), so that is also a factor.  Our goal is to get the item in the patrons’ hands as soon as possible.  This is not a flaw in the software but related to the nature of how we share items.  We have simulated clustering 9by route, by county) as well as we can.  In other systems there is true clustering where it really does look at a group of libraries items first.  Unless we have pre-delivery sorting, clustering isn’t super important.  This will be discussed at the next meeting.  Does it take longer to fill a hold?  MCM and VER have had no patron complaints.  Patrons are just happy the library is open.  The delivery routes are similar to clustering libraries by county.  You can view this on our web site:        

b.      RFID tagging initiative.

                                                              i.      Discussion: There was great input for the RFID initiative (opportunities and challenges).  Opportunities seem to be from libraries who already do RFID tagging.  They have more patrons using self-check, it saves staff time and helps the open hold shelf experience for patrons.  The challenges are with tagging other library’s items.  H. Oliversen shared what we’ve done in the past few months to help with this.  RFID tagging web page.  Tracie Miller created documentation for libraries on how to tag items by format.  Over the years, libraries have had staff that have done some unique tagging placement.  We can send this information out again to library staff.  Are there things we can do to help for libraries that aren’t tagging RFID and with concerns of staffing issues?  SCLS has provided RFID tags to libraries that tag other libraries materials that come in to fill holds.  MAD has found this very helpful.  We hired Tracie Miller to develop project plans for libraries starting an RFID project with CARES grant funding.  She goes on site for the installation and trains the library’s staff.  She also developed very specific tagging guidelines for libraries new to tagging projects.  The CARES act allowed us to purchase tagging stations for many libraries but the libraries are responsible for annual maintenance fees after the first year.  We will try to assist libraries with their new tagging projects. What would you like to know from small libraries who just went through the process?  MTH wonders what are the benefits of this technology for smaller libraries?  Some staff mentioned it would help to tour a library with this workflow and see what the set-up looks like.  VER willing to giving interested staff a tour of their current operation.  MTH will talk to them and try to set that up.       

c.       November (25) and December (23) meeting dates – should they be changed?

                                                              i.      Discussion: It’s hard for SCLS staff to schedule this meeting for a different time.  We could put out a doodle for a meeting in Nov/Dec outside of the holidays.  Between those two dates?  We will work on that. 

6.      Plan for Next meeting: September 23, 2021

a.      Pre-sorting and Holds Sequence discussion


7.      Adjournment at 11:14 am.



For more information about the Delivery Workflows Work Group, contact Vicki Teal Lovely or Corey Baumann


Delivery Workflows Work Group/Minutes/08-2021