Transcript Unmediated Borrowing

UBorrow
A New Service
Submitted By:
Jennifer Kuntz
Kristine Shrauger
Robb Waltner
1
Objective
Enable faculty, students and staff
of any Florida state public
university to easily and seamlessly
request materials from the state
universities’ libraries, without
intervention on the part of the
patron’s home library.
2
Pride and
Prejudice
1. Patron sees desired title in
MANGO and clicks the
“Request” link
Pride and
Prejudice
2. The Request is
delivered to a lending
institution, where it is
printed on a call slip for
retrieval
3. The item is checked out by
the holding library to the
patron’s pickup library and
sent to the pickup library
4. The patron is notified the
item is available for pickup
5. Patron checks the item
out at the pickup library
3
Why now?
CSUL directive, driven by:
•
Opportunity: shared discovery tool = MANGO
•
User expectations: convenient options and fast turnaround
•
Environment:
– existing reciprocal borrowing agreements
– shrinking budgets
– Remote Shared Storage facility
– unmediated borrowing initiatives elsewhere
•
Cost: ILL is expensive – can we make it cheaper?
4
The Union Catalog Sign-in
system chooses the
appropriate library’s local
items/requests profile based
on IP address, or allows you to
choose.
5
A single Request
button will
submit the
request to either
Aleph or ILLiad.
6
Once the request is
submitted, the user
is presented with
the
login/confirmation
screen (Aleph or
ILLiad)
7
Rethinking Resource Sharing
From A Manifesto for Rethinking Resource Sharing:
“…libraries must improve their information delivery system.
Aligning resource sharing workflow, collection policies,
and discovery-delivery systems by significantly
reducing service barriers and cost, and offering user
service options are critical pieces that promote
information access.
“We believe that the user should be able to get what s/he
wants on the terms that s/he chooses without undue
hurdles from the library community.”
8
Rethinking Resource Sharing
From A Manifesto for Rethinking Resource Sharing:
“…the desire for high quality collections invariably lead
[users] to libraries. To deliver that information requires that
libraries meet some of the service expectations that users
experience with Internet book sellers….
“…we believe every institution must re-evaluate its service
model … revise its policies and workflow to meet the
global resource sharing and delivery mandate, and expose
its resources to more general discovery.”
9
Current Environment
History of reciprocal borrowing among the SULs:
• DLLI Borrowing Privileges Agreement (1999)
• Reciprocal Direct ILL Services (1998)
• SUS Interlibrary Loan Guidelines (1998, rev. 2008)
Budget cuts
Statewide Storage Facility:
“The facility will house shared copies of monographs,
journals, and other items which will be equally and
readily available to all state university libraries.”
10
Costs
User-initiated* ILL/DD
Mediated ILL/DD
Borrowing Unit Cost
$2.39 - $14.70
$17.50
Lending Unit Cost
$3.27 - $12.06
$9.27
Combined Unit Cost
$6.16 - $26.76
$26.77
Borrowing FILL Rate
84% - 90%
86%
Lending FILL Rate
82% - 87%
58%
Borrowing Turnaround Time
2.5 – 6.6 calendar days
7.6 calendar days
Lending Turnaround time
0.1 – 1.5 calendar days
1.5 calendar days
*Unmediated
11
Costs
Does bypassing OCLC save money?
– Current OCLC ILL flat rates based on the usage
from the 2005 calendar
– ILL would need to increase/decrease at least 25%
over a 2 year time span to increase/reduce OCLC
ILL fees
– Costs will change in July 2009 due to merger of
SOLINET and PALINET
– Tony Melvin (OCLC) looking at cost if OCLC
bypassed
12
Who can we learn from?
13
Minitex
Orbis-Cascade
SUNY
Prospector
OhioLink
Mobius
USMAI
PINE
Gil Express
Kudzu
CCLA
I-Borrow
14
System being used
Comprised of…
OhioLink
Innovative
Higher academic – private and public
IDS PROJECT (SUNY
and Kudzu)
ILLiad
Higher academic – private and public,
Public libraries
No
GIL Express
Voyager
Higher academic – private and public
Yes
PINE
Evergreen
Public Libraries
Yes
RAPID
Home-grown
Higher academic – private and public
Not for books
Prospector
Innovative
Public, academic and special
Yes
Mobius
Innovative
Higher academic
?
Orbis - Cascade
WorldCat Local
Higher academic – private and public
?
Minitex
Aleph
Public, academic and special
?
University of Maryland
Aleph
Higher academic – private and public
Circ Policies based on item
CCLA
Aleph
Community colleges
?
I-Borrow
URSA
Public Libraries
?
Same circ policies?
15
Requests what?
Discovery
OhioLink
Returnables
Union Catalog
IDS Project (SUNY and KUDZU)
Returnables and nonreturnables
Separate catalogs, all 64 libraries use
Aleph and a combined catalog --
GIL Express
Returnables only
Union Catalog
PINE
Union Catalog
RAPID
Non-returnables
Prospector
Returnables
Mobius
Orbis – Cascade
Returnables
Minitex
Returnables
University of Maryland
Returnables
Union Catalog
CCLA
Returnables
Union Catalog
I-Borrow
Returnables
16
More detail on two of the
projects…
17
IDS Project (ILLiad Model)
•
Optimized resource sharing - SUNY and
•
Customizable to each institution – routing
rules, email templates, word templates –
KUDZU institutions
unique to each site
•
Uses OCLC Direct Request for
unmediated borrowing – beta testing for
•
Available to add institutions outside of SULs
– think globally – interact with other ILLiad
articles starting December 1 (IDS Project)
institutions.
•
Follows the Rethinking Resource Sharing
Model of User Centered ILL Transaction -
•
one request form for both articles and loans
IDS Projects already partnering with Serials
Solutions, OCLC and Atlas and is currently
in talks with Solinet.
•
Extensive sharing of eJournals via eJournal
Availability Server (shared ERM discovery
tool)
•
Recipient of the Rethinking Resource
Sharing Innovation Award
18
IDS Project participants agree to:
Adherence to contractual
performance standards
Articles: 48 hours
Loans:
72 hours
(Weekends and Holidays Excluded)
Looking at two separate libraries at different date
ranges, IDS found the following turn-around time
ranges of interest:
Average Time between Patron Request and Request
Sent for loans using Direct Request: 1.25 hours, and
4.25 hours
Average Time between Patron Request and Request
Sent for loans not using Direct Request: 20.98 hours,
20.73 hours
Summarizing the results: Direct Request cuts almost
one day off the turnaround times for loan request
processing.
19
IDS Project System Architecture
20
21
GILExpress
Model)
GIL
Express(Circ-based
(Circ-Based
Model)
•
Offered to all libraries in the University
System of Georgia (35 institutions)
– Only books from libraries’ general
collections available
•
Standard borrowing privileges statewide
– differing local policies
– fine and fee practices vary
•
State-mandated and funded
•
Returns to any USG library
•
Based on:
– Georgia’s Interconnected Libraries
(GIL) Universal Catalog
– Voyager ILS with UB component
•
Materials not available through GIL
Express (i.e. journal articles) may be
available through ILL
•
Single user interface for placing
requests and tracking requests and
loans
22
UBorrow Possibilities:
or, how will it work,
and
what does it mean to me?
23
What are the possibilities:
POSSIBILITIES
 ILLiad
COST PROHIBITIVE
 Innovative Interfaces
(INNReach)
 Aleph ILL in our current environment
 URSA
 With a change in Aleph architecture to
a single bib:
 Aleph ILL
 Voyager
 WorldCat Local
 Aleph PDQ (Patron Direct Queue)
24
DRAFT Requirements and Possible* Options: UBorrow
*Based on information gathered so far; none of these are yet thoroughly tested
Possibilites AFTER changing Aleph architecture to a Single
Bib/Multiple Administrative file structure
Aleph ILL
Aleph PDQ
MANGO
MANGO
Where is Request button?
Request link appears the same to users
regardless of system?
MANGO
Current Aleph architecture
Aleph ILL
MANGO
development
Y
Y
Y
System locate function (like titles)
Y, via OCLC holdings
Y
Y
Y
Item available that can fulfill the request?
development
Y (may need some additional
MANGO development)
Y (may need some additional
MANGO development)
Y
Patron checks - blocks, fines, etc.
development
Y
Y
Y
Load balancing / randomization?
Automatic routing of request to initial
lender?
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y, with Direct Request;
Y
Y
Y
Automatic printing of pull slips?
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
development
Y
development
Y
Y
N
Y, via X-service
Y, via X-service
Y
Customizable via ILLiad
Y
Y
Y
N - SI in to fix
N - SI in to fix
Y?
Y
Y
N/A - item already present
Y
Y
Y
N
Done manual / custom
development
N
N
Y?
?
PALS
CCLA, PALS
Five Colleges?
ILLiad
Automatic forwarding of unfilled after
certain period of time?
Automatic recall?
Automatic patron notification of status via
OPAC?
Automatic patron notification of status via
email?
Can patron access one comprehensive list
of loans / requests?
development
Borrowed item automatically created for
circulation?
N
Lending library automatically notified when
patron returns?
Y - when checked in on ILLiad
Do requests go through OCLC?
Are comprehensive statistics available?
Example implementations
Patron interface
Back-end system
Yes (could use ISO)
Yes, can see both sides, side by
side, tracks entire transaction
IDS Project – KUDZU (10) is
implementing parts of IDS project
25
ILLiad – pros and cons
PROS
•
Commonly used – all of the SULs main
libraries, plus other libraries worldwide
•
Would require little if no change in SUL ILL
CONS / CHALLENGES
•
Less flexibility for staffing of the service – the
expertise resides only in ILL
•
No centralized control over the request once
it is passed from MANGO to ILLiad
•
No item availability check
•
Requires separate patron registration in
staff workflow
•
Can definitely handle both returnables and
non-returnables
•
Excellent statistical reports
•
Uses OCLC for entire process – requests
ILLiad database
that cannot be fulfilled within UBorrow would
continue through the usual process
26
Aleph – pros and cons
PROS
CONS / CHALLENGES
•
An additional module for staff to learn
Because it is within Aleph, burden of staffing the
service would not necessarily fall on the ILL
department
•
To our knowledge, supports returnable
requests only
•
Intra-SUL transactions would be processed
completely within Aleph / MANGO – no OCLC
involvement or cost
•
Statistical reports would need development
•
•
Requests would only be routed to sites which
currently have the item available for request - by that
user.
Further development would be required to
automatically transfer unfilled UBorrow
requests into ILLiad / OCLC
•
Provides an opportunity to enhance services
between separate / remote campuses within one
institution
•
Enhances services at joint use facilities shared with
the community colleges (CCLA), since they use
Aleph ILL
•
No additional cost – part of the Aleph software
•
27
What will success look like?
• increased fulfillment of patron requests from within the
SULs’ collections
• more patron requests being placed
• faster turnaround time for UBorrow returnables
• greater efficiencies in workflow
• greater patron satisfaction with the request service
28
Next steps…
Testing to determine best solution:
Aleph ILL
•
•
FCLA to setup and test the Aleph ILL Module
Beta test Aleph ILL at University of Florida and University of Central Florida
ILLiad
•
Test ILLiad Direct Request among SUL’s
–
•
UCF, USF and FIU currently testing
Beta test IDS Project among a few SUL institutions
–
UCF and USF trying TPAM (performance module)
MANGO development
•
•
•
FCLA building on ability to pass requests into ILLiad (CRL and working with UCF)
Looking at different request scenarios and how to handle
Identifying potential hooks between MANGO and Aleph ILL
29
Next steps…
Depending upon which system(s) we go with, can the
SUL’s :
• Agree on UBorrow loan period, renewals, etc.?
• Define and agree to performance standards?
• Identify current workflows, and determine where UBorrow can best be
supported?
30
Discussion
31