The document describes docMD, an electronic document delivery service established by the Ohio State University to provide access to articles for hospital libraries. DocMD aims to reduce costs and turnaround times for document delivery. It establishes a centralized mediation service to handle delivery between participating libraries in order to overcome barriers hospitals face in directly implementing interlibrary loan delivery services, such as firewalls, workflow issues, and lack of technical support. The summary provides statistics on docMD's usage and effectiveness in reducing turnaround times after its establishment.

1. docMD: Eric H. Schnell (schnell.9@osu.edu) Associate Professor Head, Information Technology Prior Health Sciences Library The Ohio State University (DOCument Mediated Delivery) docMD is funded through support by the National Network of Libraries of Medicine, Greater Midwest Region. Ohio State University project number 743202

2. docMD Goal “ To establish an electronic document delivery service for hospital libraries that are unable to support such a service themselves due to limited human, financial, or technical resources “

3. docMD Objectives Establish a mediated direct-to-customer document delivery service for hospital libraries Identify the costs involved in providing such a service Develop a model for use by other resource libraries in other regions of the country

4. Why docMD? IDD Reduces telecom costs (Landes ’97) IDD Reduces turnaround time 1986: 13.76 days (Budd) 1999: reduced to 2.52 (Sellen) Web delivery reduces supply costs (Weible ’02)

5. Barriers to Hospital Library IDD Implementation Firewalls (McKnight 2001) communication ports network authority Workflow / staffing (Jackson 1993) Access to technical staff Fiscal resources

6. How docMD Jumps these Barriers Firewalls a common communication port is used (80) Workflow / staffing DOCLINE processing remains the same Less physical processing of documents Access to technical staff Essential technical staff at mediation center Little technical site support needed Fiscal resources GMR supported

7. Participating Libraries Must: Be a DOCLINE ® library Identify the populations this project could potentially reach Provide a letter of interest Be willing to assist their users with local issues Implement and market the service locally Provide the project with feedback and participate in the evaluation process Be willing to "go with the flow"

8. docMD Delivery Model Local Library Customer DOCLINE Lending “A” Lending “B” Scans/Sends though IDD Scans/Sends though IDD docMD Web Server Email with docID# Email Alert

9. Timeline Approval July ‘02 Planning Fall ‘02 1 st test document December ‘02 6 phase one sites online February ’03 12 phase two sites June ’03 Through December ’04

10. Survey Tools Project Librarian Survey Technical Survey (Lib / Cust) Attitudes Survey (Cust) Turnaround Time Study

11. docMD Statistics (as of Sept 2, ‘04) 406 registered customers 3111 documents processed ~15% have gone unviewed >40% sent to the librarian <1% required reposting <1% alternative distribution <1% posting failures

12. docMD Statistics Average document processing time: 1 minute Average number of documents requiring follow up: 1 per week Percentage of documents arriving upside down: 20% -> 1% Number of customers contacting docMD central regarding difficulty in downloading a document: 1

13. Turnaround Time Pre – docMD: 6.53 days (max 19 days) Post – docMD: 3.11 days (max 9)

14. Feedback “ Our docs are always so delighted when personalized mail arrives for them.” one has a “raft of administrators tooling past his office wanting to know how his articles were retrieved electronically. They believe that he magically pulled them up all by himself. “ “ another test subject… has been running around Nursing telling people…”

15. Issues: Geography: Project leaders / librarian face-to-face contact difficult Geography II: Difficult if not impossible to organize group training Geography III: Email helps. Phone is more effective but more time consuming

16. Issues: How docMD is implemented at a site is dependent on the hospital librarian Level of participation is dependent on the marketing performed by the hospital librarians Too much hand-holding or separation anxiety?

17. Issues: Funding Pay-to-Play (1) Each hospital pays a fee based on scale determined by the number of documents they normally process through DOCLINE in relation to other participants in a tiered fee schedule. Pay-to-Play (2) Each hospital pays a per-document fee based on the actual number of documents they process using docMD and is billed on a quarterly or annual or per-document basis. Subsidized (1) Each NNLM region establishes funding opportunities for resource libraries to support a docMD service for their resource area. Resource libraries apply for the available awards. Subsidized (2) Each NNLM region provides a funded mandate to each resource library to establish a docMD service in their area. Benevolent Any library can provide the service but supports it using their individual operating funds and can pursue reimbursement from the participants.

18. Issues: Standards GEDI: Generic Electronic Document Interchange Established in early 1990s Ariel 1.x - 3.4 Odyssey Open Standard Ariel 4.x ???? proprietary

19. Issues: Standards Question: Is Ariel 3.4 compatible with all other versions of Ariel? Answer: Yes. Ariel 3.4 is able to send and receive documents with Ariel versions 2 and 3. However, Infotrieve has in important announcement about Ariel: Infotrieve continues to improve and upgrade Ariel, which will greatly change Ariel’s technology (especially with an eye to building a networked version of Ariel 4.0). We foresee that future versions of Ariel will no longer be technically compatible with older versions. We anticipate that Ariel 3.4 will be the “cut off” version for future compatibility. Hence, we encourage all 3.x users to upgrade to 3.4 for free, to be prepared for this future change. We also encourage Ariel 2.x users to take advantage of our upgrade discount and get current to prevent incompatibilty with future releases of Ariel. Infotrieve will continue to communicate about this important issue so that our customers can plan and budget accordingly. When we release the next version of Ariel, we will provide Ariel 3.4 users with a patch that will ensure compatibility with the next version, Ariel 4.0. It is important to take advantage of this release now. http://www4.infotrieve.com/ariel/FAQ.html

20. Issues: Standards Lack of IDD standards will result in the project ending in December 2004 Lack of IDD standards will prevent a wide scale implementation of the concept

21. Expanding the Concept: OhioDOC Establish a direct-to-customer electronic document delivery service for all OhioLINK libraries. Establish a system for centralized electronic document delivery distribution Establish electronic document delivery services in libraries without them Create workflow efficiencies

22. Current Direct to Customer Processing Model Local Library Customer OCLC / DOCLINE Ohio Lending “A” Ohio Lending “B” Scans/Sends though IDD Scans/Sends though IDD EDD Web Server

23. OhioDOC Model Local Library Customer OCLC / Docline Ohio Lending “A” Ohio Lending “B” Scans/Sends though EDD Scans/Sends though EDD OhioDOC

24. OhioDoc Model Expanded Local Library OCLC / Docline Ohio Lending “A” Customer EDD Web Server Ohio Lending “C” Ohio Lending “B” Ohio Lending “D” Ohio Lending “E”

25. Current Direct to Customer Processing Model Ohio “A” Ohio “B” Ohio “C” Process Process Process Web Web Web

26. OhioDOC Processing Model Ohio “A” Ohio “B” Ohio “C” Process Process Process Web Web Web Web

27. OhioDOC Expectations Lending libraries still scan and process documents intended for OhioLINK libraries Borrowing libraries would no longer receive and process documents coming from OhioLINK lending libraries

28. Thanks! E-mail: [email_address] Project: docmd.med.ohio-state.edu