Shared ILS Survey & Interlibrary Loan and Resource Sharing

1. Shared ILS Survey&Interlibrary Loan and Resource Sharing Bob Bocher, Sally Drew Division for Libraries, Technology, and Community Learning

2. Shared ILS Survey–Some Preliminary Results– Bob Bocher 608-266-2127, robert.bocher@wisconsin.gov Division for Libraries, Technology, and Community Learning www.dpi.wi.gov/pld/sharedils.html

3. Goals of the Shared ILS Study • What are the annual costs of operating a shared ILS? • Who pays for these costs? • What are the different shared ILS funding models? • What services are offered as part of the shared ILS? • Post 2006, what should the state’s goal be for shared ILS? • Single, statewide ILS? • Fewer shared ILS? • Single vendor?

6. Basic Information • Since 2001, DLTCL has awarded $1.3 million in LSTA funds for public libraries to join shared ILS • There are shared ILS in 16 of the state’s 17 PL systems • Dynix (9), Innovative (4), Sirsi (3), GEAC (1) • 41% of shared ILS restrict members to public libraries • 59% of shared ILS allow other types of libraries too • In 2007 DLTCL will study issue of K-12 schools and shared ILS

7. Benefits of Participation • 87% have a high or very high level of satisfaction with their shared ILS • Central management provides economy of scale, reduces local responsibilities • Members have access to higher quality ILS • Members have access to larger collections, especially beneficial to smaller libraries • Enhanced resource sharing (WI is #1 nationwide) • It is an important service that patrons support

8. Issues with Participation • Need more ILS staff for tech support; recruitment of trained staff is difficult • Loss of autonomy, —once a library is committed there is no “turning back” • Challenge to develop common policies/procedures • Significant net lenders are not always compensated • Increased demand for services • Increased resource sharing = increased need for local staff and increased delivery costs

9. Suggestions for Improvements • Management • Work harder to standardize policies, show benefits to members • Keep number of the member libraries manageable • Address costs of reciprocal borrowing. Membership fees should consider net lending/borrowing ratios. • Increase state funding to systems • Technology • Stay committed to quality control of database • Better delivery of software upgrades • Vendors should develop ILS for consortia • Produce better reports; make report generation easier • Provide more tech support

10. Suggestions…cont. • User services, training • Provide extra copies of best sellers • Add more E-resources (could reduce delivery costs) • Enable readers to track what they’ve read • Allow fines to be paid with a debit or credit card • Use more Web-based video training • Provide more training on • backup software • MARC • how to maximize utilization of the ILS, including reports

12. Funding of Shared ILS • Statewide, $6,167,698 spent annually on shared ILS • Local funding >90%: • IFLS-BCLIC, OWLS/NFLS, SCLS, SWLS, WLS • Local funding 50-89%: • ESLS, IFLS, MCLS, WaukPL, WRLS • Local funding <50%: • Kenosha, LLS, MCFLS, NWLS, WVLS

14. Future Directions

15. Interlibrary Loan and Resource Sharing Sally Drew, Director Reference and Loan Library 608-224-6161, sally.drew@wisconsin.gov

16. Planning Process2004-2005 Meetings with groups • Library Information Technology Advisory Committee (LITAC) • Library Services and Technology Act Advisory Committee (LSTA) • Council on Library and Network Development (COLAND) • Interlibrary Loan Work Group

17. Planning Process2004-2005 • Needs assessment survey and focus groups • Development of technology scenario background papers • Request for Information (RFI) for potential prices • Open demonstrations by vendors • Development of a Request for Proposal (RFP)

18. Technology Scenarios • Union catalog • Virtual catalog • Hybrid union–virtual catalog • Interlibrary loan management system • Full portal functionality • Statewide integrated library system (ILS)

19. RFP General Requirements • Web-based information access and resource sharing services that are available to all types and sizes of libraries • Produce and maintain a statewide physical union catalog created from available WI bibliographic records • Operation of a gateway for searching library catalogs and displaying search results (virtual catalog) • A method for library staff and patrons to create interlibrary loan requests after conducting a search on either the physical union catalog or the virtual catalog

20. RFP General Requirements • An interlibrary loan management system to allow library staff to manage and track interlibrary loan requests • An interlibrary loan management system able to interact and exchange data with local ILS • Provide library staff: • With method(s) to update (add, change, delete) bibliographic records and local holdings data in the physical union catalog • With the capability to create original library catalog records • With method(s) to download and/or extract bibliographic records and holdings from the physical union catalog

21. RFP General Requirements • Operation of a gateway for searching digitized information, full text databases (e.g., BadgerLink) and Web-based resources and services provided by commercial vendors, i.e. Amazon, Yahoo, Google, etc. (federated search portal) • Patron authentication • Electronic document delivery • Training, documentation, and technical support

22. Standards Utilize standards: • ISO – Allow user to send and receive requests to and from another interlibrary loan management system • NCIP – Allow integration of interlibrary loan management system and circulation system • Z39.50 – Allow query and display results with different catalogs and databases

23. Vendors Fall and Spring demonstrations • Auto-Graphics • OCLC • Fretwell-Downing • Dynix • Innovative Interfaces, Inc.

24. RFP Timeline and Implementation

25. ? Questions ?Shared ILS Survey&Interlibrary Loan and Resource Sharing Bob Bocher, Sally Drew Division for Libraries, Technology, and Community Learning