BORROWING WORKFLOW BASICS
Denise Forro
In an age when it seems as if everything a patron needs can be found on the Internet, the reality is that she discovers more references to materials that are of interest but is unable to access the content online. The user then turns to the interlibrary loan office for assistance in gaining access to this material. Additionally, libraries are finding that it is often more cost-effective to provide access to materials through ILL services instead of purchasing the items for their collections. Consequently, borrowing items for the patron is still a vital service for the library. Anecdotally, libraries are experiencing an increase in ILL request volume. What many practitioners are experiencing is borne out in one survey of eighty-six academic libraries in which the mean aggregate request volume increased by over 21 percent from 2005 to 2008.1 Given these numbers, it is important that all libraries operate their interlibrary loan unit efficiently and effectively to better serve their patrons’ needs.
BORROWING POLICIES
It is critical to develop policies for interlibrary loan so that patrons and staff members are confident in how to proceed. This groundwork enables good patron-staff relationships and expedites fulfillment of requested materials. Many of the software programs used for ILL management will assist with following those procedures. For libraries that do not use a management program, it is an inherent responsibility of the staff to be aware of these policies. Making sure that patrons and other library staff are informed about the policies and posting them in appropriate places will eliminate many unnecessary questions about the service. Most libraries post their policies on their library website, although print brochures and handouts may be used.
At the most basic level, the policy should include information about who is allowed to request, what may be requested, how you will communicate with the requesting patron, the method by which items are to be delivered to the patron and in what average time frame, and the cost of the service. Patrons also need to know about loan periods and renewals, how materials are to be returned, and any policies regarding lost or damaged items.
A more detailed discussion of policies can be found in chapter 5, “Management of Interlibrary Loan.” However, several elements may be overlooked that can cause difficulties for the library staff and confusion or frustration for patrons. If the library is unable to support unlimited requesting, patrons must know how many requests may be submitted. Fees should also be addressed in the policy statement as patrons may be unwilling or unable to pay fees associated with their requests. Along with the amount charged for the service, patrons need to know the process for payment. Your policy should specify whether fees should be paid up front, before the request is processed, or after receipt. If there is no charge, indicate that to avoid confusion later. Many academic libraries do not charge for their services but do alert the patron about the cost of the service to the institution. Sometimes, the service is free to the patron unless a copyright royalty must be paid. In this case, the patron should be contacted before the request is placed so that he is aware of the potential charge. Copyright is covered in depth in chapter 4.
A patron’s physical location can sometimes determine if she is eligible to receive interlibrary loan services. In the case of a public library, the patron may be required to live in a certain area to receive this service. At one time, interlibrary loan and document delivery for academic libraries would have been limited to faculty, students, and staff members who were on campus. In today’s world of online learning, however, many of these libraries have extended ILL service to those involved in distance learning programs and to online students. A library may offer additional services for distance education students that it might not provide to local patrons, such as sending books directly to the individual and scanning documents from print sources. It is important to communicate these service options to patrons involved in distance education programs, either through a website or brochure.
Twenty years ago, the process of loaning materials between libraries was so labor intensive and took such a long time that interlibrary loan was discouraged as a service to all but the most intense researchers or those willing to pay. Today, patrons expect and can receive quick turnaround times for the materials they request. Policies should note time expectations for the receipt of patron materials. In an era of almost instant satisfaction, interlibrary loan may seem slow, so realistic expectations are necessary for an effective service.
Policy statements should also suggest to patrons when to consider placing an interlibrary loan request and when to seek other assistance such as additional help from a reference desk. Although many practitioners feel that ILL should not be used in lieu of purchasing materials, it is appropriate for libraries to delineate what is permissible. Over time, some of the thinking in this area has changed. In earlier editions of this handbook, a philosophy of interlibrary loan as a last resort was suggested: “Full use of the library’s collection should be made before interlibrary borrowing is attempted (the Code, 2.1).”2 As noted by Boucher, this guideline is stated in the Interlibrary Loan Code for the United States, but fewer libraries adhere to this policy now than in the past. If the material is in the collection but currently checked out, it may make more sense to request a loan from another library than to recall the item from the patron who is currently using it. In many cases, interlibrary loan is faster than a recall process that can take weeks to complete. Items may also be locally available, but not in a desired format or available for checkout, such as books in a reference or reserve collection. Whether these materials are eligible for request through interlibrary loan or not is also a local policy decision.
REQUEST FORMS
Patrons need or want to access many items. These materials come in many forms and formats. The borrowing unit should have as much correct information as possible to locate a possible lender and successfully fill the request for the patron.
Request forms, whether online or in print, are based on the Interlibrary Loan Data Elements of the NISO ILL standard and found in the ALA Interlibrary Loan Request Form (see chapter appendixes 2.1 and 2.2).3 This form is multipurpose for requesting different types of material. The elements found on the form are universally used by the many systems that exist to process requests and are easily recognizable by lending libraries. In a perfect world, users would submit request forms on which they have completed every field with accurate and complete information. In reality, users may not know or understand every bibliographic element about the item they are requesting, and library staff may not need every data element in order to locate the requested item and identify lenders. However, it is best practice to include the bibliographic elements shown in figure 2.1 on a request form if users have this level of detail or require it to describe the item they are requesting.
Figure 2.1 Types of Material Requested and Basic Elements Needed to Locate a Lender
Additional elements of information can be helpful for library staff to manage borrowing requests. In some cases, having the citation’s source assists staff with difficult requests that may need to be tracked back to their origin. Today, because of the Internet, it is not as crucial to the success of the request to have this information, but it can be beneficial for materials that are difficult to obtain. Patrons should also include a “need by” date. This is a date after which the delivery of the item would no longer be useful. If your library allows a choice of method for delivery, this must also be noted. Patrons may have a preference for online rather than mail delivery of articles if there is a choice. In submitting a request, the patron must acknowledge any fees or copyright charges that he is expected to pay. This acknowledgment should be made through online billing or indicated in some other way. If payment is expected when placing the request, patrons must know this, and the library must have a method for accepting and acknowledging payment.
Patrons requesting numerous items at one time should be made aware that other patrons are also requesting materials and that they might need to prioritize their requests if a quota system is in place. If the borrowing process is automated with online forms, such prioritizing is not quite as critical unless the requests are mediated. Here again, the library may want to clearly state this in its policies. Finally, the most important item on a request form is one required by law: a copyright notice. See chapter 4 for a detailed discussion of the requirements of Title 17, Section 108 of the U.S. Code.
THE DISCOVERY PROCESS AND TOOLS
Before the advent of computerized bibliographic utilities and the use of the Internet as a discovery tool, locating lenders for requested items was labor intensive. Today, many avenues are available to locate the materials and potential lending libraries. Staff members who are processing requests can go to national utilities, web search engines, online catalogs, or interlibrary loan e-mail lists.
National Utilities
Perhaps the most well-known utility with easy web access is OCLC WorldCat. This database consists of bibliographic records entered into the system by libraries around the world in conjunction with acquisition and cataloging processes. As a library catalogs a new bibliographic record in the system, it attaches its unique OCLC symbol to that record. As other member libraries acquire the same item, they also attach their library’s symbol to the record. This process makes it fairly easy to determine if a particular library has a given item. Patrons are also able to search this database through WorldCat.org on the Web. The interlibrary loan subsystem of OCLC is the WorldCat Resource Sharing (WCRS) network and is frequently accessed through OCLC FirstSearch or an ILL management system.
PubMed (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/) is a national service that includes citations from Medline covering medicine and the health sciences and is supported by the National Library of Medicine. PubMed is an online interface that is available to everyone, while the more comprehensive database, Medline, is only available if the library subscribes through a commercial database vendor.
Online Catalogs
Most libraries today have online catalogs that are available through the Web and open to the public for searching. These catalogs give you access not only to the bibliographic data but also to the current status of the material in the library. The difficulty with this method for locating items is the piecemeal searching it requires. However, if the library is part of a group, if you need to stay within a specific region, if you suspect a particular library may have the material, or if you are in a rush and want to request only material shown to be available, then online catalogs are certainly an option.
Additional Resources
Various search engines on the Web facilitate searching for materials. Google Books and Google Scholar are two examples of specialized web search engines that assist with the discovery process. In the case of difficult-to-locate items, these tools may be paramount to finding a possible lender.
Archival collections are typically very difficult to borrow, but increasingly libraries will be able to digitize materials on request. A variety of sources exist that can assist in locating the holder of an archival or manuscript collection. In addition to a general web search or a search of WorldCat, Archive Finder is a subscription database of archival collections. A free resource that may assist is the National Union Catalog of Manuscript Collections (NUCMC), available at www.loc.gov/coll/nucmc/.
Finally, as a last resort, staff can turn to the various online or e-mail discussion lists that support interlibrary loan. If you have trouble locating a citation, another ILL librarian may be able to find the record that you need.
REQUEST SYSTEMS
After a patron submits a request, library staff must then locate the requested item, identify holding libraries, and submit the request. The act of placing a request with a lending library typically happens on one of the major interlibrary loan systems in use. Many systems allow for requests to be placed with multiple potential lenders. This option allows the request to pass from one potential lender to the next in a queue without having to be returned to the borrowing library each time a lender is unable to supply. Library staff members should determine whether the lenders they are querying have a borrowing fee or whether a reciprocal arrangement exists with the lending library. Many libraries cooperate in a consortium and offer free service to one another. If this is not the case, then the library will need to make arrangements for payment, which may also occur within the request system being used or outside the system through an invoice.
Direct Consortial Borrowing
Direct Consortial Borrowing systems unite information in either a single union catalog or a virtual searching and linking that allows requesting of certain types of materials. Often these systems are based on the circulation system of the library or, in the case of article requesting, based on the serial holdings of the participant libraries. Patron direct requesting is possible through these systems, making it unnecessary for staff to mediate the requests at the time they are placed. Physical processing of the materials is usually the same as other incoming filled requests. Some of these systems work in conjunction with interlibrary loan management systems, creating a central location for patron tracking of requests.
REQUEST VERIFICATION AND PROBLEM RESOLUTION
It is overly simplistic to believe that all requests are easily found and that lending libraries are easily located for every item needed by patrons. On a daily basis, staff members will find that they must intercede, review requests for errors, and locate additional lending libraries when a request has been returned unfilled. This is where the training and knowledge of the library staff are most valuable. As Lee Andrew Hilyer memorably wrote, “Verification is both a skill and an art.”4
In the past, when ILL was not as automated and when information was found only in print sources, the verification process was performed before the request was sent to potential lenders. In theory, patrons, now as then, are expected to supply the correct information, including a source. In practice, this is not necessarily the norm. Before the Internet, ILL staff would spend an inordinate amount of time tracking down the citation to verify its existence. In the online environment, where citation information is readily available through indexes, citation databases, utilities, and web browsers, this step does not have to be taken before the request is sent. If the citation is submitted by a patron through a database connection, it should already be complete and correct.
That being said, if lenders are unable to supply the material because of a poor or incomplete citation, then the ILL staff must verify that the item exists. Verification usually involves looking up the citation in the source that is given on the form. If a source is not given, staff may then consult various online and print subject indexes and abstracts. If this search fails to produce a confirmation of the citation, a reference librarian or subject specialist may be consulted. After using all these methods, ILL staff may need to either contact the patron and request more information or cancel the item with the indication that the citation could not be found and that the patron will need to identify the source for further investigation. Many times, patrons given this option do not respond. Either it is not worth the time to find the source, or the need has passed. Finally, if a patron insists that she needs a particular item and library staff cannot verify that it exists, ILL electronic discussion lists are great places to find assistance. Table 2.1 is a summary of common verification problems.
Table 2.1 Citation Verification Problems
As with many aspects of research, there will be requests for which it is difficult if not impossible to find a lender. The citation may be so vague and the resource so unreliable that a straightforward search is not possible. Once you know that the citation has been represented correctly and the source is reputable, then you need to do an extensive search. The first step in the searching process is to consult bibliographic utilities to check for a record and possible lenders. There may be multiple records for the same title, so it is important to choose the record that has the most possible lenders. If one record does not result in a fill for a request, try one of the duplicate records.
Occasionally a record will be found with no holding libraries. It is possible to send a request to the library that placed the record on the utility as a possible lender, though if that library is not indicated as a potential supplier, it could be an indication that the material has been lost or withdrawn. Once it is determined that the utility is an unproductive avenue, then staff should turn to international sources, like the British Library or other national libraries. Going to these libraries may mean registering with them and using the form particular to their institution. If the library participates in the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA), the International Loan/Photocopy Request Form (chapter appendix 2.2) is available. Some international libraries will accept e-mail requests or an ALA Interlibrary Loan Request form.
If it is simply not possible to find the title requested by the patron or if lenders are not willing to send the item, then it may be necessary to contact the patron about other possible editions and formats. A later edition may suffice, or, if not, a copy saved to microfilm or microfiche, although not the first choice of the patron, may provide the information needed.
Resources
Bibliographic Utilities
• OCLC WorldCat
• PubMed (DOCLINE)
National and International Library Interlibrary Loan and Commercial Document Delivery Services
• British Library
• NRC Canada Institute for Scientific and Technical Information (NRC-CISTI)
• Webcat Plus (National Institute of Informatics)
• CAS (Chemical Abstracts Service)
• LHL Direct (Linda Hall Library, Document Services Department)
SELECTING POTENTIAL LENDING LIBRARIES
For libraries who participate in WorldCat Resource Sharing (WCRS), it is common practice to create groups of preferred lenders, a process known as Custom Holdings. Though it is up to each library to establish its own criteria for grouping lenders, it is common to create groups based on format of material being requested, turnaround time as a lender, loan periods, consortial arrangements, geographic location, delivery method, and fees. Once a library has established Custom Holdings, it can use the Direct Request feature of WCRS to automate the requesting process. A more detailed discussion of both these processes is found in chapter 6.
You can request items from lenders located in specific time zones. For example, if it is late in the day on the East Coast, placing a request with a library on the West Coast may produce a faster turnaround time. Similarly, if it is late on the West Coast, placing the request with an East Coast library may prove faster. Another tip for faster turnaround times is to choose libraries that are less busy or that consistently supply quickly and accurately.
Many libraries have made arrangements through consortia or other groups to partner with them for optimal fulfillment of interlibrary loan requests and to share expenses. Reciprocal agreements can also be made individually between libraries. A letter of inquiry is sent to the library that is a potential match as a reciprocal partner. If the potential partner decides the relationship would be mutually beneficial, appropriate staff would sign and return the letter, keeping a copy for the institution’s files. A group of libraries that agree to share without charging is the Libraries Very Interested in Sharing (LVIS) group. LVIS originated in Illinois and Missouri in 1993 and now includes over 2,600 participating libraries.5 LVIS is particularly beneficial for smaller libraries, which have been able to obtain materials for their patrons without incurring higher costs.
However, such agreements do not obviate the necessity of going outside the group to find lenders for some items. Some libraries use commercial document delivery suppliers, especially if an article is needed urgently. These suppliers charge for their services, typically have a quick turnaround time, and usually add the copyright royalties to the cost of the transaction. This last feature eliminates the need for paying a copyright royalty later because it is paid up front; however, you may find that your use of the article falls under fair use and the copyright fee was paid unnecessarily. In other words, because the copyright fee is paid up front as a part of the document delivery service, it can be a trade-off—a higher cost for the item, but delivery of the article in a relatively short turnaround time. The library staff will need to determine when it is appropriate to obtain the material from a document delivery supplier.
PURCHASE VERSUS BORROW
Patrons have developed expectations for immediate results because of their constant use of technology that responds instantaneously to their needs. This demand for a quick turnaround time for interlibrary loan and document delivery is a challenge for interlibrary loan operations. Many libraries have sought ways to reduce the time between the request and fulfillment of the item or the time to acquire recently published items. A purchase-on-demand program changes the nature of a request to a purchase that is supplied by a vendor or publisher that will provide the title quickly for the patron.
In the case of a book or other materials that would need to be returned, instead of borrowing a copy, the library may redirect a loan request from a lending library to a book dealer or publisher. The material may be new or used. It may be retained by the library as part of the collection, given to the patron to keep, or sold back to a vendor. The item in need may be sent to the library or directly to the patron. Either option is a current practice used by libraries with this type of service.
For articles, libraries may find that ordering directly from the publisher will result in very quick fulfillment of the request through online access, high user satisfaction, and lower fees overall. Purchasing directly from a publisher eliminates the need to pay copyright separately; however, the cost of the purchase may be higher than borrowing the material and paying copyright and should be reviewed for the best practice for the local institution.
A variety of procedural workflow options can be pursued when establishing a purchase-on-demand service, usually involving interlibrary loan, access services/circulation, acquisitions, cataloging, or any or all of these. A successful program will likely require communication and cooperation among these units. Libraries with this type of operation have found that patrons are satisfied with the quick response time, the almost immediate availability of the material, availability of requested articles online, and the quality of the item. If this type of situation is in place or being considered, policies and guidelines should be established to determine when to use this service and when to turn to regular interlibrary loan.
RECEIVING MATERIALS
Borrowing units receive items in either print or electronic form. Physical materials arrive through various means, including postal services, commercial couriers, and consortial delivery systems. Copies may be delivered electronically through Ariel or Odyssey, transmitted in e-mail, posted to the Web, faxed, or sent through regular mail.
Mailroom Practices
Physical items, whether books, media, microforms, or copies, will arrive in various types of packaging. These include envelopes, padded envelopes sometimes known as Jiffy bags, bubble wrap, media boxes, canvas bags, tubs or totes, and boxes. Even for small to medium-sized libraries, the volume can be surprising and take many staff hours each day to open and sort. When unpacking items, it is important to have enough space to work and carts on which to load the unwrapped pieces. It is helpful to have containers to hold packing material for reuse and recycling. As staff members unpack and unwrap, it is useful to sort the material into the necessary categories for processing, such as incoming borrowing requests (items coming from a lending library to fill a borrowing request) and lending returns (your own materials being returned from a borrowing library). You may also have items coming for different request systems, such as books from a consortial circulation system that are not processed in the same way as items coming to fill requests placed on WCRS, DOCLINE, or another system. If the area where material is unpacked also has incoming lending returns, designating the different categories of material becomes crucial.
Many large receiving operations do not unpack packages. If this is the case, those working in receiving need to understand the impact of any misdirected, lost, or damaged items. Items may arrive with or without paperwork, and the information on the request paperwork can be critical in your ability to quickly process the material and put it in the hands of the requesting patron. Therefore, it is important not to accidentally discard the paperwork with the packing materials. If an item arrives without paperwork, making a note of the sending library may be helpful in determining the status of that item. Items may also be misdirected, so it is important to train mail handlers to determine the lending or borrowing library so that you can reroute the materials as needed.
Returnables
After the materials have been unpacked and sorted, they must be processed by library staff. Books and periodical volumes that have been sent by the lending library should be reviewed to ensure the item in hand matches the request. It is possible that a lending library will send the wrong edition or an incorrect title or will send an item to the wrong borrowing library. These materials need to be treated as problems for later handling and identification. Occasionally an item arrives that has special conditions attached. It will most likely need to be treated separately as well.
Once the item is verified against the request and the record is updated in both a local request management system and utility (e.g., DOCLINE or WCRS), staff members physically process the item by placing a wrap (bookmark or streamer) on the piece that indicates the requestor’s name and the due date. This wrap is also a convenient place to reiterate policies and state return procedures. An alternative to a wrap is a bookmark. The problem with this option is that, in using the book, the patron might lose the bookmark.
It may be necessary to retain the request document that accompanies the piece in order to correctly and efficiently return the item to the lending library. If you are using a management system (e.g., Clio, ILLiad) or an ILL utility (DOCLINE, WCRS), you can choose to generate identifying paperwork at the time you return the item. A book streamer wrap allows the library to retain that paperwork without creating a separate paper file because staff can use the lending library’s paperwork to help bind the strap around the book. Otherwise, you must keep the request paperwork separate from the piece while it is being used by the patron and reunite them later when the item is returned. The maintenance of such a file can be labor intensive and not necessarily the best use of limited staff time.
Some libraries also use removable labels in lieu of book straps or streamers. This should not be done if the lending library specifies that the piece should not have adhesive labels affixed to it. The Interlibrary Loan Code for the United States Explanatory Supplement states, “In particular, adhesive labels or tape should not be affixed directly to any borrowed item.”6 The Explanatory Supplement explains the rationale regarding the treatment of borrowed materials. An error in the type of label could result in permanent damage to the item and a replacement charge from the lending library. Again, it is best to be careful about using labels around these materials. Inadvertently placing a permanent label on an item may mean that staff must take time to remove it before returning the item to the lender. An alternative to placing labels on books borrowed from other libraries is to wrap scrap paper around the book and use the label to bind the paper. This allows use of the label while protecting the lending library’s book.
Requesting media is a more recent development in interlibrary loan and pre-sents a new challenge. The plastic cases holding DVDs and CDs can be fragile, and delivery of these items can be problematic for proper labeling and care. Many libraries that do loan media circulate these formats to their own patrons for short loan periods, so lending an item to another library may mean a due date different from one for print material. This information should be noted on the wrap or label so that the patron is aware and returns the material on time.
Once an item is received, identified, and wrapped or labeled, it is ready for the patron. Libraries handle patron pickup in many ways. Some libraries place the material in the ILL unit while others use the circulation desk as the primary location for pickup. Many libraries deliver directly to homes and offices. Each library must determine what is best for its operation, its patrons, and its budget. After the material is ready, the next step is to notify the patron. It is generally a good idea to make the materials available before patron notification so that a patron does not arrive at the pickup location before the materials are actually ready.
Patrons will need to be notified that the item arrived, and they should know the location and time frame for picking up the item. Some libraries leave items on the hold shelf until the due date, while others set a finite period (e.g., two weeks from date of notification) before sending unclaimed items back to the lending library. Notification can be done by e-mail, mail, or telephone. Printed notices take time and cost money to send but may be necessary in rare circumstances. Telephone calls take staff time but can be a good way to quickly notify the patron who does not have access to a computer. However, the quickest, most economical, and most widely used method is to send an e-mail. It may also be possible to send notification text messages via e-mail to a patron’s cell phone. Most cell phone providers allow you to send an e-mail to a cell phone as a text message; however, character limits apply, and the user may incur charges.
Nonreturnables
Studies have shown that the time spent in transit accounts for the majority of the total turnaround time for interlibrary loan requests.7 Therefore, adopting a method of receiving article requests through electronic means is desired in the interest of speeding the turnaround time. As discussed in detail in chapter 6, “Technology and Web 2.0,” commercial and free software is available that allows items to be scanned and sent to a requesting library electronically. Depending on the computer facilities available, it may be desirable to dedicate one workstation to receiving or sending articles electronically.
If a library uses an interlibrary loan management system (IMS), the system may automatically handle the posting of the copy to a web server as the requests arrive, notifying the patron and updating any utility without staff intervention. If you do not have software with this feature, library staff will need to process the requests for printing or posting to the Web, notify patrons, and update the request as “received” or “complete” on any utilities.
Many lending libraries supply scanned copies through e-mail. This method may be somewhat problematic depending on the size or type of file, or both, and the size of the electronic mailbox. If the item is sent in a particular format through e-mail, then the receiving library needs to determine how best to provide this document to its patron. If the receiving library has a request management system or other software for receiving electronic documents and posting to the Web, it may be able to transfer the file to these systems for receiving and delivery. A library may also choose to forward the e-mail with the attached document to the patron and update its records externally. Again, the library can experience issues with file size and mailbox size. Finally, the item can be printed and mailed to the patron.
Problems with records, such as missing pages or obscured images, may stop the posting of the piece and will need to be addressed. Some libraries review each scanned image for potential viewing issues such as black edges, blurred or unreadable print, or missing pages. Other libraries choose to post the material and wait for the patron to contact them about any problems with the quality of the copy. The thought behind posting an article without checking for completeness or quality is that by doing so, libraries are placing an emphasis on speed rather than quality. Patrons may not view all their requested documents, or they may view only a small portion rather than the entire article. Most articles are sent without quality problems, so to proof each item may be an unnecessary use of staff time and delay delivery to the patron.8
ILL STATUS UPDATES
Most requests are placed via a request utility (e.g., WCRS, DOCLINE), so the next step after delivering to the patron is to update the status of the request to “received” or “complete” as required on that system. If you have a request management system, then the updating on the utility may take place automatically. If not, the staff will need to change the status in the local request system and make the appropriate updates in the external utility used for requesting the item. Updating in the local system will ensure that the patron and staff members are aware of the status of the request.
RENEWALS, RECALLS, AND RETURNS
Interlibrary loan offices that allow renewals for borrowed material must follow the directions of the lending library. If that library does not allow renewals, then the patron should be aware of this restriction upon receiving the material. When renewals are allowed, it is best practice for the borrowing library to contact the lender in a timely way to request the renewal. A renewal request that is not acted upon by the lending library means that the borrower can assume an automatic renewal of the item.
Items may be recalled by the lending library because they are needed at the home institution. Libraries should respond immediately when receiving a recall notice. Material should be returned quickly so that the other library’s patron is not inconvenienced and the relationship between the libraries endangered. If the material is still needed by the borrowing patron, then a new request should be placed with another lending library.
Once the patron has finished using the loaned material, it needs to be promptly returned to the lending library. This requires staff to update any local system or utility or both to a “returned” status. It is important to note the condition of the piece so that any damage can be covered according to the library’s policy. Library staff will need to discuss the damage with the patron and contact the lending library to determine replacement or billing options. If possible, the damage to the item should be noted in the record so that follow-ups can occur. Further information about handling damaged materials can be found in the following section.
When the condition of the book is verified, the material is ready to be returned. Libraries may include return labels for their material. If it is possible, these should be retained when the material is received to make the return process easier. Packaging for special items may have been retained to help with the return. Special care should be taken with these items to ensure the material is well protected for return delivery. The library can make use of the Library Mail category provided by the United States Postal Service (USPS). The USPS also has other expedient services that assist with special handling or faster delivery. The library can also ship via a commercial courier such as UPS or FedEx or a local delivery system per the instructions of those services. If your library uses a commercial courier to track the material, it can be useful to note the tracking number on the record of the item in your local system or retain log sheets from the carrier. This information is helpful in problem solving and having it appear on the record saves time. For libraries that use manual systems it may be important to note this number in association with any other information that the library retains about the request.
OVERDUE FEES, DAMAGED MATERIALS, AND REPLACEMENTS
Although most patrons who borrow materials respect and follow the rules and policies for borrowing, there will inevitably be items that are returned past the due date. Each borrowing library must formulate its position on overdue materials and decide whether a late fee should be charged to patrons for overdue interlibrary loan items. Some libraries take the position that fees are difficult to collect and manage. Other libraries find that having an overdue fee cuts down on those patrons who are lackadaisical about returning material in a timely manner. Another approach is to avoid overdue fines and to block the borrowing library’s patron after the material has become overdue. Whatever the position of the borrowing library in relation to its users, the policy should be clearly stated both at the time the request is submitted and when the material is checked out to the patron.
It is also inevitable that borrowed materials will be damaged, lost, or stolen when in possession of the patron. The Interlibrary Loan Code of the United States puts the burden on the library that borrowed the materials to pay for loss or damages. However, a library may choose to pass these costs on to the requesting patron. The library policy on the replacement charges for this type of situation also needs to be available to the patron. If there are problems with a number of borrowing transactions, the library may need to reevaluate the patron’s status as a person in “good standing” and block interlibrary loan service. There is also a chance that the lending library will determine that your library is too careless with its materials and may refuse to provide future service. This situation affects the entire borrowing institution.
If a fee will be charged for damaged, lost, or stolen material, the patron must be notified and the charges should be clearly understood. It may be possible for the borrowing library to negotiate with the lending library regarding a possible replacement copy. It is often possible to find an exact copy that can be supplied as a replacement. If the patron or the library receives permission to send a replacement copy, clarify what book condition and whether a used copy would be acceptable. Whether a library will replace an item or pay a replacement fee, action must be taken as soon as possible. Outstanding issues create more work for staff and place the association between the two libraries in peril.
BILLING
Libraries that charge their patrons fees must have a procedure in place that is easily managed and conforms to the auditing requirements of the home institution or agency. Most libraries that collect fees have an automated management system. Some libraries accept credit cards to make the payment easier for the patron. If desired, royalty or copyright fees should be handled in the same way. Libraries should retain records pertaining to these activities as determined by their organization.
Payment of borrowing fees to the lending library should be made immediately. See “Fee Management Systems” in chapter 6 for additional information. Essentially, electronic means of exchanging funds simplifies the exchange of material without incurring the labor of invoicing payments, speeds up the reimbursement process, and maintains appropriate records regarding use for audit purposes.
International libraries may accept the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) vouchers for the use of their material. Again, this system removes the billing component and exchange of money from the interaction. Libraries using this method of payment will alert the borrowing library to the number of vouchers needed for the transaction. Each voucher has a face value so it is easy for the lending library to determine how many vouchers are needed. Payment of the voucher may take place before the item is sent or following receipt.9
In addition to these systems, many libraries choose to use a credit card to make their payments to eliminate a delay in fulfillment or delivery. The auditing rules of a particular institution may, however, prohibit the use of these systems or a credit card, so libraries may have to rely on the traditional payment of invoices to complete the transactions. These accounts need to be kept for tracking and auditing purposes.
CONCLUSION
Obtaining the materials needed by the patrons of the library is a challenging yet rewarding endeavor. Successful ILL operations fill a high percentage of the requests placed by patrons, deliver with a quick turnaround time, and return materials to borrowing libraries promptly. These units interact with their patrons when necessary and form relationships with other libraries to the mutual satisfaction of both institutions. Finally, libraries that continuously monitor technological advances and developments in the field will continue to provide stellar service to the library’s patrons and to the institution.
APPENDIX 2.1 ALA Interlibrary Loan Request Form 2002
APPENDIX 2.2 IFLA Interlibrary Loan Request Form
1. Elaine Sanchez, ed., Higher Education Interlibrary Loan Management Benchmarks, 2009–2010 ed. (New York: Primary Research Group, 2009), 30.
2. Virginia Boucher, Interlibrary Loan Practices Handbook, 2nd ed. (Chicago: American Library Association, 1997), 4.
3. American Library Association, Interlibrary Loan Committee, Reference and User Services Association (RUSA), Interlibrary Loan Code for the United States, Interlibrary Loan Form (1994, revised 2001, revised 2008, by the Sharing and Transforming Access to Resources Section [STARS], http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/rusa/resources/guidelines/interlibrary.cfm.
4. Lee Andrew Hilyer, “Interlibrary Loan and Document Delivery: Best Practices for Operating and Managing Interlibrary Loan Services in All Libraries; Borrowing,” Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery and Electronic Reserve 16, no. 1–2 (2006): 28.
5. Libraries Very Interested in Sharing (LVIS), http://www.cyberdriveillinois.com/departments/library/who_we_are/OCLC/lvis.html.
6. American Library Association, Interlibrary Loan Committee, Reference and User Services Association (RUSA), Interlibrary Loan Code for the United States Explanatory Supplement, 4.8, http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/rusa/resources/guidelines/interlibrary.cfm.
7. Mary E. Jackson, Measuring the Performance of Interlibrary Loan Operations in North American Research and College Libraries (Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries, 1998).
8. Ruth S. Connell and Karen L. Janke, “Turnaround Time between ILLiad’s Odyssey and Ariel Delivery Methods: A Comparison,” Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery and Electronic Reserve 16, no. 3 (2006): 41–56.
9. Christine Robben and Cherié L. Weible, “International Payment: Methods to Consider,” Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery and Information Supply 12, no. 3 (2002): 29–35.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Boucher, Virginia. Interlibrary Loan Practices Handbook. 2nd ed. Chicago: American Library Association, 1997.
Connell, Ruth S., and Karen L. Janke. “Turnaround Time between ILLiad’s Odyssey and Ariel Delivery Methods: A Comparison.” Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery and Electronic Reserve 16, no. 3 (2006): 41–56.
Hilyer, Lee Andrew. “Interlibrary Loan and Document Delivery: Best Practices for Operating and Managing Interlibrary Loan Services in All Libraries; Borrowing.” Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery and Electronic Reserve 16, no. 1–2 (2006): 17–39.
Hoffert, Barbara. “It’s the Economy.” Library Journal 134, no. 3 (2009): 34–36.
Jackson, Mary E. Assessing ILL/DD Services: New Cost-Effective Alternatives. Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries, 2004.
———. “Assessing ILL/DD Services Study: Initial Observations.” ARL: A Bimonthly Report on Issues and Actions, no. 230/231 (2003): 21–22.
———. “Forms, Forms, Forms.” Wilson Library Bulletin 69 (1995): 70–71+.
———. “The Ideal ILL Service Model.” Wilson Library Bulletin 60 (1995): 68–69+.
———. “Library to Library: ILL; Issues and Actions.” Wilson Library Bulletin 65 (1991): 102–105.
———. “Looking Back and Looking Ahead: The Best Is Yet to Come.” American Libraries 31, no. 10 (2000): 47.
———. “Measuring Performance, Applying Results, Improving Service.” InCite (Australian Library and Information Association) 22 (2001).
———. Measuring the Performance of Interlibrary Loan Operations in North American Research and College Libraries. Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries, 1998.
Kelsey, Paul, ed. Profiles of Best Practices in Academic Library Interlibrary Loan. New York: Primary Research Group, 2009.
Kohn, Karen. “Finding It Free.” Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery and Electronic Reserve 16, no. 3 (2006): 57–65.
Leon, Lars E., June L. DeWeese, Carol Ann Kochan, Billie Peterson-Lugo, and Brian L. Pytlik Zillig. “Enhanced Resource Sharing through Group Interlibrary Loan Best Practices: A Conceptual, Structural, and Procedural Approach.” Libraries and the Academy 3, no. 3 (2003): 419–30.
Leykam, Andrew. “Exploring Interlibrary Loan Usage Patterns and Liaison Activities: The Experience at a U.S. University.” Interlending and Document Supply 36, no. 4 (2008): 218–24.
Line, Maurice B., Elda-Monica Guerrero, Mary E. Jackson, Niels Mark, Henri Sene, and Leo Waaijers. “The Future of Interlibrary Loan and Document Supply: Views and Comments.” Interlending and Document Supply 30, no. 2 (2002): 60–65.
Luo, Lili, David West, and Gary Marchionini. “Annotations of Interlibrary Loan Process.” Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery and Electronic Reserve 18, no. 3 (2008): 307–24.
Meyers, Pat L., Wilbur A. Stolt, and Yem S. Fong, eds. Interlibrary Loan/Document Delivery and Customer Satisfaction: Strategies for Redesigning Services. New York: Haworth Press, 2006.
Poe, Jodi. “Common Practices in Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery and Electronic Reserves.” Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery and Electronic Reserve 18, no. 2 (2008): 125–28.
Posner, Beth. “Library Resource Sharing in the Early Age of Google.” Library Philosophy and Practice 9, no. 3 (Summer 2007): 1–10.
Reighart, Renee, and Cyril Oberlander. “Exploring the Future of Interlibrary Loan; Generalizing the Experience of the University of Virginia, USA.” Interlending and Document Supply 36, no. 4 (2008): 184–90.
Robben, Christine, and Cherié L. Weible. “International Payment: Methods to Consider.” Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery and Information Supply 12, no. 3 (2002): 29–35.
Sanchez, Elaine, ed. Higher Education Interlibrary Loan Management Benchmarks. 2009–2010 ed. New York: Primary Research Group, 2009.
Smith, Michelle. “Two Major Strategies for Facilitating Increased Interlibrary Loan Patron Satisfaction.” Georgia Library Quarterly 45, no. 2 (2008): 9–11.
Stein, Joan. “IFLA Guidelines for Best Practice for Interlibrary Loan and Document Delivery.” Journal of Access Service 5, no. 1 (2007): 295–303.
Zheng Ye Yang. “The Ten Commandments of Interlibrary Loan Borrowing, Interlibrary Loan Lending, and Shipping and General Conduct.” Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery and Electronic Reserve 19, no. 1 (2009): 95–100.