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

2. The Good

3. Resource Sharing @ 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

4. Resource Sharing @ 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

5. Resource Sharing @ 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

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

7. Resource Sharing @ USL 7

8. The Bad …

9. Resource Sharing @ 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

10. Resource Sharing @ 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 …

11. Resource Sharing @ 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

12. Resource Sharing @ USL 12

13. The Ugly …

14. Resource Sharing @ 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 …

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

16. Resource Sharing @ USL 16