1 / 36

HKALL: Overview and Status Update

HKALL: Overview and Status Update. Tony Ferguson University of Hong Kong Librarian Acting Director of IT in Learning. Background. April 2002, a JULAC taskforce with representatives from 8 institutions were charged to explore:

Download Presentation

HKALL: Overview and Status Update

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.


Presentation Transcript

  1. HKALL: Overview and Status Update Tony Ferguson University of Hong Kong Librarian Acting Director of IT in Learning

  2. Background • April 2002, a JULAC taskforce with representatives from 8 institutions were charged to explore: • The experience of other consortia employing user initiated document delivery services • The use of software/utilities/systems which could be used by the JULAC Libraries • The resource implications (e.g. reduce ILL-based borrowing and lending but will likely see significant increase on circulation increase, etc.) • September 2002, an interim report recommended: • That such a service was a good idea for HK • That a suitable software platform be selected and implemented

  3. System Selection Prerequisites The taskforce then went to work to figure out which system to recommend. They decided upon 5 “drop dead ”criteria. The system must: • Accept user initiated online interlibrary requests • Support unmediated interlibrary requests directly from users to lending libraries • Support book loans • Check incoming interlibrary requests automatically against the user’s own collection, and block that request if the requested item was available on the shelf • Supports Chinese, Japanese and Korean (CJK) characters

  4. The Taskforce selected INNReach because • It was the only system to meet all criteria • CJK was a showstopper • Because all 8 institutions were already III customers, implementation would be much easier

  5. More Background • Irrespective of the Taskforce’s findings, only 3 libraries were enthusiastic enough to try the system out. They ran an experiment from January to September 2004. • Remaining 5 adopted a “wait and see” approach • Their concerns included: • Cost • Impact on local collections and users • Impact on library staff • Possible threat of reduced funding

  6. The three trial participants • Lingnan University (LU) • ca 400,000 physical vols • City University of Hong Kong (CityU) • ca 1.1 million physical volumes • University of Hong Kong (HKU) • ca 2.3 million physical vols

  7. Major Problems Encountered • Building the HKALL Union Catalogue - Matching CJK records problem • Three institutions needed to establish complimentary circulation rules and policies: • Minimise policies that interfere with local circulation practices while still trying to maximise use of the mega collection; • ensure that the policies would not undermine the interest of users in the owning libraries; and • make the policies as simple as possible so that: • they are easily understood by both users and operational staff members; • operational procedures are simple and administrative costs are minimal; • they can readily include new participating libraries.

  8. Reproduced from Innovative Interfaces: <http://www.iii.com/innreach/index.shtml#systemmgmt>

  9. How HKALL Works Scenario 1: A book is not owned by the local library

  10. We do not have this title in our library. We search HKALL

  11. Copies available at both CU and PolyU

  12. Make request

  13. Authenticate against local patron database

  14. Title successfully requested!

  15. Patron receives email pickup notice after the book is transferred to the borrowing site

  16. Scenario 2: A book IS owned by the local library

  17. We have 2 copies but both are checked out and one has 5 holds and the other has 3 holds. Check HKALL

  18. UST has a copy available

  19. Make request

  20. Authenticate against local patron database

  21. Book successfully requested.

  22. Patron receives email pickup notice after the book is transferred to the borrowing site

  23. Major Lessons Learned • Many more items borrowed using InnReach than traditional ILL (several hundred percent more) • Cheaper to process borrowing and lending transactions (40-45 percent cheaper) • Users loved it

  24. Typical comments • “Excellent on the whole” • “… this scheme has been excellently carried out. With this scheme, resources in the universities can be better utilised. • “HKALL simply makes life easier. Thank you…….” • “It should include all eight institutions in HK.”

  25. Post Experiment Major Events • Following many discussions the 8 university libraries decided to apply to the government’s University Grants Committee for funding • They requested hardware, software, and a limited amount of staff start up funds • They were awarded nearly all the requested funds • We began installation of software, figuring out what were the challenges, and solutions during the summer 2005 • We had a soft launch September 1, 2005

  26. Challenges that were solved or we learned to live with • Chinese character problems. Traditional and simplified Chinese records were not merging; Japanese variants had the same problem. • HKALL wanted to have call numbers in item records but some libraries didn’t put them there and so the system couldn’t find them. Innovative had to figure out a solution. • Sites didn’t want to all have the same borrowing profiles.

  27. Findings so far • Super growth in amount of borrowing and lending • Social Science; Sci/Tech; Lang/Lit still most requested subjects • Super fast • Undergrads and post graduate students the largest users

  28. Growth in Use: 3 Test Libraries Items delivered September to November 2004 and 2005 compared (INNReach in place both years): • City U 350% increase • HKU 239% increase • Lingnan U 237% increase

  29. Subjects Borrowed (8 Libraries)

  30. Language of Materials Borrowed

  31. Speed of Delivery (8 Libraries)(Same day 99.7%)

  32. User Types

  33. Where are we now? • The program is so successful that we have to find another courier service • HKU is going to experiment with a RAPID non returnable INNReach related module. • We are about to replace the test hardware with new hardware • We will be loading new Innopac software that will effect INNReach • INNReach will be the borrowing system that will be used in our shared storage facility • Future issues: allow other HK or China libraries to join INNReach? • INNReach is the best example of DEEP COLLABORATION between academic institutions in Hong Kong!!!

  34. Rapid Option Works like INNReach • Patron discovers they lack the needed journal • Click to Rapid to search the Rapid catalogue – just like INNReach • Patr finds the title (hopefully) • Patron provides the specific author, volume, issue, page, etc. information • Some supplementing of the citation takes place • Information transferred to ILLIAD • ILL staff process the request in RAPID • Possible to create a HK pod in RAPID so that HK libraries’ collections are first looked at.

More Related