The SHARES Partnership, Plus Tracking Trends in ILL Cost and ...

The SHARES Partnership, Plus Tracking Trends in ILL Cost and ...

University of Melbourne 2 December 2015 The SHARES Partnership, Plus Tracking Trends in ILL Cost and Transaction Data Dennis Massie Program Officer, OCLC Research OCLC Research Library Partnership Meeting Basic SHARES facts and principles 86 institutions 114 OCLC symbols 9 countries 4 continents Self-governing Easy to get started Academic, museum, law, medical, national, public SHARES Agreement

Consider each request No blanket restrictions Below market rates (via IFM) Expedited delivery Lending returnables overseas optional Reciprocal onsite access Examples of SHARES engagement opportunities Advisory or Working Group People Institutions Countries SHARES Executive Group 8 8 2 SHARES Best Practices Working

Group 11 10 3 SHARES Shipping and Packaging Task Force 9 9 3 ILL Cost Calculator Working Group 3 3 2 3 Routine Workflow Cooperative Workflow

Exceptional Workflow REVIEW Via ILL system Collaboration between Special Collections (SC) and ILL Directly to SC Is material held in a special collection? ILL staff Collaboration between borrowing and lending institutions Lending institution Reference Interview At borrowing institution reference desk and ILL staff Collaboration of ILL and SC staff in both institutions By lending institutionSC staff

Inter-institutional communication how? ILL system ILL system and email/phone Direct contact between two SCs Internal communication how? ILL system ILL system and email/phone Direct contact between SC/ILL staff and other departments Stipulate for Research Use? Implicit Consider emphasizing Explicit criteria Reviewing Infrastructure

Written guidelines Request Mutual disclosure of ILL and SC facilities Forms Collaboration between borrowing and lending departments Elaborate decision tree, multiple staff, institutional level decision We trust you Approved checklist Facilities report ILL transaction work form and IFM Extra insurance and/or forms for special handling Use agreement, insurance forms, art museums loan agreement, etc. ILL staff

ILL and SC consult when necessary SC staff, curator, possibly director Prefer to lend surrogate, consider original Case-by-case consideration DECIDE Decision Maker Original or Surrogate? Published/ unpublished? Surrogate or predetermined originals Some published and predetermined unpublished material types Consider lending published and unpublished materials What any reasonable SC staffer would do Search, monitor and control

thoroughly ILL training and expertise ILL and SC cross-training on handling fragile materials SC training and experience only Oversees loan transaction ILL staff Staff in ILL and SC SC specialists Quality Control Usual packager, usual shipper, mailroom or ILL Special ILL or SC packager SC/preserv staff prepare special supports and deliver with the material Usual shipper, with use/

handling conditions Expedited shipper, extra insurance, special handling instructions Use Rights Trust and Training Borrowers responsibility Some published OK. Unpublished material on a case-by-case basis LEND RETURN Deliver Deliver from SC to SCcall me when you get it Routine Workflow Cooperative Workflow Exceptional Workflow

REVIEW Via ILL system Collaboration between Special Collections (SC) and ILL Directly to SC Is material held in a special collection? ILL staff Collaboration between borrowing and lending institutions Lending institution Reference Interview At borrowing institution reference desk and ILL staff Collaboration of ILL and SC staff in both institutions By lending institutionSC staff Inter-institutional communication

how? ILL system ILL system and email/phone Direct contact between two SCs Internal communication how? ILL system ILL system and email/phone Direct contact between SC/ILL staff and other departments Stipulate for Research Use? Implicit Consider emphasizing Explicit criteria Reviewing Infrastructure Written guidelines

Request Mutual disclosure of ILL and SC facilities Forms Collaboration between borrowing and lending departments Elaborate decision tree, multiple staff, institutional level decision We trust you Approved checklist Facilities report ILL transaction work form and IFM Extra insurance and/or forms for special handling Use agreement, insurance forms, art museums loan agreement, etc. ILL staff ILL and SC consult when necessary

SC staff, curator, possibly director Prefer to lend surrogate, consider original Case-by-case consideration DECIDE Decision Maker Original or Surrogate? Published/ unpublished? Surrogate or predetermined originals Some published and predetermined unpublished material types Consider lending published and unpublished materials What any reasonable SC staffer would do Search, monitor and control thoroughly ILL training and

expertise ILL and SC cross-training on handling fragile materials SC training and experience only Oversees loan transaction ILL staff Staff in ILL and SC SC specialists Quality Control Usual packager, usual shipper, mailroom or ILL Special ILL or SC packager SC/preserv staff prepare special supports and deliver with the material Usual shipper, with use/ handling conditions Expedited shipper, extra

insurance, special handling instructions Use Rights Trust and Training Borrowers responsibility Some published OK. Unpublished material on a case-by-case basis LEND RETURN Deliver Deliver from SC to SCcall me when you get it Attendee interactions with OCLC ILL Where is the fresh ILL cost data? $16.93/$10.56 $17.82/$9.56 $16.46/$8.73 $17.50/$9.27 ILL Cost Calculator now in Beta Working Group

Megan Gaffney, University of Delaware Justin Hill, Temple University Ralph LeVan and JD Shipengrover, OCLC Research Margarita Moreno, National Library of Australia Moi! Our aspirations for the calculator Provide fresh data about current models Help establish best practices Facilitate comparison to anonymized peers Support evidence-based decision-making Use Cases Users want to know: Their resource sharing unit costs How those costs evolve over time How their costs compare with peers Users would like to project: The financial impact of joining a consortium Of buying a certain piece of equipment Of implementing a new service

The system calculates Staff costs and reports only totals for each category. Youll enter the salary data and review the system-calculated totals on private worksheet tabs that only you will see. Birthing an ILL Cost Calculator Next 4 months: Beta testers will register and submit their data OCLC software engineer will build database and reporting functions Beta testers will test reports Next 6 months: Early interest folks will be invited to submit data Well open it up to everyone Well work with various groups and organizations to encourage use Google OCLC ILL Calculator for more information. OCLC ILL statistics ILL requests Year on year FY13 FY12 FY11

FY10 FY09 8,858,368 9,192,189 9,587,429 10,248,942 10,279,215 4% 4% 6% 0.29% Between FY09 and FY13, OCLC ILL has seen a 14% reduction in total number of ILL requests. Anecdotal evidence tells us that US libraries are seeing an ongoing increase in their borrowing. OCLC wants to learn more about various trends in fulfillment. As of December 2014: Made up of 11 institutions with sophisticated, innovative resource sharing operations Some long-established members, some newer Involved in all manner of consortial

arrangements within and outside the group Would serve as an excellent illustration of current trends in the research library community OCLC/Borrow Direct ILL Study What numbers of borrows and loans has each institution executed in each of the various resource sharing venues in the past 5 years? What factors determine the requesting method or model used for each request? How/why is all this changing over time? How will it most likely change in the future? ARL vs Our Study Why might the numbers differ? 1,200,000 1,000,000 Institutions with multiple libraries and with complex ILL set-ups might not have reported all activity to us. Both sets of data are selfreported, and possibly compiled by different people. Potential fiscal/calendar confusion Overall, study participants

reported 97.9% of what was reported to ARL. 800,000 ARL Our study 600,000 400,000 200,000 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 Circ-to-Circ is where the growth is. 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 C2C Trad 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 2010

2011 2012 2013 Growth is due to new players. Overall ILL Activity 450,000 400,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 2010 2011 Founders 2012 J2002 Newbies 2013 6 Basic Questions for BD ILLers What is the strategic thinking behind the groups you join? Technologies you adopt? Workflows you

establish? What forces are at work driving your choices? Who are your users, and what needs do they hope will be met by your collection sharing services? What user experience do you offer? What do you aspire to offer? What would you like to learn from this data, or any data? How will collection sharing evolve over the next 5 years? Strategic thinking Automate the routine. Build in predictability. Push staff tasks lower in the hierarchy. Introduce efficiencies, relax restrictive policies. Partner in concentric circles. Next steps/further study Chart OCLC ILL interactions in detail as new members joined Borrow Direct Isolate returnables and non-returnables Overlay expenditures and demographics onto collection sharing data Report out Repeat study with the CIC

As of December 2015: Made up of 14 institutions with sophisticated, innovative resource sharing operations Some long-established members, some newer Involved in all manner of consortial arrangements within and outside the group Set up their consortial borrowing process to run through ILL rather than Circulation Per-Student Expenditures, 2012 NECS Survey IviesPlus $3,500 Average: $1,583 $3,000 $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $500 Pe C nn or ne ll M IT JH

C U ol u Br ... ow n C D hi ar tm H ... ar va Pr rd in c. .. Ya le $0 CIC Average: $483 $1,600 $1,400 $1,200 $1,000 $800 $600 $400 $200 $0

R ge ut rs U s n a d a go oi si an sk an an a n n i g l i a i c r y

d h Ill co hi In ar ic eb is C M N M W Total sharing activity is going down. Overall CIC Collection Sharing Activity 1600000 1400000 1200000 1000000 800000 600000 400000 200000 0 2011 2012 11 CIC 5-yr. 2013

2014 with 3 Newbies 2015 traffic is way, way up. Total UBorrow Filled Requests 250000 200000 150000 100000 50000 0 2012 2013 Total 2014 Lend Borrow 2015 Other Consortial Borrowing: Down-ish.

CIC Other Consortial Borrowing Activity (7) 250000 200000 150000 100000 50000 0 2011 2012 Borr 2013 Lend Column1 2014 2015 Free online, POD of non-returnables up. CIC Overall Free Online (5) and POD (10) 5000 4500 4000 3500

3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 2011 Free Borr 2012 Free Lend 2013 POD - Ret 2014 2015 POD -Non Next steps/further study Chart OCLC ILL interactions in detail as new members joined Borrow Direct Isolate returnables and non-returnables Overlay expenditures and demographics onto collection sharing data Report out Repeat study with the CIC Repeat study with some subset of the Asia Pacific partnership libraries?

OCLC Research Library Partnership Meeting Questions or comments? Dennis Massie Program Officer [email protected] SM Together we make breakthroughs possible. 2015 OCLC. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Suggested attribution: This work uses content from How You Can Make the Transition from MARC to Linked Data Easier OCLC, used under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Recently Viewed Presentations

  • Welcome to the AML LI1 initiation

    Welcome to the AML LI1 initiation

    Welcome to the AML18 initiation Version 1.2 July 2014
  • GSA SmartPay Online Tools

    GSA SmartPay Online Tools

    Option to download the training as a PDF to view offline "Bookmark my place" allows you to re-enter the training at that point. https://training.smartpay.gsa.gov. GSA SmartPay Training. Completing the Quiz.
  • Review - Denton ISD

    Review - Denton ISD

    Learning Objectives. Power. Students should understand the definition of power, so they can: Calculate the power required to maintain the motion of an object with constant acceleration (e.g., to move an object along a level surface, to raise an object...
  • How to Write a Job Description

    How to Write a Job Description

    Supervisor and Vice President are solely responsible for approval of final job description based on needs of the department. Once approved, job description is submitted for Budget approval. After Budget approval, job description is submitted to Human Resources for review...
  • Anemia/Erythrocyte Disorders - Yola

    Anemia/Erythrocyte Disorders - Yola

    Anemia/Erythrocyte Disorders Laboratory Procedures Anemia Defined: A condition of reduced oxygen carrying capacity of erythrocytes Erythrocyte disorders May be associated with: Decreased production of RBC's Increased destruction of RBC's Inappropriate loss of RBC's Diagnosis A systemic, diagnostic approach to anemia...
  • The Mac Sub-layer - Utrgv

    The Mac Sub-layer - Utrgv

    MAC (Medium Access Control) sub-layer takes care of this problem. MAC is important in LANs where broadcast channels are used. MAC is the lower part of the data link layer (next to physical layer) Mac sub-layer does not guarantee delivery....
  • Subject code and name Course code and name Name of ...

    Subject code and name Course code and name Name of ...

    Good quality performance feedback is: Constructive - it explains how to improve, not just what is wrong. Future looking - it does on focus on past mistakes, but provides a clear path for a better way to improve in the...
  • CARBON AND ITS COMPOUNDS - California State University ...

    CARBON AND ITS COMPOUNDS - California State University ...

    CARBON AND ITS COMPOUNDS ... but they differ markedly in their physical properties. Diamond and Graphite - two allotropes of carbon differ in their physical properties. ... The one with double bond are called alkenes Alkenes Alkynes Unsaturated hydrocarbons which...