By: Sue Driscoll

Sue Driscoll — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:55:41 +0000

What’s more interesting about this article is the idea of a coordinated effort between ILL and Acquisitions to purchase frequently requested items instead of borrowing them multiple times.

By: Arabella

Arabella — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 15:58:22 +0000

Let me see if I understand the UVM model correctly. They have bib records in their catalog for stuff they don’t currently own, but can presumably receive quickly if it’s selected. So presumably the item record (or whatever) instead of, like in Midcat, saying ‘Available’ would say something like ‘can be obtained.’ So the user who has searched and found such a record clicks on ‘can be obtained’ (or some similar process) and the order is placed.

This is significantly easier than our current ‘user request’ process which is to fill out a webform with the author, title, publisher, etc. Yet, a place the size of UVM has only done 600 such orders in two years? I really have nothing on which to base this, but it seems like we’ve probably matched or exceeded that (particularly if you correct for differences in user populations) with our comparatively ‘clunky’ request process, haven’t we? Just sayin’ ….

By: Carrie Macfarlane

Carrie Macfarlane — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 15:37:00 +0000

Interlibrary Loan — how it works and what’s on the horizon — sounds like a good topic for LISterine!

Comments on: New developments in on-demand purchasing

By: Sue Driscoll

By: Arabella

By: Carrie Macfarlane