Interlibrary Loan and Document Delivery in the Larger Academic Library: A Guide for University, Research and Larger Public LibrariesLee A. Hilyer. Binghamton NY: Haworth Press, 2002. 130 pp. price not reported soft ISBN 0789019515 (also published as Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery and Information Supply 13, 1/2)

2003 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 518-519
Author(s):  
R BURK
2013 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 64
Author(s):  
Kathleen Reed

Objective – Texas A&M University Libraries have delivered free documents and interlibrary loans for ten years via the Get it for me service. This study explores whether the needs of customers are being met, areas for improvement, acceptable turnaround times, why some resources are never picked up, preferred format and steps to obtaining resources, places searched before submitting a request, and whether users ever purchased resources after obtaining them through Get it for me. Design – Online questionnaire. Setting – Large academic library system located in Texas, United States. Subjects – Researchers used responses from 735 registered users of the Get it for me service (12% undergraduates, 49% graduate students, 21% faculty, 15% staff, 1% distance education, 2% other). Methods – The authors emailed all currently registered users of the Get it for me service (n=23,063) inviting them to participate in a survey. The survey ran for two weeks, with no follow-up emails sent. Main Results – The return rate of 3.18% (n=735/23,063) surpassed the participant goal to achieve a confidence level of 95%, with a confidence interval of 4%. Researchers found that 79% of respondents are satisfied with turnaround time, with 54% of respondents desiring items within three days. Expectations increased with position in the academy. Time is the significant factor in users not retrieving ordered items; items are no longer needed after deadlines pass or other related materials are found. Responses revealed that 55% of users prefer print to e-books, although 70% of participants would accept an e-book version if print is not available. Participants were evenly split between reading documents online and printing them to read offline. About one quarter of respondents bought or suggested that the library purchase an item requested via Get it for me. When participants encountered a problem, 55% of respondents would contact library staff and 45% would check the service FAQ. Of those that contacted staff, there is a 94% satisfaction rate. Overall, 95% of respondents checked the libraries’ online catalogue for availability, 83% looked in e-journal collections, and 74% checked Google or Google Scholar. Get it for me was complimented on its user-friendly interfaces and policies, and the money and time it saves its users. In terms of criticism, users requested better quality scanned documents, longer interlibrary loan times, and a PDF instead of a link when an article is found by staff. Conclusion – The author concludes that the document delivery and interlibrary loan services delivered by Get it for me are meeting the expectations of users, with 99% of respondents reporting that the Get it for me service meets or somewhat meets their needs. Areas that required improvement were identified and strategies put in place to improve service. This questionnaire can be applied to other libraries to assist them in learning about document delivery and interlibrary loan service users and their expectations.


2014 ◽  
Vol 42 (2/3) ◽  
pp. 92-97
Author(s):  
Xiaoxia Yao ◽  
Lijun Zeng ◽  
Qiang Zhu

Purpose – This paper aims to report on the methodology and findings of the China Academic Library and Information System (CALIS) Model Member Libraries (MML) plan which evaluated the success of interlibrary loan and document delivery (ILL/DD) services among 71 CALIS member libraries. Design/methodology/approach – CALIS constructed an evaluation instrument consisting of a set of primary and secondary performance indicators, which were used to assess participating libraries in a number of areas such as the number of bibliographic holdings contributed to the union catalog, the number of qualified professional staff dedicated to ILL/DD, the amount of training provided for library staff and end-users, request volume, fill rate, turnaround time and user satisfaction. Findings – CALIS has implemented the evaluation with the purpose of better understanding ILL/DD service among its member libraries. The evaluation has achieved the expected targets and improved service performance as originally planned. The performance measures provide a basis for the MML to compare their ILL/DD service performance with another similar institution. Originality/value – According to the evaluation, the major objectives of MML on ILL/DD service are summarized.


2003 ◽  
Vol 64 (4) ◽  
pp. 283-299 ◽  
Author(s):  
David J. Gregory ◽  
Wayne A. Pedersen

Librarians typically view interlibrary loan (ILL) as a means of providing access to items not owned by the local institution. However, they are less likely to explore ILL’s potential in providing timely access to items locally owned, but temporarily unavailable, particularly in the case of monographs in circulation. In a two-part study, the authors test the assumption that, on average, locally owned books that a patron finds unavailable (due to checkout) can be obtained more quickly via recall than via ILL. Phase 1 of this study establishes an average turnaround time for circulation recalls in a large academic library for comparison with well-established turnaround times for ILL borrowing transactions. In Phase 2, a more rigorous paired study of recalls and ILL compares the ability of each system to handle identical requests in real time. Results demonstrate that, under some circumstances, ILL provides a reasonable alternative to the internal recall process. The findings also underscore the need for more holistic, interservice models for improving not just access, but also the timeliness of access, to monograph collections.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document