The following is an exchange that took place on the Polaris mailing list. The names have been withheld to protect the innocent.
bq.[Withheld] is preparing to allow our patrons to access their accounts, place holds, etc., remotely. We were under the impression that, if set up correctly in sysadmin, it would be impossible to place a hold on an item with a status of ‘in’. We have since found out that this is true only if all copies are in. Have you found this to be a problem? (and, if a problem, how big?) We have developed a SQL report which can be run every morning, but we’d like to know how other libraries handle this situation. It received this reply.
bq.We have 34 circulating libraries and the only way to allow holds on items that are in other branches was to allow holds on statuses of IN. The problem is that it then allows patrons to place holds on items that are IN in their branch. Only one library in our consortium has ever allowed that scenario to take place. Our members (branches) never wanted to be in the position of pulling holds for their patrons when the item was checked in. There needs to be a two level approach to holds so you can set up the rules for the local branch and the rules for intra-library loan within the branches of the System which has been submitted to Polaris as an enhancement request. Essentially, the two libraries are arguing that their goal is to offer less service to their own patrons than to patrons from other libraries. They are upset that their patrons are taking advantage of the ability to have their items waiting for them when they arrive. And they blame their software vendor for creating this functionality. I can remember one of our front desk members being upset about just this sort of thing. When he retired years ago, I thought we had seen the last of that sort of attitude. Apparently, I was wrong. I am glad that I am never going to be in the position of defending that sort of philosophy to one of our patrons.