freedom by design Requests Direct Forum for Interlending Workshop 2 July 2002

freedom by design Introductions  Margaret van Mellaerts  Document Supply Manager  Essex County Council  Katie Anstock  Product Manager  Fretwell-Downing Informatics

freedom by design About Essex County Council  Largest public library service in the UK  Unitary authorities include Thurrock and Southend-on-Sea  Population - approx. 1 million  Number of ILL requests per month  LMS - GEAC

freedom by design In the beginning...  25 years of Interlending at Essex County Council  How has the service developed from ?  What was the ILL service’s objectives?  From manual to semi-automated

freedom by design A new broom…  “Times they are a changing”  October 2000  Management changes  ILL service - new post created  New managers =  Radical change

freedom by design A new broom…  New managers  Librarians  ILL experience?  Workshop exercise (1):  Take your “ILL hats off” and think about your ILL service and your public library ILL service from the users’ perspective….  Utopian exercise!

freedom by design Initial impressions  Not service-oriented  ILL Department not public-facing  Slow and labour-intensive  paper dominated service  Time consuming process e.g.:  searching multiple bib databases  Semi-automated with multiple tools

freedom by design UK Public Library Model  Distinct from academic libraries  Supplier order:  Region i.e. Co-East  Outside region ie Conarls, non-Conarls  British Library  OCLC & IFLA libraries

freedom by design Year 1: Action packed  Day 1  British Library changed their service model  price charge increase for books  Cost?  September 2001  LASER  ceased trading

freedom by design In the background...  Co-East  developing library community  Essex fully committed  Cutting edge:  innovative services: –ILL, CI, cooperative purchasing of e-resources  ILL –distributed standards-based model –resource sharing model using ISO ILL

freedom by design A bright idea! February 2001 Defined strategy and business plan for Essex County Council ILL Service

freedom by design Visionary strategy  Front-line service  Utilise IT to the full  Automate and eradicate the paper chase

freedom by design ….. But how?! Hmmm - let’s come back to that one, but don’t get bogged down in the detail!

freedom by design Demise of Laser  … and the rise of Co-East  Essex had to radically rethink  Workshop exercise (2):  What would you do?  New service model?  “Go it alone”? –Loose LASER’s V3 - what then?

freedom by design What about Co-East?  Local government reorganisation  Start-up members:  Essex (includes Thurrock and Southend)  Suffolk  Cambridge (includes Peterborough)  Essex more eastern region than London and South-East  10 members

freedom by design Co-East’s resource sharing model  Distributed not centralised  Standards based  Z39.50 for searching  ISO ILL for requesting

freedom by design The distributed model

freedom by design Co-East and Essex  Requesting system for Co-East items  … but can it be used for more?  Requirements analysis  May 2001

freedom by design A potted history  LIDDAS consortium in Australia  Australian academic libraries  State wide library systems in USA  up to 3000 libraries in Colorado and Ohio  Pharmaceutical companies  RIDING Virtual Union Catalogue  British Library’s ISO Gateway  Docusend project  Essex County Council (last but by no means least!)

freedom by design So here we are…  Z39.50 simultaneous searching  Essex and Cambridge catalogues  an in-print source  other library catalogues inc. OCLC  Further service development  UnityWeb searching via VDX  Web-based interface for public use  requesting and monitoring

freedom by design Innovative messaging  Live ART ISO messaging with British Library  Co-East requests via ISO ILL  Further service development:  OCLC interoperability testing scheduled  Improved communication with branches  currently automated using  to non-ISO library suppliers

freedom by design Requests Direct - why?  A direct requesting service  telephone   web  branch library  i.e. whichever way the user prefers

freedom by design Requests Direct - the team  ILL team  direct contact with users  responsibility for public face of service  no longer second hand with branch as intermediary

freedom by design Requests Direct - communication  Call centre model  tell user directly when item available locally from Essex or Cambridge  whether it’s in print  available from Unity members  user told directly that request has been actioned  user defines pick up location

freedom by design Requests Direct - communication  Push technology:  user ed with request status reports  Pull technology:  user can check request status on the web

freedom by design Requests Direct - Objective “The mystery of Interlending will be a thing of the past and the service will be truly direct“

freedom by design Lessons learned  Be prepared for frustrations but...  Don’t lose sight of the vision!  Don’t run before you can walk!  Go for incremental service development  radical service development doesn’t happen overnight!  staged go-lives  Invest in staff training and technology  but be patient!

freedom by design Vendor perspective  Interoperability in a competitive environment -  a contradiction in terms?!  Customer expectations?  Let’s be realistic!  Project management -  on-going problem-solving  Maintain positive attitude  Communication is key

freedom by design So, what now?  Workshop exercise (3):  Is RequestsDirect the ideal model?  Could this model be adopted in your library or sector?  Academic?, public?, NHS? Regional?  What would you do next?

freedom by design Requests Direct