1. The future of resource sharing
OCLC RLP Melbourne 2015
Andrew Wells, University Librarian

2. Overview CAUL Bibliographic Utilities Project
Findings about resource sharing
What I think it means

3. Project background Trends PRINT ERA DIGITAL ERA Ownership Access
Select and share scarce things
Have lots of (the same) stuff, big deals, open access
Local
Global
Bibliographic utilities are the model for co-operation
???
What do we need to ‘share’ when the ‘access’ model dominates our supply of information resources to our university community?
NLA puts the value proposition for Libraries Australia as a ‘resource sharing service … for Australian libraries and their users. Its key missions are to support the workflows of Australian libraries and provide data to underpin the Trove discovery service.

4. Will highlight findings from first two
Project areas
Current collection management practices
Directions for interlending and document supply
The national NBD and the big one in Dublin, Ohio
Pricing models
Financial sustainability
Will highlight findings from first two
The project set out to collect evidence about what CAUL libraries were actually doing in collection management and resource sharing. How important a role do services like LA and OCLC play in it?
In this presentation, I will not have too much to say about workflow, but more about the trends and choices libraries are making.

5. CAUL ‘collection’ profile
98% of serials are electronic
38% of non-serials are electronic
81% of materials expenditure is online
75% get vendor cataloguing
Intensive use of knowledge bases
Emerging use of vendor based offerings – eg Alma Community Zone
First of all, what are university libraries spending their funds on. From the latest CAUL statistics we see that serials are largely online. Monographs are catching up. Note other tools and services used in collection management. I put this here because if this was print, this would be the foundation data for resource sharing underpinned by a national union catalogue. But in the world increasingly dominated by ‘online’ and ‘access’, CAUL libraries do not act uniformly.

6. Adding holdings to ANBD by format
Always
Sometimes
Never
Print
95% 5% 0% AV
82%
18%
Theses
66%
24%
11%
E-books (single titles)
13%
68%
E-books (collections) 8%
16%
79%
E-journals (single titles)
E-journals (aggregated)
14%
75%
Streamed materials
76%
Here you can see what actually happens. Print and AV are reported. Reporting of theses are changing because I think all CAUL libraries have theses online in repositories. Repository metadata is harvested by Trove, so why report to the NBD (see how ‘access’ thinking affects your point of view). And anyway, the online theses are accessible right away – the sharing of the resource is activated by putting the resource online. Note the numbers drop off quickly for anything ‘e’. Reasons for not adding are: inability to lend due to license restrictions; volatility of titles within collections’ near universality of holdings for the same collections (especially within CAUL)

7. How important to add e-resources to the ANBD?
Yet, when we asked how important it was to add them to the AND, we got rather different responses. It has been suggested that Alma libraries delayed reporting until the reporting functionality was delivered. Even so, it will be interesting to see if this changes what libraries report.

8. Yet a majority of CAUL want a comprehensive ANBD …
And just to confuse you further. Just about everybody wants a comprehensive AND. Reasons vary for – the intellectual record, resource sharing, collection management.
So one foundation of the print world is a bit shaky. What has this meant for resource sharing?

9. Let’s look at the numbers first. This is a very busy slide.
First reciprocal borrowing (where the user has to make a journey to another library to borrow the book) is in decline. This is ULANZ (dark blue) and CAVAL (pink)
BONUS+ -- a reciprocal borrowing scheme used by III libraries using the INN-Reach software is growing and popular (orange). Here the user gets the book delivered to his or her library.
Article Reach is small but steady – another service based on III libraries
Now overall trends are interesting. For CAUL libraries, their requesting activity decreased by about 10% between 2009 and This activity in LADD decreased by 20%
Overall supplying by CAUL libraries increased about 8% over the period. This activity in LADD decreased by 18%

10. The numbers Total: Australia and New Zealand 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
2014
Loans: ULANZ/other borrowing schemes
283230
294673
212951
164032
144557
Supplied Items (Loans and Copies)
263513
253792
283787
281232
284261
Received Items (Loans and Copies)
357628
363836
368563
341589
324032
CAUL Supplied Items in LADD
142382
143692
134135
139381
116963
CAUL Requested Items in LADD
163786
171233
151248
150480
130938
BONUS+
42941
61237
80014
90572
87886
Article Reach
85184
64974
73255
CAVAL Reciprocal Borrowing
135588
119468
92171
75166
58744
Here are the numbers

11. What do we mean by ‘resource sharing’
Traditional ILL and DD AND Consortium arrangements Commercial document suppliers Buying it instead of sourcing it Digitising local collections on demand? What are we counting and reporting? Do we know what we are doing in our own libraries?
Of course it all comes down to what we are counting and reporting. What do we actually mean by resource sharing? We don’t have ‘resource sharing’ departments in our libraries – I am not even sure we call them ILL departments any more. They are document services units. So I think we mean these things (and indeed most of these are what we are reporting in the CAUL statistics). We need to understand if our reliance on commercial document suppliers is increasing. At UNSW, about 20% of ILL requests for monographs have been met not by sourcing a copy in another library, but by buying a e-book. I know others of you are doing this, but it would be interesting to know more about why, when and how many. At UNSW Library, when we get a request for thesis, it jumps to the front of the queue in our retrospective thesis digitisation program. We only started doing this in June and have already digitised 64 theses this way. And we do not charge for the service either. There is a patchwork of things going on, which takes advantage of new services and technologies. And approaches.

12. Multiple providers A typical CAUL member might use LADD BONUS+
ArticleReach
WorldShare ILL
PAYG: BLDSS, Subito, InfoTrieve, publisher databases
Reciprocal borrowing: ULANZ, CAVAL Reciprocal Borrowing
The complexity in counting and reporting is reflected in the number of document services available to libraries

13. Findings and observations
In LADD, CAUL requests down 20%, supplied down 18% -- but overall activity resilient
58% want to develop unmediated services
LADD Payment Service is popular
Copyright and licensing restrictions seen as major problem
So I have reported these trends – but what I cannot do is work out what is the gap between LADD activity and overall activity. But the trend for LADD is clear.
The rest are familiar

14. LA valued by CAUL
Finally, we asked questions about value. Again, these show things that do not ‘go together’. CAUL members see LA as providing the framework for resource sharing

15. But, when we ask: How likely is it that your Library’s reliance on LADD will decrease as electronic formats replace print formats?
But we expect we will use LADD less. ‘Go figure’