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 bbailey@bcr.org

Heather Clarkhclark@bcr.org

Bibliographical Center for Research