OCLC Research Library Partnership WorkinProgress Webinar A Glimpse

  • Slides: 37
Download presentation
OCLC Research Library Partnership Work-in-Progress Webinar A Glimpse of the ILL Yeti: Stalking the

OCLC Research Library Partnership Work-in-Progress Webinar A Glimpse of the ILL Yeti: Stalking the Big, Big Picture of System-wide Collection Sharing Dennis Massie Program Officer, OCLC Research 5 May 2015

Today’s Stalking Itinerary • • • What’s an “ILL Yeti” anyway? How the study

Today’s Stalking Itinerary • • • What’s an “ILL Yeti” anyway? How the study came to be Phase One: looking at the big picture Current phase: going pixel (pixal? ) What comes next Questions and discussion

What’s an “ILL Yeti” anyway?

What’s an “ILL Yeti” anyway?

Not a sick Sasquatch

Not a sick Sasquatch

How the study came to be

How the study came to be

Current Interlending Landscape • Fragmented – Many systems in play • Opaque – Statistics

Current Interlending Landscape • Fragmented – Many systems in play • Opaque – Statistics reported in gross numbers • Evolving – New models and methods emerging 6

OCLC ILL statistics ILL requests Year on year FY 13 FY 12 FY 11

OCLC ILL statistics ILL requests Year on year FY 13 FY 12 FY 11 FY 10 FY 09 8, 858, 368 9, 192, 189 9, 587, 429 10, 248, 942 10, 279, 215 4% 4% 6% 0. 29% Between FY 09 and FY 13, 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. 7

The Elusive Big Picture • Is resource sharing activity across the entire library community

The Elusive Big Picture • Is 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

 • Made up of 11 institutions with active, sophisticated, innovative resource sharing operations

• Made up of 11 institutions with active, sophisticated, innovative resource sharing operations • Some long-established members, some newer members • Involved in all manner of consortial arrangements within and outside the group • Would serve as an excellent illustration of current trends in the research library community 9

Phase One: looking at the big picture

Phase One: looking at the big picture

ARL ILL Stats for 11 BD Institutions Filled Requests 1, 200, 000 1, 000

ARL ILL Stats for 11 BD Institutions Filled Requests 1, 200, 000 1, 000 800, 000 Borrowing 600, 000 Lending 400, 000 200, 000 0 2011 2012 2013

Our ILL Stats for 11 BD Institutions Filled Requests 1, 200, 000 1, 000

Our ILL Stats for 11 BD Institutions Filled Requests 1, 200, 000 1, 000 800, 000 600, 000 400, 000 200, 000 0 2011 Lending 2012 2013 Borrowing 12

ARL vs Our Study 1, 200, 000 Why might the numbers differ? 1, 000

ARL vs Our Study 1, 200, 000 Why might the numbers differ? 1, 000 § Institutions with multiple libraries and with complex ILL set-up’s might not have reported all activity to us. §Both sets of data are selfreported, and possibly compiled by different people. § Potential fiscal/calendar confusion § Overall, study participants reported 97. 9% of what was reported to ARL. 800, 000 ARL 600, 000 Our study 400, 000 200, 000 0 2011 2012 2013 13

Our Borrow Direct Numbers (99. 7% agreement between borr & lend) 500, 000 450,

Our Borrow Direct Numbers (99. 7% agreement between borr & lend) 500, 000 450, 000 400, 000 350, 000 300, 000 Borrowing 250, 000 Lending 200, 000 Total 150, 000 100, 000 50, 000 0 2011 2012 2013 14

Our OCLC Numbers Filled Requests 450, 000 400, 000 350, 000 300, 000 250,

Our OCLC Numbers Filled Requests 450, 000 400, 000 350, 000 300, 000 250, 000 Borrowing 200, 000 Lending Total 150, 000 100, 000 50, 000 0 2011 2012 2013 15

Our Rapid. ILL Numbers Filled Requests 140, 000 120, 000 100, 000 80, 000

Our Rapid. ILL Numbers Filled Requests 140, 000 120, 000 100, 000 80, 000 Borrowing Lending 60, 000 Total 40, 000 20, 000 0 2011 2012 2013 16

Our Docline Numbers Filled Requests 35, 000 30, 000 25, 000 20, 000 Borrowing

Our Docline Numbers Filled Requests 35, 000 30, 000 25, 000 20, 000 Borrowing Lending 15, 000 Total 10, 000 5, 000 0 2011 2012 2013 17

Proportion by Sharing Venue (Other = Web form, ALA form, email, CCC, other circ-to-circ

Proportion by Sharing Venue (Other = Web form, ALA form, email, CCC, other circ-to-circ groups) 2013 2010 BD OCLC RAPID Docline Other 18

Do you net lend or borrow, trend up or down? All 11 BD institutions

Do you net lend or borrow, trend up or down? All 11 BD institutions Venue 2010 2011 2012 2013 Overall BD OCLC Rapid. ILL Docline Other = Net borrower = Net lender Trending up from previous year Trending down from previous year 19

BD, OCLC, and RAPID Comparison Filled Requests 500, 000 450, 000 400, 000 350,

BD, OCLC, and RAPID Comparison Filled Requests 500, 000 450, 000 400, 000 350, 000 300, 000 BD 250, 000 OCLC 200, 000 RAPID 150, 000 100, 000 50, 000 0 2011 2012 2013 20

BD, Combined C 2 C, OCLC, and RAPID Comparison -- Filled Requests 600000 500000

BD, Combined C 2 C, OCLC, and RAPID Comparison -- Filled Requests 600000 500000 400000 BD C 2 C 300000 OCLC 200000 RAPID 100000 0 2011 2012 2013 21

Current phase: going pixel

Current phase: going pixel

Total activity by date joined Overall ILL Activity – Filled Requests 450, 000 400,

Total activity by date joined Overall ILL Activity – Filled Requests 450, 000 400, 000 350, 000 300, 000 250, 000 200, 000 150, 000 100, 000 50, 000 0 2011 Founders 2012 J 2002 2013 Newbies 23

Total activity by date joined Overall ILL Activity – Filled Requests 450, 000 400,

Total activity by date joined Overall ILL Activity – Filled Requests 450, 000 400, 000 350, 000 300, 000 250, 000 200, 000 150, 000 100, 000 50, 000 0 2011 Founders 2012 J 2002 2013 Newbies 24

Total activity by date joined Overall ILL Activity – Filled Requests 450, 000 400,

Total activity by date joined Overall ILL Activity – Filled Requests 450, 000 400, 000 350, 000 300, 000 250, 000 200, 000 150, 000 100, 000 50, 000 0 2011 Founders 2012 J 2002 2013 Newbies 25

ARL vs Our Study 1, 200, 000 Why might the numbers differ? 1, 000

ARL vs Our Study 1, 200, 000 Why might the numbers differ? 1, 000 § Institutions with multiple libraries and with complex ILL set-up’s might not have reported all activity to us. §Both sets of data are selfreported, and possibly compiled by different people. § Potential fiscal/calendar confusion § Overall, study participants reported 97. 9% of what was reported to ARL. 800, 000 ARL 600, 000 Our study 400, 000 200, 000 0 2011 2012 2013 26

% ARL Numbers Reported to Us 140 120 % ARL Lend 100 80 60

% ARL Numbers Reported to Us 140 120 % ARL Lend 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 20 40 60 % ARL Borr 80 100 27 120 140

% ARL Reported, by “Era” Group % ARL reported to us 2010 2011 2012

% ARL Reported, by “Era” Group % ARL reported to us 2010 2011 2012 2013 0 20 40 60 Founders J 2002 80 100 Newbies 28 120

Do you net lend or borrow, trend up or down? All 11 BD institutions

Do you net lend or borrow, trend up or down? All 11 BD institutions Venue 2010 2011 2012 2013 Overall BD OCLC Rapid Docline Other = Net borrower = Net lender Trending up from previous year Trending down from previous year 29

Do you net lend or borrow, trend up or down? 3 “founding” institutions Venue

Do you net lend or borrow, trend up or down? 3 “founding” institutions Venue 2010 2011 2012 2013 Overall BD OCLC Rapid Docline Other = Net borrower = Net lender Trending up from previous year Trending down from previous year 30

Do you net lend or borrow, trend up or down? 4 “joined in 2002”

Do you net lend or borrow, trend up or down? 4 “joined in 2002” institutions Venue 2010 2011 2012 2013 Overall BD OCLC Rapid Docline Other = Net borrower = Net lender Trending up from previous year Trending down from previous year 31

Do you net lend or borrow, trend up or down? 4 “newbie” institutions Venue

Do you net lend or borrow, trend up or down? 4 “newbie” institutions Venue 2010 2011 2012 2013 Overall BD ---- OCLC Rapid Docline Other = Net borrower = Net lender Trending up from previous year Trending down from previous year 32

What comes next…

What comes next…

Next Steps • • • Individual profiles for all 11 institutions Look for cause

Next Steps • • • Individual profiles for all 11 institutions Look for cause and effect Seek insight into strategic thinking Break down returnables versus nonreturnables Look at fill rates Track reciprocal interactions via OCLC ILL Report out generically Report to BD cohort in detail Repeat study with CIC (this time with POD) 34

Are we there Yet(i)?

Are we there Yet(i)?

Questions? Comments? 36

Questions? Comments? 36

Thanks for participating! Dennis Massie massied@ococ. org Explore. Share. Magnify. © 2015 OCLC. This

Thanks for participating! Dennis Massie [email protected] org Explore. Share. Magnify. © 2015 OCLC. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3. 0 Unported License. Suggested attribution: “This work uses content from ‘A Glimpse of the ILL Yeti: Stalking the Big, Big Picture of System-wide Collection Sharing’ © OCLC, used under a Creative Commons. “ Attribution license: http: //creativecommons. org/licenses/by/3. 0/”