How Fast Do They Want It?

Just in Time: Resource Sharing in a Collaborative
How Fast Do They Want It?
November 4, 2010
NYLA, Saratoga Springs
Western New York Library Resources Council
Buffalo, NY

Called the Resource Sharing and Delivery Task Group (Great Thinkers)
Created to explore the issues of regional resource sharing
Charged to examine delivery, Interlibrary Loan, and other resource sharing initiatives
Adhere to the “just in time, not just in case” position recommended by the Regional Advisory Committee in 2005 when developing any new regional initiatives
WNYLRC Task Group

Fact: No regional delivery system
Fact: Members use a mix of paid delivery systems within systems, UPS, Fed Ex, USPS
Fact: Breakdown in “service” happens between system types and academics
Conclusion:
Too large of an issue for WNYLRC and too little dollars to support it effectively at a regional level.
Group Hypothesis: Delivery mechanisms too fractured

ILL Rebate Program
Intent: Provide incentives for net-lenders to continue to lend in region
Fact: Too little dollars do little to support lending costs for net-lenders
Fact: Mistaken identities – we assumed members were net-lenders when in fact they were not
Fact: Subsidy supported net-borrowers as well as net-lenders
Conclusion:
Program wasn’t supporting net-lending, had little impact on regional resource sharing
Group Hypothesis: Existing WNYLRC Resource Sharing Activities Not Effective

Acknowledged the need to broaden the regional collection
Attempt to limit the need for net-lenders to borrow outside the region
On average, the cost of an ILL borrowing transaction is anywhere between $16 - $19
Reduce net-lenders reliance on ILL
Allow net-lenders to build their collections
Realized that there were successful case studies of PODs in the literature for single institutions but not collaboratives – new ground
Identifying the Issues

Pilot premise
Test the feasibility of the purchase-on-demand model using Amazon.com in a consortial setting
Measure the impact on regional resource sharing by gathering statistics on items purchased and their usage history if available
Determine the scalability of the program to include other funding sources
Identify its usefulness as a coordinated collection development tool
WNYLRC Purchase on Demand (POD) Pilot

Proposed outcomes
Puts materials in the hands of the patrons quicker and in some cases cheaper
Empowers patrons to participate in the development of a library’s collection
Allows items purchased be lent to the patrons under purchasing library’s policies rather than on a lending library’s policies through ILL

Proposed Outcomes
Allows large and small academic as well as public libraries to participate equally
Ensures a first copy of a title be purchased and available for lending in the region
Allows libraries to participate without adhering to stringent bureaucratic layers
Emphasis on “ownership” of titles, not “rental” of title
Increased odds that title will be circulated again

The POD Plan
WNYLRC put $20,000 on a credit line at Amazon.com
Account managed by WNYLRC staff
Seven libraries participated
Buffalo & Erie County Public Library
Buffalo State College
Canisius College
Erie Community College
Niagara University
Daemen College
University at Buffalo

Purchasing Criteria
Purchases were made through Amazon.com using WNYLRC’s Corporate account
No purchases of textbooks, electronic resources, or journals.
Purchase of foreign language materials is at the discretion of the purchasing library.
Items must be made available for loan to other WNYLRC members and available to InfoPass users
There is a $50 limit per item before delivery charges (changed to $100 in January)

Purchasing Criteria
Each library limited to five items per week
Participants will primarily use standard shipping (many used the Amazon Prime service)
Libraries must search for an item within the region and determine its availability.
Books purchased through the program become the property of the ordering library
Books purchased through the program are delivered by Amazon either directly to the requesting library or directly to the patron depending upon a library’s policies, procedures, and preferences.

Additional patron services were tested:
Allowing reference librarians to purchase materials for patrons (Canisius College, Niagara University) at point of contact
Direct delivery to patron from vendor (Buffalo State College)

Evaluation methods
Run statistics on circulation rates (items purchased are tagged in Marc record)
Evaluate loss rates (if any)
Review impact on regional resource sharing
Review delivery services
Explore scalability to CCDA
Evaluate ordering process and local policy issues
Write article
Pilot WNYLRC Purchase on Demand (POD) Pilot

Results
Project Timeframe: October 5, 2009 to May 15, 2010
$17,415 spent
455 (426) titles purchased
Shipping expenses amounted to $742 (over $25 is free shipping)
Average cost per title: $40.17 (under $50 imposed limit the average cost was $26)
Subject areas: all over – large amount of political science, small amount of fiction, some art. No identifiable trends.
Pilot WNYLRC Purchase on Demand (POD) Pilot

High repeat circulation rates of many items
No loss of items mailed directly to patron
Difficult to determine impact on regional resource sharing since statistics on ILLs to other members for these titles is hard to determine
Amazon’s statistics do not match participating libraries
Conclusions

Too little information to know if direct delivery to patron is a good model
Similar model for e-books being explored now for academic libraries receiving CCDA (16 in our region)
Amazon policies towards tax-exempt entities archaic, questionable statistics at times, line of credit worked well but hard to negotiate
Still hoping to write that article
Conclusions

General Subjects Purchased In

Circulation Statistics

WNYLRC ILL Services
Intent: Provide ILL services for those without OCLC Resource Sharing subscriptions
Fact: WNYLRC has no collection
Fact: WNYLRC is another layer
Fact: WNYLRC added days to the process
Fact: OCLC Resource Sharing subscriptions became more affordable for small institutions
Conclusion:
Determine alternative for small institutions
Hypothesis: Existing WNYLRC Resource Sharing Activities Not Effective

University at Buffalo lends six to one
Has no peer institution to take any of the load
Questioned its ability to continue to lend for free
Solution: Allow UB to play a major role in regional ILL - WNYLRC/UB ILLiad Pilot
Problem: One major academic research collection in region

Participants are primarily net-borrowers without unique collections or willingness to lend
Participants pay a fee to participate
UB provides ILLiad logins
Participants receive priority status
WNYLRC/UB ILLiad Pilot

7 libraries participated
MOOG
Unifrax
Praxair Inc.
Orleans/Niagara BOCES
Trocaire College
WNY VA Hospital
Paid $100 to participate, no referral charge

595 items requested
435 items filled
334 of those filled by UB
75% total filled both by UB and OCLC
Most of those not filled were cancelled by requesting library due to lending charges

Five out of seven respondents rated the program “very successful”
All seven felt that enough information had been given to fully participate
Six found navigating the system “very easy”
Five wanted to see the program continued
ALL seven resigned

Participant Fee 2010 – 2011 WNYLRC/UB ILLiad Program

Sheryl Knab
Executive Director
Western New York Library Resources Council
4455 Genesee Street
Buffalo, NY 14225
sknab@wnylrc.org
716-633-0705 ext. 121
Questions?

How Fast Do They Want It?

by nylasmart

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Usage Rights

1 Embed 14

Statistics

How Fast Do They Want It? Presentation Transcript