Investigating Interlending: Resource Discovery, Sharing and Cooperation Dr. Briony Birdi and Sophie Rutter With Dr. Stephen Pinfield and Dr. Simon Wakeling.

Investigating Interlending: Resource Discovery, Sharing and Cooperation

Dr. Briony Birdi and Sophie RutterWith Dr. Stephen Pinfield and Dr. Simon Wakeling

CPLIS (Centre for the Public Library and Information in Society), Information School, University of Sheffield

The Sheffield Project Team

Briony Birdi

Sophie Rutter

Stephen Pinfield

Simon Wakeling

The context for our project

• The Combined Regions (TCR) – to promote & enable resource discovery and resource sharing across library and information services in all sectors [delivered via UnityUK, which feeds into OCLC’s Worldcat database]

• At its peak, UnityUK users initiated 400k+ searches annually, resulting in 175k requests for items. 2014 figures show a decline of 11.7% (searches) and 15.3% (requests).

What are the reasons for this decline?

Starting to explore the reasons for the ‘decline’

1. The increasing online availability of specialist resources in digital or physical form (including out of print titles)?

2. The move in libraries to provide access to electronic resources free of charge (e.g. historic newspapers, current specialist periodicals)?

3. The willingness of many HE libraries to offer walk-in access to their resources?

[Email to lis-pub-libs jiscmail list, 03.06.15]

The context for our project (2)

‘Can I ask is there anyone who has thought about - or who has actually opted out of -

providing Inter Library Loans to their users in the light of budget cuts?

Our loans on this are dwindling fast.’

Project outline

1. Literature review – of academic and professional (including policy-related) work in the field, in order to develop 2 & 3. [Jan 2015]

2. National survey – with 3 objectives: a) to establish current levels of provision in public libraries; b) to investigate library managers’ views of the role of the digital envt in resource discovery & sharing; c) to investigate models of cooperation and resource sharing. [Feb-May 2015, including pilot survey]

3. Interview study – with managers from a sample of library services to ask questions similar to those in the national survey, in order to facilitate a comparison. [April-June 2015]

Survey distribution & response rate

Survey Dates Valid ResponsesPilot 09-24/02/2015 8Survey 1 11/03 to 05/05/2015 21Survey 2 01-19/05/2015 36Total 65

Pilot study – LIEM members (February 2015) Survey 1 – SCL list (March – May 2015) Survey 2 – UnityUK List (May 2015)

Interview study: participants

Dates No. participantsPilot 14 April – 1 May 4Survey 1 & 2 23 April – 28 May 5Word of mouth / LIS-PUB-LIBS

27 April – 17 June 12

Total 21

20 interviews (1 interview with 2 people) 19 public libraries: South West (5), East Midlands (4), ,

East (4), London (2), Wales (2), North West (2), Yorkshire (1), South East (1)

1 academic library: South West (1)

SECTION 1 – CURRENT LEVELS OF PROVISION

Survey results

Does your service have staff with dedicated responsibility for interlending services?

Managers (n=29)

UnityUK List (n=36)

Combined (n=65)

n % n % n %

Yes 16 55.2% 31 86.1% 47 72.3%

No 13 44.8% 5 13.9% 18 27.7%

Which interlending schemes is your service participating in?

Are you actively involved in the development of any new schemes?

Managers (n=29)

UnityUK List (n=36)

Combined (n=65)

n % n % n %

Yes 6 20.7% 1 2.8% 7 10.8%

No 23 79.3% 35 97.2% 58 89.2%

What other types of scheme would you be interested in participating in?

• It works as it is.

• Any new scheme would only be valuable if it covered the costs of the staff and resources required

• ‘Digital interlending would be of interest if suppliers would allow’; electronic document supply

• ‘Shared reserve store, possibly sub-regional…although benefits may be minor’

* Copy the US reciprocal lending model

Is your service a net borrower or a net lender?

SCL List (n=29) UnityUK List (n=30*) Combined (n=59*)

n % n % n %

Net Lender 12 41.4% 16 53.3% 28 47.5%

Neutral 6 20.7% 8 26.7% 14 23.7%

Net Borrower 11 37.9% 6 20.0% 17 28.8%

*Excludes 6 UnityUK List respondents who answered "don’t know"

Selected Interview Findings:Current provision

• 19 public library interviews, 19 different descriptions of interlending practices

• Should interlending practices be consistent nationally, or is it important to have local differences?– “if you have that national presence …then it is going to be

much easier from the customer’s point of view.” (I1)– “I think the sovereignty of each authority is something that

I would hold very dear.” (I15)

• Questions about what constitutes interlending (vs. shared LMS, national catalogue etc.)

SECTION 2 RATIONALE AND STRATEGIES

Survey results

How important are the following factors as underlying reasons for providing interlending services?

Selected Interview Findings:Rationale and Strategies

• Amazon considered an alternative to interlending for both libraries and their customers– “We look at interlibrary loans as they come up and if it is something

for example that we can buy very cheaply off Amazon.” (I1)– “A lot of people as well will just simply get things from Amazon”.

(I12)

• Little connection between collection development and interlending– “We don’t actually, the joint procurements are part of a separate

thing the joint buying consortium. Which is separate again. Different memberships.“ (I17)

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the view that user driven interlending represents the future of

interlending services?

SCL List (n=29)

UnityUK List (n=36)

Combined (n=65)

n % n % n %Strongly Disagree 1 3.4% 0 0.0% 1 1.5%

Disagree 310.3

% 2 5.6% 5 7.7%

Neutral 413.8

% 15 41.7% 19 29.2%

Agree 1965.5

% 16 44.4% 35 53.8%

Strongly Agree 2 6.9% 3 8.3% 5 7.7%

To what extent are collection development decisions in your service influenced by interlending opportunities?

SCL List (n=29)UnityUK List

(n=36)Combined

(n=65)

n % n % n %

Not at all 8 27.6% 17 47.2% 25 38.5%

Slightly 11 37.9% 9 25.0% 20 30.8%

Somewhat 8 27.6% 6 16.7% 14 21.5%

Moderately 2 6.9% 4 11.1% 6 9.2%

A great deal 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

SECTION 3VALUE FOR MONEY

Survey findings

To what extent do the interlending schemes you participate in offer value for money to libraries?

N.B. ‘Don’t know’ and ‘Do not participate’ responses are not presented here

Distribution of "value for money" responses by scheme type (all respondents)

How can the value for money of interlending schemes be demonstrated? (free-text question)

Responses fell broadly into three categories:

Suggested methods for assessing value for money relating to costs and usage rates

Efficiency as a key factor (staff time discovering, requesting & delivering items)

Identified customer satisfaction as the main factor (and cost alone is not an appropriate measure of value)

How can the value for money of interlending schemes be demonstrated? (2)

“Tough. Anecdotal satisfaction when a purposive borrower accesses a hard to reach item. However, given the failure of all library requests services for over 50 years, why are we bothering putting resources into serving a tiny proportion of users?” (49)

“I think this is a meaningless question. Interlending is never good value for money as it is a very expensive customised service. It is valuable and valued but not good value for money in the economic sense.” (57)

Two further notable responses from senior managers:

In general, are library-to-library interlending charges appropriate?

Managers (n=29)UnityUK List

(n=29*) Combined (n=58*)

n % n % n %

Too much 10 34.5% 7 24.1% 17 29.3%

Too little 1 3.4% 3 10.3% 4 6.9%

About right 18 62.1% 19 65.5% 37 63.8%

* Excludes 7 respondents who answered “Don’t know”

What delivery, collection or access options do you currently offer, or plan to offer, to users?

How important are the following factors to the future of interlending in the digital age?

Combined (n=65)

24/7 accessService delivery speed

Access to digital

material

National union

cataloguen % n % n % n %

Not at all important 1 1.5% 1 1.5% 1 1.5% 1 1.5%Slightly important 4 6.2% 1 1.5% 5 7.7% 6 9.2%Moderately important 11 16.9% 6 9.2% 10 15.4% 13 20.0%Very important 27 41.5% 35 53.8% 33 50.8% 27 41.5%Extremely important 22 33.8% 22 33.8% 16 24.6% 18 27.7%

What measures does your service take to reduce the costs of interlending?

Combined*

Print on demand

Digital document

supply

Brokering deals direct with other services

n % n % n %Currently utilise 6 11.8% 21 37.5% 8 16.0%Plan to utilise 3 5.9% 7 12.5% 5 10.0%No plan to utilise 42 82.4% 28 50.0% 37 74.0%

* Respondents who answered “Don’t know” are excluded from the table

Value for money

Strongly contrasting opinions:

‘It’s under threat because it costs too much money’ vs.

‘It’s an essential service because budgets are being cut’

What do you think?

KEY FINDINGS AND QUESTIONSPoints for discussion

Main Findings - Tensions

• Contrasting (and sometimes contradictory) views and evidence relating to:

– Use of interlending terminology– How schemes operate– Moral/historical imperative for interlending– Impact of the digital environment– Perceived user demand

Main Findings - Consequences

• Difficult to develop best practice models• Benchmarking is problematic• Users are confused• Barriers to engagement with National

stakeholders

WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?Completing the project

Next Steps

• Complete analysis of interview data

• Fully integrate research phases

• Report for TCR

• Academic journal article (e.g. JOLIS)

• Professional journal article (e.g. Update)

Thank you for listening!If you would like to discuss this project or find

out more about our work, please contact

[email protected]

or go to

www.shef.ac.uk/is/research/centres/cplis