4.2.1 Total Volume of Requests
As with the ILL request data, Document Delivery request data was examined across the same three time periods of August 1 through December 1 of 2017, 2018, 2019. For these three fall semesters, the changes in total number of requests could not be attributed to the launch of TRLN Discovery. Fall 2017 experienced the lowest number of requests of the three time periods with 14,894 total requests. Fall 2018 and 2019
experienced a greater number of requests with 16,815 in 2018 and 16,158 in 2019. This change in the total request volume was not correlated with changes to the discovery layer from the UNC Endeca catalog to the local version of TRLN Discovery.
2017 % 2018 % 2019 % LoanRequest 250 2 260 2 260 2 ArticleRequest 84 1 118 1 91 1 ThesisRequest 0 0 10 0 9 0 GenericRequestUNCLoan 14182 95 15999 95 15146 94 GenericRequestUNCArticle 47 0 40 0 62 0 GenericRequestTRLNLoan 39 0 43 0 289 2 GenericRequestTRLNArticle 0 0 0 0 0 0 GenericRequestBLULoan 245 2 325 2 267 2 GenericRequestBLUArticle 20 0 5 0 4 0 Blank 27 0 15 0 30 0
Total: 14894 Total: 16815 Total: 16158 Looking only at the four ways for users to submit loan requests (LoanRequest, GenericRequestUNCLoan, GenericRequestTRLNLoan, and GenericRequestBLULoan) across this three-year period, three of these four either remain relatively consistent or change relative the number of requests overall. The only exception was the requests originating from the consortium catalog which increased from 39 in fall 2017 and 43 in fall 2018 to 289 in fall 2019 following the release of TRLN Discovery. This is the only category of these requests that increased in 2019 compared to both fall 2017 and fall 2018. The 289 requests in 2019 were a 572.09% increase compared to 2017 and a 641.03% increase compared to 2018.
This increase in requests coming from a consortium search indicates that patrons were using this option in their searches for local items. Although the users were searching for a material that is owned by their host institution and therefore did not need a
consortium search to locate it, this increase following the release of TRLN Discovery meant that some patrons use this feature while searching for all materials, as opposed to only using it when the material cannot be found locally. This means that some patrons were likely using the consortium search option when constructing their search as opposed to after evaluating the first set of results.
This increase in Document Delivery requests coming from a consortium search did not indicate a major change to the way most patrons search for materials when using the Document Delivery services. The overwhelming majority of patrons used local holdings searches to place their requests for both the older UNC Endeca catalog and TRLN Discovery. In fall 2017, 95% of requests came from the UNC Endeca catalog and fall 2018 had 95%. Following the release of TRLN Discovery, the UNC version of this catalog had 94% of requests coming from a local holdings search using the new catalog.
This small decrease in the percent of requests coming from a local holdings search can be attributed to the comparable increase in searches from a consortium search after the launch of TRLN Discovery.
4.2.2 User Data
Across the three time periods analyzed, the number of unique users increased from 2731 in 2017 to 3095 in 2018 to 3472 in 2019. This increase in unique users did not follow the same trend of total requests. This resulted in a decrease of requests per user from 5.45 in 2017 to 5.43 in 2018 to 4.65 in 2019. When comparing fall 2017 to fall 2019, there was a 14.67% decrease in requests per user. This could have been the result of users generally placing less requests or that the new users are less likely to frequently use the service, resulting in a decrease of requests per user.
Document delivery requests were also analyzed according to user group. As with ILL requests, users were grouped into one of five categories: faculty, staff, graduate, undergraduate, and Distance Education. Only 4 Distance Education requests were placed during the three time periods, with all 4 coming in 2019. For this reason, requests by Distance Education users were omitted from analysis, but remained in total figures.
2017 % 2018 % 2019 % Total Users 2731 --- 3095 --- 3472 --- Requests 14894 --- 16815 --- 16158 --- Requests/User 5.45 --- 5.43 --- 4.65 --- Faculty 449 16 465 15 457 13 Requests 2890 19 3357 20 2983 18 Requests/User 6.44 --- 7.22 --- 6.53 --- Staff 260 10 293 9 317 9 Requests 1134 8 1140 7 1160 7 Requests/User 4.36 --- 3.89 --- 3.66 --- Graduates 935 34 952 31 1036 30 Requests 7632 51 7888 47 7655 47 Requests/User 8.16 --- 8.29 --- 7.39 --- Undergraduates 1086 40 1384 45 1659 48 Requests 3238 22 4430 26 4356 27 Requests/User 2.98 --- 3.20 --- 2.63 ---
The overall trends of increasing number of unique users and decreasing number of requests per user were generally seen across all user groups. All major groups increased in user count between fall 2017 and fall 2019. Faculty users increased from 449 to 457 (1.68% increase), staff from 260 to 317 (21.92% increase), graduate students from 935 to 1036 (10.80% increase), and undergraduate students from 1086 to 1659 (52.76%
increase). This increase in undergraduate student use of these services reflected a similar increase in undergraduate students using ILL services across the three time periods. While the number of users increased across all groups, the number of requests per user decreased for all groups except faculty. For faculty it increased marginally from 6.44 to 6.53 (1.41% increase). For staff it decreased from 4.36 to 3.66 (16.1% decrease), for graduate students from 8.16 to 7.39 (9.48% decrease), and for undergraduate students from 3.98 to 2.63 (11.94% decrease).
The changes to number of users and requests per user across these user groups does not indicate any impact of TRLN Discovery on willingness to use these services. While more patrons used the service throughout the three observed timeframes, this change cannot be directly attributed to changes in the catalog. For most user groups, the observed increase in users can be attributed to a larger trend of more patrons using Document Delivery services according to these three time periods analyzed.
There were some changes within these user groups that can be attributed to changes in consortium resource discovery. Looking at the way patrons placed requests within each user group, the overall trend of increased use of consortium searches to place requests was observed. Each user group had a substantial increase in the number and percent of requests coming from a consortium search. Each of these values far surpassed the previous time periods’ values for request volume and as percent of requests. This reflects the overall trend of the combined user groups.
However, these types of requests never formed a substantial amount of the overall request volume. For each observed time period, consortium searches never exceeded 3.0% of the overall searches for any user group, even after the release of TRLN
Discovery. In comparison, local holdings searches through both UNC Endeca catalog and the UNC version of TRLN Discovery usually remained above 90% of requests, with the lowest observed being for staff requests for fall 2019 at 90% and the highest observed being faculty requests 96% for fall 2017. For these users, a local holdings search was all that was needed to locate the item and place a request.
Discussion
Both ILL and Document Delivery data indicated no significant correlation between the release of TRLN Discovery and the total number of requests. Similarly, while the total number of users also increased for both ILL and Document Delivery across the three time periods analyzed, the increase could not be attributed to the release of TRLN Discovery. These two measures indicate that the user experience changes and consortium search capabilities have not created increased interest in consortium resource sharing and related services, such as Document Delivery for locally owned materials. However, as TRLN Discovery has only been used for one full semester at UNC, this might change as users become accustomed to the interface and discover new features.
One area where TRLN Discovery had an impact was how users placed requests. These changes occurred for both ILL and Document Delivery requests and for all major user groups for each request type. For ILL requests, the release of TRLN Discovery resulted in a larger percent of requests coming from a consortium search. In fall 2019 these requests accounted for 48% of the total, which is 11 percentage points greater than fall 2017 and 12 percentage points greater than fall 2018. In terms of the number of requests, the 718 of the 1494 total requests in fall 2019 were a 49.58% increase from the previous year and a 30.78% increase compared to two years prior. This increase was observed across all major user groups as well.
This observed change to user search behavior resulting from TRLN Discovery has some importance. It means that users at the time of placing the request had more
available information to them about the material they were requesting. If a user is placing the request through the older UNC Endeca catalog or through their ILL user account without performing a consortium search then they are not aware that the book is available for direct consortium borrowing, unless they are using OCLC WorldCat which would note that the resource is located at a nearby university. Knowing that the material they are requesting is available nearby can benefit users. Requests filled by TRLN schools
through TRLN Direct usually have a much quicker fulfillment time compared to ILL requests to non-member libraries. Knowing that the request can be filled by a consortium member can mean the user can expect the material in a matter of days compared to maybe even weeks for some materials to be delivered.
A similar trend in user search behavior was found in the Document Delivery request data. The release of TRLN Direct was correlated with a sharp increase in the number of requests coming from a consortium search. Fall 2017 had 39 requests from consortium searches and fall 2018 followed with 43. Upon the release of TRLN Direct the number increased to 289. This represented a 641.03% increase from fall 2017 and a 572.09% increase from fall 2018. This indicates that the consortium search features are having some impact on how users search the catalog for both local holdings and
consortium owned resources. With these Document Delivery requests, a user who performs a search with accurate search terms would not have to use the consortium search facet because the material is available locally. However, some users appear to be using the consortium search facet before being sure that an item is not available locally.
For these users, consortium search is an integral part of the search process, as opposed to being an option used only when a material is not available in local holdings.
This increase in Document Delivery requests originating from consortium searches poses a small problem for interlibrary loan staff as these requests are
automatically routed to the interlibrary loan department ILLiad queues, as opposed to Document Delivery queues. Given that there were only 289 of these requests over the 122-day period in fall 2019 (2.37 requests per day) this increase in incorrect routing is not substantial enough to detract from department productivity, but is worth noting as an unintended result of the change in discovery layers and interlibrary loan integration.
This research has limitations that must be accounted for. This study was limited by sample size, as only three semesters of data could be analyzed. This was because TRLN Discovery was released in summer 2019, meaning that by winter 2020 only the previous semester’s requests could be analyzed. Additionally, TRLN Direct launched in summer 2017. Data from before that date could not be used without introducing
additional variables. As a result of this limited sample size (n=3), statistical tests could not be performed. Therefore, the results and limited calculations that were performed should be interpreted as preliminary results about a specific context. As TRLN Discovery continues to be used and more users become accustomed to the new interface, more request data should be analyzed.
Despite these limitations imposed by the scope of this project and availability of data, these findings underscore critical aspects of interlibrary services. Motivations to use interlibrary services can be understood as push (a need to access a resource) and pull (reasons for ILL to be the solution). For a patron to use ILL, they have to need a material
that is not available in local holdings. However, many non-users of ILL feel that their information needs are being met without using the service (Frank & Bothmann, 2008; Porat & Fine, 2009). For large academic libraries, like UNC Chapel Hill, patrons are more likely to feel that their local collections are adequate (Henderson, 2000; Porat and Shoham, 2004). Therefore, a significant portion of library users may not feel inclined to place ILL requests, regardless of their knowledge of the service.
The new catalog cannot directly address users’ perceptions about their need for ILL, but it can serve as a pull factor by increasing visibility of ILL, providing users with more information about resources that can be requested, and potentially a better overall user experience. For current users, these changes seem to have impacted the way they use ILL, which can be seen as promising results. While shared discovery alone will not break down all distinctions between local and consortium owned collections, these results provide evidence that shared discovery and consortium search using a facet are features that many ILL users were interested in and can be considered an improvement to ILL services.
References
Bailey-Hainer, B., Beaubien, A., Posner, B., & Simpson, E. (2014). Rethinking library resource sharing: New models for collaboration. Interlending & Document Supply, 42(1), 7–12.
Bennett, M. J. (2007). OPAC design enhancements and their effects on circulation and resource sharing within the library consortium environment. Information Technology and Libraries, 26(1), 36-46.
Breeding, M. (2007). Introduction. Library Technology Reports, 43(4), 5-14
Bryant, S., & Ye, G. (2015). From discovery to delivery: Successful systems integration. Technical Services Quarterly, 32(4), 383-389.
Burk, R. (2006). Self-Service Interlibrary Loan. The Reference Librarian, 45(93), 73–82. Duy, J. C., & Larivière, V. (2013). An Analysis of Direct Reciprocal Borrowing Among
Québec University Libraries. Journal of Access Services, 10(2), 102–119.
Fawley, N., & Krysak, N. (2012). Information literacy opportunities within the discovery tool environment. College & undergraduate libraries, 19(2-4), 207-214.
Florida State University Libraries. (2019, March 22). Elsevier Subscription Changes. Retrieved from https://www.lib.fsu.edu/elsevier-changes
Frank, P. P., & Bothmann, R. L. (2008). Assessing undergraduate interlibrary loan use. Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery & Electronic Reserve, 18(1), 33-48.
Frazier, K. (2001). The librarians' dilemma: Contemplating the costs of the "big deal". D- Lib Magazine, 7(3).
Gatten, J. N., & Sanville, T. (2004). An orderly retreat from the big deal: Is it possible for consortia? D-Lib Magazine, 10(10).
Gibbs, N. J. (2005). Walking away from the 'big deal': consequences and achievements. Serials, 18(2).
Griffiths, J. R., & Brophy, P. (2005). Student Searching Behavior and the Web: Use of Academic Resources and Google. Trends, 53(4), 539.
Henderson, A. (2000). The library collection failure quotient: the ratio of interlibrary borrowing to collection size. The Journal of academic librarianship, 26(3), 159- 170.
Kopp, J. J. (1998). Library consortia and information technology: the past, the present, the promise. Information technology and libraries, 17(1), 7-12.
Le, B. P. (2015). Academic library leadership in the digital age. Library Management, 36(4/5), 300-314.
McCaslin, D. (2010). What are the Expectations of Interlibrary Loan and Electronic Reserves During an Economic Crisis? Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery & Electronic Reserve, 20(4), 227–231.
McHone-Chase, S. M. (2010). Examining Change Within Interlibrary Loan. Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery & Electronic Reserve, 20(3), 201–206. Mizrachi, D. (2010). Undergraduates’ academic information and library behaviors:
Preliminary results. Reference Services Review, 38(4), 571–580.
Murray, P. (2008), “Discovery tools and OPAC”, PowerPoint presentation at NISO Forum on Next Generation Discovery Tools: New Tools, Aging Standards, available at: https://dltj.org/article/discovery-layer-video-tour/ (accessed 8 October 2019)
Mussell, J., & Croft, R. (2013). Discovery Layers and the Distance Student: Online Search Habits of Students. Journal of Library & Information Services in Distance Learning, 7(1–2), 18–39.
Nabe, J., & Fowler, D. C. (2015). Leaving the “Big Deal” … five years later. The Serials Librarian, 69(1), 20-28.
Panitch, J.M., & Michalak, S. (2005). The serials crisis [White paper]. UNC-Chapel Hill Scholarly Communications Convocation.
Porat, L., & Fine, S. (2009). Factors and characteristics of interlibrary loan use and non- use. Interlending & Document Supply, 37(1), 20-27.
Porat, L., & Shoham, S. (2004), Israeli college interlibrary loan practices: implications for Israeli universities,Interlending & Document Supply, 32(4), 219‐26.
Scott, R. E. & Barton, G. (2018). Promoting Interlibrary Loan in the Traditional Catalog and Discovery Layer: Two Pilot Projects. Library Resources & Technical
Services, 62(2), 74–79.
“To the Editor”. (2001). D-Lib Magazine, 7(4).
Triangle Research Libraries Network. (2019a). TRLN Discovery. Retrieved from https://trln.org/activities/trln-discovery/
Triangle Research Libraries Network. (2019b, February 4). TRLN Launches New Shared Index and Discovery Service [News Release]. Retrieved from
https://www.trln.org/2019/01/trln-launches-new-shared-index-and-discovery- service/
Triangle Research Libraries Network. (n.d.). TRLN Program Plan, 2029 – 2021. Retrieved from https://trln.org/trln-program-plan-2019-2021/
University of California Office of Scholarly Communication. (2019, July 10). UC and Elsevier: Overview. Retrieved from https://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/open- access-at-uc/publisher-negotiations/uc-and-elsevier/
Blouin, B., & Westbrooks, E. (2019, April 9). Upcoming Elsevier Cancellations.
Retrieved from https://library.unc.edu/2020/04/upcoming-elsevier-cancellations/ Westbrooks, E. (2019, March 20). Statement from University Librarian Elaine L.
Westbrooks on the UC System’s Termination of Elsevier Subscriptions. Retrieved from https://library.unc.edu/2019/03/statement-uc-elsevier/
Yang, S. Q., & Wagner, K. (2010). Evaluating and comparing discovery tools: how close are we towards next generation catalog?. Library hi tech, 28(4), 690-709.