|
Introduction
It is a great honor to be
invited to talk about global resource sharing to directors of university
libraries. I would like to thank the Japan Association of Private
University Libraries and its Committee for International Library
Cooperations for providing the opportunity to make my second trip to Japan
enjoyable and possible. I only regret that I didn't learn to speak
Japanese fluently on my first visit; because I didn't, I must deliver this
speech in English.
Over the next 90 minutes my goal is to describe
the key components of American resource sharing, primarily focusing on
interlibrary loan and document delivery. Although I will share many
examples of effective strategies from the United States and Canada, I will
also focus on some areas that still need our attention and improvement. My
presentation will conclude with some suggestions for possible areas of
collaboration between libraries in North American and Japan. I will also
leave time for questions.
Let me mention the terminology I will use
this afternoon. To many American librarians, resource sharing is a general
term that includes interlibrary loan, document delivery, cooperative
collection development activities, and on-site access. Interlibrary loan
is the common term that includes borrowing and lending of books and
copies. Document delivery is a term used to describe either photocopy
traffic between libraries, use of commercial document suppliers, or
physical delivery of books. For this afternoon I will probably use
interlibrary loan, or ILL, to mean the requesting and supply of books and
photocopies.
What are the Key Components of ILL?
I
will list five key components that enable ILL to function effectively and
efficiently. I'm not sure if one is more important than another, but they
all are the foundation blocks that permit North American libraries to
provide ILL services.
1. Willingness to Cooperate
First,
librarians must have a willingness to cooperate. Historically, ILL has
been viewed as a service that served only a few faculty members and/or
students as research libraries had the means to acquire the vast majority
of what local users needed. Research libraries viewed lending as a burden
and borrowing as a shame. Research libraries were asked to fill many more
ILL requests than they initiated, and requests for items not in local
collections was viewed by some as an admission of collection failure.
Fortunately, this attitude is no longer prevalant as most administrators
of research libraries understand that ILL is mutually beneficial to
borrowers and lenders.
Reciprocity describes two different
behaviors. The first is the willingness to lend only if a library borrows.
The second is a belief that a library's borrowing should equal its
lending. Reciprocity in both forms is a very strongly held belief,
especially by ILL managers. Many ILL librarians have expressed concern
that certain libraries only borrow; they are not willing to lend. But, the
concept of reciprocity has been fading. Over the past five years more and
more libraries have begun to look at ILL from a business perspective. They
charge for lending, and they are willing to pay when they borrow material
for their local patrons. These libraries establish budgets to pay for
materials they borrow, and even more importantly, they do not spend staff
time searching for lenders that do not charge. However, most library
administrators do not view ILL as economic equity because most are net
lenders.
2. Knowledge of Holdings
Once a library has
committed to the principle of interlibrary loan, then the practical
aspects become key. A second key component is knowledge of holdings of
other libraries. The print National Union Catalog and regional union
catalogs have been replaced by the now-international bibliographic
utilities of OCLC and RLIN. Within the past decade state-based union card
catalogs have been replaced by CD-ROM catalogs and union lists on OCLC.
Libraries are beginning to embrace the virtual union catalog now that
Z39.50 searching can link catalogs.
3. Request
Transmission
The next step of the process, and the third key
element, is the ability to send requests to other libraries. We have moved
from mailing or faxing paper request forms to using the OCLC, RLIN, and/or
Docline online ILL systems. Libraries in the U.S. are just beginning to
implement ILL messaging systems that use the ISO ILL Protocol, the
international communication standard that permits different ILL systems to
exchange ILL requests and responses. Protocol-compliant systems will be
key to international ILL as ILL staff will be able to receive
international ILL requests via the method they use to receive domestic
requests. I will talk more about the ISO ILL Protocol when I talk about
future developments.
4. Effective Internal Procedures
The
fourth key component is effective internal procedures. Online requesting
has eliminated postal delays in getting requests to potential lenders. In
addition to streamlined procedures, libraries need to have appropriate
staffing levels to handle the volume of borrowing and lending requests
they process. Imagine a circulation desk that was not staffed to handle
the number of books checked out in a typical day!
High-performing
lenders have developed procedures and policies that permit them to fill
requests in a timely manner and with minimal staffing. Lenders also
maintain and publicize detailed lending policies so borrowing libraries
will not send them requests that the lender would never fill.
5.
Transport
Transport is the fifth key component. Transport is an
oft-neglected, but critically important, component of the ILL process.
Transport is physical and electronic. Many U.S. libraries prefer not to
ship ILL books via the U.S. Postal Service because, although it is the
most inexpensive option, it has been characterized as the least reliable.
State, regional, and/or national commercial carriers are generally more
expensive, but provide much more reliable service. Some U.S. libraries are
reluctant to ship their books outside the U.S., but many libraries are
willing to ship internationally as long as the material is shipped and
returned via a commercial carrier.
For electronic delivery,
most research libraries use the Ariel software developed by the Research
Libraries Group to send and receive photocopies. Ariel has been likened to
fax on the Internet as it sends a compressed page image to another Ariel
workstation or to the user's email address. Fax is also used to send
articles, but some libraries are not as willing to fax articles to
international libraries because of the potentially large phone
charges.
ILL in the United States: A Very Brief
History
Interlibrary loan has held a distinguished, if rather
specialized, place in American library services. In 1876 Samuel Green,
director of the Worcester Massachusetts Free Public Library, published a
letter in the first issue of Library Journal suggesting interlibrary loan.
The Library of Congress established the print-based National Union Catalog
in 1901. In the early 1900s the head of the Princeton University Library
called for the development of union catalogs, rationalization of
collections, and interlibrary loan, all ideally served by a national
lending library. In 1917, the American Library Association developed the
first Interlibrary Loan Code.
Other Key ILL Values
As you
can see, the concepts and values of interlibrary loan have roots firmly
established in the earliest library development in the United States. This
very brief history has illustrated the long-standing need for effective
interlibrary loan services. But, there are seven other values that I would
like to share with you.
1. Centralized vs. Decentralized
For
many years, librarians debated whether ILL should be centralized like the
United Kingdom's British Library Document Supply Centre or expand the
decentralized model where all libraries act as borrowers and lenders. The
Association of Research Libraries' 1998 ILL/DD Performance Measures Study
found a significant correlation between the volume of lending and the unit
cost of lending. This finding suggested that a centralized model might be
more cost effective, but is contrary to our current model. We do not have
a national clearinghouse for ILL transactions, and are unlikely to
establish one in the near future.
2. The Importance of ILL
Codes
In the U.S., the American Library Association assumes
responsibility for maintaining our national ILL code. This code is
designed to govern transactions between libraries that have not
established any other agreements. Our national code articulates
responsibilities of borrowers and lenders. Our 1993 code is currently
under revision and I expect that the revised code will less restrictive
than the 1993 code.
The IFLA Code for International Lending governs
requests between countries, and is the code that governs transactions
between Japan and the U.S. It is also somewhat dates, and there has been
discussion in the IFLA Document Delivery and Interlending Committee that
it is time to revise and update the code.
3. The Role of
Standards
Technical and performance standards are critical to
effective ILL services, but for the most part, they should be invisible to
the user placing the request. The ISO ILL Protocol, which I mentioned
above, governs communication between different ILL systems. Implementation
of the ISO ILL Protocol by key international vendors, including NACSIS,
will permit libraries to send and receive international ILL requests via
the system they use to send and receive national requests.
A second key
standard is being developed by the National Information Standards
Organization, but with some international input. The NISO Circulation
Interchange Protocol is being designed to support four models:
self-service circulation, interchange between circulation and interlibrary
loan systems, direct consortial borrowing, and access to electronic
resources.
4. Finance
Most research libraries charge to lend
a book or supply a photocopy. The challenge in an international setting is
to develop a method that permits lenders to charge and borrowers to pay,
but without the costly fees charged by banks to convert currencies. One
model we are testing in the Japan Journal Access Project is to waive fees,
but that is not a long-term solution. A second model being tested by the
German Resources Project is for the Association of Research Libraries to
act as the "banker" that permits North American libraries to deposit money
with ARL and ARL to pay the lending/supply fees to the German suppliers.
Both options are costly and can not be considered as long-term options.
The plastic IFLA voucher works for requests sent by post, but is also not
a long-term solution. We need to work together to find payment options for
ILL transactions that are cost-effective for the borrower and
lender.
5. Consortia
Another key value is the concept of
working together in library consortia. Research libraries belong to an
average of seven library consortia for ILL purposes alone, some of which
are regional and some national. Consortia are assuming an increasingly
important role in negotiating contracts for ILL messaging systems as well
as license agreements to electronic resources. Consortia often establish
performance goals for ILL services, such as RLG's four-day limit to
respond to lending requests.
6. Copyright
The U.S. copyright
law permits libraries to engage in interlibrary loan transactions as long
as the ILL requests do not substitute for a subscription to the journal.
Our law does not explicitly prohibit the use of fax or Ariel to transmit
articles. On an international level, the Berne Convention governs uses of
copyrighted materials in member countries. Member countries of the Berne
Convention agree to provide the same level of copyright protection to
other member countries as it provides to its own copyright owners. Varying
copyright laws may be one of the most challenging aspects of international
interlibrary loan.
7. User-initiated Requesting
Many
libraries in the U. S. and Canada are interested in how they can implement
systems that permit users to search union or virtual catalogs and then
place their own ILL requests. Informal studies suggest that user-initiated
requesting is much more cost-effective than mediated ILL transactions. The
OhioLINK model ISOne that is being replicated by other consortia in the
U.S. and Canada.
Other Components of Resource Sharing
I
would like to say a few words about the other components of resource
sharing. I can cite examples of many successful local and regional
cooperative collection development initiatives, but few of these have
succeeded at a national level. ARL's Global Resources Program is a new
effort to rationalize collection purchases, but it has been interesting to
watch several of the projects evolve into document delivery projects. The
Japan Journal Access Project's document delivery pilot with several ANUL
libraries ISOne such example and another example is the German Resources
Project that permits North American libraries to order articles from
German libraries. We are trying to find a way to permit German libraries
to order from North American libraries.
International ILL
I
would also like to make a few comments about international ILL. For U.S.
libraries, international ILL represents less than one percent of their
borrowing or lending. Most libraries are more willing to supply
photocopies than to lend books or other non-returnables. I've already
mentioned the expense of currency conversion to pay or collect lending
fees. A final concern relates to slow and unreliable delivery of material;
we are reluctant to pay for expedited delivery, but we worry that the U.S.
Postal Service's Airmail delivery is slow and unreliable.
Looking
to the Future
If I could look into a crystal ball and forecast
accurately the first decade of the 21st Century for North American
libraries, I would probably project a future in which much of the current,
mediated ILL traffic moves to the user-initiated systems. As a result, the
volume of mediated ILL transactions will not grow at the current rate of
8%, but may only grow at a rate of 1-2% because of the increased use of
user-initiated systems and wider availability of electronic resources.
U.S. ILL borrowing and lending will become more international in scope,
but the percentage sent or received from libraries outside the U.S. will
still be less than 10%. Turnaround time will be less than 10 days and
borrowing fill rates will exceed 85%. We will measure success by how
quickly we fill request for our local users.
Possible Areas of
Collaboration
I hope I've given you an accurate picture of
interlibrary loan activities in the United States. We can be proud of our
many achievements, but there are also many areas in which we need to
improve. But, I would like to conclude my presentation by suggestion
several areas of potential cooperation between libraries in the United
States and Japan that would improve sharing of materials between our
countries.
The first area of collaboration is in the area of
standards. I can envision a future in which Japanese libraries use NACSIS
to send ILL requests to U.S. libraries, and libraries in the U.S. receive
requests via ILL Protocol-compliant software such as RLG's ILL Manager,
the OCLC ILL System, or any of the growing number of Protocol-compliant
ILL systems. Libraries in each country will continue to use the messaging
system they prefer, but we will expand international ILL.
A second area
relates to ILL charges. We need to find a way to pay the lending fees
charged by U.S. or Japanese libraries. We cannot waive our lending fees,
but we cannot pay the steep bank charges to convert Japanese Yen into U.S.
dollars and vice versa. The IFLA Office of International Lending is
exploring how they can convert the plastic voucher into an electronic
equivalent, and perhaps our libraries can test options developed by
IFLA.
A final area of possible cooperation relates to delivery. We
need to find ways to send material, both books and photocopies, by the
most effective means possible. We should be willing to pay for expedited
delivery, and we need to find ways to permit the use of electronic
delivery methods for copies of journal
articles.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I believe I have given
you an accurate overview of interlibrary loan activities in libraries in
the United States. I am hopeful that the suggestions I have made for
possible areas of cooperation are ones that you also feel are
important.
It has been a real pleasure to talk about the current
interlibrary loan environment in the United States. I hope that we will
find ways of continuing the collaboration first established by Waseda
University and the seven participants of the ANUL document delivery
project.
Thank you for your attention. |
