Interlibrary Loan

This paper is designed to provide the Library Information Technology Advisory Committee (LITAC) and the state's library community with more information on the current status of interlibrary loan in Wisconsin, issues which need to be discussed, options for consideration and recommendations.

Background and Current Activities in Wisconsin

Definition

Interlibrary loan is the process whereby library materials, or copies of materials, are requested by, received by, or provided by one autonomous library to another. The libraries involved in interlibrary loan are not under the same administration.

Note: What constitutes "under the same administration" may vary by type of library. For public libraries, the administration would generally be the public library board. For schools, academic libraries or technical colleges, administration could mean the school district, technical college board, or Board of Regents or individual campus, however these libraries often count as interlibrary loan both intra and inter campus transactions as interlibrary loan.

Organizational structure

Interlibrary loan in Wisconsin has a long and successful history. Patrons use libraries to request a wide variety of book, non-book, and photocopied materials. Libraries of all types and sizes borrow and lend materials to each other in ever increasing numbers to fill the needs of their patrons. Partners in interlibrary loan include:

Reference and Loan Library
Wisconsin Library Services (WiLS)
public libraries
public library systems
school libraries
special libraries (medical, corporate, etc.)
state agencies and correctional and social service institution libraries
technical college libraries
UW-System libraries
private college/university libraries
out-of-state libraries

Interlibrary loan technologies

Interlibrary loan requests are initiated when library patrons identify items they would like to obtain that are not owned or readily available at their library. Successful interlibrary loan service is highly dependent upon the ability of a borrowing library to identify which library owns a title requested by their patrons. Prior to the 1980's this work was often done at a state or regional clearinghouse that had access to printed union lists and later to the online OCLC union catalog. After the WISCAT union catalog was developed in 1982, it was used as a tool for interlibrary loan by many public, school, special and other libraries. In the mid-1980's and 1990's public library systems developed shared automated systems and began to allow interlibrary loan of materials by having staff or patrons place "holds" for items held by other libraries participating in the shared circulation systems.

Current technologies are a combination of the old and new. The title and holding library identification process can be undertaken using a union catalog listing titles and owning libraries or by searching library automated catalogs individually or through a gateway that brings back a set of search results from multiple catalogs (virtual catalog). The Division still provides access to WISCAT, which is now a hybrid union catalog and virtual catalog using AGent software, with Auto-Graphics, Inc. as the vendor. Some Wisconsin libraries use the OCLC union catalog which now provides a connection to individual catalogs. DOCLINE is a union catalog of serial titles and holdings used by medical libraries. Interlibrary loan requests may also be made directly to another library by sending a request using email, fax, mail, delivery service or by telephoning a lender, but these methods may require libraries keeping paper files.

Interlibrary loan management software provides a means of creating and referring requests for identified titles or reference/subject materials, tracking the progress of the request and maintaining statistics. Most such automated systems allow for the creation of a lender string or routing structure that allows the unfilled request to move from lender to lender without re-keying information. A request database is available so that the library can respond to patron queries about the status of their requests, as well as making changes to or deleting the request. WISCAT, OCLC WorldCat, and DOCLINE all have interlibrary loan management components.

Shared automated systems allow users to search a catalog, place a hold on a specific item, and select a pickup location. A variation of the circulation system and interlibrary loan management system scenario is the UW-System installation of Endeavor's Universal Borrowing module which allows campuses with separate Endeavor systems to make requests for materials held at another participating campus.

Technology is also making it easier to scan, digitize and send full text materials directly to patrons. WiLS has been delivering electronic documents to the desktop for nearly five years. WiLS staff uses Ariel and E-Doc (a locally developed program) to delivery digitized content.

Volume of interlibrary loan requests made:

The following chart shows the number of borrowing requests made by Wisconsin libraries. The number of lending requests received could be higher because the same request may have been sent to more than one library.

ILL System Requests made Timeframe

WISCAT 223,725 July 2005-June 2006

OCLC 238,400 July 2005-June 2006

DOCLINE 67,408 July 2005-June 2006

Shared Circulation System (public libraries) @5,149,000* January-December 2005

Universal Borrowing (UW-System) 45,069 July 2005-June 2006

*These statistics represent items received from other libraries, rather than requests made. This number is extrapolated by subtracting the WISCAT requests. This number may also still include items received as a result of requests made from other than the shared circulation system such as fax, email, delivery OCLC and other sources.

Participation in automated interlibrary loan systems:

See chart at end of document.

State-level Clearinghouses

Wisconsin Library Services (WiLS) is a non-profit interlibrary loan clearinghouse that provides interlibrary loan access to the University of Wisconsin library collections and the collections of other member libraries. Member libraries (including the 17 public library systems and the Reference and Loan Library) pay an annual fee and per-transaction charges to have WiLS handle referral of their requests.

The Reference and Loan Library serves as a clearinghouse for interlibrary loan requests for libraries using WISCAT, including public library systems, their member libraries, state agencies and institutions, state agencies and state employees. Staff refers requests to Wisconsin libraries of all types using WISCAT, OCLC, email, and mail. The Reference and Loan Library also manages resource-sharing contracts with WiLS and the Milwaukee Public Library.

The Reference and Loan Library has a long-standing cooperative agreement with a state level clearinghouse in Minnesota (MINITEX, a consortium of libraries in Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota). Requests which cannot be filled in either state are sent between MINITEX and Wisconsin libraries that use WISCAT.

Regional library organizations:

Public library systems (17) are the primary regional organization providing interlibrary loan clearinghouse services in Wisconsin. Multi-type library organizations also facilitate resource sharing in some parts of the state.

Public library systems and their member libraries have a mixture of patterns. Public library systems also vary greatly as to the degree of centralization of interlibrary loan and the role of the interlibrary loan clearinghouse. Most public library systems have shared automated systems that include some or all of their libraries, allowing staff or patrons of a participating library to place a "hold" on a specific title. The requested material is sent to a designated library when it becomes available. If patrons request materials not owned within their library system area, library staff must use tools such as WISCAT or OCLC union catalogs to locate owning libraries, and generate a traditional interlibrary loan request with WISCAT or OCLC ILL software. Most public libraries that are WISCAT users have their library holdings in WISCAT and send requests directly to and receive requests from other participants. In some cases public library clearinghouse staff may help with some types of requests. In five public library systems that use OCLC, member library staff submits requests as patrons. These requests go to the public library system clearinghouse for mediation if necessary or are programmed to be unmediated and go directly to other OCLC libraries in and outside Wisconsin. Both WISCAT and OCLC software can be set up to authorize patrons to submit interlibrary loan requests.

Current Patterns

School libraries may request materials from other schools, their local public library, or the Reference and Loan Library. Some refer their students and staff to the local public library for additional assistance. Some public library systems serve schools. The Reference and Loan Library refers requests to other libraries on behalf of schools that use WISCAT and borrows materials from schools on behalf of other libraries. Schools that use WISCAT may send requests to and receive requests from other participants.

Special libraries often rely upon consortia of similar libraries. For instance, many medical libraries use DOCLINE to send to and receive article requests from each other. Special libraries also use the public library or the Reference and Loan Library to obtain materials. Clientele from special libraries may use the public or academic libraries within their locale. Some special libraries are members of WiLS, allowing them to take advantage of services offered there. Some special libraries also use WISCAT.

Most state agency and correctional and social service institution libraries participate as WISCAT libraries and send and receive requests directly to and from other participants. The Reference and Loan Library acts as their interlibrary loan clearinghouse and refers requests to other libraries on their behalf.

Libraries in the technical college system sometimes request materials from each other before using local or regional contacts. Most technical college libraries are WISCAT users and send requests directly to and receive requests from other participants. Others are WiLS members and use OCLC for referrals or have WiLS handle interlibrary loan requests. Some technical colleges belong to a consortium called WISPALS, which is not currently used to transmit or receive interlibrary loan requests.

Public and private academic libraries often borrow from each other prior to borrowing from other types of libraries. These libraries also borrow frequently from out-of-state libraries. Most are WiLS members and use OCLC, although some also are WISCAT participants. Staff sends requests to the WiLS clearinghouse or refers requests directly to other WiLS members using the OCLC's WorldCat Resource Sharing. Staff will often check for resources within their public library system if the requested title is likely to be owned at a public library. The University of Wisconsin System uses Endeavor Universal Borrowing software which allows libraries using Voyager to borrow and loan materials. Some private academic libraries belong to a consortium operating an automated system called SWITCH. Academic libraries frequently deliver electronic materials directly to the computers of students, faculty and staff. Academic library patrons may also have the option of creating interlibrary loan requests directly.

Current protocols

Library protocols were reviewed thoroughly in 2005 by the Interlibrary Loan Work Group. The Wisconsin Interlibrary Loan Guidelines, 2005 were republished and issued in 2006.

Placement of requests by patrons

OCLC, WISCAT, and DOCLINE automated systems have functionality that allows designated patrons to place requests directly using interlibrary loan management system. Each library must decide whether or not to allow patrons to place requests and authorize and implement this functionality. Patron generated requests can be mediated or unmediated. Public library systems generally have configured online catalog/circulation systems to allow patrons to place "holds" on library materials. The University of Wisconsin allows faculty, other authorized users, students, and staff of participating libraries to make requests using the Universal Borrowing system.

Reimbursement for interlibrary loan

Interlibrary loan has generally been provided by Wisconsin libraries without charges. The concept has involved reciprocity, but reciprocity has not always been achieved in each case. The exception has been for WiLS members that have agreed to a fee structure. Some WiLS members have individually agreed to loan to some clientele or under certain circumstances without payment.

The Department of Public Instruction provides funds for paying Milwaukee Public Library and WiLS for interlibrary loan services on the UW-Madison campus and Wisconsin Historical Society. WiLS members that use WorldCat Resource Sharing may choose to lend freely or charge each other, using an Interlibrary Loan Fee Management. Both contracts are funded by the Wisconsin Legislature which has provided insufficient funding for interlibrary loan contracts for many years. Because of the funding gap, the Reference and Loan Library can send only a very limited number of requests to Milwaukee Public Library, as a "lender of last resort." The Reference and Loan Library also currently sends requests first to WiLS to be filled by the UW-Madison campus libraries and the Wisconsin Historical Society, then directly to WiLS members that do not charge a fee.

Interlibrary loan technology standards

There are a number of national and international standards that relate to interlibrary loan processes.

ISO International Standard 10161-1 and 10151-2 (Information and documentation –Open Systems Interconnection – Interlibrary loan application Protocol Specification -Part 1 and Part 2.)

This standard defines the functionality of an interlibrary loan management system. This standard also defines how different interlibrary loan management systems can exchange data making it possible to include requests that originated in multiple interlibrary loan systems into a single request database. Auto-Graphics, Inc. and OCLC have currently implemented the ISO protocol. Reference and Loan Library staff is in the process of testing ISO functions with ILLiad and with OCLC.

Z39.83 NISO Circulation Interchange Protocol (NCIP)

The following language is taken from the abstract to the standard:

"This standard defines a protocol that is limited to the exchange of messages between and among computer-based applications to enable them to perform the functions necessary to lend items, to provide controlled access to electronic resources, and to facilitate co-operative management of these functions."

The standard is intended to address the need for interoperability among circulation, interlibrary loan, and related applications. Few vendors have fully implemented the NCIP standard at this time.

Z39.50 Information Retrieval: Application Service Definition and protocol Specification, 1995, (commonly referred to as version 3).

The standard definition includes the following abstract:

"This standard specifies a client/server-based protocol for information retrieval. It specifies procedures and structures for a client to (a) search a database provided by a server, (b) retrieve database records identified by a search, (c) scan a term list, and (d) sort a result set. It also specifies access control, resource control, extended services, and a "help" facility. The protocol addresses communication between the client and server (which may reside on different computers); it does not address interaction between the client and the end-user."

In order to work correctly, both the client and server software, which may have been developed for different purposes by different vendors must have the full functionality specified by the standard. The standard makes it more likely that a search can be made across multiple library catalogs and databases to identify an item that may be obtained through interlibrary loan.

Auto-Graphics, Inc. uses the Z39.50 standard to allow a user to search multiple automated online catalogs/circulation systems and to retrieve and display titles related to the search. Auto-Graphics, Inc. also uses Z39.50 to automatically search configured catalogs and add libraries owning the title being searched to the list of libraries a request can be routed to.

OCLC provides the ability for users to search WorldCat and then link to holdings in a local library's automated catalog/circulation system using the Z39.50 protocol.

Interlibrary loan philosophy

In 2005, a small group of people deeply interested in interlibrary loan issued a white paper called "It's Time to Think Again about Resource Sharing: A Discussion Paper." This paper talked about emerging alternatives to traditional mediated interlibrary in libraries and alternative and more direct sources of information for users. The paper emphasized the user desire and need for self service, satisfaction in what is retrieved, and seamlessness of the process. The impact of Internet search engines such as Google, Internet services such as Amazon, the status of interlibrary loan standards development, and other automation programs such as Open URL linking.

Issues:

Issue: What is the best way for all types of libraries to take part in resource sharing on a reciprocal basis?>

Options:

Local and regional:
1. Each library determines which method of sending and receiving requests best suits the library and enters the interlibrary loan process using that method.
2. Libraries that do not use an automated interlibrary loan system form a partnership with another library that does to initiate and track interlibrary loan requests.
Statewide:
1. All libraries use an automated system to send and receive interlibrary loan requests.
2. All libraries use the same automated interlibrary loan system.
3. Different automated systems are connected so that requests can be sent from one system to another using national standards.

Status and Recommendations:

In 2005, the Division appointed an Interlibrary Loan Work Group to revise the interlibrary loan guidelines and to make recommendations about interlibrary loan issues. The group did not specify that there should be a single interlibrary loan system. Since there are currently multiple interlibrary loan management system used by different types of libraries, it is unlikely that all libraries will use a single system in the near future. The work group emphasized the goal of efficiency, the least amount of request handling, encouragement of direct interlibrary loan patterns, and use of automation to improve processing.

Work toward implementation of statewide options a. and c.

Issue: What is the best way for schools and special libraries to take part in resource sharing?

Options:

Local and regional:
1. School and special libraries send patrons to the public library for interlibrary loan service.
2. Public library systems serve school and special libraries and refer requests on their behalf to other libraries and request materials from them on behalf of other libraries.
3. Schools and special libraries take part in interlibrary loan directly as borrowers and lenders using an appropriate automated system.
Statewide:
1. Schools and special libraries take part in interlibrary loan directly as borrowers and lenders using an appropriate automated system.

Status and Recommendations:

The Interlibrary Loan Work Group recommended that "all types and sizes of libraries should have the opportunity to participate in the interlibrary loan automated system as borrowers and/or lenders."

Work towards implementation of local and regional option c. and statewide option a.

Issue: How can the time for handling transactions, especially in clearinghouse operations be decreased?

Options:
1. Identify bottlenecks in processing interlibrary loan requests.
2. Encourage libraries to create and send interlibrary loan requests directly to each other.
3. Implement delivery of electronic information to more libraries.
4. Implement ISO software that allows transfer of requests between various systems.
5. Continue to improve interlibrary loan management system software to eliminate steps.
6. Encourage libraries that are not a part of an interlibrary loan management system to accept automated email requests in lieu of paper requests.
7. Encourage libraries that are not part of statewide delivery to participate in delivery. Schools may be able to participate by working with their local public library.
8. Encourage libraries that receive limited delivery (less than daily) to increase the number of delivery stops to their institution.

Status and Recommendations:

While the Interlibrary Loan Work Group recommended that there may still be a need for some clearinghouse activity at the state and regional level, it noted that the current trend supports point to point interlibrary loan. The report also recommended implementing changes that are "fastest for the user."

Work towards implementation of options a. through h.

Issue: What needs to be done to facilitate direct interlibrary loan by patrons?

Options:
1. Library staff needs to reach agreement on protocols.
2. Library staff needs to be trained in use of a specific interlibrary loan system and there may need to be further clarification of protocols.
3. Patrons need to be authenticated when they place a request.
4. Patrons need to be trained how to best create ILL requests.

Status and Recommendations:

Shared automated systems, OCLC, DOCLINE, and WISCAT all have the capability of providing "patron" generated requests and are being used for this purpose. In each case the library would define which "patrons" are eligible to use the system. In order for a library to authorize their patrons to initiate requests, it is necessary to contact the automated system manager for each service and have the function turned on or configured appropriately.

The Interlibrary Loan Work Group recommended protocols for patron placed interlibrary loan requests and these were included in the 2005 Interlibrary Loan Guidelines. WISCAT, OCLC and DOCLINE provide methods to authenticate patrons. The Reference and Loan Library provides training for libraries using WISCAT to allow patrons to place requests directly. WiLS provides training for libraries and patrons using OCLC.

Recommendations have been either accomplished or in process.

Issue: How should Z39.50, NCIP and ISO standards be used to improve interlibrary loan?

Options:
1. Continue development and implementation of these standards.
2. Provide incentives for libraries to purchase software that utilize the standards.

Status and Recommendations:

WISCAT has fully implemented Z39.50 for a variety of types and sizes of libraries that have requested participation in the virtual portion of the WISCAT hybrid project. The Reference and Loan Library is ready to test NCIP, but needs to find a library that has purchased the module for their integrated automated system. The Reference and Loan Library is currently testing ISO transfer of requests between WISCAT and OCLC ILLiad and is working with Auto-Graphics to implement ISO between OCLC and WISCAT allowing for a clearinghouse house function to provide a method for paying for specified transaction costs.

Work towards implementation of options a. and b.

Issue: How can direct delivery of electronic information be provided to patrons in all types of libraries?

Options:
1. Select automated systems that allow for delivery of digitized information to patrons or libraries.
2. UW-libraries use OCLC's ILLiad to send digitized information to faculty and students.
3. WiLS expand use of Ariel and E-Doc to other libraries.
4. Develop a model license for electronic resources that assures that sending materials directly to patrons or between libraries is allowed.

Recommendations:

Work towards implementation of Options a. through d.

Issue: What is the true cost of each interlibrary loan and how can it be made known to library staff and patrons?

Options:
1. Develop a model for determining interlibrary loan costs.
2. Figure out cost of state level interlibrary loan transactions.
3. Each library should figure its own costs.

Status and Recommendations:

The cost of interlibrary loan will vary by library. The last time the Division attempted to compile information on costs was 1988 when a study was contracted for with King Research.

Work towards implementation of options b. and c.

Issue: Should libraries be reimbursed for a portion of the direct (library to library) resource sharing?

Options:
1. Develop a model definition for reimbursement.
2. Provide reimbursement to selected large libraries.
3. Provide reimbursement to libraries that are net lenders.
4. Provide reimbursement to all lenders.
5. Provide reimbursement above a certain level.
6. Do not provide reimbursement for interlibrary loan. Libraries would participate at the level they are willing to do.

Recommendations:

The Interlibrary Loan Work Group considered this issue and indicated that only large net lenders as considered in the statewide contracts should be reimbursed using state funds. These contracts should only be used for specialized materials or "last resort" lending after other locations for materials have been tried. Budget cuts over the years have decreased the amount available for state contracts for reimbursement for interlibrary loan.

Continue to implement option b. as it relates to the WiLS contract and Milwaukee contract. Continue to implement option f. as it relates to other libraries.

Issue: Should a shared storage program for last copy materials be developed?

Options:
1. Develop a program for shared storage of last copy materials in Wisconsin.
2. Do not develop a program for shared storage of last copy materials in Wisconsin.
3. Ask each library to keep materials if they determine by use of WISCAT, OCLC, DOCLINE, or other means that a title is not owned by any other library or find another library willing to take the materials.
4. Digitize materials identified as last copies.

Recommendations:

Work towards implementation of option c. and d. where materials are still useful.

For questions about this information, contact Sally J. Drew (608) 224-6161

Last updated on 2/25/2008 9:06:29 AM