Resource USL: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly UNIVERSITY LIBRARY JANE BARTON | Coordinator Shared Client Services

The Good

Resource USL ›ILL Management System: -Sierra ILL ›Consortia products: -ArticleReach -BONUS+ (INNReach) in 2014 ›Primary DD suppliers: -LADD -ArticleReach -SUBITO -OCLC WorldShareILL ›End user requesting: - via MyLoans in Webpac. -All article requests pass through ArticleReach first ›End user delivery (article scans): -DRM system – ARIEL -MyLoans (ArticleReach Requests) 3 Current Resource Sharing Framework

Resource USL ›Integrates with circulation system ›No need for external record loads, seamless checkout of material and integration with patron records/MyLoans ›Request forms work reasonably well – labels can be tailored, form names and labels within Sierra ILL can be changed, clients use same authentication, morphed a request form to manage requests from off-site commercially run storage, forms can be limited to certain ptypes ›As Sierra, consistent with rest of LMS  no need for staff to be trained in a separate system ›Staff find it easy to use 4 Sierra ILL

Resource USL ›Consortia products complimentary to ILL system ›ArticleReach: -Staff time saver – fully unmediated -Client time saver – fast delivery of material, often overnight with time zone differences -We love it, clients love it (mostly!) ›BONUS+: -Not qualified to comment (yet) -Definitely a time saver - unmediated client ‘requesting’ - integration with Library LMS - no need to update a separate DD requesting system 5 Consortia Products

Resource USL ›ArticleReach: integrated with MyLoans ›ARIEL …. 6 End User Delivery

Resource USL 7

The Bad …

Resource USL ›Statistics: -difficult to extract -not useful reports -downloading to excel, manipulation required to massage ›Limited ways to manage requests: -No flagging for urgent ones -No easy follow ups other than date requested/needed ›No two way integration with ArticleReach ›No integration with MyLoans 9 Sierra ILL

Resource USL ›Unlike other parts of Sierra the ILL tables are not currently exposed to us – if these could be migrated into the PostgreSQL database, then we could: -Set up staff auto-alerts based on request elements eg.needed by date, follow up date, request type -Create tailored statistical reports based on elements of patron fixed length fields (faculty, category etc) that we choose – delivered automatically or in a web interface that enable quick and easy docdel stats for supply / requesting / intracampus, etc as needed. -provide clear hold shelf lists for ILL based on the virtual item still being on hold for the patron and the return by date in the ILL request. -And undoubtedly many more things that haven't occurred to us yet! ›Product end of life, no longer supported with upgrades ›Lack of ISO ILL compliancy 10 Sierra ILL Continued …

Resource USL ›Ready to keel over at any moment ›Not upgraded in 4+ years ›Incompatible with more recent versions of Windows ›No real standalone alternatives ›Only other alternatives sit within larger ILLMS eg. ArticleExchange within OCLC, within Relais 11 ARIEL

Resource USL 12

The Ugly …

Resource USL ›Offers our Clients: -Request tracking -Desktop, or at least integrated, delivery of copy requests ›Offers our Staff: -Automatic updating of requests throughout the request lifecycle, including updating of external systems such as LADD and OCLC -Integrated scanning and FTP functions -Automated system freeing staff from time intensive, often paper based tasks ›A system that is less and more 14 We Need a System that …

Resource USL In next 12 months USL will have to seriously consider an alternative ILL Management system 15 And that System is not Sierra ILL ….

Resource USL 16