Enabling patron digitization requests is one of those (new) exciting services that end users appreciate! Alma allows patrons and staff members to request the creation of a digital file for any physical or electronic item. Alma digitization request workflow is configurable according to the library’s requirements, created via Alma or Primo, partial or full, limited to some user groups, limited in numbers, with or without approval process, digitized materials added to collections and made accessible to registered and/or guest users via Primo, etc. So Alma libraries can deal with a lot of different options to satisfy their patrons' needs.
This session will present the development and launch of digital fulfillment from the perspective of 3 institutions (the University of Otago Library, the University of Liege Library, and the University of Sheffield Library) focusing on the strategic choices that were made, the implementation, and the final delivery of the services to their communities.
Yes we can! Implementing digitization requests in Alma
1. Yes we can!
Implementing digitization
requests in Alma
IGeLU 2016 Conference Trondheim
September 5-7, 2016
François Renaville, University of Liege Library
Helen Brownlie, University of Otago Library
Simon Read, University of Otago Library
Chris Jones, University of Sheffield Library
2. Contents
•Introduction
• Implementation and Experience at:
• University of Otago Library
• University of Liege Library
• University of Sheffield Library
• General Conclusions
3
Yeswecan!ImplementingdigitizationrequestsinAlma
3. Introduction
• Patron digitization requests ?
• Just meeting end users’ needs and expectations
• Already largely implemented in many institutions
• Alma workflow configurable according to the library’s requirements:
• created via Alma or the discovery interface?
• partial or full digitization requests?
• limited to some user groups, limited in numbers…?
• with or without approval process?
• digitized materials delivered or deposited?
• …
• Here is a description of the development and launch of digital
fulfillment from the perspective of 3 institutions
4
Yeswecan!ImplementingdigitizationrequestsinAlma
4. Contents
• Introduction
•Implementation and Experience at:
• University of Otago Library
• University of Liege Library
• University of Sheffield Library
• General Conclusions
5
Yeswecan!ImplementingdigitizationrequestsinAlma
6. University of Otago
• Founded in 1869 – New Zealand’s first University
• Four academic divisions: Humanities, Sciences, Health Sciences and
Business
• 20,601 students (18,421 EFTS)
• 3,803 (FTE) staff
• More than 185 undergraduate and postgraduate programmes.
• Campuses located in
• Invercargill
• Dunedin (Main campus)
• Christchurch
• Wellington
• Auckland 7
Yeswecan!ImplementingdigitizationrequestsinAlma
7. University of Otago Library
• Dunedin campus
• 6 libraries and 2 storage buildings. One includes the bindery
• Education Library is a joint library with the Otago Polytechnic
• Libraries at
• Southland campus
• Christchurch Medical campus + 2 branch libraries at the District Health Board
• Wellington Medical campus
• Library systems
• 1988 Dynix
• 2003 Voyager + Serials Solutions products including Summon
• 2013 Alma + Primo + Primo Central
• Library services to
• University staff and students,
• Otago Polytechnic
• 2 district health boards 8
Yeswecan!ImplementingdigitizationrequestsinAlma
8. Vision for Digitisation Requests
• One process for requesting items irrespective of:
• Format
• Physical
• Digital
• Location
• On campus
• Off-campus
• Streamline staff workflows
9
Yeswecan!ImplementingdigitizationrequestsinAlma
9. Where we came from
• Web forms used to enable digitisation requests for:
• Distance students
• Staff
• Items in Storage
• Library staff retrieve the items from shelves, scan
and deliver via email
• Different teams were responsible for different
workflows
10
Yeswecan!ImplementingdigitizationrequestsinAlma
10. Alma Implementation Phase
• Decision was made to
• Focus on core functionality only
• Other services to be implemented at a later date
• Good decision
• Implementation and post go live was a very busy
time – there was no time to look at value added
services
• Digitisation functionality not fully formed at go live
(late 2013) 11
Yeswecan!ImplementingdigitizationrequestsinAlma
11. Testing Round One (2014)
• Major issue quickly found
• Digitisation requests could not be placed on titles
with multiple holdings (of which we have many)
• Showstopper
• Testing stopped until issue resolved in August 2015
12
Yeswecan!ImplementingdigitizationrequestsinAlma
12. Testing Round Two (August 2015)
• Testing resumed in August 2015
• Another issue found
• Unable to place requests on titles with holdings but
no items
• Not a show stopper
• Moved into implementation phase
13
Yeswecan!ImplementingdigitizationrequestsinAlma
13. Go Live (December 2015)
• Despite all testing another problem was discovered
• Overnight job was cancelling some requests
• Turned digitisation functionality off while it was
investigated
• Decided to turn job off until bug could be resolved –
back up and running two weeks later
• Bug resolved in February 2016 release
14
Yeswecan!ImplementingdigitizationrequestsinAlma
14. Setup – Keeping it Simple
• Chose to keep the process very simple.
• Not implemented:
• Approvals
• Copyright
• Specific citation fields in Primo request form
15
Yeswecan!ImplementingdigitizationrequestsinAlma
15. Setup – Setting Policy
• Supporting 4 institutions across 12 Libraries
• Wanted to enable most types of users to request as
much of the collection as possible
• Needed to prevent some material from being
requested
• Audiovisual (Videos, CDs, tapes etc.)
• Maps
• Special Collections (rare books)
• Small branches without scanning capability
16
Yeswecan!ImplementingdigitizationrequestsinAlma
16. Setup
• Each branch that is able to scan is setup as a Digitisation Department –
no need to transit to a Centralised Digitisation Department
17
Yeswecan!ImplementingdigitizationrequestsinAlma
17. Setup – Fulfillment Policies
• Principle of setting up Fulfillment policies
straightforward in theory but difficult in practice
due to all our exceptions
18
Yeswecan!ImplementingdigitizationrequestsinAlma
18. Workflow
• User places request (Primo or Alma)
19
Yeswecan!ImplementingdigitizationrequestsinAlma
19. Workflow II
• Request goes into Pick List at holding branch
• Item retrieved and scanned through returns or scan
in items
20
Yeswecan!ImplementingdigitizationrequestsinAlma
20. Workflow III
• Request goes to the Manage In Process Items
queue while the Article/Chapter is being scanned
• At this point we determine if there are any copyright
issues
21
Yeswecan!ImplementingdigitizationrequestsinAlma
21. Workflow IV
• Request filled – email sent to user
22
Yeswecan!ImplementingdigitizationrequestsinAlma
22. End Result
• Mission accomplished
• Simplified workflows
• Common process for physical and digitisation
requests
• Standardised workflow for staff for physical and
digitisation requests
• All staff activity happens within Alma
• Uptake of service is manageable
• Approx 200 filled requests per month
23
Yeswecan!ImplementingdigitizationrequestsinAlma
23. Contents
• Introduction
•Implementation and Experience at:
• University of Otago Library
• University of Liege Library
• University of Sheffield Library
• General Conclusions
24
Yeswecan!ImplementingdigitizationrequestsinAlma
24. University of Liege (ULg)
• Founded in 1817 by William I of the Netherlands
• 10 Faculties and 1 School
• More than 20,000 students
• 3,300 lecturers and researchers
• 38 bachelor and 193 master degrees
• 4 campuses:
Liège Sart-Tilman (main campus)
Liège City centre
Gembloux
Arlon
25
Yeswecan!ImplementingdigitizationrequestsinAlma
+ Library services to the University Hospital
25. University of Liege Library
26
Yeswecan!ImplementingdigitizationrequestsinAlma
Infrastructure
• 5 Main Libraries
• = 15 library branches spread on the
4 campuses
• + 1 Remote Storage
Print Collections
• Largest academic print collection in French-speaking Belgium
• More than 2,000,000 books
• Still ca 700,000 older books which are not catalogued
• More than 5,000 print subscriptions
• More than 50,000 ceased print subscriptions
• More than 50,000 maps
• More than 1,450,000 items in Alma (books, maps, theses, issues…)
Staff
About 115 people
(ca 82 FTE)
26. The Alma Adventure
• Live with Alma in February 2015 (Alma-P and Alma-E)
• Using Aleph and SFX since 2006 and Primo since 2013
• Some priorities in the implementation phase:
1) Going live with all existing services already existing
2) Adding some new Alma related services at the very beginning
• Physical item requests prepared by the library staff (Pick from shelf)
• When we moved to Aleph in 2006, the idea of such a service was not really
appreciated by the library staff (extra load of work, etc.) -> finally not launched
• 10 years later:
• Times and librarians' conceptions of services have changed!
• Picking up items from the shelf on behalf of the patrons highly supported by library & staff
3) Progressively launching new additional services for end users
• Patron digitization requests with Alma
• (Patron digitization requests already existed, but only in a limited context)
27
Yeswecan!ImplementingdigitizationrequestsinAlma
27. Many questions before starting
28
Yeswecan!ImplementingdigitizationrequestsinAlma
• Partial digitization request or full digitization request, or both?
• Digitized Content Management? Delivery or deposit, or both?
• Any publication date limit (only public domain)?
• Any material type ?
What service?
• For which users?
• For what cost for the end user?
• Any concurrent digitization requests limit?
• Request type: only internal or also for RS requests?
Users?
• Staff digitization request or Patron digitization request, or both?
• Working with institutional Digitization departments (Work Orders) or at the Library/Circulation desk
level (‘Supports Digitization’ checkbox), or both?
• Implementing Copyright clearance or not?
• Implementing Approval processing or not?
What workflow?
• Consistent with the Belgian and European authors’ rights?
• Situational analysis of the existing scanners in the libraries (buying new ones?)
• Conflict with the existing digital repository DONum (http://donum.ulg.ac.be) harvested in Primo?
External factors
Internal analysis of what could be done with the Alma digitization processes:
Thanks to Hassan Bougrine for this analysis!
28. Testing
• Beside the analysis, several tests made on Alma Sandbox (not Premium)
and on Alma Production
• Tests were important:
• Being sure the workflow is understood
• Experimenting what would be “the best” for us
• Configuration
• What new configuration is necessary? (Letters…)
• Any rethinking of the existing Alma configuration? -> User groups
• Discovering any limit or issue in the digitization process
• Not an Alma-D customer!
• Deposit may not be a real option
• Issues led to SF cases
29
Yeswecan!ImplementingdigitizationrequestsinAlma
29. Finally
30
Yeswecan!ImplementingdigitizationrequestsinAlma
KISSprinciple
Only Patron digitization requests
Only Partial requests (journal articles, book chapters)
Only for Faculty and Staff users only (-> new Alma User Group)
Maximum 3 concurrent patron digitization requests
No approval or copyright clearance process
Only delivery (via e-mail)
Free of charge for users
• Final report and test results discussed within the Alma Project Team before
submission to the Board of Directors
+ Also used within the RS framework
+ For large files (>10 Mo), use of the institutional transfer system Merci
+ Within a pilot phase from March 2016 until end of 2016
• Proposal approved by the Library Board of Directors (Sept. 2015)
• Unknown: any extra load of work for the library staff?
30. Issue #1
Placing digitization requests on holdings without items in Primo
(SF #00178623)
• Titles with no inventory for their holdings do not provide a title-level Digitization
Request option in Primo.
• -> Very problematic because older physical journal holdings where there is no item
information cannot be requested with the Digitization service.
• Gap in the functionality also raised by Univ Otago and Univ Sheffield
Long-term solution:
• Adding an option for General Digitization Requests is in the current Alma roadmap
• But Ex Libris cannot give a timeline for this enhancement
Short-term (and local) solution:
• Adding a dummy item to SE holdings with no item
• -> More than 48,000 dummy items created
• Not always clear for end users…
31
Yeswecan!ImplementingdigitizationrequestsinAlma
31. Issue #2
Sending e-mails from Alma with an attachment
(SF #00162795)
• When sending emails from Alma to patron/staff with attachments (Analytics
reports, digitization results, fees reports…), attachments are accessible on the
webmail (Zimbra), but not when using e-mail desktops like Thunderbird or
Outlook
• Outlook: attachment visible when "Attached Security by Mode" is checked
and set to "Default“
• Thunderbird: "Show All Body Parts" and associated plugin activated
• -> Clearly not a behavior we can expect from the end users!
• Vey problematic: New Digitization service cannot be launched!
Solution:
• Long discussion with Ex Libris
• Issue prioritized and fixed in Q1 2016 (Feb 2016 release)
32
Yeswecan!ImplementingdigitizationrequestsinAlma
32. Issue #3
Partial Digitization Requests (#00184475)
• By default, when creating a patron Digitization request in Alma, the request
is considered as FULL
• One has to add a "Partial Digitization" request attribute
• = additional action required from staff (Alma) or patrons (Primo)
• We would have liked…
• Customers to be able to choose between "Full Digitization" and "Partial
Digitization" by default when creating a Digitization request
• Alma administrators able to define a default digitization request type
• Submitted on Idea Exchange
• Completed by Ex Libris for Primo FE (Alma FF General Config > Other
Settings > uresolver_partial_digitization_default_value = true)
and effective with Alma May release 2016
33
Yeswecan!ImplementingdigitizationrequestsinAlma
33. Alma configuration
• Existing configuration updated (December 2015):
• User Groups were revised to better isolate Faculty and University staff users
• ‘Update/Notify Users’ job
• New configuration (February 2016):
• Digitization Workflow Rules
• New Fulfillment Unit to allow non-holdable and non-circulable items to be
digitally requested
• Digitization departments managed by Circulation Desk
• FulDigitizationNotificationItemLetter.xsl strongly customized
• Alma skin for the GetIt tab
• Digitization Request Copyright Declaration (May 2016 release)
34
Yeswecan!ImplementingdigitizationrequestsinAlma
34. Trainings & Communication
• Training sessions given to the staff in March 2016
• Not all Circ Desk Ope’s are in charge of digitization request fulfillment
• Internal communication
• Putting the library staff’s mind at rest about the new service:
fear of extra load of work among some colleagues
• External communication
• First to the 5 libraries’ management board members
• Then to the University Faculty and staff
• News on the library website
• Link to a User Satisfaction Survey in the Digitization Notification letter
• Finally launched on March 23, 2016. 35
Yeswecan!ImplementingdigitizationrequestsinAlma
37. Usage Statistics
100
69 65
25
47
0
50
100
150
April 2016 May 2016 June 2016 July 2016 August 2016
Number of Completed Digitization Requests
38
Yeswecan!ImplementingdigitizationrequestsinAlma
• Only 306 Completed Digitization Requests in 5 months
• Compared to 4,340 physical item requests for the same period of time
• For journal articles in ca 85%
• No real extra load of work!!
• More Digitization Requests are expected from mid-September (new semester)
38. Usage Statistics from the survey
Speed delivery?
91%
9%
0%
Excellent Acceptable Slow
Scan Quality?
62%
34%
2% 2%
Good quality Acceptable
Bad No opinion
39
Yeswecan!ImplementingdigitizationrequestsinAlma
39. Conclusions & Perspectives
• (Major) issues had to be fixed before launching the service
• Not so difficult to implement (at our level)
• Fear of extra load of work unfounded
• Service much appreciated by the University community
• Pilot phase is not finished:
• Expanded to other User groups?
• Expanded to Full digitization?
• …
40
Yeswecan!ImplementingdigitizationrequestsinAlma
40. Contents
• Introduction
•Implementation and Experience at:
• University of Otago Library
• University of Liege Library
• University of Sheffield Library
• General Conclusions
41
Yeswecan!ImplementingdigitizationrequestsinAlma
41. University of Sheffield
42
Yeswecan!ImplementingdigitizationrequestsinAlma
Students Staff
27,000 students:
19,000 Undergraduate
2,700 Postgraduate Research
5,300 Postgraduate Taught
7,802 total
1,366 Academic
University of Sheffield, England, United Kingdom
University charter in 1905; Firth College founded in 1879
with origins to 1828
6 Faculties: Arts and Humanities; Engineering; Medicine,
Dentistry and Health; Science; Social Sciences; and
International Faculty, City College, Thessaloniki, Greece.
42. University of Sheffield Library
43
Yeswecan!ImplementingdigitizationrequestsinAlma
Library network:
• Western Bank Library
• Information Commons
• The Diamond
• Royal Hallamshire Health Science Library
• Northern General Health Science Library
Print Collection
• 1,300,000 volumes
Staff
About 128 staff
Vision
“The University of Sheffield Library is a world class, dynamic research library
inspiring intellectual discovery and learning, and the creation of new knowledge within the
complex information universe. We offer engaging experiences with people and content that
enrich the University’s learning and research communities in both physical and digital spaces.
We connect with the city and the region, and through our networks, advance global
scholarship.”
43. Our Services
44
Yeswecan!ImplementingdigitizationrequestsinAlma
Service and collection ethos:
• Request-led service (at shelf requesting) for many years
• Dynamic variable loan (demand reflects loan length)
• Content strategy favouring e-first
• Active print management (ZNCG)
Alma Go live June 2013 (Early Adopter)
• Implemented auto-renewal
• Requests drives availability (recall)
• Launched No More Fines 2015
44. Digitisation on Demand
45
Yeswecan!ImplementingdigitizationrequestsinAlma
• Prior to and following Alma go live, we reviewed all potential uses of
demand-driven digitisation and delivery for our content, including all
service stakeholders/collection holders:
• University Library
• Customer Services Team (myDocuments)
• Learning Resources Section (Eoffprints – course readings)
• National Fairground Archive (NFA)
• Special Collections and Archives
facilitated by Digital Services & Systems Team
45. Review Outcomes
46
Yeswecan!ImplementingdigitizationrequestsinAlma
Excluded:
Deposit workflow (Alma-D) - Digitisation on demand was focused
on direct delivery to customers
NFA, Special Collections – collection discoverability and item
condition assessment workflow challenges not easily addressed for a
mass service. Their customer requirements were established and
different, so not a core requirement.
Eoffprints – UK Copyright Licensing Agency provides institutional
licence for course readings required by course leaders. Alma did not
have necessary reporting/course request management. Though
potential overlap with student demand on course materials remains.
• Sheffield became development partner in CLA/DCS.
• (Reviewing course reserves/reading list).
46. Service proposal
(Initial,Autumn 2014)
47
Yeswecan!ImplementingdigitizationrequestsinAlma
myDocs - Existing “MyDocuments” service identified as best match to
Patron Digitisation Request functionality. Complements existing Customer
Services Team work for Patron physical item requests.
Charging model - myDocuments charging model, i.e. £3.00 per request up to
30 pages. The new service would be free
Approval required; scans to be processed and delivered
Customer usergroups - for pilot parallel service
Part-time Undergraduates
Postgraduate Taught students
Distance Learners
Material types included
Monographs at IC/WBL/RHH/NGH/SGL.
Excluding Special Collections and National Fairground Archive holdings
47. Digitisation on Demand
48
Yeswecan!ImplementingdigitizationrequestsinAlma
Dependencies in 2014 - Alma functionality enhancements
1. Primo/Alma Request dialogue - Customer Experience
(high priority enhancement case 101137)
Original Primo ‘Get it’ request dialogue is unclear to potential
customers and provided no guidance about the service they may be
using, terms of use, etc.
48. Digitisation on Demand
49
Yeswecan!ImplementingdigitizationrequestsinAlma
2. Monitoring - the legal and administrative framework
(high priority enhancement case: 102441)
Monitoring tools are important to a fully integrated workflow which is
copyright compliant and avoids duplication of effort in approval/clash
with CLA course readings digitisation.
Initially the level of monitoring/alerting on other requests was very
basic, and did not allow a digitization request approver to make a fully
informed decision about whether a given request can be approved.
The ‘copyrights clearance’ workflow not relevant to UK CLA workflows.
Analytics reporting could to support some checking of requests being
received, but this is not an integrated workflow.
49. Digitisation on Demand
50
Yeswecan!ImplementingdigitizationrequestsinAlma
3. Approval - Workflow practicalities
(high priority enhancement cases: 101113 & 101122)
As a physical-request driven service, it was important to prevent
requests proceeding to the pickup from shelf stage before being
approved; and also good practice - avoiding wasted staff effort for
inadmissible requests.
We considered that successful piloting of patron
digitisation would be dependent on working with Ex
Libris to make the above enhancements live in the
system.
50. Enhancements and fixes
(2015-2016)
51
Yeswecan!ImplementingdigitizationrequestsinAlma
February 2015
– Dedicated ‘part to digitise’ field
<---------------------Feb 2015 wider staff testing---------------------------->
August & November 2015, & May 2016
-Digitization Profile Rules and options
A. Digitized Content Management
• Deposit
• Document delivery
• Remote digital storage
B. Approval/Copyrights Clearance Processing
i) Approval
ii) Copyrights Clearance
51. 52
Yeswecan!ImplementingdigitizationrequestsinAlma
March 2016 - Enhanced form for Partial Digitization Requests
• display_additional_digitization_attributes
• Chapter/Article Title
• Chapter/Article Author
• Start Page
• End Page
• Full Chapter
May 2016 - Request form customization
• Fulfillment config/Discovery Interface Display Logic
May 2016 - Requesting Copyright Agreement for Digitization Requests
• DigitizationRequestCopyrightDeclaration.html
May 2016 – Default to partial requests in Primo
• Fulfillment config/General/Other settings/ row 61 - uresolver_partial_digitization_default_value
52. The way forward...
53
Yeswecan!ImplementingdigitizationrequestsinAlma
After final staff testing, the service is ready to pilot in academic year 2016-
17, from 1 October 2016. Review after Christmas.
Service aims: added value service to our users
Staff time: keen to innovate; we are seeing a trend of decreasing physical
item requests
Outstanding Issues
• Major drawback that titles with no physical items cannot be requested –
this prevent opening up our journal collections to requests which is a
major use case for a research-led institution.
• The alerting for approval and the reporting could be much better for
trying to detect potential copyright issues/ not needing analytics.
53. Contents
• Introduction
• Implementation and Experience at:
• University of Otago Library
• University of Liege Library
• University of Sheffield Library
•General Conclusions
54
Yeswecan!ImplementingdigitizationrequestsinAlma
54. General Conclusions
• Appreciated service and added value service to the users!
• Flexibility in Alma for different scenarios and workflows (even if not
Alma-D)
• Not that difficult to implement, not much to configure, but
configuration setup can be complicated depending on the options being
implemented
• Implementation phase longer than expected because of issues
• Many exchanges with Ex Libris (and on Alma-L)
• Issues had first to be fixed by Ex Libris
• Or bypassed by the library
• Some experience shows no real extra load of work for the staff
55
Yeswecan!ImplementingdigitizationrequestsinAlma
55. Useful references
• Ex Libris Knowledge Center - Digitization Processing
• http://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Alma/Product_Documentation/Alma_O
nline_Help_(English)/Fulfillment/040Resource_Requests/070Digitization_Pro
cessing
• Ex Libris Knowledge Center - Digitization Presentation:
• http://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/@api/deki/files/41894/Fulfillment_-
_Digitization_Requests_Flow.pptx
• Ex Libris Knowledge Center – May 2016 release notes
• http://knowledge.exlibrisgroup.com/Alma/Release_Notes/01_2016/08May_
2016/May_2016_Release_Notes
56
Yeswecan!ImplementingdigitizationrequestsinAlma
8 Universities in NZ
Main campus at Dunedin – recognised as one of the 16 mots beautiful campuses in the worl
Home of NZ’s first medical school and of NZ’s only schools of Dentistry and Surveying
Libraries - Central, Law, Health Sciences, Education, Science, and Hocken (NZ published and unpublished collections)
Our goal was to simply the process for both users and Library Staff
We were hoping that we’d be able to enable all requesting to take place within Alma/Primo and the workflows for processing the requests could also take place inside Alma
We were also hoping we’d be able to make use of Home Delivery so Distance users could request both physical items and digitisation within the same interface
Alongside that we had the opportunity to evaluate who we offered the service to and the types of material we made available for requesting
Our previous setup had evolved over time through availability of different technologies and changing policy decisions
Web forms used to receive requests from users, then form would either emailed the request to Library Staff or store the request in a Database
Each user had to identify themselves each time the placed a request and they also had to manually enter the citation into the request form
Staff would then retrieve the item from the shelves and send it to the Reprographics Department for scanning
If a title was in a different branch a request might be placed on it in Voyager for the item to be retrieved and scanned
The Distance team was responsible for filling requests for Distance students whereas other teams were responsible for filling requests from Staff or for Storage items or for Interloans
All up it was messy – users had to go to different places to request different types of material and different staff used different workflows to fill them
We implemented both Alma and Primo at the same time and we realised that we wouldn’t have a lot of spare time to implement digitisation requesting within Alma/Primo seeing as it wasn’t core functionality
That was a good decision – implementation and the months following it were very busy and we didn’t have time for anything other than core functionality
We were also aware that the Digitisation functionality in Alma was a work in progress and that it might need more development before it was ready for us to use
We started testing the functionality in 2014 – we did some basic setup and started trying to place requests but quickly found a major issue –we weren’t able to place digitisation requests on titles with multiple holdings
We support 4 institutions and multiple campuses so we had many titles with multiple holdings so this was a significant issue for us
Testing stopped while we logged it with Ex Libris and waited for a resolution
A resolution came in August 2015 (10 months after we discovered the issue) so we started testing again with a target of going live at the start of 2016
We found another issue (we couldn’t place requests on titles with no holdings) but we decided it wasn’t a showstopper so we decided to go live in December before the start of the 2016 Academic year
We went live in December 2015 and almost immediately struck a major problem we hadn’t seen in testing
The “Requests – Recalculate after Inventory Update” job was cancelling some of the unfilled digitisation requests when it ran each night
We turned off digitisation requesting while we investigated
Ex Libris identified the issue as a bug
We decided to try switching off the job and accept the outcomes of that rather than sit and wait for the bug to be fixed – as a result of this we were up and running again within a couple of weeks
The bug was resolved in the February release and we were able to turn the job back on before the start of Semester 1
Other than that go live was successful!
We chose not to turn on a number of digitisation features because we weren’t convinced they fit our workflows
The approvals feature meant that after we retrieved an item form the shelves it would then be put into an approvals workflow before being sent to be scanned – we decided to check the request was within copyright limits at the point or retrieval/scanning and respond to the user at that point if it wasn’t
We decided to put our own copyright statement on the Primo request form and the email that gets sent to the user rather than use Ex Libris’s copyright functionality
We decided to modify the Primo request form to simplify it. When the option to add specific citation fields (title, author, pages) to the request form came along we decided to stick with a single citation box for ease of use
We treat all requests as partial rather than full as a default so we don’t offer users the option to choose to request a full scan
Setting policy was challenging because we support 4 institutions across 12 branches
Our goal was to enable as many types of user across the 4 institutions to be able to request as many items as possible across the collection
We had a need to prevent that weren’t accessible (being mended, at bindery etc.) and items in a format that couldn’t be easily scanned (Audiovisual items, maps, rare books) from being requested (we did allow digitisation requests on microforms)
We also had a requirement that certain users (Graduates, Public) couldn’t place digitisation requests
Some branches were very small and didn’t have the resources to scan items so they were excluded too
So despite starting with a principle of allowing as many users as possible to request scans of as much of the collection as possible we soon ended up with a wide range of exceptions
We decided against setting up a stand alone Digitisation Department in Alma but instead opted to enable each branch for digitisation that was capable of offering scanning services
This meant staff in each branch could retrieve the item from the shelf, then scan and fill the request rather than having to ship it to a centralised Digitisation Department for processing
This option has worked well for us and has help reduce lost time in sending items between branches
The number of exceptions we had in our policies came back to bite us when setting up our Fulfillment policies
We had to specify each location we didn’t want to be available for digitisation (AV, Maps, Mending locations etc.) individually within the rules
We also needed to specify which material types shouldn’t be available for digitisation (DVD, CD-ROM, etc.) seeing as we also interfiled AV items into our main book collections
A bit of trial and error was involved in getting it right and not interfering with physical requesting was required but once it was set up we haven’t needed to make many adjustments
Digitisation requesting is similar to physical requesting in the positioning of the labels and the flow
This is a screenshot of a book request. For a journal request there is an option to place a title level request as well as an item level request (the same as physical requesting)
Once the request has been placed it goes into the pick list at the branch that hold the item
Staff can request both physical and digitisation requests from the shelves at the same time as part of the same workflow
When items are scanned through returns or scan in items they are sent into the Digitzation workflow
The request then appears in the “Manage In Process Items” queue
At this point we’d confirm there were no copyright issues and then scan the appropriate chapter/article
The scanned chapter/article is then attached to the request and submitted
An email is sent to the user with the attachment
There is a hard coded 10MB limit so if the attachment is larger than 10MB we have to supply it outside of Alma (either via email or a File Drop website)
Despite the problems we had getting up and running it has been a successful implementation
There were some concerns that opening up digitisation requesting to a wide range of users would lead to us getting overrun with requests but that hasn’t been borne out in practice – most users are focused on accessing electronic resources and requesting a scan from a physical item is a secondary desire. So far we’ve been processing around 200 requests a month which is within manageable levels for us
It’s now much easier for users to request scans than it was before – there are no longer a range of different forms to fill out and no need to enter user details into the forms
Library staff workflows have changed as a result of the implementation with digitisation requests able to be picked up from the shelves alongside physical requests as part of the pick from shelf workflow
The new workflows have led to the disestablishment of the specialist Distance team as most distance activity now happens within standard workflows
All up it has been a worthwhile process and despite the pain endured within the testing and implementation phases the digitisation functionality is delivering the efficiencies we hoped it would
Sheffield was an Early Adopter of Alma, going live in June 2013.
We have traditionally been a very request led service. We saw that Alma could allow us to advance our existing services and provide a platform for new services to be delivered in future.
As we were implementing Alma, we conducted functional reviews of potential new service and workflows in the new system. This included our existing digitisation on demand activity which is quite wide ranging across the library, the National Fairground Archives and the Special Collections and Archives.
The review quickly gathered that the range of digitisation activity would not readily fit into the initial Alma patron digitisation framework.
Special Collections and NFA have lots of material not discoverable on Primo (from Alma); additionally the material listed in Primo may not be in a suitable condition to be digitised. It was also felt that the typical customer base includes many non-University (non-Library) one-time users.
Learning Resources Section requests for Eoffprints follow the requirements of the Copyright Licensing Agency’s agreement with the University which stipulate that requests must come from Module leaders only; must be linked to reading lists and comply with the reporting requirements of the CLA Licence - functionality currently not supported by Alma.
The outline of a viable pilot services was in place at an early stage, taking the patron digitisation request functionality and applying it to a pre-existing, though lesser-used scanning service, ‘myDocuments’ which was not available from the catalogue.
A number of workflow challenges emerged from the review...
The gaps in the initial digitisation functionality in Alma were felt to be barriers to progress. A number of specific issues were raised with Product Managers, and through Salesforce cases.
A simple, unexplained checkbox which users have to actively select to differentiate Full from Partial digitisation.
There was no indication of the service a user may expect, timescales, or any obligation to accept terms and conditions of service.
The ability to monitor and review approvals on digitisation requests is a challenging area. The ability for Patrons to request digitisation should be on the basis of individual need, not represented by course readings (for which UK institutions can obtain a Copyright Licencing Agency licence).
Improving the Patron Digitisation Request form to capture more specific extract data, and being able to control the flow of digitisation requests has been an ongoing process, working with Ex Libris.
The enhanced Digitization Workflow rules allow automation of the workflow on a number of parameters, including:
Copyrights Previously Approved - for cases where a similar request has been previously approved
Number of Requests - checks if a required number of requests have already been processed
Partial Digitization - Indicates digitization for part of a resource
Patron Status - checks if the patron’s account is active or expired
Publication Date - for records published before or after a given year
Request Type - Indicates course related digitization, patron digitization, staff digitization, borrowing resource sharing digitization request, and lending resource sharing digitization request
Time Span (In Calendar Years) - the number of calendar years since the creation date of the matched copyright record entries
User Group - Which user groups are relevant for this rule