SHARES Policy Rethink: Outcomes, Next Steps, and a Passing of ...

SHARES Policy Rethink: Outcomes, Next Steps, and a Passing of ...

OCLC RLP Works-in-Progress Webinar June 13, 2019 SHARES Policy Rethink: Outcomes, Next Steps, and a Passing of the Baton Dennis Massie Program Officer, OCLC Research Library Partnership Dennis Massie Program Officer OCLC Research Library Partnership Zack Lane Head of Delivery Services Columbia University Libraries

Beth Posner Head of Library Resource Sharing The Graduate Center, CUNY SHARES is typical, and yet unique 75 RLP institutions in SHARES 103 separate SHARES OCLC symbols Academic, museum, law, medical, national, public In 7 countries

Make exceptions Share expertise Push boundaries Question processes Collaborate 8-member executive group

SHARES overlaps many consortia SHARES Policy Rethink SHARES Policy Rethink 2017 Executive Group

Zack Lane, Columbia Lars Leon, U Kansas Deborah Mitoraj, U Michigan Law Kristin Walker, UT Austin Lynn Wexler, MFAH Jennifer DeVito, Stony Brook Joanne Docherty, U Glasgow Kurt Munson, Northwestern

SHARES Policy Rethink 2017 Executive Group

Zack Lane, Columbia Lars Leon, U Kansas Deborah Mitoraj, U Michigan Law Kristin Walker, UT Austin Lynn Wexler, MFAH Jennifer DeVito, Stony Brook Joanne Docherty, U Glasgow Kurt Munson, Northwestern SHARES Policy Rethink

2018 Executive Group Zack Lane, Columbia Lars Leon, U Kansas Deborah Mitoraj, U Michigan

Law Kristin Walker, UT Austin Lynn Wexler, MFAH Mike Paxton, U Chicago Carl Jones, U Edinburgh Elise Thornley, Binghamton SHARES Policy Rethink SHARES Policy Rethink Encourage evidence-based processes SHARES Policy Rethink

Encourage evidence-based processes Build in flexibility SHARES Policy Rethink Encourage evidence-based processes Build in flexibility Enhance access SHARES Policy Rethink Encourage evidence-based processes Build in flexibility

Enhance access Embrace local procedures that add value SHARES Policy Rethink Encourage evidence-based processes Build in flexibility Enhance access Embrace local procedures that add value Mitigate international sharing costs

SHARES Policy Rethink Encourage evidence-based processes Many have adopted 16-week loan periods Build in flexibility Enhance access Embrace local procedures that add value

Mitigate international sharing costs SHARES Policy Rethink Encourage evidence-based processes Build in flexibility Many have adopted 16-week loan periods Opt-in reciprocal no-charge for copies

Enhance access Embrace local procedures that add value Mitigate international sharing costs SHARES Policy Rethink Encourage evidence-based processes Build in flexibility Enhance access

Many have adopted 16-week loan periods Opt-in reciprocal no-charge for copies Reciprocal onsite borrowing, sharing special collections Embrace local procedures that add value Mitigate international sharing costs

SHARES Policy Rethink Encourage evidence-based processes Build in flexibility Enhance access Embrace local procedures that

add value Many have adopted 16-week loan periods Opt-in reciprocal no-charge for copies Reciprocal onsite borrowing, sharing special collections Pretty much anyone can order pretty much anything Mitigate international sharing costs

SHARES Policy Rethink Encourage evidence-based processes Build in flexibility Enhance access Embrace local procedures that

add value Many have adopted 16-week loan periods Opt-in reciprocal no-charge for copies Reciprocal onsite borrowing, sharing special collections Pretty much anyone can order pretty much anything Mitigate international sharing costs

Borrow once, buy if cheaper SHARES Policy Rethink 2019 Executive Group

Ralph Baylor, Frick Juan Fernandez, Fordham Law Ronald Figueroa, Syracuse Merrie Fuller, U Michigan Travis Goode, UT Dallas Richard Zwiercan, UNLV Carl Jones, U Edinburgh Elise Thornley, Binghamton ?

Zack Lane Head of Delivery Services Columbia University Libraries OCLC RLP Works-in-Progress Webinar June 13, 2019 Hit Them With The Carrot: Part II Zack Lane Head of Delivery Services, Columbia University Library SHARES SEG Fantastic set of colleagues to discuss ideas and advocate for change An opportunity to surface local initiatives

Platform to share-out and contribute to network level activity How Did We Get To This Point? 1. Data analysis led to policy change at Columbia 2. Same analysis contributed to changes within the Ivy Plus Consortium (Borrow Direct) 3. Dovetailing with SHARES themes a) Encourage evidence-based processes b) Enhance Access 4. Large-scale adoption of a 16-week loan period Hit Them With the Carrot

Because its not really about longer loan periods; it is about fear and control Large-scale consortial transaction data proves there is low risk involved with sharing returnables Large-scale Columbia fine data strongly suggests need for term-length loan period 16-Week Loans = 92.3% Fewer Fines What Happened? Consortium-wide increase loan period from 12- to 16weeks Decision to seriously chill on invoicing Rationalized local loan periods during shift to ReCAP Shared Collection (big deal, very boring)

Columbia changed ILL loan period from 6-weeks (perpetual renewals) to 16-weeks (no renewal) Campus loan periods extended (Term loans, max renewals) big, generational change on 5/23/19 Integration of acquisition routines Shift footing from renewal footstooling to the integrity of recall Recall Re-Think

Penalties adjusted: Casual late fines eliminated (its a secret) Time to Lost & account block shortened from 45 to 30 days Aligning to promote efficiency & user experience: IDS Project Membership

Rapid: Articles, Book Chapters & Rapid-R (mainly lending) Merits Pointing Out Users love Borrow Direct Predictable & Consistent User Experience is where we need to be (because Amazon is eating our lunch) Data shows: Users Are Good People (or People Are Not the Horrible Monsters We Fear) Anecdotally: Users overwhelmingly act in good faith Shared Values are Powerful: We care about the book not the money Data With Purpose 1. Context: Columbia increasingly dependent as a

borrower in resource sharing 2. Lending: Lending data strongly suggests Columbia can be a confident & generous lender 3. Punishment: Fine distribution suggests preferred terms of use and/or vagaries of human behavior 4. Collections: Leveraging activity to make routinized decisions Borrow Direct Activity for Columbia 40,000 36,013 34,537 35,000

34,344 33,478 30,287 30,074 34,908 30,363 30,000 26,143

25,000 22,490 22,407 FY11/12 FY12/13 25,636 25,314 24,286

24,142 20,539 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 FY10/11

FY13/14 Borrowing FY14/15 Lending FY15/16 FY16/17 FY17/18 Total Charge Activity at Circ Locations - System-wide 600,000

500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 FY03/04 FY04/05 FY05/06 FY06/07 FY07/08 FY08/09 FY09/10 FY10/11 FY11/12 FY12/13 FY13/14 FY14/15 FY15/16 FY16/17 FY17/18 FY18/19

Past 8 Years of Circulation Activity 500,000 450,000 400,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000

150,000 100,000 50,000 0 FY11/12 FY12/13 FY13/14

FY14/15 Total FY15/16 FY16/17 FY17/18 FY18/19 Past 8 Years of Circulation Activity 500,000

450,000 400,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000

100,000 50,000 0 FY11/12 FY12/13 FY13/14 General Collections FY14/15 Reserves

FY15/16 Offsite FY16/17 Borrow Direct Circ Desk FY17/18 FY18/19 Breakdown of Activity in FY12 Borrow Direct Circ Desk

5.6% 5.6% Offs ite 6.9% Reserves 26.6% General Collections 60.9% Breakdown of Activity in FY19

12.4% Borrow Direct Circ Desk 12.4% Offs ite 21.7% General Collections 51.6% Reserves 14.4% The Carrot & The Stick Past changes:

Borrow Direct loan period increased from 12 to 16 weeks Columbia ILL 16-week, no renewal loan period Ongoing changes: Large scale adoption 16-week, no renewal loan period Future change: How good must Columbia be to be bad? Priority to push ILL Borrowing into local LMS (consistent user experience, recall & account blocks) Danger Time A frank confession of bad things that happened There was a problem with returns

There was a problem with recalls But Discharging Returns Perception that heavy return load now falls in mid-late January Voyager lists service desks as closed over the winter break Non-Due Period = Last day of Finals to MLK Day Pushes out Fall due dates to the day after MLK Day Yikes ~30-35% increase in January End of year discharge also increased by ~20% (Far less painful)

Borrow Direct Discharges 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000

0 Recalls Common topic of pushback Likelihood of recall increases with longer loan period Likelihood of loss increases with longer loan period

Both true But the order of magnitude is very, very low Negative impact does not outweigh the net benefit to Columbia patrons System-wide Borrowing Recalls Recalls have been dropping at Columbia for 6 years System-wide recall stats represent only recalls placed for Columbia-owned collections Recognition that some user groups should be able to recall; others should not have this permission Hypothesis: there are often better options than recall System-wide Recalls

14,000 11,788 12,000 11,065 11,842 11,105 10,190 10,100

9,681 10,000 9,743 9,155 8,000 7,206 6,589 6,043 6,262

6,417 6,000 5,091 4,257 4,000 2,000 0 FY03/04 FY04/05 FY05/06 FY06/07 FY07/08 FY08/09 FY09/10 FY10/11 FY11/12 FY12/13 FY13/14 FY14/15 FY15/16 FY16/17 FY17/18 FY18/19 Borrow Direct Borrowing Recalls It looks like I made a huge mistake

I did but not what seems obvious at first look Borrow Direct recalls have continued to drop, even with a 16-week loan period Borrow Direct - Borrowing Recalls 1,400 1,231 1,206 1,171 1,200

1,000 936 800 634 585 600 578 400

323 200 0 FY11/12 FY12/13 FY13/14 FY14/15 FY15/16

FY16/17 FY17/18 FY18/19 Before I Told You So! Borrowing recalls can only be done by Columbia staff

Partner systems or staff communicate with Columbia staff Who then act accordingly Back in October 2017 I alluded to how Columbia planned to be a well-patrolled borrower rather than a mindful, assiduous lender Workflow was designed accordingly I made a huge mistake Borrow Direct Lending Recalls Columbia opted to reverse the fire hose Staff-mediated recalls; akin to consortiums staffmediated invoicing Running Lending Recall Interference 90% of recalls can be cancelled

Opportunity to provide better user experience (for 2 patrons) Passive collection development strategy How many copies are too many copies? How many copies are too few copies? Problem: it is labor intensive Beth Posner Head of Library Resource Sharing The Graduate Center, CUNY SHARES Partner

Benefits https://www.oclc.org/research/activities/shares/benefits.html Comprehensive, expedited access to partners' collections. Access to restricted, noncirculating, and special collections materials that partners would not normally lend. Costs of interlibrary loan and document supply held to minimum through agreements to supply one another at fixed below-market prices. On-site access for one's constituency: partners give each other's visiting faculty and scholars the same degree of access to collections and services that they provide for their own communities. Collegiality, trust, mentoring, sharing expertise, and going the extra mile. Quick turn-around time on requests. Availability of hard-to-find items. Consideration of each request without blanket restrictions.

Access to theses and dissertations. Trusted partners with whom SHARES participants get to interact. Engagement with institutions such as NYPL that lend returnables almost exclusively to SHARES partners. An OCLC Research Program Officer who coordinates many of the consortium's activities. Access to expertise, career development, and collaborative opportunities within the SHARES partnership. First priority lending. Lending to only to SHARES partners when they are so short staffed that other requests must be deflected. Multiple renewals. Confirmation of questionable citations. Personal attention, exceptions and special favors.

What is best? What are best practices? Resources in interlibrary loan/ library resource sharing Community listserv discussions (ILL-L; WorkflowToolkit-L; DOCDEL-L (and more, especially the SHARES list!)

Conferences Journal Articles (JILLDDER) SHARE-ILL The Rethinking Resource Sharing Initiative and A LA RUSA STARS: STAR Checklist IFLA Guidelines for Best Practice in Interlibrary L oan and Document Delivery IDS Online Learning Institute The IDS Project Workflow Toolkit ALA ILL Code SHARES

Best Practice Working Group Working with other consortia Sharing special collections Patron-centered policies Packaging/shipping Physical delivery Lending E-delivery International returnables SHARES-specific Advocating for ILL Tutorial/training

About your ILL unit Borrowing Negotiating e-licenses Managing renovations/moves Reciprocal onsite access From best practices ...to next practices! (Expanding Reciprocal On-Site Access and Direct Borrowing Setting specific turnaround target times

Controlled digital lending of e-books Facilitating special collection and archives payments Expanding consortial cooperation: sharing staff expertise, collection development...and more!) NEXT STEPS, AND A PASSING OF THE BATON Passing the SHARES baton 2019 Executive Group

Ralph Baylor, Frick Juan Fernandez, Fordham Law Ronald Figueroa, Syracuse Merrie Fuller, U Michigan Travis Goode, UT Dallas

Richard Zwiercan, UNLV Carl Jones, U Edinburgh Elise Thornley, Binghamton ? Passing the SHARES baton 2019 Executive Group

Ralph Baylor, Frick Juan Fernandez, Fordham Law Ronald Figueroa, Syracuse Merrie Fuller, U Michigan Travis Goode, UT Dallas Richard Zwiercan, UNLV Carl Jones, U Edinburgh Elise Thornley, Binghamton

Make accessibility of ILL materials routine instead of the exception Advocate internally for the value of collection sharing, and for specific ILL policies and practices Help collection sharing practitioners acquire the skill sets essential to their positions

Passing the SHARES baton SHARES Sharing Special Collections Working Group Brian Miller, Ohio State University (chair) Ralph Baylor, Frick Lesliediana Jones. GWU Law Richard Zwiercan, UNLV SHARES Best Practices Working Group

Kathy Britt-Rogers, Emory Ralph Baylor, Frick Silvia Cho, CUNY Grad Center Jennifer DeVito, Stony Brook Amy Gherardini, U Michigan Katharine Haldeman, Boston U Law Jenny Lee, UCLA Aimee Lind, Getty Meg Massey, Penn State Autumn Mather, Art Institute of Chicago David Perry, Bryn Mawr Beth Posner, Graduate Center, CUNY John Sandoval, U Miami

Phoebe Walker, NYU Questions/comments? Dennis Massie Program Officer, OCLC Membership and Research [email protected]

Recently Viewed Presentations

  • A Comparative Study on The Effectiveness of Explicit and ...

    A Comparative Study on The Effectiveness of Explicit and ...

    a comparativestudy on the effectiveness of explicit andimplicit instruction on the vocabulary development in 5thgrade turkish efl classrooms SengulErDogan Bahcesehir University, MA Thesis
  • Tay-Sachs Disease HEXA

    Tay-Sachs Disease HEXA

    Location of HEXA gene. Mutations of the HEXA gene reduce the activity of β-hexosaminidase A (Hex A). Figure from Genetics Home Reference. The gene that causes Tay-Sachs is located on chromosome 15. The gene encoding the aipha subunit of b-hexosaminidase...
  • Public Libraries Hidden Assets in Community Disaster Response

    Public Libraries Hidden Assets in Community Disaster Response

    * Brief Biography Joe Ryan [email protected] is a librarian. He conducts practical research that improves libraries via Ryan Information Management. ... Temporary public library in Louisiana after Hurricane Rita Credit: M McKnight * Next Steps: State Consider interagency partnerships ...
  • Blue Sky InitiativesPresented by: Robert Campbell, CIA, CRMA ...

    Blue Sky InitiativesPresented by: Robert Campbell, CIA, CRMA ...

    Management must monitor internal controls on an ongoing basis to ensure that any weaknesses or non-compliance are promptly identified and corrected. The Auditor-Controller's role is to assist management by performing periodic assessments . of the effectiveness of the department's internal...
  • DeCaigny_Intro to Qualitative Research 2 6 16 FINAL.pptx

    DeCaigny_Intro to Qualitative Research 2 6 16 FINAL.pptx

    Connecting themes . Layering the analysis . Representing the data using interconnected levels of themes . Going beyond merely stating themes. Minor themes are subsumed by major themes . Major themes lead to broader themes. Working upward toward broader and...
  • Long-range transported aerosols detected with Raman lidar and ...

    Long-range transported aerosols detected with Raman lidar and ...

    Part of the project is financed by the Greek Secretariat of Research and Development Validation of OMI total ozone using ground-based Brewer observations * * Title: Long-range transported aerosols detected with Raman lidar and filter radiometer measurements
  • Electronic Presentation Guide - 2004 HPS Topical Meeting ...

    Electronic Presentation Guide - 2004 HPS Topical Meeting ...

    Black swans in a risk context Terje Aven University of Stavanger JRC, ISPRA 21 June 2013 ... the chance of a white swan 0.8 x 0.99 x 0.2 1 Prior density for p: the chance of a white swan 0.8...
  • Presentation title - Adverticum

    Presentation title - Adverticum

    Kis Gergely Balatoni Emese Internet Hungary Budapest, 26.10.2010. GKIeNET Kft. www.gkienet.hu Owners of the hungarian „content market" CEMP Index Velvet Totalcar Inda (blog.hu, forum.index.hu, indafoto.hu) Portfólió Etarget InfoRádió Bookline C-Travel OnGo Honfoglaló Mobile24 Burek ArtOffice Divany.hu [origo] Origo Freemail iWiW...