Letters to the Editor

Interlending & Document Supply

ISSN: 0264-1615

Article publication date: 1 December 2002

38

Citation

Sloan, B. (2002), "Letters to the Editor", Interlending & Document Supply, Vol. 30 No. 4. https://doi.org/10.1108/ilds.2002.12230daf.004

Publisher

:

Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2002, MCB UP Limited


Letters to the Editor

Dear Sir,

I am writing to express some concerns about a paper in Interlending & Document Supply:

  • Weech, T.L. (2002), "Back to the future – when resource sharing seemed to work: the rise and fall of a successful consortial resource sharing network", Interlending & Document Supply, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 80-6.

The abstract to the paper notes:

In the mid-1990s, financial and technical developments led to the dissolving of the consortium and the realignment of some of its major academic library members with other academic libraries outside the original group. Thus what was once considered a model for the future of multi-type library consortia became a dysfunctional and non-operative organisation.

To paraphrase Mark Twain, the rumors of the dissolution of resource sharing in Illinois have been greatly exaggerated. We are still here, and we are still lending. The following concerns are based on my 25 years of experience working with library resource sharing in Illinois. The items listed below are very roughly in the order in which they appear in the paper, and do not necessarily reflect any priority order.

The major point of the paper is that there was a resource sharing consortium in Illinois that operated for 15 years and is now "dysfunctional and non-operative" (pp. 80, 82).

I am not aware of any library resource sharing consortium "dissolving" in Illinois. ILLINET is still ILLINET. ILCSO is still ILCSO (and its catalog ILLINET Online is still handling hundreds of thousands of resource sharing transactions each year). The regional library systems are still functioning. I am not aware of any libraries leaving consortia at any major level. All the major consortia are still operating (not "non-operative" as the paper suggests) and are fully functional (not "dysfunctional" as the paper suggests). Which consortium is the author referring to?

The paper lists the "players" in libraries in Illinois as:

  • The Illinois Library Association.

  • The Illinois State Library.

  • The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

  • The "big ten" Committee on Institutional Co-operation (CIC) Centre for Library Initiatives.

I question the inclusion of the CIC as a "player" in Illinois libraries, at least at the level of organizations like the Illinois Library Association or the Illinois State Library. I have received confirmation from CIC staff that the CIC Center for Library Initiatives has no intention of becoming a major "player" in Illinois academic librarianship overall.

I also question the omission of several major "players" from the list:

  • The Illinois Board of Higher Education (IBHE) is mentioned nowhere in the paper, and yet the IBHE has played a major role in the development of library resource sharing in Illinois. From FY 1978 through FY 2003, the IBHE invested $70.6 million in the development of ILLINET Online, still a major resource sharing system in the Illinois library arena. Additionally, two former IBHE staff members (Dr Richard D. Wagner, executive director; and Dr Robert A. Wallhaus, deputy director) are the only two non-librarians to have received the Illinois Library Association's prestigeous Hugh Atkinson Award, which is given for "sustained activity and contributions having a lasting impact on librarianship". Dr Wallhaus received the award in 1993, and Dr Wagner received it in 1997.

  • The Illinois Library Computer Systems Organization (ILCSO). While the paper mentions ILCSO several times, I believe the organization should also be listed as a major "player" in Illinois libraries. ILCSO began its involvement in automated resource sharing in 1980, with the Statewide Library Computer System (LCS), which became ILLINET Online in 1988. The organization, through LCS and ILLINET Online, has recorded more than 8 million interlibrary resource sharing transactions since 1980, including hundreds of thousands of transactions involving libraries other than academic libraries. See the following for lots of information on ILCSO: www.ilcso.uiuc.edu.

  • The 12 Illinois regional library systems. While the paper mentions the library systems several times in the paper, it underestimates their collective role as a major player in Illinois libraries. See: www.ilsdo.org/ for examples.

On p. 82 the author notes:

Among the academic libraries participating in the LCS catalogue, later to be called IO (for ILLINET Online), there was a state-supported programme of co-operative purchase of little used items, such as expensive microform collections or other little-used reference materials that no more than one library need hold to satisfy user needs in the state. These programmes flourished from the 1980s into the early 1990s.

The statement "these programmes flourished from the 1980s into the early 1990s" seems to indicate the programs do not exist any more. But the Illinois Cooperative Collection Management Program (CCMP) still exists, and receives $250,000 annually from the Illinois Board of Higher Education. This past October the CCMP issued its regular annual call to CCMP member institutions for proposals for funds to support "collaborative collections projects" for FY 2003 (see the following for more info on the CCMP: http://libws66.lib.niu.edu/ccm/)

On p. 82 the author says:

The public and school libraries were left without the major holdings of the premier academic and special libraries in the consortium,

and …

… the resource-sharing policies changed as new agreements developed with other consortia.

There are a number of "premier" academic/research libraries in ILLINET Online (e.g. three ARL libraries, the Illinois State Library, and several other large state university libraries) and all ILCSO libraries still make their holdings available to public and school libraries.

The second quote seems to imply that the academic libraries changed their resource sharing policies to the detriment of public and school libraries. Elsewhere (p. 84) it says "LCS existed from 1978 to 1998 – 20 years of successful resource sharing." Comparing ILCSO's LCS interlibrary circulation data from a year before 1998 (FY 1995) with ILCSO's DRA interlibrary circulation for a year subsequent to 1998 (FY 2001) shows that it simply is not the case that public and school libraries were negatively affected by these supposed policy changes. In FY 1995, under LCS, non-ILCSO libraries accounted for 18.08 percent of the LCS interlibrary circulation activity. In FY 2001, under DRA, borrowing by non-ILCSO libraries was proportionately higher (20.43 percent) than it had been in FY 1995 (18.08 percent). If non-ILCSO libraries had been negatively affected by some policy change, one would expect their relative share of ILCSO interlibrary borrowing to decrease, rather than to be 2.35 percentage points higher.

On pp. 82-83 the paper notes:

The first crack in the resource-sharing wall occurred when some special libraries that had entered the consortium with some concerns withdrew their support for interlibrary loan and document delivery. The reasons given included the perception that there was a draining of specialised resources from their collections, which they needed to meet their mission to their primary clientele. The second reason was economic. State funding for the co-operative systems and the capstone resource and reference centres was cut when the state's economy turned in a downward direction. As a result, delivery time was delayed as staff were eliminated as part of the cuts.

Regarding the first "crack in the resource-sharing wall" … this does not sound familiar to me. Which special libraries? Once again, which consortium? We do not have special libraries in ILCSO (unless one counts the Illinois State Library, and the ISL is a staunch supporter of resource sharing). If the paper is referring to ILLINET, members must abide by the state's ILL code (see: www.cyberdriveillinois.com/library/ill_code.html), and do not have the option of "withdrawing support for ILL or document delivery". Same with members of the regional library systems.

Regarding the "second reason", these cuts were not applied across the board by the individual library systems, e.g. system support for reference services was generally cut out of library systems in its entirety, to preserve other higher priority services. This cut in library systems funding lasted only one year. In the paragraph preceding the above quote, the paper indicates that:

… in the mid-1990s, financial and technical developments led to the dissolving of the resource sharing consortium.

In the exact middle of the 1990s (FY 1995), library systems funding was at about the same level as in FY 1990. In the latter part of the decade (FY 1999 and FY 2000) library systems funding was higher than it had been at the beginning of the decade, in FY 1990 (see: www.ilsdo.org/publications/funding-chart.html). The research and reference (R&R) centers (and not "resource and reference" as the paper notes) are another story. The R&R program was not playing a major role in Illinois resource sharing in the mid-1990s, as the paper seems to suggest. In the late 1980s, as automated resource sharing began to kick into full gear (e.g. with ILLINET Online), the Illinois State Library began shifting R&R funds into other programs. Between FY 1988 and FY 1996, the Illinois State Library diverted $2.8 million from the R&R center program to assist in the expansion and enhancement of ILLINET Online (see: www.lis.uiuc.edu/~b-sloan/fiscal.htm).

On p. 83 the paper notes:

perhaps the most devastating blow to the consortium was the re-alignment of some of the major academic library members of the consortium with other academic libraries outside the original consortium group.

Is this a reference to CIC? If so, there was no "realignment" that took place. The four Illinois-based CIC members have always been very active in CIC activities. There was no "devastating blow" associated with major academic libraries shifting allegiance. Their commitment to CIC (and to resource sharing in Illinois) after the mid-1990s was pretty much the same as it was before the mid-1990s. I can think of no other devastating blows in the mid 1990s.

On p. 83 the paper states:

… the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, the flagship university of the state university system and the cornerstone of the interlibrary loan and resource-sharing network in Illinois, was told that if it wished to continue as an active participant in the prestigious CIC libraries consortium it must adopt a Z39.50 compatible online catalogue system.

While there is a small kernel of truth here, this statement exaggerates the point. UIUC could not participate in the Virtual Electronic Library (VEL) project without having a Z39.50-compatible system. But the CIC libraries consortium is more than just the VEL project. UIUC was not told it could not participate in CIC libraries' programs. It just could not participate in VEL without Z39.50 compatibility. And UIUC did find a workaround for that VEL requirement by loading their catalog records into the NOTIS system at the University of Illinois at Chicago, which did support Z39.50.

On p. 84 the paper notes:

This commitment to the academic and research libraries in the CIC took the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign library, which had played a central role in the state-wide library resource-sharing network in Illinois, away from its focus on the multi-type resource sharing network to a focus on academic library resource sharing and essentially left a huge gap in the support of what had been a very effective multi-type effort.

This is simply not true. Many UIUC Library staff members are involved in ILCSO organizational activities, promoting resource sharing in Illinois. When it comes to ILLINET Online resource sharing with non-ILCSO libraries (which includes public libraries, school libraries, etc.), UIUC led the way with 9,937 lending transactions during FY 2001 (the latest year for which I have data). This is 4,000 resource sharing transactions more than the next largest ILCSO lender to non-ILCSO libraries (see: www.ilcso.uiuc.edu/Web/About/ar2001.pdf, pages 35-37).

On p. 84 the paper notes:

Direct borrowing has been tabled as the three different systems are reconciled and new protocols worked out.

That is not true for ILLINET Online. Direct borrowing is still in effect, even for the non-ILCSO libraries. In fact, ILCSO devised a plan to make sure that non-ILCSO libraries could continue to request items via DRA. See the seventh paragraph on p. 42 of the following for more information: www.ilcso.uiuc.edu/Web/About/ar9899.pdf. Individual users can still request materials directly.

Figure 1, on p. 85, states (referring to the past – 1978-1998):

… a multitype network … with rapid identification and delivery of materials at no direct cost to the user

and … (referring to the present – 2001):

Three separate online catalogue systems with most requests handled by ILL, and with unpredictable delivery and some costs to local library which may be passed on to user.

Figure 1 suggests some fundamental change in policies and infrastructure for interlibrary delivery between 1998 and 2001 that would result in a shift from "rapid … delivery" to "unpredictable delivery". No such changes took place within the Illinois delivery infrastructure, and Illinois' statewide delivery still serves all types of libraries and operates now pretty much as it had in 1998. With CIC, the delivery is anything but "unpredictable". CIC's agreement with their commercial courier service requires a two-day maximum turnaround time.

Figure 1 also suggests some fundamental change that resulted in a shift from delivery "at no direct cost to the user" to "some costs to local library which may be passed on to user". Within Illinois, the ILLINET ILL Code still prohibits charging the borrowing library for most ILL transactions, with no fundamental changes. I am not aware of any ILCSO library passing along charges to the user for intra-Illinois loans. In short, nothing significant has changed regarding ILL charges to end users since 1998. If a library charges end users for ILL now, they probably also did it in 1998 and before. There are no new policies that I am aware of that affect this.

Figure 1 lists the Virtual Illinois Catalog (VIC), the CIC's VEL, ILLINET Online, but completely overlooks the automated resource sharing systems of the 12 regional library systems. These systems, called LLSAPs (for Local Library System Automation Projects), have been in operation for at least 15 years, and account for a substantial amount of interlibrary resource sharing activity in Illinois (see: www.ilsdo.org/publications/fact-sheet.html).

One other thing about Figure 1. In describing the "present" (i.e. 2001) Figure 1 lists VIC as having the holdings of 500 public libraries. It is incorrect to say that VIC is limited to the holdings of public libraries, or to the holdings of public libraries and school libraries. There are also academic libraries and special libraries that participate in VIC (see: www.vic.lib.il.us/libraries.html).

Thanks very much for considering these concerns,

Bernie Sloan Senior Library Information Systems Consultant, University of Illinois Office for Planning and Budgeting, 338 Henry Administration Building, 506 S. Wright Street, Urbana, IL 61801, USA

Author's response to Mr Sloan's concerns about the paper

  • "Back to the future – when resource sharing seemed to work: the rise and fall of a successful consortial resource sharing network", Interlending & Document Supply, Vol. 30 No. 2, 2002, pp. 80-6.

In response to Mr Sloan's letter of concerns, my paper was not intended to be an exhaustive or detailed history or evaluation of resource sharing in Illinois, but an expression of concern over the direction that appears to have been taken in recent years in the implementation of a statewide resource sharing consortium in Illinois. The resource sharing consortium I was referring to in the paper was the Illinois Library Information Network (ILLINET). I used the term "consortium" instead of "network" in my paper because I was writing for an international audience. In my experience, "consortium" more appropriately represents to the international reader what ILLINET is about as a resource sharing entity.

The opinions expressed in my paper were based on my experiences as a user, as well as a participant in various committees and studies, over a period extending from 1964 to 2001. It was my understanding that one of the goals of ILLINET was a unified and central statewide database of resources in Illinois libraries that would facilitate resource sharing among the nearly 4,000 individual libraries that at one time were said to be members of ILLINET. It was also my assumption that the original database, "ILLINET Online", adopted that name when it evolved from the University of Illinois' online library circulation system, because it intended to become the statewide database that would be necessary if comprehensive resource sharing would be achieved.

It is this broad background of the statewide cooperation and resource sharing involving libraries of all types that influenced my perception of who the major players in Illinois were. Both the Illinois Board of Higher Education (IBHE) and the Illinois Library Computer Systems Organization (ILCSO) were and are important players in Illinois libraries. Had I been writing a detailed history of ILLINET and resource sharing in Illinois, they, along with others, would have been included. My list of major players does represent what I consider to be the most important players in the events I outline in my paper.

Part of the differences in perception that Mr Sloan and I may have regarding the current status of resource sharing in Illinois may lie in the different meanings attached to the term ILLINET. To me and many who have worked with ILLINET since its inception in 1965, the term stands for the 2,500 to 3,900 libraries in Illinois (the number varies with the source and year) that were eligible to participate in statewide resource sharing. To others, it may refer to the OCLC database maintained for Illinois libraries. For still others, it may refer to the database that lists the holdings of fewer than 50 libraries that participate in ILLINET Online. The resource sharing group known as ILLINET is the focus of my paper, although since I was trying to avoid the complex terminology in Illinois librarianship when writing for an international audience, I referred to it broadly as a "resource sharing consortium".

I do not challenge Mr Sloan's data that indicate that resource sharing among different types of libraries still takes place in Illinois. The point of my argument is that the desirability of a single statewide catalog has apparently been abandoned in favor of multiple catalogs that will provide the access to library resources in the state.

As to whether ILLINET as a resource sharing consortium was "dysfunctional" and "non-operative" when I wrote my paper in 2001, I note the following:

  1. 1.

    As a user, having access to a reliable and easy to use database of resources is essential to a functioning resource sharing consortium. I found the online catalog search system, ILLINET Online, to be so dysfunctional by 2001 that I often resorted to using other online sources to locate material held by Illinois libraries. Many of my students at my university commented that they regularly avoided ILLINET Online and used other sources because of problems with its functionality. While ILLINET Online was not the only tool that provided access to the resources of Illinois libraries, to have to resort to multiple tools to determine available resources was often less than functional for the user.

  2. 2.

    In less than three years after the 1998 implementation of the "new ILLINET Online", the decision was made by the sponsoring organizations to abandon the system and put out a call for new proposals to vendors. I think this strongly suggests that I was not the only one who found the catalog supporting the ILLINET resource sharing system to be dysfunctional.

  3. 3.

    Some time within the past two years, the statewide directory of ILLINET members was discontinued. When searching the Web for references to ILLINET membership, one either retrieves references to ILLINET prior to 2001 or dead links. I believe it is reasonable to consider an organization involved in resource sharing that once was listed as having nearly 4,000 members to be "non-operative" when all references to membership disappear and most links found refer to an online catalog representing a resource sharing system of fewer than 50 libraries. While there are organizations in Illinois (ILSCO, the 12 library systems, etc.) that enable resource sharing, the overall concept of a unified statewide resource sharing network once represented by ILLINET seems to have disappeared. As one who remembers ILLINET as a strong and guiding force in Illinois multitype library cooperation and resource sharing efforts, it seems to have become invisible, if not inoperative.

I have always considered Illinois to be a leader in multitype library resource sharing and, as expressed in the paper, I hope it will continue to be that in the future. There are many dedicated people in Illinois working to make library cooperation and resource sharing a success. I consider Mr Sloan to be one of these people. But I am concerned that we seem to have abandoned our original idea of a unified resource sharing database. Perhaps it is not technically possible to achieve. Perhaps it is not economically feasible to sponsor such a program. But as a user, when I go to my library's gateway, I am confronted with a choice of nine on-campus library catalogs (one general campus catalog and eight specialized catalogs), plus six off campus catalogs (http://web.library.uiuc.edu/resource/librarycatalogs.html#offcat). I do use some of these catalogs that are not limited to Illinois holdings, such as CIC/VEL and WorldCat, to identify resources in Illinois. But the fact that we need these many catalogs to support Illinois resource sharing seems a long way from the once desired goal of a statewide catalog of Illinois library holdings. I know some will suggest that I and others were dreaming back in the 1970s and 1980s when the desirability of a unified catalog was discussed, but as in the reference in the paper to "Back to the future", sometimes it takes dreamers to make changes for the better.

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to Mr Sloan's letter.

Terry L. Weech

Related articles