Monograph ILL for the Higher Education Research Sector. A report to CURL and the British Library Cooperation and Partnership Programme

Citation

Line, M.B. (2003), "Monograph ILL for the Higher Education Research Sector. A report to CURL and the British Library Cooperation and Partnership Programme", Interlending & Document Supply, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 280-282. https://doi.org/10.1108/02641610310507013

After reading this report carefully, I am somewhat at a loss to understand why it was commissioned. My guess is that members of CURL (Consortium of University Research Libraries) thought there might be something better or cheaper in the way of ILL systems than they had, while the British Library wished to show its willingness to co‐operate and consult. The existing situation in the UK with regard to the supply of monographs on interlibrary loan is certainly not perfect, but it could not be much improved except by spending very large sums of money. It is based, as the report shows (and as every library in Britain knows) on the British Library, supported by union lists. This system produces an overall fill rate of 90 per cent. The report itself asks, after looking at the present system, “Is there a problem?”, and concludes that there “is no major problem” (6.10).

It would seem sensible, before suggesting any changes to the present system, to identify the areas of weakness. These can be considered under provision and supply. To take provision first, surely an essential part of the research for this report should have been an analysis of failed requests, to identify categories of weakness? The two most obvious categories are English‐language books that are in heavy demand, and books in foreign languages. Nowhere in this report is this pointed out, although it is well known at BLDSC (“weaknesses in some foreign language availability” do receive one passing mention, at 4.19). The inadequate provision of the first of these categories is insoluble except by massive duplication by the British Library; since the period of heavy demand is not usually more than six months, this would be a waste of money. As for foreign‐language books, the demand for these is unpredictable, so bulk purchase on the scale of that used by the BL for English‐language books is ruled out, and reliance has to be placed on those books that libraries in the UK happen to have acquired, supplemented by international loans. Planned co‐operative acquisition does not help, since this too requires prediction of demand. International interlending will never be entirely satisfactory or very fast, but it can and surely will be improved as more and more union catalogues of foreign countries become available online, and in Europe at least they are gradually incorporated into a single file, or so organised that they appear to the user as a single file (see Line, 1988, 2000).

The second area of weakness is supply time, particularly when academic libraries are the suppliers. Moderate changes in procedures could yield improvement. Anyone with experience and knowledge of interlending could say what these changes are: standard procedures and charges; adherence to rigorous service standards; general use of electronic requesting, reporting, referral and recording; and up‐to‐date and comprehensive union lists. One present problem is unnecessary diversity, caused by the propensity of libraries to invent new systems in the naïve faith that there might be a slightly cheaper alternative to the BL.

This report does not use the approach of identifying problems and then seeking solutions; instead, it seems to look at aspects that are relevant to a solution that had already been seen as obvious. It is linked to a report of the Research Libraries Support Group (2003). It devotes many pages to minor problems while not taking full account of major ones.

The recommendations are less than earth‐shaking. And so they should be; this patch of earth does not need shaking, and it is good that the research team has avoided the temptation to say something radical in order to justify their existence. After several options are reviewed, a central source, namely BLDSC, supported by selected other libraries, emerges as a clear preference. The model proposed is labelled “BLDSC Plus” – which is what exists now, with the exception that if the recommendations were accepted the BL and the other libraries would work in partnership, with a Management Board of which the BL would be one member. A consortium would be formed between the BL and “a range of partner libraries who [which?] would agree to provide ILL services to defined service standards and charges”, including the acceptance of common pricing. All requests in the system would be routed through BLDSC. The board would serve also as a discussion forum, a suggestion perhaps due to a feeling that the BL makes decisions with insufficient consultation.

Most of the improvements mentioned three paragraphs above are suggested by the report. It should be said that, although we now have an excellent combined file of the holdings of CURL libraries, it will be some years before the proposed UKNUC (National Union Catalogue) appears – if it appears at all.. There are two innovatory recommendations, both for pilot trials: one in direct user requesting, on the lines of successful US schemes, the other in home delivery. The biggest omission is any recommendation for improving international supply.

The proposed system of selected partner libraries is not vastly different from that of the back‐up libraries that were used for so many years. The system was abandoned in 2001, both for financial reasons and for reasons that might prove relevant to the new proposals: the back‐ups started by operating on a more or less common basis, but gradually and increasingly deviated. Tighter management might prevent this happening again.

One option that receives detailed discussion is CURL‐SHARES, based on the US RLG scheme RLIN. This is said to suffer from various weaknesses, and it is rejected. Interestingly, the balance between requests for serials and for monographs in the USA is very different from that in the UK – to the best of my recollection, the ratio is about 50:50 in the USA, 75:25 in the UK.

Several statements are questionable. For example, we read “Some CURL libraries perceive that a number of operational problems have existed, including some concerns about the [British] Library's acquiring a progressively decreasing proportion of published output, thus progressively reducing the fill rate” (4.19). (The volume of acquisitions is hardly an “operational problem”, and that the authors presumably mean “exist” rather than “existed”.) It is not clear if this perception relates to the present or the future; a slow reduction in acquisitions should not lead to a lower fill rate for several years (nor does it appear to have done), since the material not acquired would be calculated to generate very little demand. That said, the possibility of large cumulative reductions in the future cannot be ruled out – in which case the logical recommendation would be one to the funding bodies, that they ensure that it does not happen.

It is hinted that e‐books may change the situation. This seems to me (and to some of those asked by the researchers) very unlikely, on the grounds of both cost and acceptability; local printing on demand of out‐of‐print books from remote suppliers would be one good solution, but this would be a very expensive way of meeting the need of individual readers (see Line, 2003a). Some types of e‐book could well help to meet the need for multiple copies of student works, but this report is concerned with research material.

An admittedly weak area of the report concerns its costings, which are notoriously hard to estimate, particularly for hypothetical systems. The estimates of savings accruing from avoidance of duplication at BLDSC – “at least £500,000 pa” (9.10) – seem to me grossly exaggerated. In any case, no estimate is made of the reduction in fill rate or speed of supply that might result from such “avoidance”. Against these “savings” and others in staff time as a result of improved electronic systems has to be set an estimated £250,000 pa that would be allocated to participating libraries to cover their increased costs.

Paragraph 4.8 refers to “Table 4.2” when Table 4.3 is meant (it is actually a figure, not a table). At the risk of being pedantic, I cannot help railing against yet one more example of the absurd use (4.19) of “document delivery” for the supply of serial articles, in contrast to “monograph loans” – as if monographs were not also documents and were not also delivered. Please can we adopt a sensible terminology, perhaps on the lines I have recently suggested (Line, 2003b)?

The report, whatever its inadequacies, will not have been a waste of money and effort if it helps to convince doubters that radical change to the present document requesting and supply system in the UK would be not only unnecessary but very damaging. The few novel proposals are worth looking at.