Oakland

September 30, 1999

Attending: Elaine Adams, (UCLA), Claire Bellanti (SRLF), Tammy Dearie, recorder (UCSD), Sara Eichhorn (UCI), Marlayna Gates (UCSB), Bernie Hurley (UCB), Venita Jorgensen, chair (UCR), Gary Lawrence (UCOP), JoLynn Mildarovich (UCB), Scott Miller (NRLF), Gail Nichols (UCD), Deborah Turner (UCSC), Jacqueline Wilson (UCSF),

Absent: Charlotte Rubens (UCB), Lucia Snowhill (LAUC)

1. Welcome, Introductions, Review of Roster

V. Jorgensen welcomed the committee to the first meeting. Members introduced themselves. Changes to the roster should be sent to G. Nichols who has volunteered to maintain the roster, charge, agenda and minutes on a web site.
 
2. Review of Charge of Resource Sharing Committee

The committee reviewed the charge. No changes were suggested.
 
3. Discussion of Charges for the ILL Group and the Circulation Heads Group

The committee discussed charges for the existing "HOPS ILL Subcommittee" and the "UC Circheads Committee." The committee members were in agreement that there is a need for both committees to continue, but with a revised status as advisory groups to the Resource Sharing Committee.

Action: V. Jorgensen will ask the HOPS ILL Subcommittee, now to be called the ILL Advisory Committee, to draft a charge for review by RSC. The charge should focus on procedural issues in interlibrary loan, identifying and recommending best practices, investigating issues, fact finding, and responsibility for implementing recommendations from the RSC. The charge should be similar in format to other SOPAG committee charges, including a section on membership duration and appointment, meeting structure and frequency, and reporting lines. The chair of the ILL Advisory Committee will be required to serve on the Resource Sharing Committee as an ex officio member.

Action: V. Jorgensen will ask the CircHeads Committee, now to be called the Circulation Advisory Committee, to review their draft charge. The RSC membership encourages the committee to continue the great strides they have made in communication with the web page, listserv, and annual program meetings. In order to align the charge with the recommended format for SOPAG committees it should include a section on membership duration and appointment, meeting structure and frequency, and reporting lines. The chair of the Circulation Advisory Committee will be required to serve on the Resource Sharing Committee as an ex officio member.
 

4. Distribution of FY98/99 ILL Statistics - Gary Lawrence

G. Lawrence distributed copies of the FY98/99 ILL statistics for review. G. Lawrence noted that UC to UC ILL activity has continued to decline; -4.05% for returnables and -2.17% for non-returnables. G. Lawrence also provided a net lender comparison between the current year and the base year of 1997/98. G. Lawrence cautioned the membership that the FY98/99 ILL statistics were still in draft and the final version would be released shortly.
 
5. Discussion of ILL Net Lender Cost Models

V. Jorgensen reviewed the background of the net lender reimbursement issue and reasons for reimbursement. Last year, a SOPAG committee composed of Phyllis Mirsky, John Tanno and Bernie Hurley worked on the issue of net lender reimbursement. They came up with four principles: keep the net lender compensation formula simple; keep the net lender compensation process politically acceptable; keep the formula fair use FY 97/98 as the base year. The intent is not to reimburse for each ILL, but to compensate for the net imbalance.

B. Hurley also added that the intent of net lender reimbursements is to provide a safety net for net lenders in the advent of abnormally high activity from the new Request service or the introduction of Request to the undergraduate population. The safety net is intended to support increases in workload at the net lending campuses.

G. Lawrence provided budget background for the membership. In the current Regents budget UC has explicitly named "resource sharing" as a method of dealing with the problem of funding library collections and services. In the 1999/2000 budget the Office of the President requested $2.5M for CDL, $4M to supplement print collections, and $1M to expand resource sharing programs. UC received $1.5M for CDL, $2.96M for print collections, and $740,000 for resource sharing. These allocations are permanent all9ocations to the library budget. Budget requests to lien against the resource sharing money will be presented in February.

The committee members discussed the issue and agreed to a basic proposal that would include a unit cost reimbursement to net lenders on an annual basis. The issue of reimbursement for the RLF’s was also discussed. Since the annual ILL statistics do not reflect their workload they will need to report their 1997/98 base statistics for inclusion in the proposal.

Action: UCB, UCD, and UCLA will conduct a cost study to determine unit cost, delineated by returnables and non-returnables, for interlibrary loan activity. The cost should include the staff cost of providing an interlibrary loan item. The cost should not include overhead charges such as electricity, OCLC usage, amortization of equipment, etc. The unit cost report is due to V. Jorgensen on October 25, 1999.

Action: SRLF and NRLF need to report interlibrary loan statistics for 1997/98 for inclusion in the proposal.

Action: V. Jorgensen and T. Dearie will draft a proposal for net lender reimbursement for review. The report will include a formula for net lender reimbursement for campus libraries as well as Regional Library Facilities. A rate review process and timeline will be included.
 

6. Discussion of Tricor Delivery

The Preservation Librarians committee (Venita, is this a real committee or did I make it up?) has expressed concern over the treatment of library materials being shipped via Tricor delivery service.

Action: V. Jorgensen will charge the ILL Advisory Committee to investigate and identify the extent of the problem, draft a method for documenting and reporting Tricor performance, and suggest language to include in the MOU to correct any problems. The report will be due December 15, 1999 and the ILL Advisory Committee should consult with appropriate units or the Circulation Advisory Committee if appropriate. Additionally, the committee will be asked to review packing and shipping guidelines currently under discussion by the Preservation Librarians.
 

7. Library of California Update - Tammy Dearie

Both V. Jorgensen and T. Dearie serve on the Region V. Planning Committee for the Library of California. They will bring issues of interest to the committee for review.

T. Dearie updated the committee on the status of LOC reimbursements for loans to other California libraries. In the past the only loans available for reimbursement were to public libraries in California. A pilot project has expanded eligibility list to include any California library. In order to receive reimbursement the lending library must register to be a member of the Library of California. The lender is not obligated to provide loans for the reimbursement rate of $2.85 to all libraries, only the libraries of their choice. For instance, UCSD will continue to report loans to public libraries in California for reimbursement. UCR is reporting loans to all libraries in Region V for reimbursement. The CSU libraries are reporting loans to other CSU libraries.
 

8. PIR Update - Tammy Dearie

T. Dearie reported on three aspects of the Patron Initiated Requesting project. First, she distributed statistical reports of Request activity by campus and user status, Turnaround Time comparisons and Fill Rate.

The volume of Request activity continues to slowly rise. The total number of requests generated from Melvyl Request was 17,103 from January to August 1999. This includes request for on-campus document delivery, email requests and requests that go directly to OCLC and then direct to the first lender or to the review file.

Turnaround time in comparison to 1996, the last year it was reported, has gone up, but PIR requests lag a bit. In 1996 26% of books were received within 3-5 days. Current TAT* is as follows:

All OCLC requests 45.34% within 3-5 days

PIR requests 35.77% within 3-5 days

Other requests* 66.91% within 3-5 days

* Current TAT measures activity from the time the request is entered on OCLC to the time the borrowing library updates the record to received. The current TAT does not account for the possible time lag for non-PIR requests from the time the patron requests the item to the time it is input in OCLC. A similar time lag occurs at the receiving/notifying user end with all requests once they are received.

* Other requests are automated requests from UCI and UCSF III’s ILL subsystem, Clio Request at UCD and email requests at UCB.

Individual campus reports were also distributed.

Fill rate data shows a higher percentage of PIR requests being filled. Campus cumulative rates are below. Individual campus rates were also presented.

Source Requested Filled % Filled

OCLC 51319 34932 68%

Other 10451 7348 70%

PIR 6176 5121 83%

The second issue was the Needs Assessment Survey recently distributed to each campus. Results of the survey along with individual campus visits will be used to determine the next steps for the PIR process. The focus is on applying ‘best practices" to increase efficiencies.

The third issue was a reminder about the upcoming implementation of Phase II, Article Requesting, to take place in January 2000. The programming is currently underway with a test release date expected November 3. Each campus will be asked to create a dummy patron record for testing. The Interface Design Committee will be reactivated to make any necessary changes in the interface. As a reminder, Phase II includes the inclusion of "Request" in CDL mounted databases (ABI, Comp, CC, Mags, PsychInfo, Biosis, Medline), the increase of allowable requests per day to 20 in the Melvyl Catalog and 20 in all of the article databases.

General discussion of PIR included the request to add the "Request" feature to the CALLS database for the requesting of bound volumes, "Request" in all other CDL databases (OCLC, RLIN, etc.), and some specific messages for individual campuses.

Action: T. Dearie will take the requests for new features to the PIR Project Team and alert the ILL Advisory Committee of possible changes in their workflows.
 

9. Discussion of Systemwide Payment of Copyright Clearinghouse Expenses

Most campuses pay between $7,000 and $23,000 to CCC for copyright royalties. The question of whether or not we should use Systemwide Resource Sharing money to pay for copyright licenses was discussed in the broader context of what other funding requests should we propose. See below for action issues.
 
10. Funding Proposals for UC Resource Sharing moniesThe committee brainstormed the following list of possible funding proposals (followed by name of lead person/group to investigate):
1. Web/desktop delivery of articles (Bellanti, Dearie, Miller, Nichols, Rubens)
2. Tricor delivery (Jorgensen, ILL Advisory Committee)
3. Net lender reimbursement (Dearie, Jorgensen)
4. Digital reserves (Circulation Advisory Committee)
5. CCC payment (All)
6. Future undergraduate usage (defer to HOPS)
7. ARL Workshop: From Data to Action: An ARL Workshop on Strategies to Redesign ILL/DD Service (Dearie)
Action: C. Bellanti, T. Dearie, S. Miller, G. Nichols, and C. Rubens will draft a proposal for a documents to the web/desktop project for funding consideration. The proposal should be in bulleted format and briefly discuss expected benefits, costs, both short and long term estimates, immediate action steps for this fiscal year. The report will be due November 1, 1999

Action: V. Jorgensen will charge the ILL Advisory Committee to suggest changes to the MOU. Jorgensen will coordinate with G. Lawrence on payment. (See item 6 for more details)

Action: V. Jorgensen and T. Dearie will draft proposal for net lender rei8mbursement. (See item 5 for more details)

Action: V. Jorgensen will charge the Circulation Advisory Committee to draft a short proposal for a digital reserves project. The proposal should be in bulleted format and briefly discuss expected benefits, costs, both short and long term estimates, immediate action steps for this fiscal year. The report will be due November 1, 1999

Action: V. Jorgensen will ask the ILL Advisory Committee to report CCC payments to Jorgensen and G. Lawrence for inclusion in budget proposal.

Action: V. Jorgensen will take issue of undergraduate impact to HOPS for discussion.

Action: T. Dearie will discuss ARL workshop with Mary Jackson. She will also discuss appropriate timing and issues with PIR Project Team.

11. Implications of Expanding REQUEST to Undergraduates

The committee briefly discussed some of the implications surrounding this issue. Among the issues noted included blocking of Request for reserve items, education of undergraduate students about time needed for ILL (3-5 days may still be too short), education of undergraduate students about in-house collections that may be able to meet their needs, principles of campus collection development policies in regards to undergraduate library use, possible use of Request by undergraduate students for outside employment activity.

Action: V. Jorgensen will take this issue to HOPS for further discussion.
 

12. Future Meetings - Format, Venue, Schedule

The committee agreed to a mix of in-person meetings (twice a year, spring and fall) with conference calls in between to discuss or update members on action items. To facilitate communication G. Nichols volunteered to mount and maintain a web page. G. Lawrence has already created a listserv for electronic mail discussion. The next meeting will be held on December 9, 1999. It will be a conference call in the afternoon, time to be determined.