SHARES Policy Rethink
Throughout calendar year 2018, the SHARES Executive Group (SEG) will seek to engage with all SHARES participants, and with staff at OCLC Research Library Partnership institutions who are considering joining SHARES, in rethinking SHARES policies and values. This Rethink will be organized around five themes, taken up and explored in sequence as the year unfolds.
SEG members believe that this conversation is an essential step toward positioning SHARES to play a vibrant role in a resource sharing future where the emphasis is always on the patron, and where consortia will increasingly be the venue for the advancement of library collections and services.
Join the Discussion
The SHARES Policy Rethink discussions are happening now. The conversation is taking place primarily on the SHARES-L discussion listserv and is open to everyone in the Research Library Partnership; you are not required to be a SHARES member to be part of the discussion.
Themes and Timeline:
Encourage Evidence-based Processes
Encourage an evidenced-based streamlining of processes that will unburden staff, enhance fulfillment, and bring the library user experience closer to that of Amazon and Google.
- Data suggests that longer (12- to 16-week) loan periods result in fewer renewal requests and recalls, which leads to greater patron satisfaction.
- Data also suggests that very few books are out on loan via ILL when needed at home, and a miniscule proportion of those cannot easily be borrowed from another consortial partner.
- Anecdotal evidence shows that, aside from special cases involving the retrieval of distant material or having to get special permission to make an exception, lenders do not need the time allotted by the current SHARES turnaround time guidelines in order to fulfill requests.
SHARES Executive Group Proposal: Encourage SHARES-wide adoption of 12- to 16-week loan periods and modernize the SHARES turnaround time expectations.
Build in Flexibility
Build some flexibility into selected SHARES policies and guidelines, allowing members to behave according to their own values and priorities, focusing on the aspects of collection-sharing that are most important for their institutions.
- Some institutions must be self-funding and need to manage their relationships in such a way that they can pay for their own costs.
- Some institutions, because of deep collections and exceptional lending prowess, are big net lenders and need to recover some costs if they are to continue to lend.
SHARES Executive Group Proposal: Manage a reciprocal non-charging SHARES subgroup so that those who don’t want to charge don’t have to, and those who must, can.
Enhance access to materials according to patron preferences, both for items obtained for them through interlibrary loan and by improving the SHARES reciprocal onsite access experience.
- Patron preferences for e-format or hard copy should be honored.
- Reciprocal onsite access (and, when viable, onsite borrowing) should be an option for most classes of patrons.
- The sharing of special collections should be promoted.
- The patron experience with requesting ILL materials and placing holds should be streamlined and simplified.
- Best practices in delivering from storage facilities should be identified and shared.
- Affinity groups within SHARES should be explored as another means of sharing resources, expertise, and common challenges with birds-of-a-feather partners
SHARES Executive Group Proposal: Enhance the reciprocal onsite access user experience by providing better directory information, following up with patrons about their experiences, expanding the procedural language to include non-academic users, and, where possible as part of the upcoming SHARES Reciprocal Onsite Borrowing pilot project, offer reciprocal onsite borrowing.
Embrace Procedures that Add Value
Achieve greater administrative efficiencies by emphasizing actions that add value to the user experience and enhance the relationship between the patron and the library, while striving to let go of actions that add no value for patrons.
- Data suggests that the loss rate for ILL books is so low that charging replacement costs is not worth the administrative costs.
- Data suggests that blocking the account of a borrowing library (or a local patron) is more effective at compelling the return of materials than charging overdue fines, and anecdotal evidence indicates that it leaves delinquent borrowers in a better frame of mind once the transaction is concluded than taking their money.
SHARES Executive Group Proposal: Encourage libraries to do away with replacement costs and overdue fines; block delinquent accounts if necessary to compel the return of materials, emphasizing the return of the material over collecting money.
Post your comments on the OCLCRLP-SHARES-L discussion list.
Mitigate International Sharing Costs
Explore the feasibility of processes designed to mitigate the financial impact of sharing returnable items across borders and overseas.