VIVA Resource Sharing 2010

Originally presented at12th Annual VIVA ILL Forum

Sweet Briar CollegeJuly 16, 2010

Updated for VIVA Steering Committee, September 16, 2010

Ralph Alberico, James Madison UniversityFormer Chair, VIVA Resource Sharing Committee

Resource Sharing 2010 Survey

• Survey done in Spring 2010 semester• VIVA Interlibrary loan practitioners and directors

surveyed; survey sent to each OCLC ILL location • Looked at ILL infrastructure & practice & resource

sharing strategic direction• Goal was to supplement data on ILL transactions – get

a snapshot of resource sharing in 2010• Approximately 55 VIVA ILL practitioners and 33

directors responded• Thanks to everyone who responded!

What does the VIVA ILL community look like?

• 63% of ILL staff have duties outside of ILL• ILL departments often provide services beyond borrowing

and lending to other libraries• Of ~55 respondents, 14 libraries have more than one OCLC

location; one library has 6 OCLC locations• The largest number of ILL staff at any reporting library is 9,

with an additional 3 for document delivery• Several libraries have no full-time ILL staff• The average staff size is 1.89• Most ILL departments have access to and rely upon student

labor

Other services provided by ILL staff

• In VIVA schools, ILL staff often perform other tasks in addition to working with ILL

Examples of expanded services include:• Scanning of items for e-delivery• Campus document delivery for faculty & staff• Campus document delivery for students• Intercampus lending (within a single school)• Delivery to distance learners

Resource Sharing Infrastructure

• Similar ILL technologies are in place at most VIVA libraries

• For each system, there are variations among VIVA member libraries

• A significant number of libraries do not have basic tools to support e-resource sharing

• OCLC remains as the dominant provider of ILL infrastructure & technology services

Most VIVA Libraries use Odyssey.

35.64%

20.36%

Yes 63.6%

No 36.4%N=55

Not everyone uses the same version of Odyssey.

29.4%

70.6%

If yes, which type of Odyssey does your institution use?

Standalone ILLiad

N=34

Most VIVA libraries still use Ariel.

67.3%

32.7%

Does/do your Interlibrary Loan/Document Delivery location(s) use Ariel?

YesNo

N=55

Not everyone uses the same version of Ariel.

2.x 3.x (below 3.4) 3.4 4.0 4.1 Other (please specify)

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

0%5%

32.5%

0%

55%

10%

If yes, which version or versions of Ariel does your institution use? (Select all that apply)

N=40

Ariel Version

Ariel was useful in its time… but many are planning to move on.

43.6%

30.8%

25.6%

What are your long term plans for Ariel?

Continue using it until the hardware dies.

Continue using it indefinitely, replacing hardware and updat-ing software as necessary.

We have plans to phase out Ariel.

N=39

Exactly half of respondents use ILLiad

50.0%50.0%

Does/do your Interlibrary Loan/Document Delivery locations(s) use ILLiad?

YesNo

N=54

Most ILLiad users host the software locally.

53.8%

30.8%

15.4%

If yes, where is your instance of ILLiad hosted?

Hosted locallyHosted by OCLCOther (please spec-ify)

N=26

Note: “Other” usually indicates hosted by Atlas Systems

Different versions of ILLiad are used.

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

6.x,

67.9%

50%

10.7%

If yes, which version or versions of ILLiad does your in-stitution use? (Select all that apply)

ILLiad version

7.X

8.0

Other

0%

N=28

Equipment Available in VIVA ILL Units.

• 73% have a flatbed scanner• 7% have an overhead scanner• 51% have a standalone printer• 49% have a standalone FAX• 27% have an all-in-one printer/fax/scanner• A few also have microform scanning

equipment and networked copiers

Other Technological Capabilities

• Almost half of respondents cannot supply color scans

• PDF is the most frequently used file type• Some libraries fulfill requests by sending email

attachments• Most respondents rely on campus IT shops for

IT support

Borrowing Practices

• The majority of respondents send non-returnables to their patrons electronically

• ILLiad is the most common method for delivering electronic copies, followed by Ariel and FAX

• Re-use and re-cycling of packaging materials is the norm; ILL is going green

• ILLiad is the most popular way of printing labels• Requests for renewals of borrowed items are

infrequent

Lending Practices: Non-Returnables

5.6%

51.9%

35.2%

7.4%

For lending non-returnables, which is your institution's most frequent practice?

Copy from material, send hard-copy

Copy from material, scan copy, send electronically

Scan directly from material, send electronically

Other (please specify)

N=54

Lending Practices: Preferred Delivery Service

1.9%

68.5%

25.9%

3.7%

What is your preferred delivery service for lending returnables to VIVA libraries?

FedExUPSUSPSOther (please specify)

N

N=54

Lending Practices: Which formats do you lend?

DVD/Video

CD/Audio recordings

Theses/Dissertations

Other (please specify)

Microform

Government Documents

Items from Special Collections/Archives

72.5%

60.8%

43.1%

43.1%

39.2%

39.2%

17.6%

Lending Policies

• 55% of ILL departments allow VIVA libraries to renew returnable items

• 91% do not limit the number of items that may be borrowed by VIVA students and faculty

• VIVA libraries are generally liberal about lending video and audio formats via ILL, less so, for other formats

• 7 VIVA libraries provide direct loans to any adult in Virginia, 23 provide direct loans based on membership or community borrower cards; only 1 respondent does not provide direct loans to non-affiliated patrons

Directors Survey• Mediated ILL is a high resource sharing priority for VIVA

directors, coming only after licensing of e-content by VIVA• 24 VIVA libraries participate in reciprocal resource sharing

agreements in addition to VIVA• 34.5% of respondents indicated that their libraries use document

delivery services in addition to ILL• 30% of responding libraries have formal procedures for buying

instead of borrowing• 59% maintain print-only serials holdings information in OCLC;

28% maintain print and electronic holdings• 21% use WorldCat Local to support resource sharing; 60%

promote WorldCat.org for access to their collections

Technology-Based Resource Sharing

Link Resolution Services

ERM Services

Repository Services

Resource Discovery Services

Strategic Priorities, Part 1

Strategic Priorities, Part 2

Strategic Priorities, Part 3

Directors’ Topic Preferences

Questions?