Presentation on theme: "P URCHASE ON D EMAND ( POD ) & I NTERLIBRARY L OAN."— Presentation transcript:
P URCHASE ON D EMAND ( POD ) & I NTERLIBRARY L OAN
W HAT DOES POD MEAN ? Patron-centered/driven acquisition, just-in-time acquisition, patron-initiated purchasing (PIP) or evidence based selection Workflow and policies differ among libraries, but initial request comes through ILL Little or no subject specialist/selector input or intervention Some institutions authorize ILL units (rather than acquisitions) to make the purchase request Item may be given to the user when it arrives and cataloged after it is returned to further expedite fulfillment Supplement to traditional (just-in-case) collection development methods
POD P OLICIES Set budget for program Determine workflow for ILL and Acquisitions Selection criteria: *date of material *language *vendors *publishers (UP vs. vanity press) *type of material (recreational or textbooks) Metrics: *circulation stats Gail Herrera & Judy Greenwood (2011) “Patron-Initiated Purchasing: Evaluating Criteria and Workflows” Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery & Electronic Reserve 21:1-2, 9-24.
B UYING VS. B ORROWING Interlibrary loan is not intended as a substitute for collection development. New titles should not be requested through ILL whenever possible POD can save time of user and of library staff It may be cheaper to purchase and catalog if material cannot be borrowed from a reciprocal borrowing institution and/or the lender requires return by expedited shipper Much of the literature points to circulation stats that show POD materials circulate more than once
B UYING VS. B ORROWING Kent Allen (1979) Use of Library Materials: The University of Pittsburg Study New York: Marcel Dekker Approximately 40% of new titles had not circulated 5 years after purchase Richard L. Trueswell (1969) “Library Users: The 80/20 Rule” Wilson Library Bulletin 43/5, 458- 461 80% of use from 20% of collection
B UYING VS. B ORROWING Buy when book is published in the current/previous year Filling requests in the most timely manner possible is of the upmost importance to our users Patron does not care how the material is obtained POD program should be seamless and not require additional work for end user According to the literature, many interdisciplinary titles are added to the collection through POD programs that are not normally obtained through traditional collection development policies
B UYING VS. B ORROWING The goal of the Washington and Lee University Library’s POD program is to meet the immediate needs of our users while adding potential high-use titles to our collection Collaboration between Public Services (ILL Unit) and Technical Services
T HE W&L POD PROGRAM CRITERIA : current year imprint price of item less than $100 (prior to shipping) not already expected through our Approval Plan ILL materials that are requested more than once (by same user or multiple users) or needed for an extended period of time Very few or no holdings on a title in WorldCat
H OW IT WORKS @ W&L ILL request submitted by user through ILLiad ILL staff determines if request meets POD criteria Request is routed from ILL to Acquisitions using email templates and routing rules set-up in ILLiad Item is purchased, cataloged, and user is notified when item is available for check-out
W HY I T W ORKS Items may be purchased and next day delivery requested from vendor Items are “rush” cataloged It is possible for users to have item(s) in hand in shorter amount of time than average ILL transaction (for W&L, average ILL transaction is about 4-5 business days) It does not guarantee use by one user (they may not come to pick-up the item) In our experience, POD materials do get checked-out at least once and several have had multiple check-outs User will have longer loan period than with ILL and can easily renew Item will be available for future check-outs Works well for DVDs (cheap to purchase and difficult to borrow through ILL)
P ATRON F EEDBACK Some of the literature discusses obtaining patron feedback through surveys Suggestions for improvements, level of satisfactions, expectations/needs, etc. Uta Hussong-Christian & Kerri Goergen-Doll (2010) “We're Listening: Using Patron Feedback to Assess and Enhance Purchase on Demand” Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery & Electronic Reserve 20:5, 319-335.
C RITICISM POD purchases may be made without patron consultation and patron only needs book for citation checking or bibliography chasing Collection may end up with materials that have narrow focus It is cost effective? Cost-per-use? ROI? See G. Van Dyk (2011) “Interlibrary loan purchase-on- demand: A misleading literature” Library Collections, Acquisitions, and Technical Services Volume 35: 2-3, 83-89
GIST: G ETTING IT S YSTEM T OOLKIT D EVELOPED BY M ILNE L IBRARY AT SUNY G ENESEO idsproject.org/tools/gist.aspx Tool for integrating Acquisitions and ILL into one workflow and interface From GIST website using ILLiad/GIST users and staff can easily determine: *uniqueness (for cooperative collection development) *locate free online sources (to reduce cost and/or catalog eBooks just-in-time) *see reviews and rankings (to add value to the request process) *see purchasing options and prices
B IBLIOGRAPHY Nancy Lichten Alder (2007) “Direct Purchase As a Function of Interlibrary Loan: Buying Books Versus Borrowing” Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery & Electronic Reserve, 18:1, 9-15. Megan Gaffney (2011) “Item Shipped! Purchase on Demand and ILLiad 8 Addons” 2011 ILLiad International Conference Gail Herrera & Judy Greenwood (2011) “Patron-Initiated Purchasing: Evaluating Criteria and Workflows” Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery & Electronic Reserve, 21:1-2, 9-24. Uta Hussong-Christian & Kerri Goergen-Doll (2010) “We're Listening: Using Patron Feedback to Assess and Enhance Purchase on Demand” Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery & Electronic Reserve, 20:5, 319-335. Peter Spitzform (2011) The User Knows Best www.nelib.org/Resources/Documents/NETSL/SpitzformPDAnetsl2011.pdf David C. Tyler, Joyce C. Melvin, Yang Xu, Marylou Epp & Anita M. Kreps (2011) “Effective Selectors? Interlibrary Loan Patrons as Monograph Purchasers: A Comparative Examination of Price and Circulation-Related Performance” Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery & Electronic Reserve, 21:1-2, 57-90 David C. Tyler (2011) “Patron-Driven Purchase on Demand Programs for Printed Books and Similar Materials” Library Philosophy and Practice http://unllib.unl.edu/LPP/tyler.htmhttp://unllib.unl.edu/LPP/tyler.htm G. Van Dyk (2011) “Interlibrary loan purchase-on-demand: A misleading literature” Library Collections, Acquisitions, and Technical Services Volume 35: 2-3, 83-89 David Zopfi-Jordan (2008) “Purchasing or Borrowing: Making Interlibrary Loan Decisions That Enhance Patron Satisfaction” Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery & Electronic Reserve, 18:3, 387-394.