RE: [IUG] Question about enhancement process

["Helwig, Ruth M." <helwi1rm at cmich dot edu>]

I would like to reinforce the idea that enhancement requests are not
lost.  This week I received a call form III about an enhancement that I
submitted last year.  They were looking for clarification and were
investigating the feasibility of this functionality. 

Ruth Helwig
Park Library 305
Central Michigan University
Mt Pleasant MI 48859
Phone: 989-774-2404
Fax: 989-774-2179
helwi1rm at cmich dot edu

-----Original Message-----
From: innopac-bounces at innopacusers dot org
[mailto:innopac-bounces at innopacusers dot org] On Behalf Of
cbrigham at temple dot edu
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 11:14 PM
To: Will Owen; IUG INNOPAC List
Subject: Re: [IUG] Question about enhancement process

Dear Will,

Here are my thoughts on your question as co-coordinator of the
enhancements process. 

I do not think it is possible for us to identify each of the
enhancement requests that did not make the ballot with an
explanation of why it did not make the cut.  However, because
something is not on the 2006 ballot, it is not the end of the
road for the request. 

First of all, only 17% of the requested enhancements make the
ballot.  We have the ballot number set to 240 items and the
total submitted was near 1446.  The reason this was set up was
two-fold.  When we revamped the process 2 cycles ago, we
worked closely with staff at Innovative, and we agreed that we
would maintain the number of ballot items and "winners" as in
the previous years.  This was 240 ballot items and 70 winners.
 This would be true regardless of the number of submissions
that were made by members.  This might be something that we
have to revisit with Innovative.

In the words of a current Functional Expert "Sometimes there
are just more good ideas than we can submit and it's a matter
of trying to figure out which items might benefit the most
people.  Sometimes we just have to choose one instead of
another, and although we try to find compelling reasons it can
be very difficult to choose."

It is also important to note that all requests get passed to
Innovative.  At the end of the voting, we submit all of the
enhancement requests to Innovative (broken down by category).
 So even though an item is not on the ballot, that does not
mean that it will not be passed along to Innovative.  You
should also feel free to submit your enhancement suggestions
to Innovate directly at enhance at iii dot com dot 

Additionally, the processes for reviewing which items go on
the ballot is left to the Functional Expert Teams.  We have
tried very hard over the past two years to develop Functional
Expert Teams that have librarians of different library types
to best represent our users as a whole.  By having teams of
librarians from public, academic, law, international, medical
(and other) settings, we hopefully can address the needs of a
wide variety of our members.  In years past, single Functional
Experts would work for a category and might not have an 
understanding of the complexities or needs of the librarians
at a different type of organization.  I think that this
process ensures a more fair and balanced means of selecting
enhancement items. 

Functional Experts currently alert submitters in cases where
a)a request is not clearly understood or b) what is requested
is already possible or expected in an upcoming release.  These
situations are recorded in the comments section of the
individual enhancement request.

I hope this helps answer your questions.

Carol Brigham, Enhancements Co-Coordinator

---- Original message ----
>Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 16:20:11 -0500
>From: Will Owen <owen at email dot unc dot edu>  
>Subject: [IUG] Question about enhancement process  
>To: innopac at innopacusers dot org
>
>We're working on our enhancement requests for this year and
one of the 
>staff sent me this:
>
>I would like to suggest an enhancement not to the software,
but to the 
>enhancement process.
>
>Problem: When we submit an enhancement suggestion, and the
submission does 
>not make it to the ballot, we have no idea why.
>Request: Provide feedback on why suggestions were rejected. 
Feedback could 
>be as simple as choosing from a menu:
>
>a. Expect this to be included in forthcoming release of software.
>b. Do not believe this is feasible.
>c. Do not understand submission, or do not understand why
anyone would want 
>this.
>d. Do not believe submission would have broad appeal
>e. other
>
>
>So, what happens to requests that don't make it onto the
ballot?  Does IUG 
>provide any feedback?  Do we just keep trying?  Send them
directly to III?
>
>this is our second year participating in the process, and we
were pretty 
>disappointed with it last year.  Any information would be
appreciated.
>
>Will Owen
>UNC-Chapel Hill
>
>--
>This message was distributed through the Innovative Users
Group INNOPAC list
>Public replies:  INNOPAC at innopacusers dot org
>Update your subscription options:
http://innopacusers.org/mailman/listinfo/innopac
Carol A. Brigham
Access Services Librarian
Paley Library (017-00)
Temple University Libraries
1210 W. Berks Street
Philadelphia, PA  19122
215-204-0750
FAX:  215-204-0769
cbrigham at temple dot edu
--
This message was distributed through the Innovative Users Group INNOPAC
list
Public replies:  INNOPAC at innopacusers dot org
Update your subscription options:
http://innopacusers.org/mailman/listinfo/innopac