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 Directors 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 VisitsConclusions 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 VisitsConclusions 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. Automated Tasks for All TexNet Centers

Time-Cost Study

System Time for Area Library Lending System Time for Area Library Borrowing

Time-Cost StudyConclusions 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 Application Statistical 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

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 14-16Highly Feasible 11-13Feasible 8-10Possibly Feasible 1-7Not Feasible

Solutions A: Modifications to Current Structure

Model One: Elimination of Local Patron Subsidy Description –Reduce Funding for Service to TexNet Host Librarys 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 Feasible 2b: 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 (1 st 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 Heather Clark Bibliographical Center for Research