By Kip A. Darling
Mercian ILL Knowledge Exchange
Abstract
The Mercian ILL Knowledge Exchange, hosted online by Birmingham Newman University in November 2025, brought together 60 interlending practitioners from 21 institutions across the East and West Midlands. The event created space for dialogue on systems, workflows, and policy choices, highlighting the diversity of approaches to interlibrary loans and the shared challenges shaping practice. Key themes included balancing automation with human judgment, managing user expectations, and exploring regional collaboration. Feedback underscored the value of knowledge sharing for both strategic insight and frontline confidence, with participants praising the openness and generosity of the discussions. This review reflects on what the session revealed about sustainable interlending and why such exchanges are essential for building resilient, user-focused services.
Why This Event Happened
On 19 November 2025, 60 interlending practitioners from across the Mercian Collaboration came together online for an Inter-Library Loans (ILL) Knowledge Exchange, hosted by Birmingham Newman University. It was a rare chance to step back from the daily rush and ask: How do we do this work? Why does it matter? And where are we heading next?
The Mercian Collaboration is SCONUL’s regional network for East and West Midlands HE libraries. Its mission is to share expertise and foster development, and that ethos shaped the event’s origins. As Katie Mann, Assistant Director of Library Services (Engagement & Experience) at Birmingham Newman, explained:
“The Technical and Digital Services Team at Birmingham Newman University Library suggested the creation of this event, as many of them are reasonably new to ILL work and do not come from library backgrounds. With limited frames of reference, and having recently created their own processes from scratch due to a change in library management system, they wanted to know whether what they are doing aligns with practice elsewhere and whether there are changes or efficiencies they could make. A knowledge exchange event seemed like a great way to do this.”
That spirit of curiosity and openness set the tone for the day.
A Space for Dialogue
From the outset, discussion mattered as much as presentations. The chat buzzed with questions, humour, and mutual recognition. Participants compared notes on subscription uncertainty, staffing pressures, and system quirks, often discovering that challenges assumed to be local were, in fact, widely shared.
One attendee summed it up succinctly:
“The session was warm and inclusive, offering a comprehensive look at diverse system setups for ILL workflows. This breadth highlighted the complexity and significance of the role within libraries. I was particularly struck by the humanity and generosity of spirit in the knowledge sharing – it was truly commendable.”
Another reflected:
“I found this event extremely valuable. It’s easy to become focused on how your own institution operates, so gaining insight into how other ILL teams (or individuals) work helps strengthen relationships. I also appreciated learning new approaches and being encouraged to think differently about our own processes.”
Comparing Systems and Policies
The event did not gloss over differences. Attendees saw how service design varies according to system choice, staffing models, and institutional priorities. Some teams manage only a handful of requests each year, while others process many thousands. Policies ranged from highly flexible to tightly controlled, including the use of sanctions for repeated non-collection.
For staff from Birmingham City University, this comparison proved particularly thought-provoking. As Kanchan Sharma, Library Assistant, noted:
“Birmingham Newman uses a strike ban for uncollected items. Maybe we can implement this to encourage accountability.”
Carl Wood, another BCU Library Assistant, added:
“I thought the policy of ‘two strikes and you’re out’ seemed strict, but I can see why they have it. It did make me think about the number of uncollected ILLs we have and whether we should be monitoring them.”
This is the value of knowledge exchange: not copying others’ policies wholesale but sharpening local thinking through comparison.
Automation Versus Human Judgment
Technical insights were another highlight of the session. Demonstrations showed how platforms such as RapidILL and Rapido can streamline workflows, reducing manual effort and speeding up fulfilment. However, discussion repeatedly returned to a key insight: automation does not eliminate effort; it redistributes it.
Participants shared examples of auto-advancing rotas triggering duplicate requests, or automated processes failing to account for copyright nuances. The consensus was that sustainable turnaround times depend less on maximising automation than on understanding where human judgment remains essential.
Several attendees also questioned whether traditional KPIs genuinely capture service quality. Headline turnaround figures can create pressure without reflecting the complexity of interlending work. There was interest in metrics that focus on resilience, capacity, and risk, rather than reliance on a single performance number.
User Behaviour and Eligibility
Another strong theme was user behaviour and request quality. Many participants commented on the volume of unsuitable requests received, including items already in stock, open access materials, or requests otherwise outside scope, particularly from early-year undergraduates. This prompted discussion about eligibility rules and request limits.
Some institutions restrict ILL access for certain user groups or cap the number of active requests, while others prioritise education and clearer signposting to alternatives such as acquisitions or existing stock. The shared conclusion was that there is no one-size-fits-all solution, but that intentional policy design, coupled with clear communication, can significantly reduce friction.
Frontline Confidence
For frontline staff, the event offered reassurance as well as challenge. Exposure to consortia solutions such as WHELF+ and to systems like Rapido provided useful reference points, while reinforcing confidence in established local workflows. One attendee summarised this impact neatly:
“It was really useful in regard to knowledge sharing, learning from others, and feeling like we are on the right track with ILLs.”
Looking Ahead
The day also generated interest in deeper regional collaboration, including the possibility of a shared Mercian approach to interlending. These conversations remained exploratory rather than prescriptive, but the appetite for continued dialogue was clear. As libraries face subscription changes, budget constraints, and rising demand, opportunities to learn collectively become increasingly important.
Why It Worked
What made this event distinctive was not only the technical content, but the tone. Participants shared successes and challenges with honesty and generosity. In a profession where interlending work can feel invisible, that validation matters.
Final Thoughts
The Mercian ILL Knowledge Exchange demonstrated the value of creating structured space for practitioners to learn from one another across institutional boundaries. By foregrounding difference, encouraging dialogue, and centring lived experience, the event offered a nuanced picture of contemporary interlending and the pressures shaping it.
As libraries navigate ongoing change, these conversations are essential to building resilient, human-centred services grounded in shared understanding. The strong feedback calling for further knowledge-sharing suggests a clear appetite to continue the conversation, within Mercian and across the wider interlending community.
Kip A. Darling has led the Inter-Library Loans team at Birmingham City University since 2016. He is particularly interested in improving collaboration in interlending and served as RapidILL Working Group Coordinator for IGeLU from January 2024 to September 2025. He walks to work most days and knows more about 1980s hair metal than strictly necessary.