1. This report was commissioned by CURL (the Consortium of University Research Libraries) with the support of the British Library Cooperation and Partnership Programme in order to recommend the best UK wide monograph interlending infrastructure and associated business model for the higher education research community for the next ten years. The report does not consider the interlending needs of other sectors (for example, public libraries), but its recommendations are unlikely to have adverse implications for them. 2. The report estimates that for 2001-2002 the overall total of interlending requests initiated by the UK higher education sector was approximately 325,000. Of these some 90% (295,000) were estimated to have been successfully completed, of which approximately 79% were supplied by the British Library Document Supply Centre (BLDSC), which holds the most dominant position in the UK monograph interlending system. In addition to the BLDSC there are a number of other providers to whom higher education libraries typically turn if the BLDSC cannot supply an item, but the overall volume of such loans is low. 3. The current monograph interlending system based on the BLDSC has several important strengths: first and most importantly, it works, and has done so successfully for many years. The system is well understood by researchers, is valued by them, and as our own data demonstrates has the support of all CURL libraries. The overall performance of the BLDSC is high in terms of speed of delivery and other operational benchmarks, and also represents good value for money for the sector as a whole. Studies undertaken for the Research Support Libraries Group (RSLG) estimated the savings achieved through all forms of central document supply to be between £45 and £50 million. In relation to individual loan charges an email survey of CURL libraries suggested that although those responding welcomed the cheaper options provided by some other providers, the charges of the BLDSC were accepted as being at least satisfactory. 4. The current system has no major weaknesses, however significant concerns exist about whether it can be sustained in the future without change. The current interlending system is likely to come under increasing strain because of: declining investment in loan stock unless more collaborative approaches to acquisition take place; an increase in the diversity of lending provision as libraries struggle to meet the needs of their own researchers in the context of a declining central fill rate; and specific difficulties concerning the loan of items from special collections. These concerns are part of the broader issue of the future of library resources which is addressed in the RSLG report. 5. If such developments were allowed to occur, they would lead to the loss of many of the advantages of centralisation that now exist, and involve interlending librarians spending much more time trying to source material. Rather we see the opposite as desirable: obtaining maximum benefit through a suitably run single source of supply, with as much requesting and distribution as possible done electronically. The RSLG has made it clear that a gradual deterioration in resource availability for research use should not be accepted, and our conclusion is that the same principle should apply to document supply and loans. 6. The report considers nine wide-ranging options for revising the current interlending system, and seeks to build upon existing strengths. Each option is tested against six key criteria: ○ It should enable the current fill rate in higher education libraries of approximately 90% to be maintained, and if possible improved. ○ It should operate to performance standards not lower than those currently achieved by the BLDSC. ○ It should maximise value for money in relation to collection development, procurement, and in other related areas.
Search from 250 M+ research papersSearch from 250 M+ research papers
Jul 1, 2005
Sarah Mcnicol 
Open Access