Upload
william-johnston
View
214
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Texas Resource Sharing:Examining the Present,
Envisioning a Vibrant Future
A Research Study prepared by Bibliographical Center for Research
January 2008
Research Purpose
• Examine options for meeting interlibrary loan needs in terms of costs and benefits
• Provide a blueprint, based on best practices, for building interlibrary loan services at the state level into the future
Research Purpose
• Determine the needs of the Texas interlibrary loan community as they strive to meet patron demands for library materials
• Collect accurate information on the attitudes and perceptions of Texas librarians and library patrons toward various methods of interlibrary loan delivery
Report Components
• Part 1: Background– TexNet Center Workflow Analysis– Texas Resource Sharing Culture– Data and GIS Analysis– Literature Review– Interlibrary Loan Best Practices &
Protocols– Patron Survey– Staff Survey
Report Components
• Part 2: Models for Change– Classification of Models– Feasibility Analysis– Modifications to Current Structure– Comprehensive Change
• Part 3: Recommendations– Goals for a New Resource Sharing Service– Recommendations– Possible Pilot Programs
Part 1: Background
A system is perfectly designed to produce the results
it is now producing.
-Joel Garreau
TexNet Center Workflow Analysis
• Site Visits• Time-Cost Study• Director’s Discussion• Workflow
Recommendations
Site Visits• Traveled to all nine TexNet Centers• Interviewed staff• Evaluated practice between
centers• Collected issues and concerns of
staff• Met with Regional System staff as
available
Site Visits—Conclusions
• Best Practices Strengths– Liberal Lending of Material Types– Reciprocity– Electronic Requesting for
Borrowing and Lending– Load Leveling– E-Resource Licensing for ILL Use– Free Loans
Site Visits—Conclusions
• Best Practices Weaknesses– Collection Development– Union Listing– Response within 24 Hours– Electronic Article Delivery
Time-Cost Study
• Data Collection– Tasks grouped by activity
type according to lending, borrowing, or administrative
– All staff members recorded time spend in a five day period
Time-Cost Study
Manual v. Automate
d Tasks for All
TexNet Centers
Time-Cost Study
Time-Cost StudySystem Time for Area Library Lending
System Time for Area Library Borrowing
Time-Cost Study—Conclusions
• TexNet Centers automation options are meeting demand of current traffic level
• TexNet Center time spent on work for local patron v. Area Library patrons is disproportionate
Directors’ Discussion• Most Important Issues
– Funding– Diverse Patron Needs– Well-trained Staff
• TexNet Service Essential to Area Libraries
• Elimination of TexNet Center Funding– Continue Local Paton Service– Possible Diminished Lending – Effect of Consolidation– More Information for Opinion on Bidding
Workflow Improvements
• ILLiad and Clio Customizations– One Time Settings– Use Expertise Present in the
System• ILLiad Connectivity• Use of Branch Collections• Correctional Facilities• Courier Packaging• Training
Texas Resource Sharing Culture
• Funding• Reciprocity• Exposure of Holdings/Union
Catalog• Adoption of New
Technology• Training
Statistical Data Sources• TexNet Centers• Texas Group• Library of Texas• TexShare Databases• TexShare Library Card• Project Loan• OCLC Cataloging Libraries• OCLC Interlibrary Loan Libraries• Loan Star Libraries Program• Trans-amigos and Other Regional
Courier Programs
GIS ApplicationStatistical data applied to interactive mapping
program
Literature Review• Climate
– In Libraries– For Patrons
• Increasing Demand for ILL Services
• Automation and Patron Initiation– Lower Unit Cost, Higher Fill Rates
and Faster Turnaround Time• Impact on Collections• Policy Modifications
ILL Best Practices & Protocols
• Electronic requesting for lending and borrowing• Negotiate licenses for e-content which allow ILL
use• Collection development response to ILL demand• Union listing of serial holdings • Electronic delivery options• Load leveling to suppliers• Lending of all formats • Limiting barriers to lending (e.g. charging
borrowing fees)• Staff expertise and training expectations• Definitions of materials that should not be
requested through ILL
Patron Survey
• Methodology• Results
– Opportunity to increase use and visibility of service
– Significant interest in home delivery
Library Staff Survey
• Methodology• Results
– Limited use of automated options such as patron-initiated requesting and unmediated borrowing processing
– High desire to improve courier service
Part 2: Models for Change
To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model
obsolete.
-Richard Buckminster Fuller
Model Classification: Who does the work?
• Current model– TexNet Centers perform work
• Stand Alone Centralized ILL system or OCLC Services– ILL staff at libraries perform work
• Circulation based system– Patrons perform work– Circulation staff at libraries
perform work
ILL System
OCLC
Z39.50
Hybrid Model - Physical Union Catalog and Distributed Catalogs
Public access
Searching Interface
Union Catalog
ISO ILL
Library Catalog
Z39.50
Library Catalog
Patron Authentication
Public Searching Interface
Find materials Find patron Create request
StandaloneILL system
OCLC
Library catalog
Library catalog
Library catalog
Library catalog
Z39.50 Z39.50
Z39.50
Z39.50
Z39.50
SMTPe-mailorISO ILL
ISO ILL
Z39.50
Distributed Virtual Union Catalog ModelIndependent Search Interface
ODBClook-up
Circulation Based ILL FlowchartL
en
din
gC
en
tra
lB
orr
ow
ing
Patron request item
Determine if copies
available
Patron authentication
Patron data sent to item
site
Patron authenication
at central
Map local ptype to
central ptype
Determine which copy
Acknowledge request to
patron
Create virtual item; charge to
patron
Create virtual patron
Queue paging slip
Change item status to Paged
Print paging slips
Retrieve from Branch /
Shelf
Continued on page 2
Automated Process
Manual Process
Manual Process with Automation Opportunity
Symbol Description
Legend
Circulation Based ILL Flowchart
Len
din
gC
en
tral
Bo
rro
win
g
Check out to patron site
Send data
add barcode to virtual item and
index it in patron system
Ship item
Item is delivered
Patron notification
Item checked out using
central circ
Check-in from patron
Sort / pack for return
UnpackItem returned
Send data
Delete virtual item
Delete virtual patron
From page 1
Automated Process
Manual Process
Manual Process with Automation Opportunity
Symbol Description
Legend
Feasibility Analysis
• Four major areas of consideration:– Legal– Political/Social– Fiscal– Success Measures
• 4-point scale
Legal
• Need for statutory or regulatory change
• Requirements and allowable use of LSTA funds
• Need for local policy change
Political/Social
• Effect on patron community• Impact on staff within libraries• Effect on resource sharing
community• Development of ILL as core
service• Increased value of training and
continuing education
Fiscal
• Statutory funding cycles• Fiscal climate• Overall costs for start-up and
maintenance• Sharing funding at local, state,
and federal levels
Success Measures
• Maximized use of technology• Enhanced reciprocity• Increased visibility of holdings• Flexibility for on-going change• Sustainability of the program
Feasibility Analysis
• 14-16 Highly Feasible• 11-13 Feasible• 8-10 Possibly Feasible• 1-7 Not Feasible
Solutions A: Modifications to Current Structure
Model One: Elimination of Local Patron
Subsidy• Description
– Reduce Funding for Service to TexNet Host Library’s Patrons
• Benefits– Simple to Implement– Uniform Subsidy
Model One: Elimination of Local Patron
Subsidy• Costs
– Requires Yearly Formula Design– Lack Incentives for Reciprocity
–Requires Rules and Regulation Revision
• Feasibility Score: 11 - Feasible
Model Two: Reduced TexNet Centers
• Description– Reduce Number of TexNet
Centers
• Benefits– Significant Fiscal Savings– Reduced Administrative
Issues– Increased Control
Model Two: Reduced TexNet Centers
• Costs– Requires Political Negotiations
with Resource Sharing Community
– May Not Be Sustainable
• Feasibility Score: 2a: 10 – Possibly Feasible2b: 13 - Feasible
Model Three: Regional System-TexNet Center
Consolidation
• Description– Combine an ILL Referral Service
with Regional System Offices• Benefits
– Reduced Administrative Costs– Synergy with Systems – Increased Cooperation with
Resource Sharing and Library Development
Model Three: Regional System-TexNet Center
Consolidation• Costs
–Requires Rules and Regulation Revision
–Requires Cultural Change for System Staff
• Feasibility Score:13 - Feasible
Solutions B: Comprehensive Change
Model 4: OCLC Services
• WorldCat Resource Sharing• Group Services
– TX Scoped Catalog– Statewide/Group contracts
• New service (1st half 2008)– Group Catalog– Resource Sharing– VDX– Hosted solution
Model 4: OCLC Services
• Benefits– Builds on current knowledge of
OCLC Resource Sharing– Brings small libraries into wider
library world– Encourages use of TX resources
by TX citizens
Model 4: OCLC Services
• Costs– Requires most/all libraries to
catalog on OCLC to be most effective
– Upfront training substantial– Continuing training costs– Higher on-going annual costs
• Feasibility Score:12 - Feasible
Model 5: Stand Alone Centralized
• Auto-Graphics AGent • Relais International Enterprise• SirsiDynix URSA
Model 5: Stand Alone Centralized
• Benefits– Better trained librarians– Higher levels of reciprocity– Encourages use of TX resources
by TX citizens– Relatively low annual
maintenance cost
Model 5: Stand Alone Centralized
• Costs– Upfront training substantial– Continuing training costs– May be less desirable to academic
libraries who prefer OCLC– Referral service needed for
materials not in system• Feasibility Score:
11 - Feasible
Model 6: Circulation-Based
• Innovative Interfaces Inc.– INN-Reach– INN-Reach Direct Consortial
Borrowing
• NCIP-enabled, multi-ILS– Implementations struggling
• Single, shared ILS platform
Model 6: Circulation-Based
• Benefits– Higher levels of reciprocity– Encourages use of TX resources
by TX citizens– Relatively low annual
maintenance cost– Most cost effective– Requires little up front training– High fill rate
Model 6: Circulation-Based
• Costs– Significant upfront costs– Currently no easy OCLC referral
method – May require NCIP – slows
implementation– Cultural shift from “ILL” to patron self-
serve, unmediated
• Feasibility Score:14 – Highly Feasible
Part 3: Recommendations
If anything is certain, it is that change is certain.
The world we are planning for today will not exist in this form
tomorrow. -Philip Crosby
Goals for a Statewide Resource Sharing
Service• Patron-Centered• Unmediated Requesting• Maximized Use of Technology• Enhanced Reciprocity and
Visibility of Holdings• Flexibility
Goals for a Statewide Resource Sharing
Service• Shared Funding Responsibility• Builds ILL as Core Service• Values Training and Continuing
Education• Promotes Efficient Delivery
Recommendations
• Move to single TexNet Center– Significant savings achieved only
by reducing Centers from nine to one
– Reduces costs short term– Not viable long term due to
projected growth of resource sharing
Recommendations
• Implement pilots to test new models– Funded with savings from change in
TexNet Center model– Will inform specifications process for
RFP– Will help influence change in TX
resource sharing culture
Possible Pilot Programs
• Combine Library of Texas with Relais– Leverages Z39.50 work in LOT– Distributed workflow– Increased availability of holdings
• Fund stand-alone and circulation-based sharing based on geography and/or ILS system– Harrington Library Consortia– MetrOPAC
Possible Pilot Programs
• OCLC Services– Incorporates multi-type sharing– Determines extent of training needs
• Expansion of courier participation– Use GIS analysis to target areas of
population growth and ILL use– Suggestions
• I-35 corridor Dallas/Ft. Worth to Laredo• Houston Area Library System• US-83 corridor from Brownsville to Laredo
Possible Pilot Programs
• Library of Texas and Index Data– Expand ILL functionality– Test NCIP capability with
selected libraries
Recommendations• Issue an RFP for new resource
sharing system– Use data from pilot projects to
determine the most feasible option for Texas resource sharing
– Use cost savings from TexNet Center reduction to fund new model
Questions?
Thank You
Brenda Bailey-Hainer [email protected]
Heather [email protected]
Bibliographical Center for Research