ill in the faster lane: empowering users with hkall

ILL in the faster lane: empowering users with HKALL

Peter SIDORKODeputy Librarian

The University of Hong Kong

Co-authors:

Ruth WONGThe University of Hong Kong

Alice TAICity University of Hong Kong

Eva WONGCity University of Hong Kong

This paper

• Introduction of a user initiated ILL service in HK - HKALL

• Why we chose to do this

• How we introduced and implemented the service

• The issues that confronted us

• The data we collected

• The analysis of data and feedback

• The way forward

What is HKALL

• Hong Kong Academic Library Link

• A user initiated ILL service

• A Hong Kong implementation of III’s (INNOVATIVE’s) INN-Reach system

• (Initially, at least) an experimental service to “test the waters”

Why?

• Positive experiences in the USA• Changes to Higher Education in Hong

Kong– Demographics– Economy (knowledge based movement)– Impact of technology– Reduced funding– Desire for “deep collaboration” among the

eight

• Geography

How• Taskforce with representatives from all 8 institutions charged to

explore:

– The experience of other consortia employing user initiated document delivery including the pros and cons of its use

– The use of software/utilities/systems which could be used by the JULAC Libraries to facilitate user initiated document delivery

– The value/non value of using net borrower

– The resource implications (e.g. reduce ILL-based borrowing and lending but will likely see significant increase on circulation increase, etc.)

• Our interim report recommended:

– That such a service was a good idea for HK

– That a suitable software platform be selected and implemented

Software prerequisites

• Accept user initiated online ILL requests

• Support unmediated ILL requests directly from users to lending libraries

• Support monograph loans

• Check incoming ILL requests automatically against the user’s own collection, and block that request if the requested item was available on the shelf

• Chinese, Japanese and Korean (CJK) characters

The Chosen one

• INN Reach from III met all criteria

• Support of CJK was a great strength

• All 8 institutions were already III customers using their ILS

What happened next?

• Only 3 libraries agreed to proceed

• 5 adopted a “wait and see” approach

• Their concerns included:

– Cost

– Impact on local collections and users

– Impact on library staff

– Possible threat of reduced funding

Three pilot participants:

Lingnan University

City University of Hong Kong

The University of Hong Kong Library

Lingnan University:Fong Sum Wood Library (LU)

• Smallest university library collection in Hong Kong

• ca 400,000 physical vols

• Established in 1968

• Liberal arts tradition

• ca 2,000 students FTE

• ca 240 teaching staff FTE

City University of Hong Kong: Run Run Shaw Library (CityU)

• The University and Library were established in 1984 originally as a Polytechnic

• Faculties: Business; Humanities and Social Sciences; Science and Engineering; Schools of Creative Media and Law

• ca 1.1 million physical volumes

• ca 12,500 students FTE

• ca 1,900 teaching staff FTE

The University of Hong Kong Library (HKU)

• Established 1912

• Oldest University and university library in HK

• Established in the tradition of a British university

• Comprehensive in PG and UG

• Research intensive

• ca 11,500 students FTE

• ca 3,500 Teaching staff FTE

• ca 2.3 million physical volumes

• ca 240 library staff

What we wanted to know:

1. Would the use of INN-Reach alter the amount of borrowing and lending between these three institutions

2. Would some libraries use it more than others

3. What subjects of materials would be borrowed

4. What would be the differences in the amount of Western language versus Chinese language books borrowed

What we wanted to know:

5. Would the use of INN-Reach speed up the process of borrowing a book

6. Would the use of INN-Reach decrease the costs of processing a borrowing/lending request

7. What classes of users would use this new system more/less

8. How would our patrons react to this new system?

The Implementation:

Confrontations and lessons learnt

Confronting issues (1)

• Building the HKALL Union Catalogue– Matching CJK records

Confronting issues (2)• Setting up HKALL circulation rules and policies• Principals:

– minimise policies that interfere with local circulation practices while still trying to maximise use of the mega collection;

– ensure that the policies would not undermine the interest of users in the owning libraries; and

– make the policies as simple as possible so that:• they are easily understood by both users and operational

staff members;• operational procedures are simple and administrative costs

are minimal;• they can readily include new participating libraries.

Confronting issues: Policies (2)

• Materials for circulation

• Eligible users

• Loan quotas and periods

• Recalls

• Renewals

• Overdues and fines

• Loss and damage of books

But how does it work?

Easy as…

1. User at library X searches for a book

2. Item not held/on loan at library X

3. User clicks HKALL button

4. HKALL reveals all holdings and availability of item

5. User requests item

6. User authenticates

7. System assigns request using availability and load bearing algorithm

Easy as…8. Request received by assigned library who retrieves

item from shelves

9. Lending library performs institutional check-out of item and sends via courier to borrowing library

10. Borrowing library checks in item, generates email notice to user to collect item

11. User collects item (mostly), reads item (sometimes) and returns item to home library before due date (occasionally)

12. Borrowing library performs institutional check-in returns item via courier to lending library

13. Lending library checks item in.

From the users’ perspective

What we learnt:

Quantitative analysis

1. Would transactions between these three institutions change?

Period CityU HKU LU

ILL03 1,229 570 282

ILL04 921 242 222

HKALL 4,494 1,858 1,281

2. Would some libraries use it more than others?Library Borrow Lend

CityU 3,870 1,682

HKU 1,736 3,191

LU 1,152 1,885

Total 6,758 6,758

3. What subjects would be most borrowed/lent?

Subject CityU HKU LUGeneral Works/ Bibliography - - -Philosophy/Psychology/Religion

- - B1

Social Science/ Law/Education

B1, L1 B1, L1 B2, L1

Science/Technology B2, L3 B2, L2 L2Arts/Architecture - - -Language/Literature B3, L2 B3, L3 B1, L3History/ Geography - - -

HKU Analysis of borrowed subjects

Subject % Judged Appropriate

Medical 17

Law 24

Arts/Architecture 24

Social Science/ Education

41

Science/Technology 49

4. Western vs CJK

5,206 (69%)

2,306 (31%)

CJKWestern

5. Speed up borrowing?

• 95% of requests during the pilot project were met within two working days.

• 9% of traditional ILL requests are met in this timeframe.

6. Decrease processing costs?

Per Item HKALLHK$

ILLiadHK$

Difference

Lending Cost

8.37 14.48 6.11 (42%)

Borrowing Cost

5.97 10.9 4.93 (45%)

7. Who used it?

User Type Transactions

Staff (academic and non-academic)

1,409

PG Students 1,357

UG Students 4,257

What we learnt:

Qualitative analysis

8. Patrons’ views• 80% excellent or good source of obtaining materials

not available from their host library

• 73% appreciated integration into the local library system

• 80% found redirecting a search from the local catalogue to HKALL excellent or good

• These features were considered excellent or good:• view outstanding requests (68%)

• cancel requests (65%)

• renew items (71%)

• 76% liked being kept informed of their request status by email notices

• 67% expressed a high degree of satisfaction with the fulfillment rate and 62% with the turnaround time

• 88% would like to see more libraries included

8. Patrons’ views

Typical comments

• “Excellent on the whole”

• “… this scheme has been excellently carried out. With this scheme, resources in the universities can be better utilised.

• “HKALL simply makes life easier. Thank you…….”

• “It should include all eight institutions in HK.”

The Future

• Confirmation of results from other studies

• Interest generated among remaining five libraries

• HK Governments (UGC) awards HK$10 million (€1m or Kr16m)

• A single, fully integrated system managing both interlibrary lending as well as document delivery??