ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries January 1990 / 21 CIC resource sharing project B y C arolyn A. Snyder Associate Dean f o r Public Services Indiana University and B eth J. Shapiro D eputy D irector Michigan State University A successful resource sharing and interlibrary loan program sponsored by the Committee on Institutional Cooperation. The C IC R esource Sharing P roject de- scribed below is an example o f a resource sharing/interlibrary loan program th at 1) has been accom plished with th e existing resources o f each o f th e institutions 2) has b een accom plished betw een institutions utilizing both O C LC and R LIN and 3) has th e strong support o f both adm inistrators and librarians within th e institutions. A n u m b er o f as­ pects o f the program w ere evaluated. Overall, th e trial period was judged a success leading to im ­ plem entation on a continuing basis. T he C om m ittee on Institutional C ooperation was established in 1958 and has eleven m em ber institutions, th e “Big T e n ” Universities and the University o f Chicago (Chicago, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, M ichigan, M ichigan S tate, M in n eso ta, N orthw estern, Ohio State, P urdue and Wisconsin). T he directors of th e libraries o f these institutions m eet regularly to consider issues o f shared interest and to plan for im plem entation o f joint program s such as a cooperative microfilming project, a recip­ rocal borrowing program for faculty, and telecom - m unications/networldng developm ents. T he C om m ittee on Institutional C ooperation Resource Sharing Project began in 1987 as an experim ental program at the initiative o f public services and collection developm ent librarians. All eleven institutions agreed to participate including th e eligible health sciences libraries on six o f the campuses. T he P roject’s first year was evaluated in August 1988, with the evaluation period covering July 1987 through June 1988.1 Initially th e program o f inter- library lending included th e free loaning o f m ono­ graphs and free photocopies (with some lim ita­ tions) am ong C IC libraries. T he C IC Resource Sharing Task F orce2 had considered a n u m b er of options b u t decided on free loans and photocopies which could be accom plished w ithout additional resources. W hile th e intention was to waive interli­ brary loan fees for all items lent, theses and disser­ tations p resen ted difficulties for some m em bers. Nevertheless, in the spirit o f furthering coopera­ tion, th e institutions resolved these issues. By the end o f 1988, all C IC institutions had begun loaning dissertations to one another. Successful im p lem en tatio n involved careful planning by the public services directors and inter- library loan librarians. Planning issues included record keeping, identification o f incom ing interli­ brary loan requests as p art o f th e program , the sharing o f interlibrary loan borrowing and lending S h ap iro , Beth J. C IC Resource Sharing Project Evaluation. U npublished, M arch 1989. 2The cu rren t m em bership is Anne Beaubien, M ichigan; C arl D eal, Illinois; B eth Shapiro, Michigan State; Kathryn Deiss, N orthw estern; Carolyn Snyder, Chair, Indiana. 2 2 / C&RL News information for each library, and an evaluation process. It was agreed that lending and borrowing statistics would be complied and distributed for each month including the num ber of photocopy exposures (recording the num ber of photocopy exposures was discontinued in January 1989 at request of interlibrary loan librarians). To share information, resolve problems and discuss areas in which resource sharing should be enhanced, the CIC Resource Sharing Task Force and the CIC Interlibrary Loan Librarians met regularly during the ALA Conferences. At the rec­ ommendation of these groups and with the ap­ proval of the directors, the program was expanded. Five of the eleven CIC libraries are lending m ate­ rials within CIC that they would not have lent prior to this program, including dissertations/theses, bound serials, fragile material, and audiovisual materials. In early 1989, most CIC libraries agreed in principle to consider borrowing requests from CIC libraries for any materials in their collections, regardless of format, and to make them available at no cost if possible. Eight of the eleven CIC libraries began on August 7, 1989, sending all periodical articles by telefax to reduce turnaround time for interlibrary loan photocopies. Planning currently is underway to use CICnet, a high-speed data tele­ communications network to transmit articles by telefax th e re b y reducing telecom m unications charges. Using the statistics gathered since the beginning of the program and a questionnaire distributed to each library, the program was evaluated for the period from July 1987 through June 1988. The evaluation did not include comparisons of lending volume and patterns of pre- and post-program implementation, as adequate data were not avail­ able for the pre-program period. Lending and borrowing patterns M embership of the CIC libraries in OCLC and RLIN has been an im portant factor in use patterns. O f the eleven participating institutions, seven are prim ary users of the OCLC Interlibrary Loan Subsystem (Chicago, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue, and Wisconsin), three are primary users of the RLIN Interlibrary Loan Subsystem (Iowa, Michigan, and Northwestern), and one uses both systems heavily (Minnesota). F or evaluation purposes, Minnesota was included as an RLIN user. As might be expected, utility use significantly influenced borrowing patterns. O f the total borrowing activity of CIC libraries (from CIC and non-CIC sources) during FY 88, 18% of the activity consisted of borrowing from each other. While only 5.4% of all lending activity was to other CIC libraries. W hen this project was initiated, several directors were interested in information about which librar­ ies were net lenders/borrowers. Although this in­ formation was provided to directors as part of the evaluation, it did not have a significant impact on the decision to continue the program. Fill rate and turnaround time Fill rate and turnaround time information was BORROWING PATTERNS BY UTILITY R L IN 83% from other RLIN users 48% from other RLIN users 58% from other RLIN users 80% from other RLIN users OCLC 90% from other OCLC users 85% from other OCLC users 80% from other OCLC users 85% from other OCLC users 77% from other OCLC users 91% from other OCLC users 64% from other OCLC users Iowa Michigan Minnesota Northwestern Chicago Illinois Indiana Michigan State Ohio State Purdue Wisconsin NOTE: Michigan’s figure is low because it borrows heavily from Michigan State as part of an arrangem ent in existence prior to the start of the CIC project. M innesota’s figure is low because it uses OCLC extensively. Wisconsin’s figure is low because it has maintained a long-standing relationship with Minnesota. January 1990 / 23 compiled. W hen this project was initiated, some of the collection development and public services administrators wanted to im plem ent a priority sys­ tem for CIC requests which they believed would improve both turnaround time and fill rates. The interlibrary loan librarians objected, indicating that the effect of establishing a separate routine for CIC would be an overall deterioration of service. T h ere­ fore, the priority was placed locally on improving service overall. Clearly, that has been more suc­ cessful in some institutions than in others, and it is an area requiring further discussion and attention. The interlibrary loan librarians were asked to provide their perceptions of average turnaround time for receipt of requests as data on turnaround time was not collected. Nine indicated the range was from 1-2 weeks, while two said 2 -3 weeks. Seven indicated that turnaround time was inade­ quate. All participants agree that delivery alterna­ tives to the U.S. mail needed to be explored. The most obvious suggestions were the use of United Parcel Service (UPS) and telefacsimile equipment. As noted previously, a telefax experiment was b e ­ gun recently. The delivery system within the state of Illinois was specifically cited as a model to be explored. Workflow Eight institutions responded that the project resulted in work-flow changes—some positive and some negative. The positive changes included streamlining some procedures and reduced billing and invoicing operations. Several have had to keep statistics not required before. Financial impact Many libraries indicated that they were spend­ ing less money to borrow material, although few could provide specific figures. One library indi­ cated a savings of only $200-$400 while two re ­ ported savings of $13,000 and $14,000. It was difficult to determ ine if interlibrary lending reve­ nues had declined because each institution’s over­ all lending activity had increased. Three libraries indicated no decline, four indicated a slight d e­ cline, and four indicated declines o f $4,000- $12,000. Conclusion In conclusion, this project was judged to be worthwhile both in term s of improving resource sharing and in terms of communication among counterpart groups (interlibrary loan, collection development, public services) in CIC institutions by ILL librarians, public services, collection devel­ opm ent librarians and directors. A num ber of enhancem ents have been suggested, including a faster delivery/turnaround time, participation by all libraries on a particular campus, and the use of technological developments such as the possible use of C IC N et instead of regular telephone voice lines for telefacsimile transmission. As the project proceeds, ways to improve performance and speed delivery will continue to be discussed and im ple­ mented. ■ ■ Letters Physics journals To the Editor: I would like to point out an apparent error in Katharine Clark and William Kinyon’s article, “The Interdisciplinary Use of Physics Journals,” F e b ru ­ ary 1989, pp. 145-50. In Table 3 (coverage of 36 physics journals by 8 major indexes), Chemical Abstracts is shown as not covering a num ber of titles. Searching the CAS Online file’s source field (/so) with journal abbreviations and limiting re ­ trieval to publications dated 1983-1985 gives the following: Classical & Q uantum G ravity (57 a rtic le s ), N u evo C im e n to (1,493 a rtic le s ), Zeitschrift f ü r Physik— B (407 articles). Please also note that strictly speaking CAS does not cover English translations of foreign-language journals. This, because as a m atter of policy they abstract the foreign-language publication. Your readers will be interested in the following figures (for 1983-1985): Pisma Zh Eksp Teor Fiz (]ETP Letters) 933 articles, Tad Fiz (Soviet J Nucl Phys) (1,402 letters), Fiz Elem Chastits Yad (Sov J Part Nucl) (82 articles), and Zh Eksp Teor Fiz (Sov Phys—JETP) (949 articles). Those results argue very strongly for searching CAS Online for “physics” questions. At Caltech, CAS Online is searched routinely for virtually all science and engineering questions (except for pure mathematics), in conjunction with searches in other databases (such as Inspec, Biosis, Medline, or the SCI).—Dana L. Roth, Head, Science & Engi­ neering Libraries, California Institute o f Technol­ ogy, Pasadena. ■ ■