ILL in the faster lane: empowering users with HKALL

1. ILL in the faster lane: empowering users with HKALL Peter SIDORKO Deputy Librarian The University of Hong Kong Co-authors: Ruth WONG The University of Hong Kong Alice TAICity University of Hong Kong Eva WONGCity University of Hong Kong

2. This paper • Introduction of a user initiated ILL service in HK - HKALL • Why we chose to do this • How we introduced and implemented the service • The issues that confronted us • The data we collected • The analysis of data and feedback • The way forward

3. What is HKALL • Hong Kong Academic Library Link • A user initiated ILL service • A Hong Kong implementation of III’s (INNOVATIVE’s) INN-Reach system • (Initially, at least) an experimental service to “test the waters”

4. Why? • Positive experiences in the USA • Changes to Higher Education in Hong Kong • Demographics • Economy (knowledge based movement) • Impact of technology • Reduced funding • Desire for “deep collaboration” among the eight • Geography

5. How • Taskforce with representatives from all 8 institutions charged to explore: • The experience of other consortia employing user initiated document delivery including the pros and cons of its use • The use of software/utilities/systems which could be used by the JULAC Libraries to facilitate user initiated document delivery • The value/non value of using net borrower • The resource implications (e.g. reduce ILL-based borrowing and lending but will likely see significant increase on circulation increase, etc.) • Our interim report recommended: • That such a service was a good idea for HK • That a suitable software platform be selected and implemented

6. Software prerequisites • Accept user initiated online ILL requests • Support unmediated ILL requests directly from users to lending libraries • Support monograph loans • Check incoming ILL requests automatically against the user’s own collection, and block that request if the requested item was available on the shelf • Chinese, Japanese and Korean (CJK) characters

7. The Chosen one • INN Reach from III met all criteria • Support of CJK was a great strength • All 8 institutions were already III customers using their ILS

8. What happened next? • Only 3 libraries agreed to proceed • 5 adopted a “wait and see” approach • Their concerns included: • Cost • Impact on local collections and users • Impact on library staff • Possible threat of reduced funding

9. Three pilot participants: Lingnan University City University of Hong Kong The University of Hong Kong Library

10. Lingnan University:Fong Sum Wood Library (LU) • Smallest university library collection in Hong Kong • ca 400,000 physical vols • Established in 1968 • Liberal arts tradition • ca 2,000 students FTE • ca 240 teaching staff FTE

11. City University of Hong Kong: Run Run Shaw Library (CityU) • The University and Library were established in 1984 originally as a Polytechnic • Faculties: Business; Humanities and Social Sciences; Science and Engineering; Schools of Creative Media and Law • ca 1.1 million physical volumes • ca 12,500 students FTE • ca 1,900 teaching staff FTE

12. The University of Hong Kong Library (HKU) • Established 1912 • Oldest University and university library in HK • Established in the tradition of a British university • Comprehensive in PG and UG • Research intensive • ca 11,500 students FTE • ca 3,500 Teaching staff FTE • ca 2.3 million physical volumes • ca 240 library staff

13. What we wanted to know: • Would the use of INN-Reach alter the amount of borrowing and lending between these three institutions • Would some libraries use it more than others • What subjects of materials would be borrowed • What would be the differences in the amount of Western language versus Chinese language books borrowed

14. What we wanted to know: • Would the use of INN-Reach speed up the process of borrowing a book • Would the use of INN-Reach decrease the costs of processing a borrowing/lending request • What classes of users would use this new system more/less • How would our patrons react to this new system?

15. The Implementation: Confrontations and lessons learnt

16. Confronting issues (1) • Building the HKALL Union Catalogue • Matching CJK records

17. Confronting issues (2) • Setting up HKALL circulation rules and policies • Principals: • minimise policies that interfere with local circulation practices while still trying to maximise use of the mega collection; • ensure that the policies would not undermine the interest of users in the owning libraries; and • make the policies as simple as possible so that: • they are easily understood by both users and operational staff members; • operational procedures are simple and administrative costs are minimal; • they can readily include new participating libraries.

18. Confronting issues: Policies (2) • Materials for circulation • Eligible users • Loan quotas and periods • Recalls • Renewals • Overdues and fines • Loss and damage of books

19. But how does it work?

20. Easy as… • User at library X searches for a book • Item not held/on loan at library X • User clicks HKALL button • HKALL reveals all holdings and availability of item • User requests item • User authenticates • System assigns request using availability and load bearing algorithm

21. Easy as… • Request received by assigned library who retrieves item from shelves • Lending library performs institutional check-out of item and sends via courier to borrowing library • Borrowing library checks in item, generates email notice to user to collect item • User collects item (mostly), reads item (sometimes) and returns item to home library before due date (occasionally) • Borrowing library performs institutional check-in returns item via courier to lending library • Lending library checks item in.

22. From the users’ perspective

28. What we learnt: Quantitative analysis

29. 1. Would transactions between these three institutions change?

30. 2. Would some libraries use it more than others?

31. 3. What subjects would be most borrowed/lent?

32. HKU Analysis of borrowed subjects

33. 4. Western vs CJK

34. 5. Speed up borrowing? • 95% of requests during the pilot project were met within two working days. • 9% of traditional ILL requests are met in this timeframe.

35. 6. Decrease processing costs?

36. 7. Who used it?

37. What we learnt: Qualitative analysis

38. 8. Patrons’ views • 80% excellent or good source of obtaining materials not available from their host library • 73% appreciated integration into the local library system • 80% found redirecting a search from the local catalogue to HKALL excellent or good • These features were considered excellent or good: • view outstanding requests (68%) • cancel requests (65%) • renew items (71%)

39. 8. Patrons’ views • 76% liked being kept informed of their request status by email notices • 67% expressed a high degree of satisfaction with the fulfillment rate and 62% with the turnaround time • 88% would like to see more libraries included

40. Typical comments • “Excellent on the whole” • “… this scheme has been excellently carried out. With this scheme, resources in the universities can be better utilised. • “HKALL simply makes life easier. Thank you…….” • “It should include all eight institutions in HK.”

41. The Future • Confirmation of results from other studies • Interest generated among remaining five libraries • HK Governments (UGC) awards HK$10 million (€1m or Kr16m) • A single, fully integrated system managing both interlibrary lending as well as document delivery??