ASSESSMENT

• Borrowing Questions

• Borrowing Conclusions

• Borrowing/Doc Del Questions

• Borrowing/Doc Del Conclusions

• Lending Questions

• Lending Conclusions

Borrowing Questions

• How many articles were successfully sent through Direct Request?

• Is the turn-around time for these articles better than regular articles?

• If so, at what point in the process is the time being saved?

• How much time total did Direct Request articles save us?

• How many requests are not being successfully sent through Direct Request?

• Why are they being blocked by Direct Request?

ASSESSMENT

How many articles were successfully sent through Direct Request?

For a three-month period in 2012…

30% of filled article requests were Direct Request (287 out of 959)

How to get this data:

Shows requests that were successfully sent via Direct Request (will not include ones that failed, but will include those that come back unfilled)

ASSESSMENT

Is the turn-around time for these articles better than regular articles? Average turn-around of 1.98 days compared to 6.26 days (Nov. 2012) Much better!! How to get this data: Pick a typical month. Use the previous Custom Search to get transaction numbers for Directly Requested articles for that month. Run ILLiad’s Turn Around Time Report and export the transaction detail into Excel. Copy the data for just the Direct Request transactions and figure the average turn around time. Compare this to the turnaround time provided by the report. (Must convert the minutes/days/hours be consistent)

ASSESSMENT

At what point in the process is the time being saved?

Submitted – Sent = 14.47 hours (compared to 1.9 days)

Sent – Delivered = 1.43 days (compared to 4.35 days)

KB is more accurate for selecting lenders and KB lenders fill requests faster.

How to get this data:

Use the Turn Around Time report created in the last slide.

ASSESSMENT

How much time total did Direct Request articles save us?

During a three-month period…

We had 287 articles sent directly.

It easily takes one minute to process article requests manually.

So we saved at least 287 minutes (about 5 hours) in three months.

How to get this data:

Use the Custom Search from three slides back to get the total number of requests and then multiply by the time it takes to process requests manually.

ASSESSMENT

How many requests are not being successfully sent through Direct Request?

During a three-month period…

672/959 of filled article requests were not direct requests (70%)

How to get this data:

Use Custom Search from a few slides ago

ASSESSMENT

Why are they being blocked by Direct Request? Held by our Library This is a good type of block No ISSN or OCLC# on request Not enough lenders There aren’t enough KB lenders available or sometimes the record selected by OCLC# does not have enough but another one would have ISSN search with too many hits Cannot process more than 25 records How Direct Request searches: If request contains ISSN and OCLC, DR will search by ISSN. If ISSN results in less than 25 hits, DR will select the bib record first by DLC (Library of Congress) then by number of holding codes on the record.

ASSESSMENT

Borrowing CONCLUSIONS

• Requests take less staff time

• Requests are filled much faster

• The potential time-savings is limited by the number of requests that can successfully go through Direct Request

ASSESSMENT

Borrowing /Doc Del Questions

• How many articles were successfully identified as owned by us?

• How often were the links incorrect?

• Why were the links incorrect?

• How many open access requests did we fill?

• How much time did the links save us?

ASSESSMENT

How many articles were successfully identified as owned by us?

During a 3-month period…

We were automatically notified that 377 requests were owned by our Library.

133 of these had links to the full-text.

How to get this data:

Look at Doc Del article requests with “Direct Request” in the Lender String field.

ASSESSMENT

How often were the links incorrect?

Out of 487, 110 were incorrect (23%)

How to get this data:

Look for requests in Borrowing that have a note “Held by your library” Since these requests were not moved to Doc Del, you can assume that we did not actually own.

ASSESSMENT

Why were the links incorrect?

How to get this data:

Run the previous search and go through each request to see why the link didn’t work.

Open Access Links 16%

Staff Error 9%

Print Holdings Incorrect

7%

Publisher Holdings Incorrect

59%

Publisher Link Not Working

9%

ASSESSMENT

How many Open Access requests did we fill?

More difficult to measure because “Collections” tab is not available in Doc Del.

To track this, have staff include something in the Note field or type “Online” in Lending String.

ASSESSMENT

How much time did the links save us?

Request with links take under 1 minute to process (133)

Without the links it takes at least an extra minute per request

At least 133 minutes saved during a 3-month period

Time also saved because we didn’t have to check the rest of the article requests to see if we owned them

ASSESSMENT

Borrowing /Doc Del Conclusions

• Saves time by identifying items we own

• Links save time when retrieving the pdf for Doc Del

• Exposes Open Access resources that we would otherwise have to search for… exact number hard to determine

ASSESSMENT

ASSESSMENT

Lending Questions

• How many Knowledge Base requests were received?

• How much did this increase our lending?

• How often did the links work?

• Why were the links not working?

• How much time was wasted on non-working links?

• How much time did these links save us?

ASSESSMENT

How many Knowledge Base requests were received?

574 in a 3-month period

402 filled

This accounts for 25% of our lending during this period

How to get data:

ASSESSMENT

Lending Questions

How much did this increase our lending?

Our article lending increased by 13% from 2010-2011 to 2011-2012

Made us a net lender again even though our book loans decreased

This year, we are up 24% from this point last year (up by almost 700 requests).

These are easy requests to fill because of the links!

ASSESSMENT

How often did the links work?

70% of the time

How to get this data:

ASSESSMENT

Why were the links not working?

How to get this data:

Incorrect Holdings

89%

Incorrect Citation

11%

ASSESSMENT

How much time was wasted on non-working links?

172 incorrect links in three months

Depends how much time you want your staff to spend searching for each request

For Open Access links, it takes less than a minute to Google the article title to see if it’s available elsewhere.

For things we own, it takes just 5 seconds to click on the link and see it doesn’t work. Then just follow your normal procedures.

For things we never really owned, it should only take 1 minute to discover we don’t own it and cancel the request.

ASSESSMENT

How much time did these links save us?

402 requests in three months

A scanned requests takes at least 8 minutes of staff time

A normal electronic request takes at least two minutes of staff time

A KB request takes less than a minute of staff time

Saved somewhere between 6 and 46 hours

Lending Conclusions

• Dramatically increased our opportunities to lend

• Much faster than our old method of primarily scanning articles

• KB requests are easy to fill

• A substantial number of KB links don’t work, but staff is in control of how much time they spend on these

ASSESSMENT