2009- current.  Massachusetts Library System (MLS) has issued an RFP which they hope will result in a unified, label-less, delivery service to over 500 libraries on nine separate ILSs.  The sorting is expected to rely on a link to each ILS at the sort center.  MLS courier and sorting operations are already efficient but the burden on library staff is increasingly unmanageable. The new system must reduce the staff workload inside the libraries while maintaining  the high quality of courier/sorting service MLS libraries have come to expect .

Several large library systems have implemented such systems, e.g., King County and Seattle Public in Washington, and New York Public, but this would be the first multi-ILS system.

The Request for Proposal (RFP) for Library Delivery and Sorting Services for Massachusetts Libraries was issued July 15, 2010 by the Massachusetts Library System and is available at http://wp.me/PXRJJ-3T.

I have been working with the Massachusetts libraries since 2008 when I did a statewide delivery and sorting analysis (with Melissa Stockton of Quipu Group).  I continued to work with them to develop this RFP and will be helping to evaluate the response and contract with vendor(s).

(Powerpoint)

Presentation at PLA 2010 in Portland Oregon with Gretchen Freeman (Associate Director for Technology, Salt Lake County Library) and Kathleen Smith (Projects Librarian, Fresno County Public Library)

The blurb: Are your technology projects inspired more by the latest bell or whistle instead of what will pay off for your library? Do your technologies deliver both the steak and the sizzle? This panel presentation will outline cost/benefit analysis and case studies for justifying technology projects to administrators and funding agencies. Whether you are vying for large or small dollars, show how a technology investment delivers both “cents and sensibility” for your library.

wccls.org

2009-current.   Conducting materials handling and collection management analysis. The project will address space shortage issues, materials handling workload, how to reduce turnaround time and expand services, and ways to improve central delivery and sorting.  The analysis will also include a comparison of RFID versus bar codes solutions and provide suggestions for how to implement AMH solutions into their libraries.

If you have ever wondered how materials handling automation could fit into your library environment, you might enjoy this study I did for a client.

I’m hoping you find the study useful because it describes all the factors that come into play making a strong argument for automated materials handling as a way to support better customer service and and improved work environment for staff.
While you’re at it, don’t miss this analysis I did for another client analyzing the benefits of automated check-in systems at a medium sized library (which already had some AMH components). This analysis showed that there are additional savings to be had by adding the automated check-in systems to the automation mix.

(PDF)
Final report of a cost comparison of materials handling operations at two very similar libraries: one with automated self check-in and library sorter, and the other using manual materials handling. The report (PDF) demonstrates significant savings at the library with automated checkin.

2008. Compared costs and benefits of materials handling operations between two library branches that differed only in how they used automated systems to get the work done. Demonstrated a significant savings for library using automated materials return system.

2007.  Recommended automated materials handling system for libraries under construction, provided recommendations on use of RFID and bar code technologies.