Australian Interlibrary Resource Sharing Code

Review of the Australian Interlibrary Resource Sharing (ILRS) Code, 2005

The ALIA Interlibrary Lending Expert Advisory Group (ILLEAG) presents a revised draft Interlibrary Resource Sharing (ILRS) Code for comment. The draft revised ILRS Code is based on extensive feedback from the Australian library community on a discussion paper issued by the ILLEAG in July 2005. The text of the revised draft code is below, followed by a report which provides explanation and discussion of the changes that are proposed to the code.

Please submit any comments on the revised draft ILRS Code by Friday 9 December 2005 to Susan Magnay (please remove '.nospam' from address).

Following this period for comment, the final revised ILRS Code, incorporating any amendments as a result of comments from the sector, will be presented to the Australian Library and Information Association (ALIA), the Council of Australian State Libraries (CASL), the Council of Australian University Librarians (CAUL) and the National Library of Australia for their endorsement.

Draft revised Australian Interlibrary Resource Sharing (ILRS) Code, November 2005

Amendments and additions are shown in bold italics.

Introduction

The ILRS Code benefits Australian libraries and their users by providing greater predictability, consistency, and flexibility in obtaining materials.

The Interlibrary Resource Sharing (ILRS) Code is designed to support a multi-faceted approach to resource sharing based on co-operation and fairness between libraries and respect for the moral and intellectual rights of creators and publishers.

In supporting the ILRS Code, Australian libraries recognise that resource sharing is important in meeting the needs of library users but that it should not be a substitute for the purchase of library materials to meet the primary needs of its users. The purpose of resource sharing is to obtain those materials that a library cannot purchase because they fall outside the scope of the library's collection development policy.

Scope

Although the ILRS Code is voluntary all libraries participating in resource sharing are encouraged to operate under the principles and implement the service level standards specified ensuring an efficient and effective system. The core service is mandatory. Libraries are encouraged to offer all three service levels. Core and Rush levels must be provided before offering the higher Express service level. Maximum prices are recommended for each service level. The charge drops to the service level delivered when a supplying library fails to meet the turnaround time.

Principles

Libraries participating under this ILRS Code agree to observe the following principles:

1. Comply with the service-level standards. Where libraries are unable to offer a given service level, this should be stated in their ILRS directory entry.
2. Supply an item quickly within the service level requested. Libraries are encouraged to improve services and review processes so services are not offered at the slowest turnaround time within each service level standard.
3. Publish their resource sharing policy in the ILRS directory and keep the entry updated. The policy should include all charges.
4. Make holdings available and keep them up-to-date, including holdings of electronic resources, with an indication of availability for resource sharing. Use of the National Bibliographic Database (NBD) should be reciprocal. Libraries using the NBD to identify holdings for their own requests should be committed to making their holdings available and up-to-date.
5. Consider all requests for material regardless of format, though the decision to lend materials is at the discretion of the supplying library.
6. Ensure confidentiality for the requestor and the requestor's client.
7. Pay outward delivery costs when supplying unless otherwise agreed.
8. Pay return delivery costs when borrowing, unless otherwise agreed.
9. Comply with the policies of potential suppliers, as published in their ILRS Directory entry.
10. Where systems allow users to initiate requests and send them direct to supplying libraries, authenticate and authorise users, assume full responsibility for these requests and ensure that such requests comply with the principles of the ILRS Code.
11. Accept responsibility for paying all authorised charges imposed by the supplying library.
12. Accept responsibility for the safety of borrowed material, and pay for loss or damage whilst the material is away from the supplying library.
13. Observe any special provisions on the use of material and enforce all use restrictions specified by the supplying library.
14. Honour the due date for the return of loans.
15. Where possible, have a loan period of three weeks or more. Remote libraries may require longer loan periods.
16. When requesting, provide complete bibliographic details and call numbers of the supplying library where possible.
17. Supply the best copy possible, in accordance with efficient work processes. Notify the requesting library if a quality copy is not available.
18. Use the most efficient payment methods possible, such as the national automated payments gateway through Libraries Australia Document Delivery or payment with request using ALIA vouchers, credit card or cheque.

Definitions

Supplier turnaround time
The time between when a supplying library receives a request to when the supplying library dispatches the item or indicates it cannot supply the item.

Working day
Monday to Friday, excluding public holidays.

Close of business
5:00pm local time, or the end of the working day for the supplying library - whichever is earlier.

Recommended prices
All recommended prices are GST-inclusive.

Default delivery modes
To be used when the requesting library has not specified a delivery method.

Best copy possible
The copy is the highest possible quality for readability by the user, obtainable within efficient work processes.

Service-level standards

The supplier response time to an ILL request sent from an automated system before automatic expiry occurs is Core turnaround time plus one day.

Recommended delivery prices

Recommended prices for copies are for up to 50 pages in the original item in black and white reproduction. An additional charge of $3.30 applies for each additional 50 pages copied. An additional charge of $2.20 applies for each colour page copied. Prices for special copying, for example, fragile material or music scores, or for loans of multi-volume sets may need to be negotiated.

Review of the Australian Interlibrary Resource Sharing (ILRS) Code, 2005

Report and discussion

Introduction

The ALIA Interlibrary Lending Expert Advisory Group (ILLEAG) presents a revised draft Interlibrary Resource Sharing (ILRS) Code for comment. The draft revised ILRS Code is based on extensive feedback from the Australian library community on a discussion paper issued by the ILLEAG in July 2005.

Comments should be submitted by Friday 9 December 2005 to Susan Magnay (please remove '.nospam' from address).

Following this period for comment, the final revised ILRS Code, incorporating any amendments as a result of comments from the sector, will be presented to the Australian Library and Information Association (ALIA), the Council of Australian State Libraries (CASL), the Council of Australian University Librarians (CAUL) and the National Library of Australia for their endorsement.

Forty-nine submissions were received from individuals with an interest in interlibrary lending and resource sharing, from university, state/territory, public, government and special libraries, from peak bodies and other sector organisations and from resource sharing and Kinetica Document Delivery (KDD) interest groups. The ILLEAG thanks all the individuals and organisations for the wealth of comment, information and ideas covered in their submissions. The expert group is confident that the range of views expressed is representative of the sector as a whole and that they form a sound basis for the recommended changes to the ILRS Code outlined in this paper. A detailed summary of the submissions is available on request from Susan Magnay (please remove '.nospam' from address).

The strong and positive response to the discussion paper supports the underlying assumption of this review of the ILRS code that the majority of libraries across all sectors are committed to resource sharing and co-operation and that the benefits of Australia's interlending and resource sharing system to Australian libraries and their users outweigh the costs.

Principles

Summary of changes

• For ease of reference, the principles have been numbered.
• Four new principles (numbers 15 - 18) are added.
• Two principles (numbers 2 and 10) are amended.

Discussion

There was strong support for the existing principles. Very few amendments to the existing principles were suggested.

Principle 2 is amended to distinguish more clearly between the principle of complying with the agreed service level standards of the code (as in principle 1) and providing the most efficient service possible within the service levels of the code (as in principle 2). As originally worded, principles 1 and 2 could be interpreted as contradictory.

Principle 10, which deals with requesting libraries' responsibilities for user-initiated requests is amended to clarify that responsibility for such requests includes that they comply with the principles of the ILRS Code. There was a divided response on the questions of whether and how end-user requests should be covered in the code. Some respondents stated that end-user requests are already covered in Principle 10; are already inherent in the principles; or that the suggested additional principle for complete bibliographic details would suffice. Other respondents stated that end-user requests are an internal matter for the requesting library.

Three new principles, numbers 15, 16 and 17, which were proposed in the discussion paper on the review of the code, are added. These are concerned with a minimum loan period, inclusion of bibliographic details in requests and the quality of copies supplied. All three new principles were supported strongly in the responses to the discussion paper.

Arising from the responses to the questions about pricing and payment methods, Principle 18, that libraries should use the most efficient payment methods possible, is added. Two thirds of respondents who commented on the question of whether the ILRS Code should specify preferred payment methods agreed that it should.

Recommendation

In the interests of efficiency for both requesting and supplying libraries and the resource sharing system as a whole, the ILLEAG recommends that all libraries consider using the Libraries Australia document delivery payments gateway as the preferred payment method.

Definitions

Summary of changes

• The definition of 'supplier turnaround time' is amended.
• A definition of 'best copy possible' is added.

Discussion

The definition of 'supplier turnaround time' has been simplified with the intention of stating more clearly that it is concerned with the period of time that a request is dealt with by a supplying library. The ILLEAG has decided that since the ILRS code is concerned with principles the definition should not refer explicitly to electronic requests.

The additional definition of 'best copy possible' is intended to emphasise supplying to meet the end-user's need for a legible and readable copy, dependent of course on the format and quality of the original item, the need for efficient work processes and the technology available to both the requesting and supplying library. The definition supports the new Principle 17. There were suggestions from several respondents that further details about quality of copies should be covered in guidelines for best practice.

Service level standards

Summary of changes

• The number of service levels is reduced from five to three:
  
  • Express: maximum supplier turnaround time of two hours.
  • Rush: maximum supplier turnaround time of 24 hours.
  • Core: maximum supplier turnaround time of four working days.
• The Core service level is changed to a supplier turnaround time of four working days.
• The Default service level is removed.
• A statement is added that requesting libraries are encouraged to confirm by telephone or fax with the supplying library when placing an electronic request for an Express service.
• A statement is added to establish a national guideline for the automatic expiry of requests sent from an automated system.

Discussion

An overwhelming number of respondents supported the proposal to reduce the number of service levels from five to three. Respondents commented that five service levels were '...confusing and unnecessary...' and that it was '...hard to keep track of what each level means'. The proposed three service levels were seen as much simpler, easier to manage, and with sufficient flexibility to meet most requirements.

Responses to the discussion paper were roughly evenly divided between reducing the supplier turnaround time to four days and maintaining the current five-day supplier turnaround time for the Core service level. Since a primary purpose of the ILRS Code is to support and encourage service improvement, the ILLEAG proposes that supplier turnaround time for the Core service should be four working days. This is also in line with international trends in ILL.

In general, the Rush and Express services as defined in the discussion paper were supported.

A monetary incentive to encourage libraries to meet the Core service level, that is the current Default service level, was not supported by the majority. Respondents reported that the Default service level is difficult to administer and is not widely followed in practice.

The majority of respondents supported an alert by telephone or fax when placing electronic requests for Express service.

The proposed guideline for the automatic expiry of requests sent from an automated ILL system is intended to minimise the confusion and inconvenience for libraries of working with varying response timeframes set up in different automated systems. It is also applicable to requests sent via other means, particularly e-mail, and will allow libraries to predict confidently that if a library has not responded within the timeframe they can safely forward the request to another potential supplier. This addition has come from a recommendation of the Expert Advisory Group on KDD that the response period for KDD users be reduced from ten to five working days. To ensure that the principle applies to the broader library community, not only KDD users, the standard proposed is the Core supplier turnaround time plus one day. This ensures that systems do not forward the requests to the next library in a shorter time than the code specifies and should give a supplying library adequate time to respond.

Recommended delivery prices

Summary of changes

• E-mail attachment is added to the default delivery modes for Express and Rush requests.
• A recommended charge for colour copies is added.
• Copying of music scores and loans of multi-volume sets are added to the categories of materials for which prices may need to be negotiated.

Discussion

There was general consensus in the responses to the discussion paper that the ILRS Code should remain 'non specific' so that it can be applied to a wide variety of libraries and to changing technologies and that therefore the code did not require more details about delivery modes and formats.

On the question of how electronic file formats should be covered in the ILRS Code replies indicate a want of direction but acknowledged the emerging technologies. Responses were equally divided against and in favour of specifying file formats. Very few comments were made regarding the size of files. On balance, the ILLEAG has concluded that file formats should not be specified in any more detail in the code.

Responses on whether a statement about the responsibility of requesting libraries for the delivery of requested electronic documents to their end users should be included in the code were almost equally divided for and against. Some respondents suggested that this was a copyright issue and others that it was a workplace procedural issue and that these should be covered in guidelines for best practice.

A majority of respondents to the discussion paper favoured an additional recommended fee for colour copies. The preferred fee structure was a per page recommended charge.

Pricing

Summary of changes

• No changes to the recommended fee for the Core service and levies for Express and Rush services are proposed at this stage.
• A new recommended charge for colour copies, as outlined above, is introduced.

Discussion

In the discussion paper, the ILLEAG suggested that a crucial challenge in establishing recommended ILL fees was to have agreement across a diverse sector on the guiding principles and data on which to set recommended prices for the sector as a whole.

The responses to the section on pricing and pricing models in the discussion paper have provided a diversity of views and opinions but very little costing data.

In general respondents supported the principle of recommended pricing to provide partial compensation and cost recovery for lenders, for the benefit of the sector as a whole. However, there was no consensus in the submissions on what the level of pricing should be or on what the impact of changes in recommended pricing, whether up or down, would be.

There were comments that recommended pricing also contributes to controlling demand and to placing a value on the service. Several respondents noted that Australia's resource sharing system also includes extensive reciprocal arrangements. It was suggested that a pricing structure for resource sharing should aim to keep prices low and affordable, should encourage efficiency and cost-effectiveness and should aim to maximise the use of collections of Australian libraries by ensuring that collections are accessible.

Costing information

Summarising the 49 submissions, eleven respondents stated that they had no costing information; five referred to the 2000 ILL/DD benchmarking study as a source of costing data and several suggested pricing based on internal costing exercises based on average staff time to process a request ranging from 14.5 minutes to 30 minutes.

There were suggestions that it would be useful to have a simple formula for estimating average costs.

It was also notable that most of the comments on the impact of pricing changes, focused on how a change in recommended pricing, whether up or down, might affect requesting, rather than supplying.

The ILLEAG has concluded, on the basis of the responses, not to propose at any changes to the recommended prices in the code at this stage. The responses to the discussion paper have not provided sufficient data, nor a clear sense of the direction that would be broadly acceptable to the sector. There have been extensive changes in the infrastructure, work processes and business environment for interlending since the benchmarking study in 2000. The ILLEAG believes that there is a need to establish a new baseline for costs and recommended prices, taking into account the changes over the past five years, and an agreed process for regular ongoing review.

Recommendation

The ILLEAG recommends that the ALIA Board of Directors seek the support of CASL, CAUL and the national library for a collaborative project to gather data on ILL supply costs across sectors and to develop a simple costing tool for ILL/DD supply that could be used by all sectors. It is proposed to seek the agreement of the sector's peak bodies that costing information from such a study would be used to inform the setting of a pricing structure and recommended prices.

The question of whether the ILRS Code should specify preferred payment methods is covered in the section on principles.

Other comments

Some respondents provided information about their library services or networks and the relevance of the ILRS Code to their operations.

Other comments covered:

• the importance of libraries honouring the due date for return of loan items
• advantages of the ALIA ILL voucher system
• the importance of the ILRS code as a national code of practice covering all libraries, large and small, from all sectors.

Service level codes

The National Library of Australia (NLA) has proposed a change to the service level definitions in the automated environment. The current service level codes in the KDD system are specific to Australia and reflect the service levels of the ILRS Code.

However, the interlibrary loans/document delivery environment has changed significantly. With the uptake of local ISO ILL systems, and the ability to exchange messages via the ISO ILL Protocol with other libraries and document suppliers outside of Australia, the use of the Australian service level codes has become problematic. Vendors of ISO ILL compliant systems are reluctant to set up additional codes outside of the standard codes support in ISO ILL Protocol, for a very small subset of their customer base. Overseas libraries and document suppliers routinely (and correctly) use the IPIG (ILL Protocol Implementation Group) codes.

The NLA wishes to adopt the IPIG codes instead of the Australia service codes for KDD, to alleviate these current problems, and to avoid the issue becoming much greater in the future. This means that in the KDD system, the IPIG codes (, } and > would be used instead of C, R, and E for the Core, Rush and Express service levels. The service level descriptions for Core, Rush and Express would remain the same, as would the expectation that Australian libraries would continue to be guided by the conditions and charges recommended by the ILRS Code.

The ILLEAG supports the NLA recommendation that the symbols C, R, and E used to describe the Australia ILRS code service levels of Core, Rush and Express be changed to the IPIG symbols (, } and >.

ALIA Interlibrary Lending Expert Advisory Group, November 2005