2018-05-24 Meeting notes

Stacy will be leaving. Will need another member from the RS committee. Will seek volunteers once the RS committee reconvenes

 Nikki has started a dashboard with the "most basic" CSU+ reports and is formatting them nicely

• created bins to make the lending and borrowing names match! will attempt to share them so you can apply them to any other RS report. Mallory thinks this is AMAZING.

Borrowing reports from other consortia for things like turn around time and fill rate might not be feasible or at least take a bit of experimentation and double checking to make sure the numbers are capturing what we expect. Since their formulas depend on the Num of Requests measure we'll have to ensure that Num of active partner requests can be used in these formulas instead and that it plays well with the filters applied.

Figuring out the actual number of "unfilled" requests will be challenging. When a request is submitted to Alma and is cancelled immediately due to a locate fail or failing to find active suppliers the request doesn't have an "active partner" so these requests should not appear in the Active partner request numbers. We will need to figure out an alternative.

• In Alma, looking in the resource sharing facet "cancelled by staff" there is no active partner assigned - these will usually have a partner called "None" even though some of the requests will have a . In the audit trail some of them are assigned an external ID but some are not.
• Perhaps we can count some feature that all the requests have and use that number for our calculations? 
  • Internal ID?
  • Creator?
  • These features all seem to produce different numbers of requests. We probably need to create a table that counts each of these things and then drill down a little further with titles/external IDs, etc. to see if the number of requests counted this way are being inflated at all.

• Nikki will move the dashboard to a shared folder so we can continue to throw in other reports that we borrow from other consortia making sure to use Num of Active partner requests instead of Num of Requests. We seem to be good at counting what we HAVE done (rather than what we were unable to do/acquire/fill) so let's start by finding reports that measure those types of things.

Mallory has created a report of overdue lending requests and ended up finding that there are some configuration issues at various campuses that are leading to CSU+ loans not being marked as lost. She has distributed instructions to update overdue/lost loan profiles to fix this problem and is hoping that allowing the lost item/billing process to run its course will reduce the number of long overdue CSU+ loans.

Nikki suggests having each institution run the reports for CSU+ loans returned but not received (or send the reports to each school) and check their shelves for these items. They may find quite a few items and this would clean up the numbers a bit.

• There is an issue when receiving items that a scan will close a pop up window so if a window pops up with a message for Item A (like send Item A back to the lending institution) and the person scanning doesn't see the message and scans Item B, this next scan will close the window and not check in Item B. So Item A and Item B will likely go back on the shelf and remain checked out and/or misplaced.

As far as assigning a financial value to the long overdue items - using the flat rate of $90 per item is advisable.

• Many many many item records don't have a replacement cost in the record so finding and inserting that replacement cost would be quite time consuming
• How does one assign a replacement cost to something out of print?
• If it cost $20 in 1975 item does not necessarily still cost $20