Benchmarking and pondering ASERL interlibrary loan operations, 2010 and 2013
Purpose – In 2010 and 2013, the libraries in the Association of Southeastern Research Libraries (ASERL) were surveyed to identify benchmarks and programs to support resource sharing. Benchmarks and challenges identified generate discussions regarding programming, networking, and other support to imp...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Interlending & document supply 2014-01, Vol.42 (1), p.16-25 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 25 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | 16 |
| container_title | Interlending & document supply |
| container_volume | 42 |
| creator | P. Atkins, David T. Greenwood, Judy Whaley, Pambanisha |
| description | Purpose
– In 2010 and 2013, the libraries in the Association of Southeastern Research Libraries (ASERL) were surveyed to identify benchmarks and programs to support resource sharing. Benchmarks and challenges identified generate discussions regarding programming, networking, and other support to improve resource sharing operations. This paper seeks to address these issues.
Design/methodology/approach
– This study compares and contrasts the two surveys using mixed methods data analysis. This study assesses ILL performance and explores the challenges and trends interlibrary loan practitioners see today.
Findings
– The article identifies changes and trends in consortia-wide transaction volumes; staffing levels; campus document delivery; professional issues and challenges; and library organizational schemes.
Research limitations/implications
– The study did not include data from constituencies outside of interlibrary loan. It also did not include interview follow-ups with survey participants to discuss challenges and reorganizations in greater detail. Future interlibrary loan research could focus less on operational metrics and more on broader issues such as e-resources and change management. Mixed methods are effect tools for benchmarking and comparative case studies.
Practical implications
– Individual libraries can compare themselves to the operational benchmarks and use insights drawn from comment analysis to stimulate conversations regarding current and future roles for interlibrary loan. Consortia can duplicate the study to understand their operational benchmarks and their particular contexts.
Originality/value
– The study provides comparative benchmarks for research libraries and consortia spanning three years. It demonstrates substantial shifts in issues faced by libraries and librarians. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1108/ILDS-01-2014-0010 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_emera</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1510616778</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1530989456</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c410t-8d167a41a4ddbf575044bfc826e73dacfab9ba26a6a2e49da79af4f9bb3e9f4b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkU1LxDAQhoMouH78AG8FETxYnWmTND3q-gkFwY9zmLaJVrvpmuwe_PemrgiKB0-ZhOd9JzMvY3sIx4igTm6q8_sUMM0AeQqAsMYmWAiVCsXVOptAJnmKEsUm2wrhBSA-ZDBh1ZlxzfOM_GvnnhJybTIfXGv8eDu9v7irks4tjO-72pN_T_qBXDLMjadFN7hwlMR-8CmLRb7DNiz1wex-ndvs8fLiYXqdVrdXN9PTKm04wiJVLcqCOBJv29qKQgDntW1UJk2Rt9RYqsuaMkmSMsPLloqSLLdlXeemtLzOt9nhynfuh7elCQs960Jj-p6cGZZBo8ixzFBy8R8USlVyISO6_wt9GZbexUEihSDjpwsVKVxRjR9C8Mbque_i_t41gh6j0GMUGlCPUegxiqg5-HKm0FBvPbmmC9_CTOVcFQIjByvOzOKG-_ZP6x8p5x_CZpTT</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1510616778</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Benchmarking and pondering ASERL interlibrary loan operations, 2010 and 2013</title><source>Emerald Journals</source><creator>P. Atkins, David ; T. Greenwood, Judy ; Whaley, Pambanisha</creator><creatorcontrib>P. Atkins, David ; T. Greenwood, Judy ; Whaley, Pambanisha</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose
– In 2010 and 2013, the libraries in the Association of Southeastern Research Libraries (ASERL) were surveyed to identify benchmarks and programs to support resource sharing. Benchmarks and challenges identified generate discussions regarding programming, networking, and other support to improve resource sharing operations. This paper seeks to address these issues.
Design/methodology/approach
– This study compares and contrasts the two surveys using mixed methods data analysis. This study assesses ILL performance and explores the challenges and trends interlibrary loan practitioners see today.
Findings
– The article identifies changes and trends in consortia-wide transaction volumes; staffing levels; campus document delivery; professional issues and challenges; and library organizational schemes.
Research limitations/implications
– The study did not include data from constituencies outside of interlibrary loan. It also did not include interview follow-ups with survey participants to discuss challenges and reorganizations in greater detail. Future interlibrary loan research could focus less on operational metrics and more on broader issues such as e-resources and change management. Mixed methods are effect tools for benchmarking and comparative case studies.
Practical implications
– Individual libraries can compare themselves to the operational benchmarks and use insights drawn from comment analysis to stimulate conversations regarding current and future roles for interlibrary loan. Consortia can duplicate the study to understand their operational benchmarks and their particular contexts.
Originality/value
– The study provides comparative benchmarks for research libraries and consortia spanning three years. It demonstrates substantial shifts in issues faced by libraries and librarians.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0264-1615</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 2398-6247</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1758-5848</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2398-6255</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1108/ILDS-01-2014-0010</identifier><identifier>CODEN: IDSUDQ</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited</publisher><subject>Academic libraries ; Benchmarking ; Benchmarks ; Best practice ; Business metrics ; College campuses ; Consortia ; Conversation ; Distance learning ; Document delivery ; Embedded librarianship ; Exact sciences and technology ; General aspects ; Health sciences ; Information and communication sciences ; Information literacy ; Information publishing, dissemination and reproduction ; Information science. Documentation ; Interlibrary loans ; Lending ; Librarians ; Libraries ; Library & information science ; Library & information services ; Library associations ; Library collections ; Library consortia ; Licenses ; Literature reviews ; Loans ; Methods ; Polls & surveys ; Resource sharing ; Sciences and techniques of general use ; Studies ; Surveys ; Technical support ; Trends ; User satisfaction ; Workforce planning ; Working groups</subject><ispartof>Interlending & document supply, 2014-01, Vol.42 (1), p.16-25</ispartof><rights>Emerald Group Publishing Limited</rights><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright Emerald Group Publishing Limited 2014</rights><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c410t-8d167a41a4ddbf575044bfc826e73dacfab9ba26a6a2e49da79af4f9bb3e9f4b3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c410t-8d167a41a4ddbf575044bfc826e73dacfab9ba26a6a2e49da79af4f9bb3e9f4b3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/ILDS-01-2014-0010/full/pdf$$EPDF$$P50$$Gemerald$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/ILDS-01-2014-0010/full/html$$EHTML$$P50$$Gemerald$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,961,11614,27901,27902,52661,52664</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=28348751$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>P. Atkins, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>T. Greenwood, Judy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Whaley, Pambanisha</creatorcontrib><title>Benchmarking and pondering ASERL interlibrary loan operations, 2010 and 2013</title><title>Interlending & document supply</title><description>Purpose
– In 2010 and 2013, the libraries in the Association of Southeastern Research Libraries (ASERL) were surveyed to identify benchmarks and programs to support resource sharing. Benchmarks and challenges identified generate discussions regarding programming, networking, and other support to improve resource sharing operations. This paper seeks to address these issues.
Design/methodology/approach
– This study compares and contrasts the two surveys using mixed methods data analysis. This study assesses ILL performance and explores the challenges and trends interlibrary loan practitioners see today.
Findings
– The article identifies changes and trends in consortia-wide transaction volumes; staffing levels; campus document delivery; professional issues and challenges; and library organizational schemes.
Research limitations/implications
– The study did not include data from constituencies outside of interlibrary loan. It also did not include interview follow-ups with survey participants to discuss challenges and reorganizations in greater detail. Future interlibrary loan research could focus less on operational metrics and more on broader issues such as e-resources and change management. Mixed methods are effect tools for benchmarking and comparative case studies.
Practical implications
– Individual libraries can compare themselves to the operational benchmarks and use insights drawn from comment analysis to stimulate conversations regarding current and future roles for interlibrary loan. Consortia can duplicate the study to understand their operational benchmarks and their particular contexts.
Originality/value
– The study provides comparative benchmarks for research libraries and consortia spanning three years. It demonstrates substantial shifts in issues faced by libraries and librarians.</description><subject>Academic libraries</subject><subject>Benchmarking</subject><subject>Benchmarks</subject><subject>Best practice</subject><subject>Business metrics</subject><subject>College campuses</subject><subject>Consortia</subject><subject>Conversation</subject><subject>Distance learning</subject><subject>Document delivery</subject><subject>Embedded librarianship</subject><subject>Exact sciences and technology</subject><subject>General aspects</subject><subject>Health sciences</subject><subject>Information and communication sciences</subject><subject>Information literacy</subject><subject>Information publishing, dissemination and reproduction</subject><subject>Information science. Documentation</subject><subject>Interlibrary loans</subject><subject>Lending</subject><subject>Librarians</subject><subject>Libraries</subject><subject>Library & information science</subject><subject>Library & information services</subject><subject>Library associations</subject><subject>Library collections</subject><subject>Library consortia</subject><subject>Licenses</subject><subject>Literature reviews</subject><subject>Loans</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Polls & surveys</subject><subject>Resource sharing</subject><subject>Sciences and techniques of general use</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Surveys</subject><subject>Technical support</subject><subject>Trends</subject><subject>User satisfaction</subject><subject>Workforce planning</subject><subject>Working groups</subject><issn>0264-1615</issn><issn>2398-6247</issn><issn>1758-5848</issn><issn>2398-6255</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkU1LxDAQhoMouH78AG8FETxYnWmTND3q-gkFwY9zmLaJVrvpmuwe_PemrgiKB0-ZhOd9JzMvY3sIx4igTm6q8_sUMM0AeQqAsMYmWAiVCsXVOptAJnmKEsUm2wrhBSA-ZDBh1ZlxzfOM_GvnnhJybTIfXGv8eDu9v7irks4tjO-72pN_T_qBXDLMjadFN7hwlMR-8CmLRb7DNiz1wex-ndvs8fLiYXqdVrdXN9PTKm04wiJVLcqCOBJv29qKQgDntW1UJk2Rt9RYqsuaMkmSMsPLloqSLLdlXeemtLzOt9nhynfuh7elCQs960Jj-p6cGZZBo8ixzFBy8R8USlVyISO6_wt9GZbexUEihSDjpwsVKVxRjR9C8Mbque_i_t41gh6j0GMUGlCPUegxiqg5-HKm0FBvPbmmC9_CTOVcFQIjByvOzOKG-_ZP6x8p5x_CZpTT</recordid><startdate>20140101</startdate><enddate>20140101</enddate><creator>P. Atkins, David</creator><creator>T. Greenwood, Judy</creator><creator>Whaley, Pambanisha</creator><general>Emerald Group Publishing Limited</general><general>Emerald</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0U~</scope><scope>1-H</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>CNYFK</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>E3H</scope><scope>F2A</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>L.0</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M1O</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PYYUZ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7SC</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>JQ2</scope><scope>L7M</scope><scope>L~C</scope><scope>L~D</scope><scope>8BP</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20140101</creationdate><title>Benchmarking and pondering ASERL interlibrary loan operations, 2010 and 2013</title><author>P. Atkins, David ; T. Greenwood, Judy ; Whaley, Pambanisha</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c410t-8d167a41a4ddbf575044bfc826e73dacfab9ba26a6a2e49da79af4f9bb3e9f4b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Academic libraries</topic><topic>Benchmarking</topic><topic>Benchmarks</topic><topic>Best practice</topic><topic>Business metrics</topic><topic>College campuses</topic><topic>Consortia</topic><topic>Conversation</topic><topic>Distance learning</topic><topic>Document delivery</topic><topic>Embedded librarianship</topic><topic>Exact sciences and technology</topic><topic>General aspects</topic><topic>Health sciences</topic><topic>Information and communication sciences</topic><topic>Information literacy</topic><topic>Information publishing, dissemination and reproduction</topic><topic>Information science. Documentation</topic><topic>Interlibrary loans</topic><topic>Lending</topic><topic>Librarians</topic><topic>Libraries</topic><topic>Library & information science</topic><topic>Library & information services</topic><topic>Library associations</topic><topic>Library collections</topic><topic>Library consortia</topic><topic>Licenses</topic><topic>Literature reviews</topic><topic>Loans</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Polls & surveys</topic><topic>Resource sharing</topic><topic>Sciences and techniques of general use</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Surveys</topic><topic>Technical support</topic><topic>Trends</topic><topic>User satisfaction</topic><topic>Workforce planning</topic><topic>Working groups</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>P. Atkins, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>T. Greenwood, Judy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Whaley, Pambanisha</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Global News & ABI/Inform Professional</collection><collection>Trade PRO</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Library & Information Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Library & Information Sciences Abstracts (LISA)</collection><collection>Library & Information Science Abstracts (LISA)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Standard</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>ProQuest Library Science Database</collection><collection>One Business (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Computer Science Collection</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts Academic</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts Professional</collection><collection>Library & Information Sciences Abstracts (LISA) - CILIP Edition</collection><jtitle>Interlending & document supply</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>P. Atkins, David</au><au>T. Greenwood, Judy</au><au>Whaley, Pambanisha</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Benchmarking and pondering ASERL interlibrary loan operations, 2010 and 2013</atitle><jtitle>Interlending & document supply</jtitle><date>2014-01-01</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>42</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>16</spage><epage>25</epage><pages>16-25</pages><issn>0264-1615</issn><issn>2398-6247</issn><eissn>1758-5848</eissn><eissn>2398-6255</eissn><coden>IDSUDQ</coden><abstract>Purpose
– In 2010 and 2013, the libraries in the Association of Southeastern Research Libraries (ASERL) were surveyed to identify benchmarks and programs to support resource sharing. Benchmarks and challenges identified generate discussions regarding programming, networking, and other support to improve resource sharing operations. This paper seeks to address these issues.
Design/methodology/approach
– This study compares and contrasts the two surveys using mixed methods data analysis. This study assesses ILL performance and explores the challenges and trends interlibrary loan practitioners see today.
Findings
– The article identifies changes and trends in consortia-wide transaction volumes; staffing levels; campus document delivery; professional issues and challenges; and library organizational schemes.
Research limitations/implications
– The study did not include data from constituencies outside of interlibrary loan. It also did not include interview follow-ups with survey participants to discuss challenges and reorganizations in greater detail. Future interlibrary loan research could focus less on operational metrics and more on broader issues such as e-resources and change management. Mixed methods are effect tools for benchmarking and comparative case studies.
Practical implications
– Individual libraries can compare themselves to the operational benchmarks and use insights drawn from comment analysis to stimulate conversations regarding current and future roles for interlibrary loan. Consortia can duplicate the study to understand their operational benchmarks and their particular contexts.
Originality/value
– The study provides comparative benchmarks for research libraries and consortia spanning three years. It demonstrates substantial shifts in issues faced by libraries and librarians.</abstract><cop>Bingley</cop><pub>Emerald Group Publishing Limited</pub><doi>10.1108/ILDS-01-2014-0010</doi><tpages>10</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0264-1615 |
| ispartof | Interlending & document supply, 2014-01, Vol.42 (1), p.16-25 |
| issn | 0264-1615 2398-6247 1758-5848 2398-6255 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_1510616778 |
| source | Emerald Journals |
| subjects | Academic libraries Benchmarking Benchmarks Best practice Business metrics College campuses Consortia Conversation Distance learning Document delivery Embedded librarianship Exact sciences and technology General aspects Health sciences Information and communication sciences Information literacy Information publishing, dissemination and reproduction Information science. Documentation Interlibrary loans Lending Librarians Libraries Library & information science Library & information services Library associations Library collections Library consortia Licenses Literature reviews Loans Methods Polls & surveys Resource sharing Sciences and techniques of general use Studies Surveys Technical support Trends User satisfaction Workforce planning Working groups |
| title | Benchmarking and pondering ASERL interlibrary loan operations, 2010 and 2013 |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-07T17%3A50%3A42IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_emera&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Benchmarking%20and%20pondering%20ASERL%20interlibrary%20loan%20operations,%202010%20and%202013&rft.jtitle=Interlending%20&%20document%20supply&rft.au=P.%20Atkins,%20David&rft.date=2014-01-01&rft.volume=42&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=16&rft.epage=25&rft.pages=16-25&rft.issn=0264-1615&rft.eissn=1758-5848&rft.coden=IDSUDQ&rft_id=info:doi/10.1108/ILDS-01-2014-0010&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_emera%3E1530989456%3C/proquest_emera%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1510616778&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |