National Resource Sharing Working Group
Consultations
In November 1999 the NRSWG gave a series of presentations to stimulate discussion on the work of the NRSWG in developing new national performance standards for ILL.
The Working Group’s preliminary work on identifying models for performance standards and criteria for developing standards was discussed. Participants at each presentation were asked to comment on issues relating to standards.
A standard discussion outlinewas used for
each presentation. The presentation summarised the background to the formation
of the NRSWG and its terms of reference. These presentations were useful in
publicising the NRSWG across special, academic, public and state library
sectors and in delivering the message that the Working Group is committed to
wide consultation.
Conclusions to be drawn from the discussion and
comments are:
- There is widespread support across library sectors for extended national ILL standards.
- All meetings identified the following three service areas which standards should cover: responses to requests (including unsatisfied requests), turnaround time, standardisation of formats or data elements for requests.
- There is support for a range of service levels, linked to a scale of recommended charges. In line with the Working Group’s views, there was little enthusiasm for the minimum level being “when convenient”.
- There was an acknowledgement of the potential for the directory services giving accurate and clear information on service levels offered.
- On the question of standardised loan periods, the general response was that it is an interesting idea but might be difficult to achieve in practice.
Library Technician's Conference, Fremantle, W.A., 7 September 1999 (Toby Burrows)
Charges and Standards:
- Some libraries were charging fax prices for documents supplied via Ariel, but thought this was unjustified.
- Guidelines were felt to be needed for a common approach to checking before issuing "not on shelf" responses and forwarding a request. There was some support for the principle of "check once, then forward".
- The requirement to limit ILL requests to one per form is not always being observed and probably needs to be re-emphasized.
- Several libraries had experienced difficulties with client expectations in relation to Fast Tracks (from both client libraries and end users) -especially the expectation of an immediate response.
Copyright:
- Some libraries had encountered problems with end users whose requests would breach the copyright law.
- There was concern that licence agreements for electronic journals might prevent or restrict interlibrary supplying of articles.
Kinetica Document Delivery service (KDD):
- Concern was expressed about the new payments system, especially the prospect of getting cheques for items supplied, rather than credits on Kinetica bills.
- There was some discussion of the likely effect of KDD on interlending workflows, and some comment on the slowness of KDD.
- Some libraries were experiencing problems with KDD and Ariel because of firewalls.
Suppliers:
- Infotrieve were generally felt to be good, although one library had noticed a recent decline in service quality, especially for Rush orders.
- UnCover were generally considered unreliable.
- There were several complaints about poor service from some of the larger university libraries, and about the higher charges from some university libraries.
- Some libraries felt they could get a better service by going overseas (e.g. to BLDSC) than by using Australian libraries.
- Some interest was expressed in using OCLC, especially for access to electronic journals.
- There was general agreement that GRATIS works very well and defines service expectations clearly.
Other issues:
- There were felt to be too many incorrect holdings on the NBD, with some libraries not updating their holdings regularly enough.
- There was some discussion of issues related to unmediated service: how to pay, how to control expenditure, the varying expectations of end users, and the possibility of the direct use of Internet ordering.
- There was a general feeling that ILL supplying is often under-resourced and insufficiently supported by library management. There is a danger that this may be seen as undermining the principle of reciprocity.
- There was some discussion of the possible effects of the GST on the ALIA voucher system, and of the effect of LIDDAS on the national interlending system.
- Some people felt there was a need for a revised edition of AUSLOAN2.
CSIRO Information Management & Technology Conference, Gold Coast, 8-11 November 1999 (Susan Magnay)
The presentation was attended by staff of CSIRO’s library network from throughout Australia (40-50 attendees).
Comments
- Document delivery is one of the most important services which CSIRO libraries provide to researchers
- About 50% of document supply traffic is within the CSIRO network
- Some libraries are net lenders and some net suppliers. Some have heavier demand from outside CSIRO than others.
- In the development of national standards, turnaround time is the most important factor – clients want fast and reliable service
- There could be problems with policing behaviour – ensuring or encouraging libraries to meet standards
- There is a movement towards choosing commercial suppliers to compensate for supply time problems.
Meeting at LISWA, Perth, 15 November 1999 (Susan Magnay)
Present
Nicole Wreford, King Edward Memorial Hospital
Robyn Hull, Psychiatric Services Library
Lorraine Lovett, Alcoa World Alumina R&D Library
Peter Hau, Water Corporation
Lucy Caminschi, Worksafe WA
Alison Coles, Agriculture Western Australia
Margaret Inglis, GHD Consulting Engineers
Dorothy Seymour, TAFE, Perth
Avenel Hicks, Edith Cowan University
Margaret Bruce, Murdoch University
Sue McDonald, LISWA
Colleen Hurst, Ministry of Justice Library
Comments
- Responses should be by the same method as the request. It is unsatisfactory to receive a mailed response to a faxed request.
- Standards for email requests, standard requesting formats and accurate information in directory services will assist in standardising and streamlining workflows.
- Current system is not efficient, particularly when requests are routed on. The requesting library should be informed if the request has been routed.
- Reciprocal arrangements between special libraries with common subject interests can work very well. They can agree on special levels of service. However special libraries need the national system for requests which can’t be satisfied through special reciprocal arrangements.
- Excellent to have commercial services. They complement services from libraries. More services and more variety is essential.
- There is a long-term risk of reducing journal collections in Australian libraries and a risk of being locked into expensive services long-term.
- A standard for responding, especially to unsatisfied requests, is needed.
- Standardised loan periods? There is a case for longer loan periods to take into account delivery times (eg. eastern states to WA).
- Some licences for full text services don’t permit supply through ILL.
- Need standards for sending via Ariel to IP or email addresses?
- How to accommodate service level agreements to primary clients in a national standard.
- Suggested turnaround time standard (supplier view) – normal or standard service 2 working days; fast service 1 working day.
- Look at separate standards for loans and copies?
Public Libraries Conference, Perth, 16 November 1999 (Susan Magnay & Toby Burrows)
Attended by staff from a number of State and public libraries, Jennefer Nicholson, Executive Director, ALIA and Brenda McConchie, Executive Director, AIMA.
Comments
- Standard of verification to be provided by requesting library.
- Ability to give response to end user on the same day as they place their request.
- Timeliness of delivery.
- Clear options for levels of service linked to a scale of charges.
- Standardised loan period could present problems for isolated libraries and users.
Jennefer Nicholson, Executive Director, ALIA, commented that ALIA is active in 2 areas critical for document delivery: lobbying on copyright legislation reform and reviewing the impact of the GST on the ILL voucher system.
WAGUL LIDDAS implementers group meeting, 16 November 1999(Susan Magnay & Toby Burrows)
Attended by staff from Edith Cowan University, Murdoch University and University of WA.
Comments
- Standards for response time for request needed.
- Method of transmission, eg. Ariel, electronic transmission.
- Turnaround time should be measured from the point of view of the end user, rather than the supplying library.
- Standards could comprise quality statements, rather than a focus on numbers or quantitative measures.
- Need to provide incentives for big suppliers to improve – national benchmarking ideas & rewards for best practice.
- Libraries can learn from commercial suppliers.