A Comparative Analysis of ILL Systems Meg Atwater-Singer Access Services Librarian, Associate Professor University of Evansville

Goals ILL @ UEL Desired features in new ILL system What systems are out there? How will they improve UEL’s ILL service?

UEL ILL Background Part of Access Services department 1.5 FTE + 21 student hours/week # of filled borrowing requests Copies = 3,462 (38% IN) / 3-yr average: 3,364 Loans = 2,521 (80% IN) / 3-yr average: 2,143 # of filled lending requests Copies = 97 (46% IN) / 3-yr average: 386 Loans = 770 (74% IN) / 3-yr average: 907 Generous & FREE lender – 56 days with multiple renewals Clearly, UEL is a net borrower!

Current ILL System Ex Libris Voyager 9.2.1 ILL Module = (version 6.7.2 / 2013) Based on CLIO Basic ILL Request Initial processing of requests delivered via forms in catalog and OpenURL Link Resolver (SFX) Worldshare ILL – ordering of requests ILL Management Updating records (received, returned, renewed, recalled, etc.)

Why change? Migrating to ALMA/Primo this summer

Current ILL Features OpenURL Link Resolver Automatic notification when loans are received Uses ILS patron database / institutional data Charge loans in ILS / bib records automatically created on the fly

Desired ILL Features ILL process is transparent to patrons Patrons can see their requests/history Customizable patron notices & reports Manage copyright compliance Reasonably priced

Systems Looked at CLIO Web Tipasa AutoGraphics Worldshare ILL ILLiad Homegrown options

Homegrown ILL - Rockhurst University, MO Compared ILLiad, Wufoo (online form building website with a data management grid) and old, paper-based system Six categories: patron usability, request forms, staff viewing and navigation, staff side request generation, staff side report generation and confidentiality Choose Wufoo over ILLiad - $200 v. $2000 Wufoo does not work with Open URL Link Resolvers  Kohler, E & D Theiss. 2012. From overloaded to opportunity: the search for a low-cost interlibrary loan management system. Bricks and Click Libraries Symposium Proceedings, 8-20.

ILLiad Web-based & hosted $11,000 – includes $2,500 training / 1-time cost OCLC https://www.oclc.org/en/illiad.html Did not consider = OCLC plans to move libraries to Tipasa

WorldShare ILL OCLC Web-based & hosted $0 – are already paying $17,500 https://www.oclc.org/en/worldshare-ill.html No user interface 

SHAREit Web-based & hosted Cost - $0 – SRCS! AutoGraphics http://www4.auto-graphics.com/products-shareit-inter-library-loan-ill.asp Over 50% of ILL traffic are copy requests, which SHAREit doesn’t do elegantly

CLIO Web Clio Software Web-based & hosted $2,000 + $1,000 database conversion Clio Software http://www.cliosoftware.com/

Tipasa Web-based & hosted $6,000 + WSILL OCLC https://www.oclc.org/en/tipasa.html

Analysis Criteria Patron Interface Request Functions Request Forms Staff – Request Processing Staff – Request Management Staff – Report Generation Confidentiality

Patron Interface Patrons authenticated using LDAP or similar method Yes to both See new requests, request history, status of ILL requests, PDF links Edit his/her information Choose to receive status changes via text Tipasa ONLY

ADVANTAGE = Tipasa

Request Functions Submit requests using Open URL link resolver from databases/discovery layer Yes to both Submit requests using fill in the blank forms Request multiple items from one form Clio ONLY

ADVANTAGE = Clio

Request Forms Customizable: add desired logo, colors & fonts Yes to both Add/delete required fields Edit field names

ADVANTAGE = None

Staff - Request Processing Able to correct and manipulate data on requests Yes to both Add notes, concerning questions or clarifications Easily sort requests, identifying attention items Staff is able to see which requests are new

ADVANTAGE = None

Staff - Request Management Notifications sent automatically with status changes / can customize Yes to both – Clio with caveats Automatically create/delete bib records in ILS to charge loans Clio ONLY PDFs can be uploaded to database & emailed, with a copy of citation Yes to both Electronic files automatically deleted after 30 days Requests needing Copyright Clearance easily identified Tipasa ONLY Clio can send automatically notifications only when receiving something. Clio does not allow libraries to send text message notifications. Clio’s notices are customizable but Tipasa has over 50 notifications for every imaginable status change. Advantage Tipasa!

ADVANTAGE = Tipasa Tipasa has more flexibility around notifications and their ability to sort new requests according to copyright compliance factors. Clio can generate temp bib records to manage loans.

Staff - Report Generation Automatically generate reports from raw form data Yes to both Reports will include graphs and other visual features Tipasa ONLY Export reports A current Tipasa user has wrote that the reporting feature is not as robust as ILLiad. I imagine this will increase as more libraries as moved to Tipasa from ILLiad.

ADVANTAGE = Tipasa

Confidentiality Generate reports that do not violate patron privacy Yes to both Can hide patron information when necessary

ADVANTAGE = None

Improving ILL Service Tipasa+ Clio+ Patron Interface Request Management++ Report Generation Request Functions Request Management+

Comparison Results Tipasa Clio Open URL Link Resolver Y Automatic notification when loans are received Y+ Y- Uses ILS patron database Charge loans in ILS / bib records automatically created N ILL process is transparent to patrons Patrons can see their requests/history Customizable patron notices & reports Manage copyright compliance Reasonably priced

Clio Web Patron Request History

Tipasa Patron Request History

Tipasa Patron Request History 2

Clio Request Interface

Tipasa Request Interface

Now what? Meg Atwater-Singer ma35@evansville.edu Twitter: @megatwater