Mail List Discussion -- Digital ILL, Why Give It Away, When They Can Buy It?

Karen M. Drabenstott
Associate Professor
School of Information
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1092 USA
Voice: (734) 763-3581
Fax: (734) 764-2475
karen.drabenstott@umich.edu

I have high hopes that we can hold a new discussion without technical problems!

Let us now begin a discussion of "Digital ILL, Why Give It Away, When They Can Buy It?" Paul Gherman is our guest editor for this topic. Paul serves as the university librarian at Vanderbilt University. Before coming to Vanderbilt, he served as director at Kenyon College Library and at the Virginia Tech Library. He was also instrumental in establishing the Blacksburg Electronic Village; an early experiment in community based networks. Paul's interests are in teaching and learning and electronic publishing.

Please join us for "Digital ILL, Why Give It Away, When They Can Buy It?"

Paul M. Gherman
University Librarian
611B General Library
419 21st Avenue
South Vanderbilt University
Nashville, TN 37240
Voice: (615) 322-7120
Fax: (615) 343-8279
gherman@library.vanderbilt.edu

I am pleased to lead our discussion for the next two weeks, and I hope the following statement will stimulate you to join in to a lively discussion of one of the basic values of our profession: that of sharing.

We have a strong tradition of freely (or almost freely) sharing books and journal articles with other libraries in need of specific information with some expectation that when we are in need the favor will be returned. There has been some concern with how to equalize the imbalance between the information rich and information poor ( net lenders vs. net borrowers), but for the most part our value of getting information to the reader, no matter whose reader, overrides our economic sense of self-preservation. Generally, net lenders continue to lend even thought they know the imbalance will never be righted, partially because few of us understand or care to understand the true cost of interlibrary loan. Only recently has ARL conducted extensive investigations to understand the true and comparative costs of interlibrary loan. As we understand the true cost, will we still prefer to offer these services because they are inherently good and are consistent with our basic values? And once we do understand the true cost of Interlibrary loan, will commercial document delivery become a cost effective alternative to interlibrary loan?

Increasingly, license agreements prohibit us from sharing information at no matter what the cost. And it would seem as licensing of information grows, greater portions of information will be removed from the realm of that which can be loaned via interlibrary loan. We are moving toward a time when information will no longer be a sunk-cost or stored capital, but an expendable resource, and interlibrary loans will only be for those items we acquired at an earlier time when information was a capital investment.

Early indications are that we are entering a time of purchasing "information by the drink" which engenders fear in most of us. Not only because we may not be able to control our budget because we cannot control demand, but because it threatens the principle of "fair-use". But I believe the time will inevitably arrive when we will embrace "information-by-the-drink" as a means of offering comprehensive information to our users in the most cost effective way. Buying just what they want seems far more effective than buying what they might want. And in light of current interlibrary loan, buying what my patrons want, not what your patrons want.

ILL was built on the premise that we could give information away, and at the same time keep it. In a world of "information-by-the-drink" what we give away, we no longer have. Which raises the question, as we move to this new economy of information, will our value of sharing change? Will we readily offer information to another library when it clearly diminishes the information available to our own patrons?

Carolyn L. Helmetsie
Librarian
NASA-Langley Research Center
Technical Library-MS 185
2 West Durand Street
Hampton, VA 23681-0001
Voice: (757) 864-2378
c.l.helmetsie@larc.nasa.gov

I'd like to enter the discussion on "Digital ILL, Why Give It Away, When They Can Buy It?" Since I first spoke at a federal library seminar on ILL versus document delivery nearly three years ago, I've carefully followed the developments in this field.

Based on my research, I have concluded that ILL would not be going away any time soon. Document delivery has not turned out to be the answer for our library at least. Purchasing articles by the drink is an excellent proposal, one that I strongly support. Unfortunately, some document delivery sources, Ebscodoc for example, found it not to be a profitable enterprise.

The answer to your question, will document delivery become a cost-effective alternative to interlibrary loan. It depends. If you are a library that can satisfy most of your requirements from document delivery then the answer is yes. However, in many research libraries, depending on the subject matter, the answer is no. Let me explain. Many of our requests are for articles in international conferences, workshops and special symposiums. We only have two document delivery sources that can satisfy those requests. However, they cannot handle all of them.

We also have to search for company documents and papers written by authors not in the mainstream literature. Since our researchers are "going where no one has gone before," there may only be a handful of individuals in the world that are working on the advanced research they are engaged in. This presents unique challenges.

Let me first point out that ILL is not free. There are costs for lending and borrowing. Most libraries do charge for their ILL and we gladly pay for it. Our library pays for obtaining books and photocopies from IFM (Interlending Fee Management) libraries through OCLC. Since most libraries will not accept credit cards, this is the only way we can purchase ILL.

The libraries that have maintain adequate collections, can profit or at least recover some of their mailing and associated costs though fees. Some libraries may profit from providing document delivery services, for example, Linda Hall Library; and there are other examples. I understand Mr. Gherman's point about the expense of stored capital for libraries, but I wonder if most universities actually surplus large portions of their collections to save cost. This would make an interesting research paper if it has not already been done.

The premise for ILL/document delivery is that someone; a library or document delivery source has the material you need. Most document delivery sources use libraries to supply items. Our library, like others, continually receives many requests from document delivery companies for materials. Buying what exactly you need rather than what you think you want would mean that there will always be a source. The question of whether there will always be a source is debatable.

Our center will soon be implementing full cost recovery. What this means exactly for our library has yet to be determined. We have considered the idea of ILL as a possible candidate for ILL/document delivery chargeback, but it remains only an idea. This has been an interesting exercise however, when we consider what our customers would be willing to pay for ILL/document delivery services. Meanwhile, how do you budget for purchasing by the drink?

The libraries that have formed cooperative lending and borrowing are the ones that will survive the ILL/document delivery crisis. Yes, this means interlibrary loan. The need for ILL is stronger than ever and will not be going away any time soon. Libraries that have formed cooperative agreements for print as well as electronic item exchange will survive well until the next decade. Libraries have many challenges, particularly copyright issues that many feel will limit the expansion of electronic access. Libraries should be realistic, but not so easily undervalue their collections.

When I became the coordinator of ILL/document delivery three years ago, I learned that the perception of ILL was negative, perhaps an advertisement for collection deficiencies. Many ILL staff may be at the bottom in their organization, and perhaps perceived as not politically savvy. After all, persons who want to give things away free, what do they know about economics?

I have been a budget analysis for over eighteen years and I can tell you there is something to be said about a system that works. Where else can you provide needed information within a few hours? Many people distrust anything that does not have a cost associated with it. From my research, most ILL libraries do not "give it away." If ILL is carefully managed, it should be an efficient cost effective enterprise. Libraries need to carefully manage and analyze their ILL/document delivery business and constantly look for ways to minimize costs and maximize access.

Thank you for an interesting opening to this topic. My responses are my own opinions, based on years of interest in ILL/document delivery.

Martin J. Cohen
Saint Mary's College of California
mcohen@stmarys-ca.edu

Paul Gherman's provocative statement asks about the logical consequences of two quite plausible premises:

1. It is or will be cheaper for libraries to purchase each article or book requested than to subscribe to journals and maintain a stock of books.

2. Even if it is not cheaper to do so, libraries will be prohibited from using what they have purchased to satisfy requests from (users of) other libraries, or perhaps even from their own (remote) constituents/subscribers.

Either of these two conditions would make illogical, in a world where collections are increasingly digital, to consider a library's collections as stored capital, from which a stream of benefits (in the form of ongoing usage) could be drawn. Instead, the library's collections budget would be used to purchase single-use rights to articles and books (or book chapters).

Some potential consequences of these conclusions:

1. Information continues to be stored capital. However the capital is owned not by libraries but by the agencies and corporations which own the rights to the information.

2. Libraries should not engage in purchasing information (or collections) at all. Rather, the money should be given directly to the user. Budget controls would still be available if the money is given in the form of negotiable vouchers which users could exchange with each other, as well as use to purchase information directly from the owners of the information.

3. Libraries serve, in the information marketplace, as value-added distributors and agents. That is, by spending one's vouchers at a library rather than purchasing information directly, one may get better value for one's time and money, to the extent that librarians are knowledgeable "buyer's agents" of information.

I think that these conclusions are implicit in the question posed. They go beyond the frame of interlibrary borrowing and lending, and for that I apologize. It seems to me that, in order to limit the question to interlibrary borrowing and lending, we would need a further qualification on the question.

I invite other participants to further the discussion by asking "What's wrong with this picture?"

Paul M. Gherman
University Librarian
611B General Library
419 21st Avenue
South Vanderbilt University
Nashville, TN 37240
Voice: (615) 322-7120
Fax: (615) 343-8279
gherman@library.vanderbilt.edu

Carolyn Helmestie sent us an interesting and thoughtful reply on our discussion of digital ILL. I think she make some well-informed points.

I have noticed a recent flurry of discussion of "buying by the drink" on another list that I monitor. In that discussion, many seem to think publishers will get into the business of selling direct to libraries or users. When microcash is a reality on the Internet, will our users order articles directly from the publisher, by-passing libraries all together?

Michael Seadle
Editor: Library Hi Tech
Michigan State University
Voice: (517) 432-0807
Fax: (517) 432-1191
seadle@mail.lib.msu.edu

Paul Gherman wrote: "I have noticed a recent flurry of discussion of 'buying by the drink' on another list that I monitor. In that discussion, many seem to think publishers will get into the business of selling direct to libraries or users. When microcash is a reality on the Internet, will our users order articles directly from the publisher, by-passing libraries all together?"

No, I think a fair number of users won't spend their microcash on articles if they can get the same information from libraries for free with only a modest extra effort. After all, lots of students would rather spend their money on beer. But let me be provocative and raise the question: What would happen if we encouraged them to spend their microcash on the net and tried as hard as possible to privatize the very expensive business of ILL? Every dollar we spend on ILL means one less for the collection or for reference services or for something else vital.

Jim Nichols
Ph.D. student
SLIS
Indiana University
jtnichol@indiana.edu

Michael Seadle wrote: "But let me be provocative and raise the question: what would happen if we encouraged them to spend their microcash on the net and tried as hard as possible to privatize the very expensive business of ILL? Every dollar we spend on ILL means one less for the collection or for reference services or for something else vital."

On the other hand, money spent on reference services might simply generate more demand for ILL. How is ILL "very expensive" compared to buying a book, journal, or electronic resource that does not get used? How is ILL not "vital" compared to that half (more or less) of a university library's collection that will never be used, or to a reference service that can locate where the best answers lie, but cannot deliver because those answers lie in some other library?

The real question is how to best use the money available for information resources. I suspect the answer to that, for academic and public libraries certainly, will be based on a version of the cooperative economy that librarians have been building for most of this century. Foisting costs off onto students and patrons, without serious reductions in tax and tuition revenue, will not serve anyone well.

Ilene Frank
Reference Dept.
Tampa Campus Library, LIB 122
University of South Florida, Tampa FL 33620
Voice: (813) 974-2483
ifrank@lib.usf.edu

Paul Gherman wrote: "I have noticed a recent flurry of discussion of 'buying by the drink' on another list that I monitor. In that discussion, many seem to think publishers will get into the business of selling direct to libraries or users. When microcash is a reality on the Internet, will our users order articles directly from the publisher, by-passing libraries all together?"

Here's my two cents:

Libraries will act as money managers on behalf of their students and faculty. I'd say this is basically how ILL works anyway. Students select material they want and we fill requests to the extent that budget and copyright allows. And we bear this expense because we have a mission to fill the research needs of our users.

And why would students and faculty continue to use their library affiliation as a means to obtain articles? Because we should be able to negotiate good prices from suppliers on behalf of our users. We've got that customer base. We're already seeing consortial negotiating going on in terms of other electronic services. Negotiating with document delivery suppliers ought to be right up there.

Will some users choose to purchase their own material? Of course. They already do that. People buy their own books and journals. Many of our users have made a tremendous investment in building excellent personal collections. And many of those same users are library supporters.

I would say a more important question is whether libraries will continue their role as archives of the world's knowledge? Can't you just hear it? Haven't you already heard it? "We don't have to build in-house collections because we can cover our users immediate needs buy purchasing articles on a 'just in time' basis." I find this a scary prospect.

Robert S. Helfer
Texas State Library and Archives Commission Talking Book Program
1201 Brazos Street
Box 12927
Austin, Texas 78711-2927
Voice: (512) 463-5402
Fax: (512) 463-5436
robert@tsl.state.tx.us

Some things about this topic have bothered me, and I think they center on this statement from Paul Gherman's original post: "ILL was built on the premise that we could give information away, and at the same time keep it." It is my belief that ILL was built on the premise that if we don't learn to share, we each, individually, have to buy separately everything we might ever need.

Few, if any, libraries can afford to buy all the materials their users need, yet every library that I have been in also contains books and journals that no user of that library has ever consulted. Those unused items may actually be pure chaff, of interest to no one, but we have purchased them, and provided space for their storage, in anticipation of at least one user's need. Just as libraries themselves exist so that no one person has to own every book or magazine that would ever be of interest to him or her, so interlibrary loan exists so that no one library has to own every book or magazine that would ever be of interest to any of its users.

I have seen some mention of the cost of ILL. I have not seen any mention of the cost of not having ILL. I suspect that even for the net lenders, the cost of not having ILL available, i.e., the cost of buying and storing every single book or journal that any user has ever requested or ever might request, would far outstrip any cost they are currently encountering filling ILL requests.

But, of course, these comments are about the past. In the wonderful world to come, it will all be available in digital form, and we can get everything we need "by the drink." Seeing that comment makes me wonder where the library fits into the equation at all. If I am going to buy every piece of information that I use, why not go directly to the source? Why pay a fee to go through the middle man (the library)? If the library just becomes a vendor, charging me for information that I can get for the same price or less directly from the original source, why would I bother to use the library?

Just some rambling thoughts.

You may join the discussion and look over the list of past and future topics.

Home

Discussion