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

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

3. 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!

4. Current ILL System Ex Libris Voyager 9.2.1
ILL Module = (version / 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.)

5. Why change?
Migrating to ALMA/Primo this summer

6. 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

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

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

9. 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 From overloaded to opportunity: the search for a low-cost interlibrary loan management system. Bricks and Click Libraries Symposium Proceedings, 8-20.

10. ILLiad Web-based & hosted
$11,000 – includes $2,500 training / 1-time cost
OCLC
Did not consider = OCLC plans to move libraries to Tipasa

11. WorldShare ILL OCLC Web-based & hosted $0 – are already paying $17,500
No user interface 

12. SHAREit Web-based & hosted Cost - $0 – SRCS! AutoGraphics
Over 50% of ILL traffic are copy requests, which SHAREit doesn’t do elegantly

13. CLIO Web Clio Software Web-based & hosted
$2,000 + $1,000 database conversion
Clio Software

14. Tipasa Web-based & hosted $6,000 + WSILL OCLC

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

16. 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

17. ADVANTAGE = Tipasa

18. 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

19. ADVANTAGE = Clio

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

21. ADVANTAGE = None

22. 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

23. ADVANTAGE = None

24. 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 & ed, 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!

25. 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.

26. 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.

27. ADVANTAGE = Tipasa

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

29. ADVANTAGE = None

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

31. 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

32. Clio Web Patron Request History

33. Tipasa Patron Request History

34. Tipasa Patron Request History 2

35. Clio Request Interface

36. Tipasa Request Interface

37. Now what?
Meg Atwater-Singer