[ILL-L] Draft ILL Code and ExplnatorySupplementrevisionsavailablefor comment

Fri Sep 21 11:21:58 EDT 2007

Heather and Everyone,

Great discussion - and you are so not a control freak, and "control-deprived
freaked-out librarian" is very cute.  

Wisdom has so many voices.

I appreciate your thoughtful comments; however, I have to say that
prescribing method of delivery "needs to be something that can be tracked"
is a best practice.  The borrowing library should specify their preference
and willingness to pay for the service.  If the borrowing library says they
want it shipped to their user and they don't request or pay for the option
of tracking, then it may go regular mail.  The borrowing library is
ultimately responsible for lost materials, and since many libraries are
using regular mail between libraries, it seems to work sufficiently.
Granted, a problematic user may be barred if they exhibit a pattern of
misbehavior.

My preference is that we do not charge users for this service because I
believe direct delivery saves libraries staff time of handling, processing,
and money - especially in the case of distance education or remote user
services.  This service would also provide more value to libraries and
users.  That said, you detailed common challenges with any charge back to
users (whether ILL or other services), and I suspect one solution maybe that
OCLC develops a customer credit card - IFM interface to our systems, that or
PayPal, Google Checkout, etc.  We need better options, and options that
users already use because they are using the Internet marketplace. 

As far as the circulation statistics, we have to push hard to have our ILL
and ILS systems & vendors talk about simple system conversations - if you
want your ILS circulation module to track a borrowed ILL transaction, then
the ILL system should create an item when receiving (whether in hand, or
direct to user).  Similarly for the lending, when updating the ILL system,
it should automatically update the ILS system, etc.  While we wait for that
level of interoperability, we still can tag directdelivery onto our ILL
systems so that when received, we can virtually do everything we do with
materials in hand, i.e. create an item record, check it out to the user,
etc.  The challenge is when the item is returned, so differentiating types
of request status "Received" and "Returned" will require finesse.

my Friday's $.02 - best wishes, 

Cyril

  _____  

From: ill-l-bounces at webjunction.org [mailto:ill-l-bounces at webjunction.org]
On Behalf Of Campbell, Heather
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 9:31 AM
To: Interlibrary Loan Listserv
Subject: RE: [ILL-L] Draft ILL Code and
ExplnatorySupplementrevisionsavailablefor comment

I think it's important to point out that (as it says in the draft
explanatory supplement) "This code does not override individual or
consortial agreements or regional or state codes which may be more liberal
or more prescriptive.  The national code is intended to provide guidelines
for exchanges between libraries where no other agreement applies."     I
applaud the group's efforts in putting this code together; the creation of a
one-size-fits-all document is hard to achieve.  The only omission I could
spot after a first reading of this was this: the provision encouraging
leniency and/or patience in instances where the borrowing library has been
hit by a natural or man-made disaster.

I can understand the concerns expressed about direct delivery and have some
more to add:

*	One thing that hasn't been mentioned is circulation statistics.  At
this library, ILL books are checked out to our customers on the Circulation
system so ILL Borrowing provides counts toward the organizational goals-
which are also part of the staff performance appraisal measurements.  I'm
the one who does the performance appraisals and keep track of individual and
unit measurements.  Direct delivery bypasses the Circulation system and the
stats are lost.  And -I'd also hate to bypass the circ system because it
sends out a nifty e-mail reminder a couple of days before a book or ILL
material is due.
*	The method of delivery needs to be something that can be tracked
like UPS or a courier service.  The lender must be willing to take on the
cost of the delivery.  Right now, we use the US Mail for Lending; for
Borrowing we use what the lending library specifies.  My staff and I don't
have a choice in the delivery system for Lending.  Our outgoing packages are
processed by the city mail room and US Mail is seen as cost-effective by
higher ups.
*	If there is an extra charge to the patron/customer for home
delivery, this library and other Florida libraries have a problem.  To get
state aid, we agreed not to charge customers for providing the Interlibrary
Loan service.  At the moment, Florida libraries are feeling the budget
crunch due to property tax reform measures.  Funding this initiative would
need to come from the state or grants.
*	And I echo Pat's concern, only in a different way. The draft
explanatory supplement states that requesting library assumes full
responsibility for material in unmediated ILL requests and I fully agree
with that. That's also why I have misgivings with unmediated ILL. We have
had problems with library customers who don't return ILL books and the
library ends up paying for the book.  We've also had problems with customers
who agree to pay other libraries' lending charges and then figure they don't
owe anything if they don't pick up the book or photocopy. In addition to
paying the charges from lending libraries, it costs the library to have the
city $45 to cut each check.  I'm looking at a lending fills volume that has
more than doubled in the past year.  (This really looks impressive on a line
chart!)  With more budget cuts to come, I envision ILL being used even more.
My concern with unmediated lending involves customers who claim they never
got the book or photocopy and refuse to pay for replacements or lending
costs.  We can transfer lending library charges to their library cards but
that doesn't begin to reimburse the costs to the library.  If one library's
customers lose books belonging to another library -even if the borrowing
library reimburses the lending library- the lending library can still block
requests from said borrowing library.  I can see that happening more often
with unmediated requests.

I think our customers would love to have direct home delivery of ILL books.
As a library customer, I know I would.  I also know that in stating these
concerns, I run the risk of being labeled as a "control freak librarian".
I would resent this appellation.  There are so many factors just in my
work-life that are beyond my control these days that "control-deprived
freaked-out librarian" may be more apropos!  :-)

Heather Campbell
Special Services ~ Interlibrary Loan and Books By Mail
Jacksonville Public Library
Jacksonville, Florida 32202
ill at coj.net    904-630-2985 

  _____  

From: ill-l-bounces at webjunction.org [mailto:ill-l-bounces at webjunction.org]
On Behalf Of Markley, Patricia
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 4:32 PM
To: Interlibrary Loan Listserv; ILLiad-l Discussion List; stars-l at ala.or;
ARIE-L at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
Cc: md-ill at lists.sailor.lib.md.us
Subject: RE: [ILL-L] Draft ILL Code and
ExplnatorySupplementrevisionsavailable for comment

I think we might be open to sending materials directly to other libraries'
patrons under 2 conditions:

1) The requesting library still understands this operation as inter-LIBRARY
loan - that is, the requesting library will take responsibility for tracking
and replacing, if necessary, any materials that are lost or damaged anywhere
along the line; and

2) The process does not produce more work or aggravation for our staff.
Specifically, I wouldn't want to have to deal directly with other libraries'
patrons.  It's bad enough now when a library system refuses to help get back
a book it requested on behalf of a member library.

Pat Markley

Siena College

markley at siena.edu

  _____  

From: ill-l-bounces at webjunction.org [mailto:ill-l-bounces at webjunction.org]
On Behalf Of Carol A. Vaeth
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 3:08 PM
To: Interlibrary Loan Listserv; ILLiad-l Discussion List; stars-l at ala.or;
ARIE-L at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
Cc: md-ill at lists.sailor.lib.md.us
Subject: RE: [ILL-L] Draft ILL Code and Explnatory
Supplementrevisionsavailable for comment

5.7 The supplying library should ship material in a timely and efficient
manner to the location specified by the requesting library. Loaned material
should be packaged to prevent loss or damage in shipping. Copies should be
delivered by electronic means whenever possible.

Cool.  This is opening the door to more widespread ILL delivery to the home.
I'd be willing.  A lot of libraries have been doing it for awhile, so I
wonder how long it will be before it is the norm. What is the consensus on
shipping ILL items directly to a person's home?  

Carol A. Vaeth 

ILL Coordinator - BAL       It doesn't get better

Langsdale Library                  or worse; 

University of Baltimore     it just gets different.

1420 Maryland Ave

Baltimore MD 21201-5706

cvaeth at ubalt.edu

(410) 837-4283

fax (410) 837-4330

ariel 198.202.3.140

  _____  

From: ill-l-bounces at webjunction.org [mailto:ill-l-bounces at webjunction.org]
On Behalf Of Tess Gibson
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 12:19 PM
To: 'Interlibrary Loan Listserv'; 'ILLiad-l Discussion List';
stars-l at ala.or; ARIE-L at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
Subject: [ILL-L] Draft ILL Code and Explnatory Supplement revisionsavailable
for comment

As many of you know, the ILL Code Revision Subcommittee (a subcommittee of
the STARS Codes, Guidelines and Technical Standards Committee) has been
working on this project for over a year now. We have gathered your input
and, over a period of time, developed drafts of both the code and the
explanatory supplement.

I am pleased to announce that the draft revisions to the Interlibrary Loan
Code and Explanatory Supplement have been posted to the STARS web site at
the url below:

http://www.ala.org/STARSmainTemplate.cfm?Section=STARS
<http://www.ala.org/STARSmainTemplate.cfm?Section=STARS&CFID=88210662&CFTOKE
N=29658859> &CFID=88210662&CFTOKEN=29658859

The members of the ILL Code Revision Subcommittee encourage you to  review
the documents and send comments to me at the email address listed below.
Please do not reply to the lists. We are asking that your comments be
submitted by October 10.

Thank you all for your thoughtful contributions as we move toward completion
of this project.

Sincerely,

Tess Gibson
Head of Interlibrary Loan
Assistant Head of Access Services
University Libraries
The University of Arkansas
365 N McIlroy Ave
Fayetteville AR 72701
tmgibso at uark.edu
479.575.2925 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.webjunction.org/wjlists/ill-l/attachments/20070921/deaf99e1/attachment.htm