Physical Delivery of Library Resources
New Work Item Proposal Ballot Comments and Working Group Responses
New Work Item Proposal Ballot Period: August 3 - September 1, 2009
Ballot: http://www.niso.org/apps/org/workgroup/nisovoting/ballot.php?id=126
NISO Voting Member Representatives only -- login is required.
Proposal Document: http://www.niso.org/apps/group_public/document.php?document_id=2569
Open for Public Commenting
This ballot was to approval a proposed new work item on the Physical Delivery of Library Resources.
The goal of this work item is to develop a statement of best practices related to the delivery of library materials. To achieve this objective, this proposal is to convene a NISO Working Group to explore the problem and deliver a Recommended Practice document describing possible solutions and to implement an education and adoption plan for encouraging implementation of the solution(s). The proposal was approved by the Discovery to Delivery Topic Committee on July 24, 2009.
Final Ballot Results:
The proposal for a new work item on the Physical Delivery of Library Materials was approved by the NISO membership on September 1, 2009. Of the 77 NISO Voting Members, 34 Voting Members cast ballots. The votes were as follows:
- Yes: 16 (47% of those voting; 21% of NISO Voting Members)
- No: 5 (15% of those voting; 7% of NISO Voting Members)
- Abstain: 13 (38% of those voting; 38% of NISO Voting Members)
Negative votes and their comments will be reviewed by the Working Group and responded to; the comments and responses have been made available below.
| Submitter | Comment | Working Group Response |
| ASIS&T |
|
|
| NFAIS |
From one of our members who summed it up well: Personally, I find this too woolly. How is "physical" defined in this context? Aren't we all in the business of helping to deliver library resources? Unless there is more clarification I don't see this being a worthwhile effort. I could see this turning into a long list of best practices that read like an amalgamation of many job descriptions of various library and vendor positions. I will be the first to admit that I am probably missing something here! But you asked for an opinion! |
The proposed recommended practice will focus on the movement of physical (i.e. returnable) items and will not address electronic delivery.
Despite the ever-increasing availability of electronic journals, e-books, and other digital resources, the movement of physical items (books and audiovisual materials) between libraries, and between library and patron, remains a major concern and a major cost for many libraries. Nationally, interlibrary borrowing traffic increased 41% during 2000-2006. In areas with library-courier services, the increase is even larger: for example, during the same period, ILL borrowing in Colorado increased by 107%. A recent study showed that the average academic library spends more than $6,800/year for delivery services, with some libraries paying as high as $60,000. We should emphasize that the working group is not concerned with physical movement scenarios where patrons pick up and return items belonging to their local library. Our interest lies in methods for improving performance and reducing the cost of moving materials between by a library that owns an item and another library whose patron wants to use the item, including direct delivery (e.g., home delivery) to the patron by either the lending or borrowing library. The increased volume and costs of library delivery is creating a demand for more information about how to run efficient and effective delivery operations. The proposed Statement of Work illustrates several areas of concern:
|
| HighWire Press | Agree with comments made by NFAIS and ASIS&T. | See separate responses to NFAIS and ASIS&T comments above. |
| National Agricultural Library | Agree with comments made by NFAIS and ASIS&T. | See separate responses to NFAIS and ASIS&T comments above. |