Appendix 4a: Current Practices of Other Consortia

 

·         Email sent to 26 consortia

·         14 consortia responded

·         results

·         Using Direct Delivery to Patrons:    1

·         Not using Direct Delivery to Patrons : 13

 

 

Comments:

 

v      Using Direct Delivery

 

 Washington Research Library Consortium (WRLC)

§         Direct Delivery to patrons electronically - no physical delivery.

§         Software:  Ariel/Prospero.  Next release of Ariel – 3.0  - will eliminate the need for Prospero and solve some work flow and configuration issues.

§         Well received by patrons.  Most comments are – “What a great service this is!” - “Wow!”  Any complaints have generally been when the server has problems, a situation that rarely has occurred.  Occasionally someone will get the wrong article, but it is easily fixed.

§         Major savings in staff time on “receiving” library’s side.  No substantial increase of staff time on lending side.

§         There is a learning curve for library staff, but not substantial.

§         Copyright: They post article for 14 days, then remove from server.  They email the link to patron.  They consider this fair use.  Only copyright statement is the message posted in Ariel.  Some libraries fill via electronic databases depending on the license with vendor.

§         Turnaround time – stated – 48 hours.  Average last month was 39 hours.

§         Cost savings:  They think yes – but no formal analysis done.  It is a service worth providing.  A few more clicks on the lending side gives great convenience to patrons and saves paperwork on “receiving” library’s side.

§         Advice: They’d be glad to have us talk to the IT person for tech advice.

§         Who gets the problems: They have created an in-house Web based tracking system shared by all libraries (CLS Management System).  When the request is entered via Voyager, it is written to the system. Anyone the patron calls will have access to the system and can check status and answer the question.

§         Tracking software also simplifies workflow.  If lending library updates a record, the “receiving” library sees it. “Receiving” library knows when request is filled.

§         If a patron replies to the notification email, the reply goes to a central site and the patron’s own library.

§         Once patron looks at article, it’s marked received on software.  Eventually the consortium may change that to when the article is posted.

§         Took 4 to 6 months to implement, but was in planning and various stages for about 2 years.

§         For web delivery, patrons must initially register.  A large percentage of their patrons have done so.

§         Currently, the consortium’s members all use the Voyager Integrated Library System.  A patron makes a request through Voyager; then WRLC’s homegrown management system retrieves the request.  However, a library that uses Innovative’s Integrated Library System is joining the consortium, and WRLC plans to use metalib software to get the requests into the management system.  If they are successful, a common ILS is no longer necessary.  WRLC said they would consider sharing the homegrown software with other consortia.

 

 

 

v      Not Using Direct Delivery  (These 5 included comments.)

 

Council of prairie and Pacific University Libraries (COPPUL)

§         A few member libraries have direct delivery – physical – returnable.  Mostly for distant education students.

§         Getting materials back has not been a problem (They include, mailing bags, labels, postage, etc.)

§         The consortium is investigating DD.  Plan to have report ready in March.  Looking into system called “Godot.” It’s for unmediated requesting.  The OPAC record would link to the Godot module.  This would be for returnables.

 

Tampa Bay Library Consortium (TBLC)

§         One library, Tampa Hillsbury Public Library, does DD to their own patrons. – returnables.

 

Southeast Florida Library Information Network  (SEFLIN)

§         They cooperate with TBLC for delivery.

§         They said one Library is doing DD. (returnables)

 

Washington State Cooperative Library Project (CLP)

§         Why no DD? – Staff overhead.  They are especially concerned about delivering articles.  They do 45,000 a year of returnables.

§         They are looking into “Innovative Software” and “Inreach” for direct mailing to patrons, but this would be for returnables only.

 

Colorado Alliance of Research Libraries (The Alliance)

§         They do mostly brokering and support of databases.