Re-examining the future of resource sharing

Mary Jackson
Association of Research Libraries, Washington, DC, USA
Abstract Purpose The purpose of this article is to provide an update on matters pertinent to ILDS readers. Design/methodology/approach This article provides a discursive discussion on the future of resource sharing. Findings The future of resource sharing is a topic of at least three separate discussions in Australia and the USA. The business, technological, and organizational environments are changing. National libraries, bibliographic utilities, and informal groups of individuals are exploring the implications of these trends on resource sharing. This column identies common trends and speculates on the future of resource sharing. Originality/value This article provides insights into matters of importance to ILDS readers from an experienced gure in the US interlending and document supply scene. Keywords Resource sharing, Document delivery, Interlending, United States of America Paper type General review

Interlending managers, library administrators, consortia directors, and library vendors are thinking about the future of resource sharing. At least three separate discussions were begun in the rst half of 2005 and it is likely that similar discussions are underway in other parts of the world. People are beginning to explore whether there are new service and technical innovations that will change the current way libraries exchange materials. It is not surprising that these formal and informal explorations are identifying common themes and issues. Let me summarize some of these conversations, highlight common themes, and reect on what these conversations might mean. The Australian Expert Advisory Group on Kinetica Document Delivery (KDD) issued its nal report in March 2005 (KDD, 2005). The advisory group was formed in August 2003 to review KDDs business model. Noting that signicant changes have occurred in the technical and business environments, the group was also asked to investigate the interlibrary loan environment and trends relevant to the future direction of KDD. Although the report includes a series of recommendations specic to how KDD should respond to current and emerging demands, the recommendations are also applicable to other ILL products and systems. This column identies several of the general trends identied by the advisory group rather than the specic KDD recommendations. The phrase, document delivery, encompasses interlibrary loan services and may be a synonym for resource sharing used by other groups. A second set of discussions initially emerged from several individuals who represented their companies on the ILL Protocol Implementers Group (IPIG) and on the NISO Circulation Interchange Protocol Implementers Groups.
The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0264-1615.htm

What started as a concern about the relevance of version 3 of the ISO ILL Protocol (see column in ILDS 33.1 When a good standard development process fails) evolved into a series of discussions between library vendors and librarians about future directions of resource sharing, which encompasses mediated interlibrary loan (ILL), document delivery, and user-initiated circulation, and user-initiated ILL. The informal group drafted a white paper, Its Time Again to Think about Resource Sharing[1], and is using the paper to seek reaction, comment, and suggestions. Members held listening sessions at a series of library meetings in the rst half of 2005, including at the American Library Associations (ALA) 2005 Annual Conference in Chicago. The group has plans to hold additional sessions over the next six months. The groups blog (http://blog.aclin.org/) encourages wider discussion and comment beyond the community who attended the in-person sessions. Also at the ALA conference, OCLC sponsored a meeting to explore the future of resource sharing in the global sharing arena. In their context, resource sharing included interlibrary loan, circulation, and document delivery. Several speakers addressed the changing nature of resource sharing and identied areas for tracking and possible change.

The emerging themes

Resource sharing is increasing. Resource sharing is decreasing. The Australian report noted both decreases in demand for interlibrary loan and document delivery over the past ten years as a result of increased access to electronic journals and increases in demand for copies of journal articles because electronic access is not yet universal. The change in transactions depended in part on the type of library. The American white paper noted that the number of transactions is likely to increase, but the increase may be most noticeable in user-initiated requests rather than mediated requests. Increasing acceptance and adoption of alternative resource sharing models user-initiated or unmediated ILL, circulation-based resource sharing, direct consortial borrowing may be one of the key drivers in the near-term future. Mediated, library-to-library interlibrary loan is no
q Mary E. Jackson, 2005.

Interlending & Document Supply 33/4 (2005) 212 213 Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 0264-1615]

212

Re-examining the future of resource sharing Mary Jackson

Interlending & Document Supply Volume 33 Number 4 2005 212 213

longer the only way to obtain a book or copy of an article available in another library or source. Open linking directly to an electronic copy is a user-centered and growing alternative for users to obtain copies of journal articles. Some of these emerging models have embraced characteristics of the external world in an effort to respond to increased user expectations. That is, they attempt to replicate the simplicity of discovery of a document via a Google search, the one-stop shopping and ordering ease of many consumer websites, home delivery of Netix.com, and the fast delivery of materials from Amazon.com. Library patrons are expecting library services to be Amazoogle-like, that is, providing service on their terms, not the library terms. Even within traditional library services, a growing number of users feel empowered to fulll their own information needs, including using retrieving documents ordered through mediated ILL procedures from secure websites. The packaging of information held by libraries is changing, and increasingly it is becoming electronic and accessible via the web. Library budgets are not keeping up with expanding patron needs or exploding publishing output. There is a potential conict between the library communitys interest in long-term preservation and immediate electronic access to that content preferred by users. Restrictive license terms may increasingly limit the supply of electronic copies via mediated or unmediated ILL, which might have the unintended consequence of increasing the demand for resource sharing. Traditional organizational boundaries within libraries are blurring. Some mediated ILL operations now fall under circulation, access services, or reference departments. Userinitiated services may be part of mediated ILL, circulation, access services, reference, the information commons, or may be managed by separate staff. There is no consensus, at least in North American libraries, on where mediated or userinitiated operations are best situated within the library organization. Closely related is a growing re-examination of policies for mediated ILL. As libraries begin to offer unmediated services, users begin to question the variant policies for mediated and unmediated services. Libraries are removing limits on the number of mediated ILL requests, encouraging individuals to order via user-initiated systems, and relaxing the restrictions on the type of material they will lend to another library via either service. Outside consortial agreements, most libraries remain reluctant to lend a book directly to a user from another library. Libraries are using new suppliers (libraries in new consortia, commercial document delivery, websites) to ll mediated and user-initiated requests. As libraries join consortia, implement user-initiated models, or discover that electronic delivery eliminates distance and time zones between libraries, they expand the number of potential suppliers to ll their requests. In many cases, service improves for the local patrons. Some of this expanded network of potential suppliers is a result of the implementation of new automated products and tools. In many cases, these tools result in improved workow and increased efciency. Many of the new-generation of resource sharing products is standards-based, but few, if any, products fully support all of the resource sharing standards. Some vendors and librarians have joked that there are too many technical standards to support resource sharing activities. However, most would agree that a growing number of vendors are developing, and libraries increasingly

adopting, standards-based products that include Z39.50 for searching, ISO ILL Protocol for ILL communication, NISO Circulation Interchange Protocol (NCIP) for user-initiated circulation, and the Open URL to link directly to electronic resources. Mediated ILL, through the KDD or OCLC ILL systems, is still the predominant method used by most libraries in Australia and the US respectively. The Australian report noted that in 2003-2004, 26 percent of all KDD requests came from ISO ILL libraries (KDD, 2005). The library community now expects that products from different vendors will be able to communicate using standards rather than proprietary methods.

Will these discussions make a difference?

These trends highlight a key change in providing resource sharing services. Library-centric policies, rules, and procedures are no longer acceptable in an environment that is increasingly customer-focused. The growing discussions in Australia and the US about the future of resource sharing are the rst steps in improving mediated and user-initiated services. I am encouraged that there appears to be several grass-root initiatives underway. Similar discussions about other library services are also underway as librarians realize that they need to keep libraries relevant in the web world. To paraphrase Don Barlow, one of the speakers at the OCLC session, libraries must go permanently BETA! The small group that drafted the white paper made a series of recommendations on follow-on actions. At this early date, it is unclear whether those actions are needed, are the right ones, or who will take the lead. Even if the white paper ends up as an interesting think piece it will have spurred discussion, reection, and interest in how resource sharing is changing and needs to change to meet current user needs.

A nal thought
The US White Paper asserts that technical capabilities, combined with reconsideration by many libraries of their policies regarding the sharing of materials, combine to provide a unique opportunity to examine resource sharing with a clean slate a time to reconsider existing paper-originated models of the last 30 years and identify actual, need-based sharing functions appropriate for the future. What are your emerging resource sharing needs? I invite readers to contribute to this re-examination by sending comments to me or to the authors of the Australian or American initiatives.

Note
1 http://blog.aclin.org/links.php (accessed 23 August 2005).

Reference
KDD (2005), Final Report of the Expert Advisory Group on Kinetica Document Delivery, Kinetica Advisory Committee paper KAC 2005/1/7, available at: www.nla.gov.au/kinetica/ eag_kdd.html (accessed August 23, 2005).

About the author

Mary Jackson is the Director of Collections and Access Programs at the Association of Research Libraries, Washington, DC, USA.

213