UBorrow Submitted By: Jennifer Kuntz Kristine Shrauger Robb Waltner 1 A New Service

Objective Enable faculty, students and staff of any Florida state public university to easily and seamlessly request materials from the state universities libraries, without intervention on the part of the patrons home library. 2

1. Patron sees desired title in MANGO and clicks the Request link 2. The Request is delivered to a lending institution, where it is printed on a call slip for retrieval Pride and Prejudice 3. The item is checked out by the holding library to the patrons pickup library and sent to the pickup library 4. The patron is notified the item is available for pickup Pride and Prejudice 5. Patron checks the item out at the pickup library 3

Why now? CSUL directive, driven by: Opportunity: shared discovery tool = MANGO User expectations: convenient options and fast turnaround Environment: existing reciprocal borrowing agreements shrinking budgets Remote Shared Storage facility unmediated borrowing initiatives elsewhere Cost: ILL is expensive can we make it cheaper? 4

5 The Union Catalog Sign-in system chooses the appropriate librarys local items/requests profile based on IP address, or allows you to choose.

6 A single Request button will submit the request to either Aleph or ILLiad.

7 Once the request is submitted, the user is presented with the login/confirmation screen (Aleph or ILLiad)

Rethinking Resource Sharing From A Manifesto for Rethinking Resource Sharing:A Manifesto for Rethinking Resource Sharing libraries must improve their information delivery system. Aligning resource sharing workflow, collection policies, and discovery-delivery systems by significantly reducing service barriers and cost, and offering user service options are critical pieces that promote information access. We believe that the user should be able to get what s/he wants on the terms that s/he chooses without undue hurdles from the library community. 8

Rethinking Resource Sharing From A Manifesto for Rethinking Resource Sharing:A Manifesto for Rethinking Resource Sharing the desire for high quality collections invariably lead [users] to libraries. To deliver that information requires that libraries meet some of the service expectations that users experience with Internet book sellers. we believe every institution must re-evaluate its service model revise its policies and workflow to meet the global resource sharing and delivery mandate, and expose its resources to more general discovery. 9

Current Environment History of reciprocal borrowing among the SULs: DLLI Borrowing Privileges Agreement (1999)DLLI Borrowing Privileges Agreement Reciprocal Direct ILL Services (1998)Reciprocal Direct ILL Services SUS Interlibrary Loan Guidelines (1998, rev. 2008)SUS Interlibrary Loan Guidelines Budget cuts Statewide Storage FacilityStatewide Storage Facility: The facility will house shared copies of monographs, journals, and other items which will be equally and readily available to all state university libraries. 10

11 User-initiated* ILL/DDMediated ILL/DD Borrowing Unit Cost$2.39 - $14.70$17.50 Lending Unit Cost$3.27 - $12.06$9.27 Combined Unit Cost$6.16 - $26.76$26.77 Borrowing FILL Rate84% - 90%86% Lending FILL Rate82% - 87%58% Borrowing Turnaround Time2.5 6.6 calendar days7.6 calendar days Lending Turnaround time0.1 1.5 calendar days1.5 calendar days Costs *Unmediated

Costs Does bypassing OCLC save money? Current OCLC ILL flat rates based on the usage from the 2005 calendar ILL would need to increase/decrease at least 25% over a 2 year time span to increase/reduce OCLC ILL fees Costs will change in July 2009 due to merger of SOLINET and PALINET Tony Melvin (OCLC) looking at cost if OCLC bypassed 12

Who can we learn from? 13

14 Orbis-Cascade Minitex Prospector Mobius OhioLink SUNY PINE Gil Express CCLA I-Borrow Kudzu USMAI

15 System being usedComprised ofSame circ policies? OhioLinkInnovativeHigher academic private and public IDS PROJECT (SUNY and Kudzu) ILLiadHigher academic private and public, Public libraries No GIL ExpressVoyagerHigher academic private and publicYes PINEEvergreenPublic LibrariesYes RAPIDHome-grownHigher academic private and publicNot for books ProspectorInnovativePublic, academic and specialYes MobiusInnovativeHigher academic? Orbis - CascadeWorldCat LocalHigher academic private and public? MinitexAlephPublic, academic and special? University of MarylandAlephHigher academic private and publicCirc Policies based on item CCLAAlephCommunity colleges? I-BorrowURSAPublic Libraries?

Requests what?Discovery OhioLinkReturnablesUnion Catalog IDS Project (SUNY and KUDZU)Returnables and non- returnables Separate catalogs, all 64 libraries use Aleph and a combined catalog -- GIL ExpressReturnables only Union Catalog PINEUnion Catalog RAPIDNon-returnables ProspectorReturnables Mobius Orbis CascadeReturnables MinitexReturnables University of MarylandReturnablesUnion Catalog CCLAReturnablesUnion Catalog I-BorrowReturnables 16

17 More detail on two of the projects

IDS ProjectIDS Project (ILLiad Model) IDS ProjectIDS Project (ILLiad Model) Optimized resource sharing - SUNY and KUDZU institutions Uses OCLC Direct Request for unmediated borrowing beta testing for articles starting December 1 (IDS Project) Follows the Rethinking Resource Sharing Model of User Centered ILL Transaction - one request form for both articles and loans Extensive sharing of eJournals via eJournal Availability Server (shared ERM discovery tool) Customizable to each institution routing rules, email templates, word templates unique to each site Available to add institutions outside of SULs think globally interact with other ILLiad institutions. IDS Projects already partnering with Serials Solutions, OCLC and Atlas and is currently in talks with Solinet. Recipient of the Rethinking Resource Sharing Innovation Award 18

IDS Project participants agree to: Adherence to contractual performance standards 19 (Weekends and Holidays Excluded) Articles: 48 hours Loans: 72 hours Articles: 48 hours Loans: 72 hours Looking at two separate libraries at different date ranges, IDS found the following turn-around time ranges of interest: Average Time between Patron Request and Request Sent for loans using Direct Request: 1.25 hours, and 4.25 hours Average Time between Patron Request and Request Sent for loans not using Direct Request: 20.98 hours, 20.73 hours Summarizing the results: Direct Request cuts almost one day off the turnaround times for loan request processing. Looking at two separate libraries at different date ranges, IDS found the following turn-around time ranges of interest: Average Time between Patron Request and Request Sent for loans using Direct Request: 1.25 hours, and 4.25 hours Average Time between Patron Request and Request Sent for loans not using Direct Request: 20.98 hours, 20.73 hours Summarizing the results: Direct Request cuts almost one day off the turnaround times for loan request processing.

IDS Project System Architecture 20

GILExpress (Circ-based Model) Offered to all libraries in the University System of Georgia (35 institutions) Only books from libraries general collections available State-mandated and funded Based on: Georgias Interconnected Libraries (GIL) Universal Catalog Voyager ILS with UB component Single user interface for placing requests and tracking requests and loans Standard borrowing privileges statewide differing local policies fine and fee practices vary Returns to any USG library Materials not available through GIL Express (i.e. journal articles) may be available through ILL GIL Express (Circ-Based Model) GIL Express (Circ-Based Model) 22

UBorrow Possibilities: or, how will it work, and what does it mean to me? 23

What are the possibilities: POSSIBILITIES ILLiad Aleph ILL in our current environment With a change in Aleph architecture to a single bib: Aleph ILL Aleph PDQ (Patron Direct Queue) ILLiad Aleph ILL in our current environment With a change in Aleph architecture to a single bib: Aleph ILL Aleph PDQ (Patron Direct Queue) COST PROHIBITIVE Innovative Interfaces (INNReach) URSA Voyager WorldCat Local 24

DRAFT Requirements and Possible* Options: UBorrow *Based on information gathered so far; none of these are yet thoroughly tested ILLiad Current Aleph architecture Possibilites AFTER changing Aleph architecture to a Single Bib/Multiple Administrative file structure Aleph ILL Aleph PDQ Where is Request button? MANGO Request link appears the same to users regardless of system? development Y YY System locate function (like titles) Y, via OCLC holdings Y YY Item available that can fulfill the request? development Y (may need some additional MANGO development) Y Patron checks - blocks, fines, etc. development Y YY Load balancing / randomization? Y Y YY Automatic routing of request to initial lender? Y, with Direct Request; Y YY Automatic printing of pull slips? N Y YY Automatic forwarding of unfilled after certain period of time? Y Y YY Automatic recall? N development Y Automatic patron notification of status via OPAC? N Y, via X-service Y Automatic patron notification of status via email? Customizable via ILLiad Y YY Can patron access one comprehensive list of loans / requests? development N - SI in to fix Y? Borrowed item automatically created for circulation? N Y YN/A - item already present Lending library automatically notified when patron returns? Y - when checked in on ILLiad Y YY Do requests go through OCLC? Yes (could use ISO) N NN Are comprehensive statistics available? Yes, can see both sides, side by side, tracks entire transaction Done manual / custom development Y?? Example implementations IDS Project KUDZU (10) is implementing parts of IDS project PALS CCLA, PALSFive Colleges? Patron interface Back-end system 25

Commonly used all of the SULs main libraries, plus other libraries worldwide Would require little if no change in SUL ILL staff workflow Can definitely handle both returnables and non-returnables Excellent statistical reports Uses OCLC for entire process requests that cannot be fulfilled within UBorrow would continue through the usual process Less flexibility for staffing of the service the expertise resides only in ILL No centralized control over the request once it is passed from MANGO to ILLiad No item availability check Requires separate patron registration in ILLiad database 26 ILLiad pros and cons PROS

Aleph pros and cons PROS No additional cost part of the Aleph software Because it is within Aleph, burden of staffing the service would not necessarily fall on the ILL department Intra-SUL transactions would be processed completely within Aleph / MANGO no OCLC involvement or cost Requests would only be routed to sites which currently have the item available for request - by that user. Provides an opportunity to enhance services between separate / remote campuses within one institution Enhances services at joint use facilities shared with the community colleges (CCLA), since they use Aleph ILL CONS / CHALLENGES An additional module for staff to learn To our knowledge, supports returnable requests only Statistical reports would need development Further development would be required to automatically transfer unfilled UBorrow requests into ILLiad / OCLC 27

What will success look like? increased fulfillment of patron requests from within the SULs collections more patron requests being placed faster turnaround time for UBorrow returnables greater efficiencies in workflow greater patron satisfaction with the request service 28

Testing to determine best solution: Aleph ILL FCLA to setup and test the Aleph ILL Module Beta test Aleph ILL at University of Florida and University of Central Florida ILLiad Test ILLiad Direct Request among SULs UCF, USF and FIU currently testing Beta test IDS Project among a few SUL institutions UCF and USF trying TPAM (performance module) MANGO development FCLA building on ability to pass requests into ILLiad (CRL and working with UCF) Looking at different request scenarios and how to handle Identifying potential hooks between MANGO and Aleph ILL 29 Next steps

30 Next steps Depending upon which system(s) we go with, can the SULs : Agree on UBorrow loan period, renewals, etc.? Define and agree to performance standards? Identify current workflows, and determine where UBorrow can best be supported?

Discussion 31

Documents

UBorrow Submitted By: Jennifer Kuntz Kristine Shrauger Robb Waltner 1 A New Service