Texas Resource Sharing: Examining the Present, Envisioning a Vibrant Future

1. Texas Resource Sharing:Examining the Present, Envisioning a Vibrant Future A Research Study prepared by Bibliographical Center for Research January 2008

2. Research Purpose Examine options for meeting interlibrary loan needs in terms of costs and benefits Provide a blueprint, based on best practices, for building interlibrary loan services at the state level into the future

3. Research Purpose Determine the needs of the Texas interlibrary loan community as they strive to meet patron demands for library materials Collect accurate information on the attitudes and perceptions of Texas librarians and library patrons toward various methods of interlibrary loan delivery

4. Report Components Part 1: Background TexNet Center Workflow Analysis Texas Resource Sharing Culture Data and GIS Analysis Literature Review Interlibrary Loan Best Practices & Protocols Patron Survey Staff Survey

5. Report Components Part 2: Models for Change Classification of Models Feasibility Analysis Modifications to Current Structure Comprehensive Change Part 3: Recommendations Goals for a New Resource Sharing Service Recommendations Possible Pilot Programs

6. Part 1: Background

7. A system is perfectly designed to produce the results it is now producing.-Joel Garreau

8. TexNet Center Workflow Analysis Site Visits Time-Cost Study Director’s Discussion Workflow Recommendations

9. Site Visits Traveled to all nine TexNet Centers Interviewed staff Evaluated practice between centers Collected issues and concerns of staff Met with Regional System staff as available

10. Site Visits—Conclusions Best Practices Strengths Liberal Lending of Material Types Reciprocity Electronic Requesting for Borrowing and Lending Load Leveling E-Resource Licensing for ILL Use Free Loans

11. Site Visits—Conclusions Best Practices Weaknesses Collection Development Union Listing Response within 24 Hours Electronic Article Delivery

12. Time-Cost Study Data Collection Tasks grouped by activity type according to lending, borrowing, or administrative All staff members recorded time spend in a five day period

13. Time-Cost Study Manual v. Automated Tasks for All TexNet Centers

14. Time-Cost Study

15. Time-Cost Study System Time for Area Library Lending System Time for Area Library Borrowing

16. Time-Cost Study—Conclusions TexNet Centers automation options are meeting demand of current traffic level TexNet Center time spent on work for local patron v. Area Library patrons is disproportionate

17. Directors’ Discussion Most Important Issues Funding Diverse Patron Needs Well-trained Staff TexNet Service Essential to Area Libraries Elimination of TexNet Center Funding Continue Local Paton Service Possible Diminished Lending Effect of Consolidation More Information for Opinion on Bidding

18. Workflow Improvements ILLiad and Clio Customizations One Time Settings Use Expertise Present in the System ILLiad Connectivity Use of Branch Collections Correctional Facilities Courier Packaging Training

19. Texas Resource Sharing Culture Funding Reciprocity Exposure of Holdings/Union Catalog Adoption of New Technology Training

20. Statistical Data Sources TexNet Centers Texas Group Library of Texas TexShare Databases TexShare Library Card Project Loan OCLC Cataloging Libraries OCLC Interlibrary Loan Libraries Loan Star Libraries Program Trans-amigos and Other Regional Courier Programs

21. GIS Application Statistical data applied to interactive mapping program

22. Literature Review Climate In Libraries For Patrons Increasing Demand for ILL Services Automation and Patron Initiation Lower Unit Cost, Higher Fill Rates and Faster Turnaround Time Impact on Collections Policy Modifications

23. ILL Best Practices & Protocols Electronic requesting for lending and borrowing Negotiate licenses for e-content which allow ILL use Collection development response to ILL demand Union listing of serial holdings Electronic delivery options Load leveling to suppliers Lending of all formats Limiting barriers to lending (e.g. charging borrowing fees) Staff expertise and training expectations Definitions of materials that should not be requested through ILL

24. Patron Survey • Methodology • Results • Opportunity to increase use and visibility of service • Significant interest in home delivery

25. Library Staff Survey • Methodology • Results • Limited use of automated options such as patron-initiated requesting and unmediated borrowing processing • High desire to improve courier service

26. Part 2: Models for Change

27. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.-Richard Buckminster Fuller

28. Model Classification: Who does the work? Current model TexNet Centers perform work Stand Alone Centralized ILL system or OCLC Services ILL staff at libraries perform work Circulation based system Patrons perform work Circulation staff at libraries perform work

33. Feasibility Analysis Four major areas of consideration: Legal Political/Social Fiscal Success Measures 4-point scale

34. Legal Need for statutory or regulatory change Requirements and allowable use of LSTA funds Need for local policy change

35. Political/Social Effect on patron community Impact on staff within libraries Effect on resource sharing community Development of ILL as core service Increased value of training and continuing education

36. Fiscal Statutory funding cycles Fiscal climate Overall costs for start-up and maintenance Sharing funding at local, state, and federal levels

37. Success Measures Maximized use of technology Enhanced reciprocity Increased visibility of holdings Flexibility for on-going change Sustainability of the program

38. Feasibility Analysis 14-16 Highly Feasible 11-13 Feasible 8-10 Possibly Feasible 1-7 Not Feasible

39. Solutions A: Modifications to Current Structure

40. Model One: Elimination of Local Patron Subsidy • Description • Reduce Funding for Service to TexNet Host Library’s Patrons • Benefits • Simple to Implement • Uniform Subsidy

41. Model One: Elimination of Local Patron Subsidy • Costs • Requires Yearly Formula Design • Lack Incentives for Reciprocity • Requires Rules and Regulation Revision • Feasibility Score: 11 - Feasible

42. Model Two: Reduced TexNet Centers • Description • Reduce Number of TexNet Centers • Benefits • Significant Fiscal Savings • Reduced Administrative Issues • Increased Control

43. Model Two: Reduced TexNet Centers • Costs • Requires Political Negotiations with Resource Sharing Community • May Not Be Sustainable • Feasibility Score: 2a: 10 – Possibly Feasible 2b: 13 - Feasible

44. Model Three: Regional System-TexNet Center Consolidation • Description • Combine an ILL Referral Service with Regional System Offices • Benefits • Reduced Administrative Costs • Synergy with Systems • Increased Cooperation with Resource Sharing and Library Development

45. Model Three: Regional System-TexNet Center Consolidation • Costs • Requires Rules and Regulation Revision • Requires Cultural Change for System Staff • Feasibility Score: 13 - Feasible

46. Solutions B: Comprehensive Change

47. Model 4: OCLC Services WorldCat Resource Sharing Group Services TX Scoped Catalog Statewide/Group contracts New service (1st half 2008) Group Catalog Resource Sharing VDX Hosted solution

48. Model 4: OCLC Services Benefits Builds on current knowledge of OCLC Resource Sharing Brings small libraries into wider library world Encourages use of TX resources by TX citizens

49. Model 4: OCLC Services Costs Requires most/all libraries to catalog on OCLC to be most effective Upfront training substantial Continuing training costs Higher on-going annual costs Feasibility Score: 12 - Feasible

50. Model 5: Stand Alone Centralized Auto-Graphics AGent Relais International Enterprise SirsiDynix URSA