Interlibrary Loan

1
Interlibrary Loan Collection Development

• Using ILL Requests for More Than Just Borrowing
• Amy Fry
• 5th Annual MOBIUS Users Conference
• 3 June 2004

2
ILL in Todays Academic Library

• ILL is an essential service! Why?
• Proliferation of resources
• Stretched budgets
• Breadth of teaching and research that academic
  libraries support
• Visibility of global research resources
• Streamlined ILL service

3

• What can interlibrary loan statistics tell us
  about our libraries and collections?
• How can interlibrary borrowing requests aid
  collection development librarians?
• Using ILL to implement purchase-on-demand
  programs what are the benefits?
• ILL interaction with collection development at
  UMK
• Considerations for the future

4
Lending and Borrowing

• Interlibrary lending refers to filling requests
  from other institutions with materials from your
  own collection
• Interlibrary borrowing refers to obtaining
  materials from other libraries to fill requests
  placed by your own patrons

5
UMKCs Miller Nichols Library

• Serves 16,336 patrons
• 9,918 undergraduate students
• 3,458 graduate students
• 2,960 faculty/staff
• Owns 3,210,539 resources
• 955,659 monographs government documents
• 3,756 currently received serial subscriptions
• 1,806,975 microforms
• 444,149 other materials

6
ILL at UMK

• Has served nearly 2,000 patrons in 46 different
  departments since 2002
• 53 are graduate students
• 24 are undergraduates
• 15 are faculty
• 8 other

7
ILL at UMK, contd

• Who requests what? FY04 to date
• 63 borrowing requests placed by graduate
  students
• 15 borrowing requests placed by faculty
• 13 borrowing requests placed by undergraduates
• 9 borrowing requests placed by other

8
ILL at UMK, contd

• Around half of borrowing requests come from 4
  academic departments. FY04 to date
• Psychology 18.84 of requests
• Education 12.84
• Conservatory 10.65
• Pharmacy 7.53
• Consistent with data from past years.

9
Methods of Borrowing
Jun03-Apr04

• FY04 to date
• 7,979 requests filled through traditional ILL
• 10,347 requests filled through PIB
• 18,326 requests filled
• Same period FY03
• 9,202 requests filled through traditional ILL
• 8,265 requests filled through PIB
• 17,467 requests filled

Jun02-Apr03
10
Requesting at UMK

• While traditional ILL borrowing at UMK has gone
  down 13 from the same period last year, PIB has
  gone up 20 and overall borrowing has gone up
  nearly 5
• We find almost 18 of borrowing requests
  available on-site, through full-text databases or
  online journals, or through PIB

11
Software at UMK

• Clio 3.0 is our ILL management system
• Ariel 3.3 is our electronic document delivery
  software
• We receive over 90 of articles electronically
• Patrons request using
• Our web form
• FirstSearch DirectRequest
• Ovid databases
• Our paper form

12
What Can ILL Requests Tell Us About our
Collectionsand Services?

• Lending requests
• Can identify items missing in a collection
  (Atkins Weible)
• Can identify catalog records to update
• Can identify areas where finding items on the
  shelf is difficult

13
Borrowing Requests

• Collection management
• Research curriculum needs
• Serial collection development
• Monograph collection development

14
Collection Management

• Borrowing requests
• Can identify user education needs (Murphy
  Rupp-Serrano)
• Can demonstrate overuse and underuse in
  collection areas (Aguilar, Carrigan, Ochola)

15
Research Curriculum Needs

• Borrowing requests
• Can identify areas of faculty or graduate
  research that may become curriculum needs in the
  future (Khalil)
• Can identify future trends for research in an
  academic discipline
• Can identify interdisciplinary areas of research
  where needs are not being met by traditional
  collection development (Anderson)

16
Serial Collection Development

• Borrowing requests
• Can identify serials that are high in demand,
  costly to borrow, and should be considered for
  subscription (Murphy Rupp-Serrano)
• Can support cancellation decisions by comparing
  access to subscription costs (Wilson Alexander)
• Can identify serial needs for collection
  development (Millson-Martula Watson)

17
Monograph Collection Development

• Borrowing requests
• Can identify books that should be candidates for
  purchase rather than ILL and implement programs
  to purchase these (purchase-on-demand programs)
• Can show requesting trends (by subject or
  discipline) and suggest collection-appropriate
  titles for purchase (Mellendorf, Lahmon)

18
ILL Collection Development

• What can ILL data show?
• Provide a glimpse into what is being borrowed
• Point to gaps in the collection
• Point to specialized research beyond the
  librarys scope
• Help collection development greater customize
  academic support
• (Livingston Mays, 2004)

19
ILL CD, contd

• What do ILL requests tell us?
• At-a-glance identification of the highest
  concentrations of borrowing
• Subject areas with greatest needs
• Needs by patron status
• Serial needs and usage related to costs
• (Livingston Mays, 2004)

20
ILL CD, contd

• What is needed?
• Meaningful data
• A way to extract and manipulate the data to
  provide value-added information
• Use to fine-tune balance between access and
  ownership
• (Livingston Mays, 2004)

21
ILL-CD Collaboration at UMK

• Clio Borrowing Requests by Department Report
  (monthly)
• Lists of borrowed items published within the last
  five years (quarterly)
• Request purchase of titles too new to be
  available through ILL (as requested)

22
Clio BRBD Report
23
Clio BRBD Report
24
Requests for Recently Published Items

• To share lists of requests
• Need a systematic method for data collection
• Need to package the information in a useful
  format
• Need to winnow down the information to essentials
• Need to disseminate the information regularly
• (Lahmon)

25
Recently Published, contd

• Process
• Download IMS report from OCLC monthly
• Save in Excel format
• Sort to extract items by filled (yes/no),
  publication date, format
• Create three lists (books, articles,
  dissertations) and summary sheet
• E mail cumulative lists to CD librarians
  quarterly/annually

26
Download
27
Save in Excel
28
Create Summary Document
29
Requests for New Books

• When patrons request books too newly published to
  be available through ILL, we
• Inform patron that we cannot obtain item
• Send e mail with book and patron information to
  subject selector, head of collection development
  and acquisitions librarian to request purchase
• If subject selector authorizes purchase, ILL
  informs patron that the item will be purchased

30
Requests for New Books, contd

• Thank you for your Interlibrary Loan Request for
  the following new book
• Title TITLE
• Author author
• Imprint IMPRINT
• We were unable to obtain a copy of this book
  through Interlibrary Loan because it is too new.
  However, the Miller Nichols Library has decided
  to purchase this book and add it to our
  collection. Once it has been received and
  processed, you will be able to check it out.
• Please check the Merlin catalog for this title in
  approximately 4-6 weeks if you still want this
  item, or you can check back with the Interlibrary
  Loan office and we will follow up on the status
  of the order for you.
• Thanks!
• If you have any further questions please contact
  us at [phone] or mailtoumkc-mnlill_at_umkc.ed
  u.
• Thank you,
• Interlibrary Loan Department
• Miller Nichols Library
• University of Missouri-Kansas City

31
Purchase-On-Demand

• Bucknell University
• University of Wisconsin-Madison Book Express
• Purdue University Books on Demand
• University of Virginia Purchase Express
• Thomas Crane Public Library
• Other public libraries

32
Purchase-on-Demand, contd

• Bucknell University
• implemented 1990-91 to reduce book borrowing
• every borrowing request treated as potential
  purchase
• 150 cap on item cost
• considered delivery time in determining if
  purchase would be effective
• Results
• average cost of books purchased was 35.00
• purchased 135 titles first year, 1,403 total as
  of 1997
• 2 ½ weeks turnaround time
• (Perdue Van Fleet, 1999)

33
Purchase-on-Demand, contd

• University of Wisconsin-Madison Book Express
• implemented 2001-02
• book must be in scope of collection
• current year monographs 3 previous years
• monographs or proceedings only
• cost under 250
• foreign language/foreign imprint titles
• Results
• average cost of books purchased was 36.86
• patrons 48 grad, 43 faculty, 9 undergrad
• 135 books purchased in first two years
• 8 day turnaround time
• (Ward, Wray and Debus-Lopez, 2003)

34
Purchase-on-Demand, contd

• Purdue University Books on Demand
• implemented January 2000
• scholarly works in English
• published within last 5 years
• available to ship within 7 days
• max cost of 100 (later raised to 150)
• Results
• average cost of books purchased was 37.50
• patrons 52 grad, 36 faculty, 12 undergrad
• averaged 2.4 books per patron
• 1,943 books purchased in first two years, for 810
  patrons
• 8 day turnaround time
• (Ward, Wray and Debus-Lopez, 2003)

35
Purchase-on-Demand, contd

• Thomas Crane Public Library in Quincy, MA
• implemented fall 1998
• considered
• availability (in stock)
• price
• subject matter
• suitability for the collection
• Results
• average cost of books purchased was 17.00
• 107 items purchased in 2001-02
• most purchased from vendors, 18 from online
  booksellers
• most published within last 2 years, but this was
  not a criteria
• 14 day turnaround time
• (Allen, Ward, Wray and Debus-Lopez, 2003)

36
Results

• These libraries found that
• Books purchased through buy-not-borrow programs
  subsequently circulate more than normally
  purchased, approval-plan books
• Alleviates worry that ILL requests will lead to
  the purchase of very specialized titles of little
  interest to patrons other than the requester
  (Anderson)
• Why? Probably because such specialized titles are
  NOT the readily available, lower-cost titles that
  fit the criteria of a just-in-time purchasing
  model
• Not just a few patrons get books
• Purdue averaged 2.23 titles for each of 652
  patrons (mostly graduate students) (Anderson)

37
Results, contd

• Price is not much higher than cost of an ILL
• 27.83 vs. 17-37 each
• increased use causes the item to pay for itself
  in collection value
• ILL has a better cost value than ownership, in
  terms of lower cost per transaction, but poorer
  value in terms of collection impact, as it
  fulfills only a one-time use (Perdue Van Fleet)
• Patrons with little say in CD process before
  (grad students the highest ILL users) have
  opportunity to provide input (Anderson)
• Good way to fill gaps in interdisciplinary areas
  of study (Anderson)

38
Future of ILL at UMK

• Compare percentage of borrowing from a range of
  subject areas to percentage of collection
  holdings in those same subject areas possibly
  relate to circulation statistics, to determine
  over- and under-use of collection areas at UMK
• Provide reference instruction librarians with
  statistics on borrowing requests placed through
  ILL that are turned back to PIB and/or electronic
  full-text sources collaborate on user education
  program and track these numbers over time
• Notify patrons that purchased book has arrived
  and been processed and put on hold for them
• Import IMS reports into Access instead of Excel
  and create macros that will append and update
  data and run queries automatically
• Make purchase requests more proactive implement
  a purchase-on-demand program?

39
Conclusions

• Need to work together to provide the best, most
  cost-effective service to our patrons this
  means using all of our data in order to know as
  much as possible about our patrons, their needs,
  their habits and their behavior.

40
Conclusions, contd

• Think globally in terms of collections and their
  value. As long as libraries continue to view
  sharing primarily along the lines of borrowing
  what is needed, rather than lending for the
  regional or national benefit, efforts toward
  local collection efforts will be frustrating, and
  consortium-based collection development will
  falter. All of our patrons will be served to a
  lesser rather than a greater extent. (Sherrer,
  1998)