Australian Interlibrary Resource Sharing Code

Review of the Australian Interlibrary Resource Sharing (ILRS) Code 2005
Discussion paper prepared by the ALIA Interlibrary Lending Expert Advisory Group

Contents

How to comment
Introduction and background
Review process
Assumptions
Reasons for review
Principles [comment, questions]
Definitions [comment, questions]
Turnaround times and service levels [comment, questions]
Delivery [comment, questions]
Pricing and pricing model [comment, questions]
Summary of questions
pdf version [96.1kb]

How to comment

The ALIA Interlibrary Lending Expert Advisory Group (ILLEAG) invites interested individuals, libraries and organisations to contribute to the review of the ILRS Code by commenting on the discussion paper. Please send your comments, preferably electronically to planning@alia.org.au.nospam (please remove '.nospam' from address). Comment can also be sent by mail or fax to ALIA ILLEAG, PO Box 6335, Kingston, ACT, 2604, fx 02 6282 2249.

To assist in preparing responses, the questions from the different sections of the discussion paper are also brought together in the summary of questions at the end of the document. In addition, comments on any other aspect of the ILRS Code are welcome.

The closing date for comments is 31 August 2005.

Privacy
Responses to the discussion paper will be collated by the ILLEAG and used for the purposes of drafting a revised ILRS Code. Individual respondents and organisations will not be identified in any reports on the feedback received.

For more information please contact Susan Magnay (please remove '.nospam' from address), ph 02 6215 8225.

Introduction and background

The Australian Interlibrary Resource Sharing (ILRS) Code benefits Australian libraries and their users by providing greater predictability, consistency and flexibility in obtaining materials. The ILRS Code is designed to support resource sharing based on co-operation and fairness between libraries and respect for the intellectual and moral rights of creators and publishers.

The ILRS Code is endorsed by the Australian Library and Information Association (ALIA), the Council of Australian State Libraries (CASL), the Council of Australian University Librarians (CAUL) and the National Library of Australia (NLA). The current ILRS Code was adopted by the sector in 2001 and there have been minor amendments to the code since then. Extracts from the current code are included in the relevant sections of the discussion paper below and the full ILRS Code can be found online.

A code of practice for interlibrary lending among Australian libraries was first introduced in 1946 with the Australian Institute of Librarians Code for Interlending. This was replaced by the AACOBS Australian Interlending Code in 1966 and then by the ILRS Code in 2001.

At the final forum of the National Resource Sharing Working Group (NRSWG) and the National Resource Sharing Policy Committee (NRSPC), convened by the NLA in 2004, it was decided that the ILRS Code should be reviewed. ALIA was asked and agreed to co-ordinate this review. The ALIA Interlibrary Lending Expert Advisory Group (ILLEAG) has responsibility for this task.

Review process

The review will have three main phases:

• Consultation. The ILLEAG has prepared this discussion paper as the basis for wide consultation across library sectors at both practitioner and policy levels.
• Development of a draft revised code, based on the feedback received. It is expected that the draft code will be available for comment in October 2005 and that the final draft will be presented to the sector peak bodies for endorsement in November-December 2005.
• Launch and implementation. It is hoped to launch the new endorsed code in early 2006. The ILLEAG will review the level of adoption of the new code in August 2006.

Assumptions

The review of the ILRS Code is based on a number of assumptions. The first and most important is that the majority of libraries across all sectors are committed to resource sharing and co-operation and that the benefits of Australia's interlending and resource sharing system to Australian libraries and their users outweigh the costs.

Other assumptions include that:

• The code will continue as an sector-wide voluntary standard and code of practice.
• The ILRS Code applies to resource sharing among Australian libraries. Document delivery services of commercial suppliers and overseas ILL are outside the scope of the code.
• Pricing in the code is recommended, not mandatory.
• Terminology of the code is based on the International Organisation for Standardisation Interlibrary Loan Application Standards (ISO ILL protocol).
• The compliance of libraries with relevant legislation, such as copyright, is assumed and is therefore not covered in the code.

Reasons for review

The consensus of the NRSWG final forum and the ILLEAG is that it is timely for the ILRS code to be reviewed and updated:

• Service and user needs are changing. In particular, end users are expecting faster delivery.
• Since 2001 there has been increasing automation of interlibrary lending operations, including implementation of ISO ILL protocol compliant systems, electronic delivery of documents and requesting from and delivery to clients' desktops. However, this uptake of technology is mixed.
• The current code is too complex. In practice, some service levels are not being used. For example, there is anecdotal evidence that the 'rush' service is little used and that libraries requesting a 'priority' service may in fact receive the faster 'rush' service.
• Recommended pricing has not changed since the introduction of the new ILRS code in 2001. There have been significant changes in technology, work processes and costs since the last price revision and the ILLEAG is aware that there is a wide range of views across the sector about recommended pricing and pricing models.

Principles

Under 'Principles' the current ILRS code states:
Libraries participating under this ILRS Code agree to observe the following principles:

• Comply with the service-level standards. Where libraries are unable to offer a given service level, this should be stated in their ILRS directory entry.
• Supply an item as quickly regardless of the service level requested. Libraries are encouraged to improve services and review processes so services are not offered at the lowest possible level under each service level standard.
• Publish their resource sharing policy in the ILRS directory and keep the entry updated. The policy should include all charges.
• Make holdings available and keep them up-to-date, including holdings of electronic resources, with an indication of availability for resource sharing. Use of the National Bibliographic Database (NBD) should be reciprocal. Libraries using the NBD to identify holdings for their own requests should be committed to making their holdings available and up-to-date.
• Consider all requests for material regardless of format, though the decision to lend materials is at the discretion of the supplying library.
• Ensure confidentiality for the requestor and the requestor's client.
• Pay outward delivery costs when supplying unless otherwise agreed.
• Pay return delivery costs when borrowing (unless otherwise agreed).
• Comply with the policies of potential suppliers, as published in their ILRS directory entry.
• Where systems allow users to initiate requests and send them direct to supplying libraries, authenticate and authorise users, and assume full responsibility for these requests.
• Accept responsibility for paying all authorised charges imposed by the supplying library.
• Accept responsibility for the safety of borrowed material, and pay for loss or damage whilst the material is away from the supplying library.
• Observe any special provisions on the use of material and enforce all use restrictions specified by the supplying library.
• Honour the due date for the return of loans.

Comment

The ILLEAG believes that these principles do not need substantial revision; however, there may be areas where the text could be clearer to remove any ambiguities.

Possible additions to the principles include:

• Where possible, have a loan period of three weeks or more.
• When requesting, provide complete bibliographic details and location or call numbers of the supplying library where possible.
• Supply the best quality copy possible, in accordance with efficient work processes.

The ILLEAG is also seeking comments on whether minimum standards for end-user requests should be included in the principles of the Code.

Questions

Do you agree with the existing principles?

What amendments, if any, do you suggest for the existing principle?

What comments do you have about the suggested additional principles?

Do you agree that end-user requests should be covered under the ILRS code? If so, what principles or standards should be covered?

What other comments do you have on the principles of the ILRS Code?

Definitions

The current ILRS Code includes under 'Definitions':

Supplier turnaround time
The time between a supplying library receiving a request to when the item is sent electronically or picked up by the delivery service, or when the supplying library indicates it cannot supply the item.

Working day
Monday to Friday, excluding public holidays.

Close of business
5:00pm local time, or the end of the working day for the supplying library - whichever is earlier.

Recommended prices
All recommended prices are GST-inclusive.

Default delivery modes
To be used when the requesting library has not specified a delivery method.

Comment

There are concerns that the definition of 'Supplier turnaround time' as currently worded is ambiguous when applied to electronic requests. The phrase 'supplying library receiving a request' should be understood to mean when the supplying library opens or reads an electronic request or, for ISO ILL protocol compliant systems, actions the request with 'acknowledges' or 'answers will supply' to an electronic request.

If a new principle is added to 'supply the best quality copy possible, in accordance with efficient work processes' it has been suggested that a definition of 'best copy possible' should be added to cover both photocopy and scanned electronic copy formats.

Questions

Does the definition of 'supplier turnaround time' need to be revised? If so, what is our preferred definition?

Do you agree that a definition of 'best copy possible' is needed?

What other comments do you have on the Definitions?

Turnaround times and service levels

The current ILRS Code sets out five service levels:

Express: maximum supplier turnaround time of two hours.

Rush: am/pm service, where a for a request received in the morning the item or negative response is sent the same day; for a request reseived in the afternoon, the item or negative response is sent the morning of the next working day.

Priority: maximum supplier turnaround time of 48 hours.

Core: maximum turnaround time of five working days.

Default: no turnaround time specified. The default applies when the supplier cannot meet the core service turnaround time.

Comment

Based on the changing expectations of users who are demanding faster service, and the perception that the current model with five service levels is too complex, the ILLEAG proposes that the service level standards be changed to have three service levels:

Express: no change from the current express service level.

Rush: maximum supplier turnaround time of 24 hours. This would be, in effect, next working day delivery and would fall between the current rush and priority services.

Core: maximum supplier turnaround time of four working days. This would reduce the supplier turnaround time of the core service from five to four working days.

It is considered that the default service may not be needed. Currently the code allows for a monetary penalty to the supplier for the lesser amount of $9.90 per request to be charged for items that do not meet the core turnaround time of five working days. In practice, we believe that the majority of supplying libraries may still charge and receive payment of the full $13.20 regardless of the delay in delivery. This is because it is automatically part of their workflow and there are only a few requesting libraries that monitor this closely and demand the lesser rate.

The intention of the proposed three service levels is to reflect and meet user expectations and to set a high, but achievable, standard for resource sharing.

Questions

What are your comments on the proposal for three service levels?

Do you consider it necessary to have a monetary incentive, such as a default service level, to encourage libraries to meet the core service level as their minimum standard in as many cases as possible?

Should the code include a statement that requesting libraries are encouraged to alert the supplying library by phone or fax when placing electronic requests for Express service?

Delivery

The current ILRS Code refers to fax, ariel or e-mail attachment, mail and express post or equivalent under default delivery modes and recommended delivery prices.

Recommended delivery prices
Recommended prices for copies are for up to 50 pages in the original item in black and white reproduction. An additional charge of $3.30 applies for each additional 50 pages copied. Prices for special copying, for example, fragile material or colour copies, may need to be negotiated.

Comment

Electronic file formats
Electronic delivery by PDF attachment has become more common since 2001. However, automated ILL systems and processes cannot accommodate PDF formats without extensive manual intervention. For example, PDF attachments cannot be sent automatically to the end-user's desktop and it is difficult to include the required copyright compliance forms. The size of electronic files can also be an issue, particularly in delivering an electronic file successfully to the end-user. The ILLEAG is seeking comment on whether minimum standards for delivery of electronic files and the responsibility of requesting libraries for delivering requested electronic documents to their end-users should be covered in the ILRS Code.

Colour copies
In the current ILRS Code, under 'recommended delivery prices', the supply of colour copies is covered in a general way by the statement 'Prices for special copying, for example, fragile material or colour copies, may need to be negotiated.' There is now increasing demand for colour photocopies and scanned colour files and more libraries have the capability to deliver these colour formats. File size, equipment issues or the need to post copies are all cost considerations when supplying colour copies.

The ILLEAG is seeking comment on whether a recommended price for colour copies should be included in the code. Options might include:

• A recommended per page price, for example 'core' plus a set amount per page of colour copies/scans.
• A recommended per request price, for example an additional levy at the 'core' recommended rate for up to 50 pages in the original item.

Questions

Are more details about delivery modes and formats required?

How should electronic file formats be covered in the ILRS code?

Should a statement about the responsibility of requesting libraries for the delivery of requested electronic documents to their end-users be included in the code?

Do you agree that the ILRS code should include a recommended price for colour copies? If so, what is your preferred pricing model?

Pricing and pricing model

The current pricing model has a base recommended price of $13.20 for the core service, plus specified levies for the faster express, rush and priority service levels, plus delivery charges if applicable. Apart from minor changes in January 2004 when the additional charge for sending a copy by STD fax was dropped and the page limit for the number of pages to be supplied in a copy request without additional charge was increased, these recommended prices have not changed since the introduction of the ILRS Code in 2001. The last substantial increase in recommended prices for ILL was in 1999.

Comment

The ILLEAG's understanding of the history and philosophy of the recommended pricing is that it is based on the perceived need and the desire to compensate net lenders for the benefit of the resource sharing system as a whole. The ILLEAG believes that the code should continue to include recommended prices as a scale of recommended prices brings certainty, predictability and efficiency to the co-operative system of resource sharing. The challenge is to have agreement across a diverse sector on the guiding principles and data on which to set recommended prices for the sector as a whole.

Pricing
There is a range of opinion across the library sector on the appropriate level of recommended pricing in the ILRS Code. For example, comments received at the time of the minor review of the code in late 2003 included:

Arguments in support of keeping the recommended price at the current level that:

• increases would be a hindrance to providing information for users;
• the current recommended charge covers costs for ILL supply in efficient document supply operations and automation should lead to further efficiencies; and
• pricing needs to be competitive with overseas commercial suppliers so that sourcing ILL requests from Australian libraries is attractive.

Arguments that the recommended price should increase because:

• the 1999-2000 benchmarking study (see below) showed that the average cost is higher than the current recommended charges; and
• there is an unreasonable burden on suppliers whose costs are higher than the recommended charges and therefore some libraries continue to subsidise others.

The NRSWG Interlibrary loan an document delivery (ILL/DD) benchmarking study published in 2002 found that there was a wide range in costs of supplying across library sectors and within library sectors. The study also found that well-regulated co-operative or reciprocal agreements bring significant benefits, including reduced administrative costs.

There is also a need to consider the possible impact of changes in the recommended pricing on the market, including requesting libraries, supplying libraries, reciprocal arrangements and commercial suppliers.

If a four day supplier turnaround time were to be adopted as the new service level standard for the 'core' service (as discussed in the section on turnaround times and service levels) the ILLEAG is seeking the views of the sector on whether the recommended price for the 'core' service should increase, decrease or stay at the current level of $13.20.

Pricing model
The current pricing model of the ILRS Code does not take payment methods into account. It has been suggested that use of an automated payment system such as the KDD payments service and payments with requests using vouchers, cheque or credit card are more efficient and less costly than invoicing. The ILLEAG is seeking comment on whether such payment methods should be stated as preferred in the revised code and whether an additional recommended fee for the supplying library raising an invoice should be included.

Questions

Historically, recommended pricing was based on the principle of compensating net lenders, for the benefit of the sector as a whole. Does the principle still hold?

Do you have readily available costing information for your library or sector to inform the discussion on pricing?

From the point of view of your library or sector what would be a reasonable and equitable basis on which to base a pricing structure?

How might changes in recommended pricing affect resource sharing?

What do you think would be the impact:

• of an increase in the recommended price for a core four-day turnaround time service?
• of a decrease in the recommended price for a core four-day turnaround time service?
• if the recommended price for the core service is unchanged?

If you believe either that the recommended price should increase or that it should decrease, what percentage increase or decrease would you propose?

Do you agree that the ILRS code should specify preferred payment methods?

Summary of questions

Principles

Do you agree with the existing principles?

What amendments, if any, do you suggest for the existing principle?

What comments do you have about the suggested additional principles?

Do you agree that end-user requests should be covered under the ILRS code? If so, what principles or standards should be covered?

What other comments do you have on the Principles of the ILRS Code?

Definitions

Does the definition of 'supplier turnaround time' need to be revised? If so, what is our preferred definition?

Do you agree that a definition of 'best copy possible' is needed?

What other comments do you have on the Definitions?

Turnaround times and service levels

What are your comments on the proposal for three service levels?

Do you consider it necessary to have a monetary incentive, such as a default service level, to encourage libraries to meet the core service level as their minimum standard in as many cases as possible?

Should the code include a statement that requesting libraries are encouraged to alert the supplying library by phone or fax when placing electronic requests for express service?

Delivery

Are more details about delivery modes and formats required?

How should electronic file formats be covered in the ILRS code?

Should a statement about the responsibility of requesting libraries for the delivery of requested electronic documents to their end-users be included in the code?

Do you agree that the ILRS code should include a recommended price for colour copies? If so, what is your preferred pricing model?

Pricing and pricing model

Historically, recommended pricing was based on the principle of compensating net lenders, for the benefit of the sector as a whole. Does the principle still hold?

Do you have readily available costing information for your library or sector to inform the discussion on pricing?

From the point of view of your library or sector what would be a reasonable and equitable basis on which to base a pricing structure?

How might changes in recommended pricing affect resource sharing?

What do you think would be the impact:

• of an increase in the recommended price for a core four-day turnaround time service?
• of a decrease in the recommended price for a core four-day turnaround time service?
• if the recommended price for the core service is unchanged?

If you believe either that the recommended price should increase or that it should decrease, what percentage increase or decrease would you propose?

Do you agree that the ILRS code should specify preferred payment methods?

How to comment

The ALIA Interlibrary Lending Expert Advisory Group (ILLEAG) invites interested individuals, libraries and organisations to contribute to the review of the ILRS code by commenting on the discussion paper. Please send your comments electronically (please remove '.nospam' from address).

The closing date for comments is 31 August 2005.

For more information please contact Susan Magnay (please remove '.nospam' from address), ph 02 6215 8225.