You are on page 1of 18

Book Availability Revisited

Turnaround Time for Recalls versus
Interlibrary Loans
David J. Gregory and Wayne A. Pedersen
Librarians typically view interlibrary loan (ILL) as a means of providing
access to items not owned by the local institution. However, they are
less likely to explore ILLs potential in providing timely access to items
locally owned, but temporarily unavailable, particularly in the case of
monographs in circulation. In a two-part study, the authors test the as-
sumption that, on average, locally owned books that a patron finds un-
available (due to checkout) can be obtained more quickly via recall than
via ILL. Phase 1 of this study establishes an average turnaround time for
circulation recalls in a large academic library for comparison with well-
established turnaround times for ILL borrowing transactions. In Phase
2, a more rigorous paired study of recalls and ILL compares the ability
of each system to handle identical requests in real time. Results demon-
strate that, under some circumstances, ILL provides a reasonable alter-
native to the internal recall process. The findings also underscore the
need for more holistic, interservice models for improving not just ac-
cess, but also the timeliness of access, to monograph collections.

hen asked to shortlist tie de- it is difficult, at first, to notice what has
fining issues in our profession been missing from the equation. If the
during the 1990s, many librar- ultimate goal is to connect patrons with
ians would include what some information, efficiently and cost-effec-
called the "access-versus-ownership" tively, librarians need to optimize and
debate and what others dubbed the ac- synchronize not only collection develop-
cess-ownership continuum. Regardless ment and resource sharing, but also local
of one's perspective, it is interesting to circulation policy and practice. Despite
note tiat over the past dozen years, the the librarian's best efforts-now more
entire access-ownership dialogue has fo- informed than ever-to purchase the
cused largely on the relationship between right material and to borrow the rest, a
local collection development (ownership) small voice in the book stacks can still be
and interinstitutional resource sharing heard to complain: "But the good books
(access). This dialogue has been so rich, are still never available when I need
multifaceted, and useful to librarians that them."

David J. Gregony is Associate Deanfor Research and Access at Iowa State University Library; e-mail: Wayne A. Pedersen is Head ofInterlibraryLoan/Document Delivery at Iowa State
University Library; e-mail: i


which seems to have im- been to recall the item if it is checked out proved considerably in the past ten years? to another reader and to borrow the item And does the answer to this question sug- via interlibrary loan (ILL) only if it is miss. message has not changed significantly in chase fewer and fewer monographs led what may be decades of service. Most li- Circulation services have likewise braries. How- anecdotal evidence.' In the results of vances such as online circulation systems a recent satisfaction survey at UC/ and electronic messaging have stream- Berkeley's Moffitt Library. or at the bindery. perhaps the least glamorous of one "owned" book between two local library operation. a guaranteed minimum loan pe- only consult with the staff at their circu. where overall pickup. if not the remains little published scholarship on last resort of a highly specialized clien. and this erage academic library can afford to pur.284 College & Research Libraries July 2003 There is little research. gest changes to be made in any library's ing. but plenty of years. age patron recalling an item checked out The growing volume of recalls at this within the ISU library system is told that precise stage in our history when the av. Compound- of activity and a focal point in library ing this problem is the idiosyncratic na- planning. coincidental with the emergence of the past when ILL was considered by Access Services departments. tele. Patricia Davitt lined the mechanics of the recall process. and how All of which prompts the question: well. the practice has around time. is notoriously borrowers more quickly than they can underdocumented. At the Iowa State must remain on a "hold" shelf. is the library responding to the How does recall turnaround time. the authors to ponder: How. and circulation statistics continue to drop with no hard data to confirm this. ad- eter of work in the field.4 Certainly. Recall Performance and Book Availability ians can certainly arrange for the sharing Circulation. riod for the original borrower or speci- lation desks or check local statistics on the fied lengths of time that a recalled item volume of recall activity. now compare to ILL turn- the case of the ISU library. The multipronged approach to improving the assumption behind this policy. as one author umn in Libranr Journal. practice. and the ready availability of books? justification for not routinely using ILL to borrow titles checked out to the Literature Review library's own patrons. the topics of circulation policy. The aver- time period. but there many to be an ancillary service. the process takes a few weeks. the (down 37% over the past four years). ity have improved over the past twenty This certainly appeared to be true in years. and funding. by inertia. ies. a useful barom. Today's ILL office is likely to be a hub and (above all) performance. But circulation alike: "I rarely find the books I want on policy can still work to contravene this the shelves. is that ISU librar. billed as lost. for ex- not heard this comment directly need ample. programming. to support this claim. provide some evolved considerably in the past twenty mechanism for alerting one borrower that . due largely to automation. For precisely this reason. ture of circulation terminology. circulation policy appears to be sur- Michael Rogers showcased the problem prisingly static in many academic librar- in a recent "How do you manage?" col." 2 Those librarians who have progress-policy that ensures. the authors suspected that little real progress number of recalls processed annually has had been made in reducing the turn- increased by 17 percent over the same around time for library recalls. which needs of those who fail to find on the shelf the authors suspect has remained rela- an item that the library already owns?3 In tively static. awaiting University (ISU) library. ever. governed principally. Its status and visibil- fulfill the typical interlibrary loan. has observed. for example. Maughan heard the message loud and thus shortening the potential turnaround clear from faculty and graduate students time between patrons.

Daniel Gore's assessment of the ity Studies in Libraries. ing four separate barriers: that the item ing library books physically available has not been acquired by the library. a hold. and duplication that the patron has erred (perhaps mis- on this process. Kantor. that the library has assess the impact of acquisitions. the topics have been addressed (CWRL) at about the same time. Tefko cusing on book availability-a popular Saracevic. in 1972. or ing. and 56 percent in 1974." Kantor's branch- situation at Macalaster College Library ing technique had become the standard was perhaps the most trenchant. when the semes- practice across these five core activities. 23 per- stock." Buckland focused largely on the cent of all books requested by patrons problem of managing heavily used books. Depending on the in.9 attention to circulation in general or the Comparable research emerged from recall function in particular.S." was in turn seems to be the preferred term in U. Gore determined that the aver- she has taken out. through the use of a branching diagram. binding. circulation."success" rates mediate availability of books was the fact as surprising as those previously cited by that requested items were on loan. Shaw. Using this tech- evidence that "a large amount of the de. and Kantor dem- mand for books tends to be concentrated onstrated that. a save. In his 1975 landmark Book Availabilihy the cumulative probability that a patron and the Library User. ter loan policy had been strategically re- adjusting such factors as loan period and placed by a four-week loan period. Buckland did not specifically address the a change in loan period was shown to sig- impact of recalls on book availability. age failure rate was roughly 42 percent. His conclusion that "a well-stocked. writers and researchers went further to By the time John Mansbridge pub- demonstrate just how serious this prob.6 Unfortunately. nique. Terminology issues discover how their own libraries mea- aside. Buckland will find a book on a library's shelves. 1980s.8 method for analyzing book availability. was one of the first to explore in depth depending on his or her success in clear- the "essentially logistical problem of mak. nificantly improve one of the four fac- ing merely that they play an ambivalent tors-circulation performance-in the role in stock management and are "sin." 7 of acquisition. frequently cited by others who sought to demic libraries)." and to the item is circulating. lished his 1986 review article. Buckland had demonstrated ity rates at CWRL were 48 percent in 1972 that the most likely inhibitor to the im. Other Gore. made a mistake (such as misshelving). overall book availabil- Lancaster. when a semester on a small proportion of the library's loan policy was in effect at CWRL. (and known to be owned by the library) which requires a harmony of policy and were on loan. Book Availability Revisited 285 another borrower needs the book he or owned. Shaw.'0Kantor theme throughout much of the 1970s and is credited with being the first to illustrate. well- this transaction might be considered a supported. aca. and William M. a request. library. when the additional effects labour. and patron errors In his own studies at the University of were factored in. with use- in a rather sizeable body of literature fo. say. Michael H. 5 Based on the growing reading a call number). discard. figure had dropped to 13 percent. that when wanted by library users. ful studies by Paul B.'" Thus. library's overall book availability rating. and allegedly well-balanced recall. Through a study of one thousand efforts although a variety of other techniques by students to find books the library were employed.' 2 Mansbridge examined . "Availabil- lem was. By 1974. the Case Western Reserve Library however. library can routinely thwart its users on or a borrowing queue (although recall nearly half their requests. Saracevik. library literature pays little direct sured up. this number of copies. Obliquely. a reserve. stitution and the circumstances involved. gularly time-consuming in terms of Interestingly.

Ciliberti and others re. conducted in 1974-1975. rather than on the cu- in 1986. using 1994. In the spe- cals. strated that had all books been returned paring results with OPAC transaction from recall within fourteen days. to 73 percent. and methodology. found that only ing from titles on loan. mulative availability rate at two weeks trusive study of search and retrieval fail. Terry Ellen Ferl and Margaret son is simple: Almost all the major stud- G. little attention has been paid have continued to assess immediate book to the impact of recall policy. setting. the cu- logs. A. practice. as recalls. Mansbridge emphasized Although the literature amply demon- that.22 braries. of studies at Indiana University (IU). when he narrowed his focus to liam Patterson College Library. as well as of getting theitem even if thelibrary owns its occasional remediation (by purchasing it. using an expanded version of cific case of recalls.'9 A still later study by and reshelving were gradually fulfilled. ies have focused on the question of im- cent availability rate at UC/Santa Cruz mediate availability. pur. measuring book availability before patron-driven requests in open stack li. measured over time. being on loan. 48 percent of all books requested by fac- Mitchell and others repeated the study at ulty via a campus delivery service (and WPCL in 1989. Ciliberti and others looked more broadly availability had risen to 59 percent. rate.5 percent to 71. nality of Goehlert's study. in general."8 Overall book availability in. and availability. to explore their potential for unob. Goehlert demon- Kantor's branching technique. Robinson reported an overall 61 per. How. 62 percent.286 College & Research Libraries July 2003 more than forty studies. with 25 percent of the failures result. after implementing recom.' 3 Not from 62. is his creased to 64 percent. Inspired. cause they were on loan. N. and enhancing bibliographic in. The rea- technique. improving signs. and selection er. searches.' 6 Three sepa. "a user going to a library strates the magnitude and persistence of for an item may have only a 60% chance the book availability problem. libraries and so on). would have been not 73 percent. immediately available..") The origi- struction). Anne C. requested books were unavailable be- rors (for example.' 4Again. twenty-one studies that had some com. and at the availability of books and periodi. In 1987. reporting the results iam Patterson College Library (WPCL). known to be owned by the library) were mendations aimed specdfically at remedy.'. which are unique in their focus on the ported a 54 percent overall availability recall function.20 Book availability was calculated at in focus. by reports from Wil- ever. with 35. frequently using Kantor's performance in this service area. measuring the ies at the University of Sussex Library in availability of monographs only. Robert Goehlert rate studies of material availability have made this distinction in back-to-back ar- been published by librarians at the Will. on loan. (Other factors chasing duplicate copies of high-demand in unavailability included "being books. After one week. widely divergent ures." Eugene S. Since Mansbridge's review. but com.23 Goehlert's initial study. ticles in 1978-1979. patron. to re. multiple copies.' ranged from 8 percent to 89 percent. One-third of all ing circulation. Jacobs conducted a pair of similar stud- monality (for example. but 84 . and after the implementation of strategic braries). at least in academic li. "materials in circulation" largest single reason for the unavailabil- and "library error" were the largest source ity of books continued to be that they were of nonavailability. however. but the surprisingly.7 percent. in part.. Overall availability rose availability rate to be 61 percent. with 31 percent of failures re- port that overall immediate availability sulting from items being on loan.5 percent of all failures mulative availability rate for materials resulting from titles on loan. although 22 percent calculation of cumulative availability over of the failures still resulted from titles time. Mansbridge found the average policy changes. adjusting loan periods. reshelved" and "on search. after two weeks.

but not lending. Results demonstrated that under. In indicators are well established. In a follow-up5 study. Book Availability Revisited 287 percent.26 Her four categories were turnable versus nonreturnable) can influ- similar but used slightly different termi. cost of both borrowing and lending op. In the single reported study ing and lending operations. as determined by internal cost not only by start-stop parameters." 27 lar thread of the book availability discus. the per.25 ied twenty-five multitype libraries. and o Success rate. but by studies. ence turnaround time as well. or speed index cumulative availability of heavily of supply. delivery methods. Waldhart sum. this particu. reviewing berly L.) from 8. and performance ing from roughly five to thirteen days. and Kim- update to Waldhart's paper. Table 1 lists eight recent studies of tum- sion engendered no subsequent research. writing: "Tumaround time.07 ers have calculated tumaround time in a days-a revelation that led administrators variety of ways. after a recall notice was sent. Phillips stud- actions. which internal processing (from the date the has received scant attention in the con. who waited 17. performance indicators for ILL. * cost studies. researchers review article. repre. made a useful contribution to used and widely divergent performance the literature. Turnaround time is influenced.000 recalled quests. is perhaps the most widely used items. date the item is available for pickup by formance of ILL has been scrutinized the borrowing patron). Mary E.4 days * Cost is the actual. In his 1985 other studies.86 days. other factors as well. research- as opposed to faculty. (This is typically to the date the patron retrieved the re- monitored by borrowing.91 and 5. John Budd. graduate and graduate students retumed * user satisfaction studies. measure of ILL and document supply. Jackson's perception of service quality and is nor. recalled books within 5. 1976. that examined tumaround time from the * Thrnaround time is the amount of "outer limits" of patron perception (from time it takes-usually in days-for an ILL the date the patron submitted a request request to be fulfilled." measures successfully filled ILL brary ships an item or the date the bor- requests as a percentage of total requests rowing patron actually retrieves an item received and is applied to both borrow. choose altemative start and stop points: marized four measures commonly used the former including the date the borrow- to evaluate ILL performance: ing patron submits his or her request. for checkout. as evidenced nology: by Burke's analyses.4 days at one library to 15. t a e books within lU's main collection. however. Stein confirmed this situa- Goehlert's studies. Despite the growing agreement on respectively. per transaction at another. Joan Stein published an by Mary K Sellen. * turaround time and the impact of senting 17 percent of all recalls for 1975. and his attempts to tion. erations. Goehlert * fill rate and reasons for failed re- meticulously examined 2. Unfortunately. borrowing library orders an item until the text of book availability studies. around time that substantiate this diver- gence. Linda L. with times rang- closely for many years. 2 4 ficult at best. of course. The type of material requested (re- 1986 to 1998. quested item). Burke each focused on a single li- ILL performance studies for the years brary. 28-5 The majority of these studies InterlibraryLoan count the number of days required for Unlike the performance of recalls. is the largest to date. Studies In April 2001. . also known as "fill the latter including the date a lending li- rate. making comparisons dif- to institute recall fines for faculty. tumaround time varied operations. One is the number and * Impact on service refers to patrons' types of libraries studied. Thomas J. study of 119 college and research libraries mally applied only to borrowing trans.

288 College& Research Libraries July 2003 TABLE 1 Studies Documenting JILLlTrnaround Time Method of Calculation Author Average # of Days Date ILL staff requested to date ILL received Sellen (1999) 4.5 days in 1982. time of nine to seventeen days appears to * borrowing fill rate: 85 percent. achieved via work-flow adjustments).1 days in 1999 (with efficiencies time must appear reasonable to patrons. * patron satisfaction levels: 94 to 97 A. tual delivery speed. titioners and library administrators.8 copies Burke poststudy 9.m Waiting 15.46 (1996) Date patron requested to date patron notified Jackson (1998) 14.6 days to receive an item on For the purposes of this paper. Jackson.4 at one library & 15.69 Phillips (1999) 7. Weaver-Meyers that patron satisfaction formance in ninety-seven research (ver. when re- ILL may appear unreasonably long. patron's perspective and indicate the cal- This corroborates earlier reports by Pat endar days elapsed from the date the pa- . "Satisfaction time" will refer to the ment and (2) interactions with ILL staff. ILL patrons rized as follows: are perhaps more tolerant of delivery * borrowing cost per transaction: speed than has been assumed by ILL prac- $18. Dobson.39 "Turnaround time" will refer not a major consideration of patrons sur.5 college Date ILL staff requested to date shipped by lender Medina (1988) 9 Date patron requested to date ILL received None reported Date patron requested to date patron received Levene (1996) 8. but not with the ac- to the present study and can be summa.6 copies Date ILL staff requested to date patron received Weaver-Myers. to the library perspective and indicate the veyed. Tallman docu- * lending fill rate: 58 percent.1 loans (1999) & 6. Johanna E. and Burke a mere stitute for local ownership.7In short.4 at another A subset of Jackson's data on ILL per.79 Budd (1986) 12. the terminology the high patron satisfaction rates reported established by Maurice Line will be by Jackson would suggest that this was adopted. be the norm. Philbin.20 Burke prestudy 12 loans (1999) & 9. L. a turnaround days. * lending cost per transaction: $9. enteen days in 1998. 11.6 opposed to photocopies). mented an average of eleven days in 1980.9 research & 9. correlates strongly with the patron's per- sus college) libraries is of special interest ception of timeliness. sev- If interlibrary loan is to serve as a sub. Jackson correlated the calendar days elapsed from the date the various ILL measures of performance borrowing library requests an item to the with patron satisfaction and found the date the borrowing library receives it. T. and K. percent. 15. B. P. turnaround 9. but ferring to ILL service. P. Indeed. Focusing exclusively on book loans (as * borrowing turnaround time: 15.35. strongest correlations to be with (t) pay.36 Rastogi.48.

library staff processed 18.000 current serial GWLA and the Iowa Regents Interinsti- subscriptions. and all pa. Internal data show the average Ariel is the preferred method for deliver- turnaround time for book loans at ISU ing and receiving documents. UPS. graduate students. cial shippers such as Fedex. respectively. and sional staff can borrow most books for the Airborne. whenever possible. pendently and as part of cost/perfor. although these two minimums Phase 1: Unpaired Study of Recall may overlap in whole or in part. the library grows at a rate tutional ILL Group. making the timely the State of Iowa Access Plus program. acquires more than 'one copy of any Most documents are exchanged via Ariel. graduate stu- around time for several years. recall of materials an absolute necessity. ISU has past three years.. In the two calendar years of the study tron receives it.169.951 recalls. those ing a new due date that guarantees a using Ariel for document supply. faculty. libraries (those in close proximity. microfilm. undergraduates. a recall in the ISU library system. this had increased to ures in the literature. dents. The the borrowing requests initiated by pa- present study tests the hypothesis that. As a member of the lion volumes and 20. up to a twenty-dollar maximum. Customized holdings groups in less of the status of the original borrower OCLC allow the librarians to maximize or the requestor. Clio is used mance studies coordinated by the for data management by both the borrow- Association of Research Libraries (ARL) ing and the lending units. sions. books. the library relies of 40. The ISU library has 15. ies. or those minimum two-week loan as well as a using expedited courier services). some 6. Book Availability Revisited 289 tron requests an item to the date the pa. visiting scholars. expedited delivery. whereas returnables are sent via commer- Faculty. The library also participates in entire academic year. A printed recall notice is their interaction with "preferred partner" mailed to the original borrower. This is con. Returnables such as on average. calculated from the date experienced exponential growth in its ILL the material is ordered by ILL to the date borrowing service: in FY1992. university staff. OCLC is used and the Greater Westem Library Alliance for ordering. regard. Research Hypothesis ILL borrowing service is available to The ISU library has tracked ILL turn. and other affiliated patrons. Most agreements include a provision for drop for the current study. (2000 and 2001). books that a patron finds lo. minimum seven days for notification and response. and (GWLA). and videotapes ac- cally unavailable can be obtained more counted for 30 percent of all items bor- quickly via recall than via ILL. multitype libraries in the state but does Any item in circulation is subject to recall not include expedited delivery provi- when needed by another patron. Methiodology trons-including faculty-are subject to The goal of phase 1 was to determine av- a fine of one dollar per day for overdue erage turnaround and satisfaction times for recalls. establish. monograph (except for course reserves). which provides free ILL service among All other patrons receive a two-week loan.973 and 17. collections and services provides a back. There is and ILL Turnaround Times no grace period for recalls.2 mil. items were borrowed from other librar- sistent with (and on the lower end of) fig. trons in FY2002. rowed that year.000 volumes per year but seldom heavily on partners in both consortia.499 the material is received in ILL. ranging from nine to eleven days over the Like most research libraries. adopt- . Staff were able to fill 95 percent of never tracked recall turnaround time. by FY2002. and profes. With 2. both inde. The library participates in a number of Institutional Background consortial ILL agreements providing free A brief description of the ISU library's exchange of documents and returnables.

were returned to the library an average rower name and ID. The former could then be Date item requested compared with ISU's established ILL turn. Results atic sample with a random start point was Data from the first phase of the study are seen as an effective alternative to a truly summarized in table 2. tracking the date an item of the returned items were subsequently was requested.3 days after the zon reports. resulting in a systematic sample of 10 tored throughout the fall 2000 semester percent of all recalls for the month. the Date item checked out by requestor latter could facilitate future comparisons Date item expired on hold shelf with ILL satisfaction times. Twenty-seven of Queue. items. original borrower. FIGURE 1 ture. a system. an average returned by the original borrower and the 15.) recalled. requestor an average 13. ery tenth recall processed. no other re- or interim periods. until all recalls had been fulfilled. 196 were returned to the library An Accessm database (figure 1) was an average 12. along with the date it was checked out by the requestor.6 days after the request was placed. waiting in the recall queue for this item. recall queue of "1. .000 recalls was placed. the date the never retrieved by their requestors. structure within the total population of recalls processed in a month. The progress of each recall was moni- sis. in some cases. A separate field. unaffected by lengthy holiday time the recall was placed. Of bar code) permitted quick and accurate these. only one was never returned by the tion the studied recall held in that queue. til 200 recalls had been selected for analy.4 days after the request was placed. Anticipating (from calls were pending on this item. Location in recall queue (1. waiting four of the original 200 items were never to be retrieved). (Be. of "2" signified that at the time the recall brary would process roughly 2. One hundred fifty-four call transaction. library's Horizon-based online circulation Focusing only on the 145 items with a system provided all the necessary dates. The AccessT'O Record Structure the authors tracked the number of calen- dar days elapsed from the date the recall for Phase 1 Study was placed to the date the recalled item Transaction number (1-200) was returned to the library (turnaround Requestor name time) and also the number of calendar days Requestor ID elapsed from the date the recall was placed Item call number to the date the patron actually retrieved Item bar code number and borrowed the requested item (satis.3 days after the recall re- used to monitor the progress of each re. date it was eventually checked out by the Forty-two of the returned items were requestor (or. Of the original 145 recalls on a given item) and what posi. 117 items were checked out by the updating of the file from the daily Hori. continuing un. indicated whether a recall queue the returned items were never retrieved existed (that is. A value past experience) that staff in the main li. one other patron was already during the month. and item "expired" on a hold shelf. Date item returned around time of nine to eleven days. item call number and 9.2. or had expired. Of the 200 items random sample. 3. had been cause there is no repeated or periodic canceled by the requestor. multiple simultaneous by their requestors. etc. quest was made. For each recall examined in phase 1. the study isolated ev. October 2000 was selected for phase 1 review as a typical month in the academic The default value "'1" signified that at the calendar.) faction time). labeled request was processed.290 College & Research Libraries July 2003 ing the terminology used in the ILL litera." 144 of these items Other fields in the Access record (bor. Reports generated by the returned by the original borrowers. and so on.

Thirty-two of the returned items to have an outstanding queue of "7" and were checked out by the requestor an av. conducted in Au- gust 2001. were ors an average 37. The samples com- z g. and twelve returned items were never retrieved. >. The average 15.) Titles were identified using .however. 2i cE= ie '4i j a s 4 In the second phase of the study. 9. applied to the first 200 re- ~~~~~~~~~t ia quests processed during the week. Of these. .~~~ F. The authors V lm considered a sample of mt=ri cn thirty titles (15%).5 days after the for "first" recalls in a queue) to be com- request was placed.5 days after the request was thus removed from the study.. and was erage 19. Five of these items pared with ISU's preestablished average turnaround time of nine to eleven days for ILLreturn- ables. was placed. i were obviously unrelated. al. Circulation staff 0 l8 were giventhelist ofthirty _~ /'trandomly selected num- 3 3 bers and pulled those re- E quests from their work Q _ flow immediately after ini- tiating each recall. were forty-four were returned to the library an never retrieved from the hold shelf.3 days for all eight items were eventually returned to recalls. some 260 recalls En CZ n>= are processed per week by staff at the library's circu- : = lation : desk. pro- _ sr cessed during the week of o ~ ~ E E-= ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1 o 3 c August 20-24. however.: gz~~~~~c MoE: w a random number table. Only one of the original Phase 2: Paired Study of Recall and forty-six items was never returned to the ILL Turnaround Times library.. regardless of queue size.6 days the library an average 42. to be suffi- cient for this paired study. Methiodology Finally.2 days after the request "second" recalls within a queue. Book Availability Revisited 291 Forty-six of the recalls in the study. . neously requested via ILL nto test actual turnaround : c5 l$ time in a more rigorous paired study. had already been billed as lost. Patron .4 days after the request was one remaining recall in the sample proved placed. were eventually checked out by request- most a quarter of the total reviewed. pared in phase 1. placed. All recall turnaround time (12. thirty recalled books-chosen at ran- dom-were simulta- i? r . tn ~ ~ II In the typical month of U t(~~~~~~4 '-~~C August. eight of the recalls in the study Phase 1 of the study provided an average were "third" recalls within a queue. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C. Three items.

The recalled book was re. the turn- he or she had placed a recall. the recalled books were not retrieved by tion departments as copies of the requested patrons because either the recall expired book became available.5 days. instance (ID# 2). which provides for each that a book was available for pickup. but that loan periods would the requested item.292 College & Research Libraries July 2003 and bibliographic information for all thirty book was received and checked in by ILL books was then forwarded to ILL staff. was held only by the ISU library. OCLC the same day. many item: the unique ID number (1-30). The average satisfaction time for ILL was 11. sat on the hold shelf an additional described as "perfectly paired" (table 4). picked up the recalled book. with no Two items were excluded from the special attention other than to monitor study for technical reasons.3 days. according to normal procedures. Other the number of days elapsed before the item items were simply never retrieved and re- was received by circulation/ILL (turn. the patrons said they already had the recalled random table number. and the total number of days were returned to the lending library. 2001. the first item in the study Given the low rate of pickup for ILL was random item number 002 in the items. (2) the date the item was by the patron between the time the recall returned to circulation or checked in by ILL was placed and the time the ILL copy was staff. based on data for twenty- to let staff know if they no longer needed eight requests. The same tailed T test on the mean satisfaction times . Upon being notified by ILL staff rized in table 3. copy and did not need the ILL copy. however. a strict comparison of the satisfac- population of 200. In the they could retrieve either or both copies twenty-two cases when patrons retrieved of the book. Six of notices from both the ILL and the circula. This memo explained the study and told All twenty-eight recalled items were the patron to expect separate availability eventually returned to circulation. In fact. it is possible to do a two- after a total of seventeen days. For example. In the first three dates: (1) the date recalled or re. and (3) the date each item was actu. of two days to a high of seventeen. Patrons were not obligated to retrieve both The average turnaround time for ILL copies of the book. ranging from a by a standard e-mail message (figure 2). mained on the ILL hold shelf until they around). Both the circulation to be retrieved (by the same patron) after recalls and the ILLrequests were handled a total of eight days. The second (ID# 20) proved ally retrieved and checked out by the pa. the average total sat- differ between the ISU-owned copy and isfaction time (from patron request to pa- the copy received from another library. pre- elapsed before the patron retrieved the re. The range was from a low access to the copy in question.8 Results days. requests. tron pickup) was 9. they were was one day longer than for recalls: 7. the date requested. likely to be meaningful. was made around time for the remaining twenty- aware of the supplementary ILL request eight recalls was 6.3 asked to contact either circulation or ILL calendar days. in only and requested by ILL staff via OCLC on eight cases did the patron retrieve both the same date. seven days. low of one day to a high of twenty-two. This book was recalled tion time for each pair of requests is not by circulation staff on August 20. to be ordered. staff six days after being requested and who promptly requested the items via sat on the hold shelf in ILL for two days. based on only twelve of the thirty Results of the paired study are summa. the request was cancelled quested on OCLC. initially aware only that In looking at overall averages. Patrons were told or the patron cancelled the request. the recalled copy and the copy obtained turned to the circulation unit ten days via ILL-a sample subset that might be later. sumably because the patron had already quested item from the library (satisfaction). Each patron. to be an ISU extension publication that tron. to be retrieved by the patron Nevertheless.

and. Book AvailabilityRevisited 293 FIGURE 2 Memo to Requestor Regarding the Paired RecallIl Transactions To: From: Wayne Pedersen Head.31 Two-tailed P value = 0. instead. we are exploring the relationship between recalled books and interlibrary loan service.7843 Excluding the factor ofpatron response T = 0. Please contact Wayne Pedersen (198B Parks Library. You will be notified separately when each of these books is ready for you to pick up.31 to 7. produc. author.515 around time for both recalls aAd ILLs. By these criteria.2845 and focusing. 294-0440.3506 . Please be aware that the loan period you receive will vary between the ISU-owned copy and the copy obtained from another library. circulation at 294-3961. we ask that you contact staff at the appropriate service desk (i. If you choose not to use one of these copies. and with a view to improving library service. title> Your request was randomly selected from recalls placed in the last few if you have any questions or concerns. or interlibrary loan/document delivery at 294-8073) and tell them you no longer need the material. wap5@iastate.-in addition to recalling the book-. on the strict turn- Standard error of difference = 3. Interlibrary Loan/Document Delivery Iowa State University Library David Gregory Acting Head of Access Services Iowa State University Library Subject: Recalled book Date: In response to comments received from several ISU library users. We are very interested in comparing the speed with which this book is made available to you through these two different services. depending on your need. Two-tailed P value = 0..we have requested the book from another library via interlibrary loan. particularly with regard to "turnaround time. the one-day difference ing the following results: between mean satisfaction times is not Sample size = 8 considered statistically significant. for this relatively small sample.e." On _ you placed a recall for the following book at the Parks Library circulation desk: <Callnumber.75) minus two-tailed T test produces the following the mean of the ILL group (12. the Mean of the recall group (11.0 results: 95 percent confidence interval of this Sample size = 28 difference: -9. You then have the option of using one or both of them.75) = -1.

pares favorably to Jackson's average sat- tically significant.3 11.294 College & Research Libraries July 2003 T = 0. to com- Phase 1 of this study.16 to 1. demonstrated that around time to Iowa State's own ILL turn- TABLE 3 lTrnaround Times for Paired Recall/ILL Transactions in Phase 2 Days for Recall Days for ILL ID Randon# Reqst'd [hmaround Satisfaction Expired Ihmrnaround Satisfaction Expired 1 002 8/20/01 10 17 6 8 2 003 8/21/01 Cancelled Cancelled 3 009 8/21/01 7 20 6 9 4 025 8/21/01 9 16 5 029 8/21/01 2 6 6 037 8/21/01 6 9 9 7 038 8/21/01 7 8 8 041 8/21/01 6 20 9 042 8/21/01 8 16 10 059 8/22/01 8 10 11 062 8/22/01 13 14 8 12 063 8/22/01 9 13 35 13 070 8/22/01 6 9 14 071 8/22/01 9 15 7 15 089 8/22/01 5 5 16 099 8/22/01 5 14 17 100 8/23/01 22 35 7 18 118 8/23/01 4 6 19 121 8/23/01 5 18 20 124 8/23/01 Cancelled Cancelled 21 127 8/23/01 4 7 22 130 8/23/01 5 6 7 23 137 8/27/01 3 4 24 160 8/24/01 3 3 25 176 8/24/01 2 26 180 8/24/01 8 13 18 27 183 8/24/01 l 7 10 28 186 8/24/01 2 7 29 191 8/24/01 7 4 30 192 8/24/01 7 13 _ Averages 6.16 average ILL/borrowing satisfaction time Again.00 days. however. isfaction time for the borrowing of retum- ables (17 days).5 23. pare the 12.32) minus pickup. the one-day difference between cited by Jackson in 1998 for ninety-seven the mean turnaround times for recall and research libraries (15.4 the mean of the ILL group (7.8 N/A .9498 the average recall required 12.053 tumaround and an additional 3. The 15.32) = -1.6 days) and com- ILL transactions is not considered statis.1 days for Mean of the recall group (6. Discussion It is more revealing. making satisfaction time 15.4 days for patrons to obtain 95 percent confidence interval of this their materials compares closely with the difference: -3.3 7.3 days for Standard error of difference = 1.3-day average recall turn- domly chosen recalls.3 9. focusing on 200 ran.

ing of books and other returnables has sample. in terms of both turnaround and satisfac- calculated from the date the material is tion time performance. further sampling was they happened to be checked out for the not necessary to establish mean ILL turn.4 days.8 library's book than to recall a book held and 12. the 11.Using a smaller. who ing. respectively.13 12. although ILL. phase 2 tracked 11.75 8. and ILL services were fairly comparable later Clio) since 1995 to track this figure. the satisfaction time for recalls is significantly more time to access another only slightly lower than thatforlLL-11. This dis. the comparison is not as case.75 around time. academic year. But because cal colleague or requesting it from another so few ILL items were actually picked up library: twelve days average in the former (12 out of 30). The average figures for "pickup.3 for time dipped further to 9." or the overall average for the past three years satisfaction. locally. around times. subset of eight perfectly paired trans- generally had assumed it would require actions. in part.5-day average for 1. In the loosely paired study of twenty- erage turnaround time for recalls in phase eight transactions. This assumption had been the A further analysis of recall and ILL turn- basis for the long-standing library policy around means was conducted with a two- that prohibited interlibrary borrowing of tailed t test. timeliness in retrieving available materi- Comparing these figures with the av.0 in FY2001 and FY2002. which demonstrated that there . Turnaround time for the borrow. Like phase 1. recall satisfaction is somewhat lower than ence between recalling a book from a lo.2 days. Because of the ample data books owned by the ISU library. there would appear to be little differ.8 days. but interest- covery surprised some library staff. Phase 2 of the ordered by ILL to the date it is received study attempted to test this finding in in ILL. The ILL unit has used data Phase 1 data suggested that the recall management software (initially Savelt. the average turnaround same time frame by two different library time for loans (as opposed to copies) was services. the patron's remains close to eleven days. reflect. phase 2 measured the delivery been fairly consistent over the past few time of precisely the same book in the years: In FY2000.8-day average for ILL. als. the average turnaround around time: 6. In the very small. The figure dropped slightly to both turnaround time and satisfaction 11. In the first time. the 9. The results in table 3 show the av- three months of FY2003 (uly through erage figures to be very close for turn- September2002).63 11. even if already available.3 days for recalls. but paired. BookAvailabilityRevisited 295 TABLE 4 TurnaroundTimes For the Eight Perfectly Paired Recall/ILL Transactions in Phase 2 Days for Recall Days for ILL ID Random# Reqst'd Tbrnaround Satisfaction Ihrnaround Satisfaction 1 002 8/20/01 10 17 6 8 6 037 8/21/01 6 9 7 9 11 062 8/22/01 13 14 8 8 12 063 8/22/01 9 13 8 35 14 071 8/22/01 9 15 6 7 22 130 8/23/01 5 6 5 7 26 180 8/24/01 8 13 15 18 27 183 8/24/01 1 7 10 10 Averages 7. 7. eleven days in the latter. another way. reliable.

including circulation desk to the ILL office. of the recalls. held and presumed to be on the shelf One ior on book availability. assumptions. intentionally or otherwise. regard- from follow-up studies. expec. measured against less of its actual availability. ILL staff would reduce the average turnaround time for routinely notify the user. Another policy change affects users further reducing the time required for who.4" To understand with regard to both turnaround and satis. physical trip to the library to initiate a The ISU library has therefore begun to ex- recall and is already in use by some 70 plore possible means (both systems and percent of requestors. As a of various library services. has fascinated li- between the means of the two samples brarians for decades. But will that be the case? Data item's call number and location. timely access to books at Iowa State. document delivery service. for example. Surveys and focus groups.) Under tations. and behavior regarding these and the new policy. faction time. library is likely to increase to almost sixteen days staff implemented an electronic recall re. In the past. In fact. However. will provide also informed of the library's fee-based the answer. with e-mail. if the book is checked out or already re- for example. if the book is available on other library services. which deliv- The data also can provide information ers a library-owned item to the requestor's on patron perceptions. the patron still receives e-mail the data can be supplemented with direct notification of local availability. perceptions Some may question the library's ongo- of timeliness are based on much more ing reluctance to simply borrow a re- than actual delivery time. in phase 1. test these assumptions. This provides further support and conceivably shape this behavior. ILL staff automatically borrow the into patrons' perceptions of the timeliness book from another library/supplier. even if it is locally patron attitudes. first to make sure that the requestor is not tions provide a complete picture of this the person who has borrowed or recalled issue. reasonable to continue recalling locally lute and relative terms.6 days well these two core functions-the circu. suggesting that quest form linked to the online library the book could indeed be acquired more catalog. the data suggest specific changes that might easily be made to ex- Conclusions and Recommendations isting policy. borrowing transaction (11 days). Given the average turn- Data from the current study can tell how around time for a "single" recall (9.3 days in phase 2) and an ILL lation recall and the ILL borrowing trans. Certainly. it appears action-are "performing. data for the initial finding that recall and ILL such as those from the present study pro- services are comparable in providing vide an important piece of the puzzle.4 0 The impact of quested book via ILL. these changes should appreciably the ISU library. (based on phase 1 data). by e-mail. when a second recall is parisons. a topic beyond reason is obvious: The library already has .296 College & Research Libraries July 2003 was no statistically significant difference the scope of this paper. circulation records are verified ther performance data nor patron percep. ies. However. average turnaround time study at Iowa State. at least some library services. and behav. The data also provide a valu. recall and availability notices. rowing unowned books from other librar- able baseline for future studies and com. which obviates the need for a quickly via ILL despite local ownership. research suggests that. patron input. In the months following this placed on a book. In the upcoming work flow based) to automatically refer semester. the library also will replace all second (and subsequent) recalls from the printed patron correspondence. precaution. (The user was the current baseline figures. can yield valuable insights called. these attitudes. home or office for a nominal fee. for the locally owned copy. 6. directly patron notification and response. particularly when the shelf. nei." in both abso. However. with regard to owned books from local patrons and bor- timeliness. attitudes. To. submit ILL requests for books owned by gether.

42 Cr. sophisticated "calculus of collection de- The scrutiny and comparison of the ISU velopment. maintaining. recognize ILL as the preferred means of enue stream for the library. although the creasing book availability. and provid- ily adapted to the recall function. acquiring. Charles sential to effective program planning and Hamaker has urged librarians to consider fiscal management. demic library administrator. and additional research is major casualties of what havebeen called needed. for developing. may be a key factor in work flows involved. call queues to ILL lending and back. and other dynamic indicator that tells much checking the item out to the requestor. exist in a perpetual state tional costs of selecting. shelving. does own. quotient" (CFQ). of itself. can be found on the owned by a library. binding. policies or collection development prac- culation costs. ing multiple copies of popular books. are reportedly tices. "ordering" (so Henderson'sproposed "collection failure to speak) and receiving the requested item. present study suggests that ILL might be mined the mean cost of charging/renew. but useful. generalizable to other li. could be seri. rev.50 As librarians work lar: The turnaround and satisfaction times to create more effective. are just the tip of the '!in. of course. brarians typically adjust their circulation action in research libraries is $18. is cost. shortening loan periods or acquir- much lower.24. of its users. 45 One possible follow-up to the the 'Serial'. peatedly that circulation data. an effective. academic libraries. instead. ing timely access to monograph collec- The final conclusion drawn by the au. catalog. the wise expenditure of limited mono- volve receiving a request. liness of availability. According to the ARL study. In tinuously storing a monograph. Unfortunately. logging and graph funds. 4 6 These are the books vestment iceberg" for items permanently that seldom. and con. particularly the cost for a recall transaction would be con. holistic models normally associated withILL could be eas. In 1985.47 He has written: "One of the other than ILL. tions.44 As li. cost the collateral damage to monograph col- data are not widely available for services lections. This value-added service. is an- holding the item for a designated time. accessing what a library doesn't own- ously undercut if its subsidized ILL ser. the shadow of the serials funding crisis brary funding continues to shrink. shelf but. Albert tracking the request online. borrowing to local collection size. Both processes in. supplementary means of in- ing a book to be just $0. considering the addi. Seal deter. marking. and RobertA.4 9 Similarly. For whatever reason. librarians and library literature-quick to which provides a small. but steady. availability of what Allen Kent referred siderably higher and both would need to to in 1979 as the "kernel of constantly used be adjusted for inflation.35. . The about collection performance but. including pressed upon the authors the similarity of time series data." Hamaker has suggested re- library's recall and ILL processes im. based on the ratio of ILL notifying the requestor of its availability. building block. To compensate for books being braries."148 In his call for a more work flow. of transit from reserve operations to re- ing. alternative to the recall process under cer- owned material to the offices and homes tain circumstances. studies such as the present one pro- thors is that ILL provides a reasonable vide one small. checked out when needed by patrons. if ever. li- the mean cost for an ILL-borrowing trans. have seldom considered ILL's potential vice began to offer free alternatives. Book Availability Revisited 297 a fee-based service in place to deliverlSU. that now preoccupies almost every aca- interservice cost comparisons will be es. The Duncan Aldrich. in and concepts and terminology regarding de. cannot assess failures in the time- livery speed also were surprisingly simi. in general. A more in expanding access to material the library obvious reason. 4 3 Circulation items. wars has been access to books present study is to determine the actual in North America's academic and re- cost of a recall based on local systems and search libraries." a concept still familiar to most costs. Pat Weaver-Meyers.

70. available online from http://www. "Availability Studies in Libraries.. Shaw." Wilson Library Bulletin 43 (1969): 458-61. 1999): 354-66. Ibid. Mitchell. Sup- ply and Demand in ARL Libraries. Michael H.1975): 93-98. "Changing Circulation Policies at an ARL Library: The Impact of Peer Institution Survey Data on the Process. Kantor. 284. 9. "Loans &Groans. Ibid. Lee.... Radford. "Library Resources and Services: A Cross-Disdplinary Survey of Faculty and Graduate Student Use and Satisfaction." Journal of Academic Librarianshzip24 (July 1998): 282-89. "Some Behavioral Patterns of Library Users: The 80/20 Rule. 6. 52-53. 10. 1987): 513-27. had published his infamous 80/20 rule only six years earlier. and Paul B. Ibid. Ciliberti. "Performance Evaluation of Interlibrary Loan in the United States: A Review of Research. Richard Trueswell. "Availability Analysis. and Terry Ballard. John Mansbridge. Joan Stein. Terry EllenFerl and Margaret G. 23. Saracevik.Tefko Saracevic." College &Research Libraries55 (Jan. Mitchell. Book Availability and the Library User (New York: Pergamon. Patrida Davitt Maughan. "Empty Handed? A Material Availability Study and Transaction Log Analysis Verification. Ariel. 26. Mail and Fax. Judith L. "Let Them Eat Cake While Reading Catalog Cards: An Essay on the Avail- ability Problem. Casserly.. 286." Journal of Aca- demic Librarianshiip5 (May 1979): 79-82. Phillips. 8. Hegg. 2. Courier." Collection Management 17 (1992): 133-48. 1977): 7-18.. 1976): arlstat/ graphs/2001 /2001t3. Hartse and Daniel R. 15. 29. respectively. "Interlibrary Loan Turnaround Tlime: Measuring the Component Parts. Sellen.Kantor. and Kantor. Ibid. 11." New Review of Academic Librarianship1 (1995): 41-55. Buckland. Hegg. 16. Marie L. 305. and "The Effect of Loan Policies on Circulation Recalls." Library and Information Science Research 7 (1985): 313-31. 28. At the same time. Robinson. 98. "Turnaround Time and Journal Article Delivery: A Study of Four Delivery Systems. "Causes and Dynamics of User Frustration in an Academic Library.. Goehlert.. 12. Ibid. 6. the number of faculty and students at ARL institutions grew by 15 percent and 14 percent. 20." LibraryJournal 124 (Oct. Jacobs. Anne C. 18. 5." RQ26 (fall 1986): 75-80. "Book Availability: Academic Library Assessment. Anne Ciliberti. 27. "Effect of Loan Policies. Paul B." Journal of the American Societyfor Information Sci- ence27 (Sept. "Book Availability at theUniversity of Califor- nia. "The Evaluation and Improvement of Book Availability in an Academic Library. Shaw Jr. 32. 304. and Biddanda P. Document Supply &Information Supply 9 (1999): 97-119.. Gary P Radford. 17. Ibid. In the fifteen years between 1986 and 2001. 1986-2001." 25. Robert Goehlert." Journalof InterlibraryLoan." Journalof InterlibraryLoan." JournalofAcademic Librarianship25 (Sept. 7. xi.. 1975)." 15. Daniel Gore. Document Delivery &Informa- tion Supply 9 (1999): 65-72. "BookAvailability and Delivery Service." College &Research Libraries 38 (Jan. respectively.-Oct. 13. Marie L. Waldhart. Ponnappa. Michael Rogers. Tlisa Houck. 21. 1. Merri A. 1978): 368-71. 22. 19. "Causes and Dynamics of User Frustration in an Academic Library. . A. "Interlibrary LoanService:AStudy of Turnaround Tune." Library and Information Science Re- view 8 (1986): 299-314. Mary K. Linda L. Radford. 1999): 67-68." JournalofAcademic Librarianship 4 (Nov. 15. JohnBudd. "Material Availability: A Study of Academic Library Performance. William M. 1986): 501-8. the volume of serial and book purchasing by ARL institutions shrank by 5 percent and 9 percent. "Measuring the Performance of ILL and Document Supply: 1986 to 1998. Thomas J. and Judith L. N. and Eugene S. Eugene S. of course. Ibid. 30. Santa Cruz. 14.html. Nancy Dulniak. Mary F." Library Journal 100 (Jan." College &Researcht Libraries47 (Sept. 24." College &Research Libraries 48 (Nov. 299. Ibid. Ibid. 1994): 47-55. 3." PerformanceMeasurement and Metrics 2 (2001): 11-72. SeeRichard Trueswell.298 College & Research Libraries July 2003 Notes 1. 4.

40. B. "Electronic Interlibrary Loan in the OCLC Library: A Study of Its Effectiveness. Richard AmRhein (Chi- cago: ACRL. "Resource Sharing or Cost Shifting?-The Unequal Burden of Cooperative Cataloging and ILL in Network. Tietjen. Jackson.Rastogi." Special Libraries73 (1982): 12-20. "Checking Up on the Joneses: Using Fill lime Data to Improve Inter- library Borrowing at New York University. Ayer studied the effect of perceived over. 35. Research Libraries. ix." Journal of InterlibraryLoan. 1987). "Duplication of Titles for Required Undergraduate Reading. Pat Weaver-Meyers. Weaver-Meyers and Wilbur A. "The Least Reading for the Smallest Number at the Highest Price." Journal of Library Administration 19 (1993): 101-23.Philbin. "The Library Collection Failure Quotient. See also. Charles Hamaker. 33.Dobson. Lange and Linda D. See. 47. "Some Measures of Cost-Effectiveness in Library Collections." Journal of Library Administration 17 (1992): 71-97. "Time Series Circulation Data for Collection Development or: You Can't Intuit That. 43." Journalof Academic Librarianship26 (May 2000): 159-70. 48." College &Researchi Libraries51 (Jan. Unfortunately. An in-house study now several years old at the Virginia Tech Library. "Interlibrary Loan and Customer Satisfaction: How Important Is Delivery Speed?" in Continuity &Transformation: Th1e Promise of Confluence: Proceedings of thze Seventhz National Conference of the Association of College and Researclh Libraries. -.S. Pat L.: Association of Research Libraries. demonstrating that students perceiving that multiple copies of a book are readily available wait until the last minute to attempt to borrow it. Kimberly A. P. 1985): 418-31. Measuring the Performanceof Interlibrary Loan Operations in Northz American Researchi & College Libraries. "Toward a Calculus of Collection Development. Sue 0. Timeliness and Satisfaction: Patrons' Perceptions about ILL Service. 365-71. and procedural level for circulation functions such as fines. P." LibraryJournal42 (May 1917): 356-58. 1990): 11-19. Jackson. Use of Library Materials: The University of Pittsburghi Study (New York: Marcel Dekker." 28-29. Measuring thze Perfornance of Interlibrary Loan Operations in North American Re- searchi &College Libraries. 1998). "Circulation Service Desk Op- erations: Costing and Management Data. and Robert A. Seal. T." CollectionManagement 17 (1992): 37-61. Line. Karen S. See Thomas P. little research has ensued in these areas. 37. "Patron Satisfaction at Any Cost? A Case Study of Interlibrary Loan in Two U. Burke." and Levene and Pedersen. "Management Data for Selection Decisions in Build- ing Library Collections. D." Journalof Library Administration 22 (1996): 33-48. Medina. "Patron Satisfaction at Any Cost?" 41. "The Impact of the OCLC Interlibrary Loan Subsystem on a Science Oriented Academic Library. Stolt. 46.Lowry. "Delivery Speed. overdues.March 29-April 1. See. UNESCO." Southeastern Librarian38 (fall 1988): 105-7. Allen Kent et al. and Burke. Document Delivery &In- formation Supply 10 (1999): 19-30. and "Toward a Calculus of Collection Development. "Delivery Speed. 1988): 764-67. First on their list were studies at the policy." 105. thus compressing the period of demand into a very small window of availability. and Molly Murphy. ix. Maurice B. Pat Weaver-Meyers. Timeliness and Satisfaction." Library Acquisi- tions: Practice&Theory 19 (1995): 191-95. Pennsylvania." Journal of Library Administration23 (1996): 23-42.A. 32. "Checking Up on the Joneses. "Delivery Speed.1995. Measuring the Performance of Interlibrary Loan Operations in Northi American Re- searcht & College Libraries. Albert Henderson. Book Availability Revisited 299 31. See Karen S." 38. 42." Journalof LibraryAdministration23 (1996): 55-71." Science and Technology Libraries 1 (winter 1980): 27-34. Charles Hamaker. Johanna E." College &Research Libraries46 (Sept. Jackson. Weaver-Meyers and Stolt. Ayer." American Libraries 19 (Oct. Measuring thie Performance of Document Supply Systems (Paris: General Information Programme and UNISIST. 1979). Tallman. "Network of Alabama Academic Libraries: Interlibrary Loan Turnaround Time Survey.. for example. Mary E. Measuring thze Performanceof InterlibraryLoan Operationsin North Ameri- can Researcht &College Libraries (Washington. 44. 39. "Management Challenges and Issues in Access Services Administration. As early as 1917.or undersupply of material in a reserved book room. estab- lished the total cost for purchase and shelving monograph volumes at $106 each and the total cost for purchase and shelving serial volumes at $181 each. Weaver-Meyers and Stolt. ietjen proposed an outline of categories in which research and longitudinal studies were needed in the area of access services. Jackson. for example.Pittsburgih. and recalls. operational. Thomas P. 49. loan periods. for example. 36. Timeliness and Satisfaction.The Ratio of Interlibrary Borrowing to Collection Size. Duncan Aldrich. 45. 24. 1995)." Journalof LibraryAdministration 16 (1992): 57-69. and "Redesigning Research Libraries: First Step toward the 21W Century. In 1992. and K. ed. for example. Cited in Charles B. Wilbur Stolt. 50. . Lange and Linda D. Lee-Allison Levene and Wayne Pedersen. 34.C. 16.

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION TITLE: Book Availability Revisited: Turnaround Time for Recalls versus Interlibrary Loans SOURCE: Coll Res Libr 64 no4 Jl 2003 WN: 0318203837002 The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and it is reproduced with Copyright 1982-2003 The H.ala. To contact he publisher: http://www. Further reproduction of this article in violation of the copyright is prohibited.W. Wilson Company. All rights reserved. .