Dennis Massie A Glimpse of the ILL Yeti Stalking the Big Big Picture of Systemwide Collection Sharing Program Officer OCLC Research 5 May 2015 Whats an ILL Yeti anyway How the study came to be ID: 795910
Download The PPT/PDF document "OCLC Research Library Partnership Work-i..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
OCLC Research Library Partnership Work-in-Progress Webinar
Dennis Massie
A Glimpse of the ILL Yeti:Stalking the Big, Big Picture of System-wide Collection Sharing
Program Officer, OCLC Research 5 May 2015
Slide2What’s an “ILL Yeti” anyway?How the study came to bePhase One: looking at the big pictureCurrent phase: going pixel (pixal
?)What comes next Questions and discussionToday’s Stalking Itinerary
Slide3What’s an “ILL Yeti” anyway?
Slide4Not a
sick
Sasquatch
Slide5How the study came to be
Slide6Current Interlending Landscape
FragmentedMany systems in playOpaqueStatistics reported in gross numbersEvolvingNew models and methods emerging
6
Slide7OCLC ILL statistics
7
FY13FY12FY11FY10
FY09ILL requests8,858,3689,192,189
9,587,429
10,248,942
10,279,215
Year on year
4%
4%
6%
0.29%
Between FY09 and FY13, OCLC ILL has seen a 14% reduction in total number of ILL requests.
Anecdotal evidence tells us that US libraries are seeing an ongoing increase in their borrowing.
OCLC wants to learn more about various trends in fulfillment.
Slide8The Elusive Big PictureIs
resource sharing activity across the entire library community increasing, decreasing, or staying the same?Are there similarities among those libraries where activity is decreasing, and among those where it is increasing?What factors determine the selection of a
model or method for each borrowing request?8
Slide9Made up of
11 institutions with active, sophisticated, innovative resource sharing operationsSome long-established members, some newer membersInvolved in all manner of consortial arrangements
within and outside the groupWould serve as an excellent illustration of current trends in the research library community9
Slide10Phase One: looking at the big picture
Slide11ARL ILL Stats for 11 BD InstitutionsFilled Requests
Slide12Our ILL Stats for 11 BD InstitutionsFilled Requests
12
Slide13ARL vs Our StudyWhy might the numbers differ?
Institutions with multiple libraries and with complex ILL set-up’s might not have reported all activity to us.
Both sets of data are self-reported, and possibly compiled by different people. Potential fiscal/calendar confusion
Overall, study participants reported 97.9% of what was reported to ARL.
13
Slide14Our Borrow Direct Numbers (99.7% agreement between
borr & lend)
14
Slide15Our OCLC NumbersFilled Requests
15
Slide16Our RapidILL NumbersFilled Requests
16
Slide17Our Docline Numbers Filled Requests
17
Slide18Proportion by Sharing Venue
(Other = Web form, ALA form, email, CCC, other circ-to-circ groups)
18
Slide19Do you net lend or borrow, trend up or down?All 11 BD institutions
Venue
2010201120122013Overall
BD
OCLC
RapidILL
Docline
Other
19
= Net borrower
= Net lender
Trending up from previous year
Trending down from previous year
Slide20BD, OCLC, and RAPID ComparisonFilled Requests
20
Slide21BD, Combined C2C, OCLC, and RAPID Comparison -- Filled Requests
21
Slide22Current phase: going pixel
Slide23Total activity by date joined
23
Slide24Total activity by date joined
24
Slide25Total activity by date joined
25
Slide26ARL vs Our StudyWhy might the numbers differ?
Institutions with multiple libraries and with complex ILL set-up’s might not have reported all activity to us.
Both sets of data are self-reported, and possibly compiled by different people. Potential fiscal/calendar confusion
Overall, study participants reported 97.9% of what was reported to ARL.
26
Slide27% ARL Numbers Reported to Us
27
Slide28% ARL Reported, by “Era” Group
28
Slide29Do you net lend or borrow, trend up or down?All 11 BD institutions
Venue
2010201120122013Overall
BD
OCLC
Rapid
Docline
Other
29
= Net borrower
= Net lender
Trending up from previous year
Trending down from previous year
Slide30Do you net lend or borrow, trend up or down?3 “founding” institutions
Venue
2010201120122013Overall
BD
OCLC
Rapid
Docline
Other
30
= Net borrower
= Net lender
Trending up from previous year
Trending down from previous year
Slide31Do you net lend or borrow, trend up or down?4 “joined in 2002” institutions
Venue
2010201120122013Overall
BD
OCLC
Rapid
Docline
Other
31
= Net borrower
= Net lender
Trending up from previous year
Trending down from previous year
Slide32Do you net lend or borrow, trend up or down?4 “newbie” institutions
Venue
2010201120122013Overall
BD----
OCLC
Rapid
Docline
Other
32
= Net borrower
= Net lender
Trending up from previous year
Trending down from previous year
Slide33What comes next…
Slide34Next StepsIndividual profiles for all 11 institutions
Look for cause and effectSeek insight into strategic thinkingBreak down returnables versus nonreturnablesLook at fill ratesTrack reciprocal interactions via OCLC ILL
Report out genericallyReport to BD cohort in detailRepeat study with CIC (this time with POD)
34
Slide35Are we there Yet(i)?
Slide36Questions?
Comments?
36
Slide37Thanks for participating!
Dennis Massiemassied@ococ.org