Interlending in 1989: A Trip Down Memory Lane

Interlending in 1989: A Trip Down Memory Lane

A library professional dressed as Batman faxes an ILL in 1989

Interlibrary Loans 1989 Style!

As FIL continues to evolve and embrace new challenges, it’s worth taking a moment to reflect on where we started. The FIL journal archive offers a fascinating record of interlending’s journey, and what better place to begin than the very first issue?

Ah, 1989—the year when Indiana Jones, James Bond and Marty McFly slugged it out at the box office and were beaten by Tim Burton’s Batman; the Berlin Wall was still standing (just about), and interlibrary lending was very much a world of printed request slips, microfiche, faxes, and waiting. Lots of waiting.

The very first Forum for Interlending Newsletter landed in June that year, full of discussions that still feel oddly familiar today. Costs, cooperation, technology, and the eternal question: how do we get things to people faster? Some things never change…

Coventry, Conferences, and Collaboration

FIL itself was just getting going, fresh from the success of “Interlend ’88” at Coventry Polytechnic. The conference had drawn together library professionals from across different sectors, and the buzz resulted in a new network for sharing ideas. By mid-1989, FIL had over 100 members, and its first newsletter was setting the tone for regular discussion.

One of the big topics? Who pays for interlending? The upcoming “Interlend ’89” conference was tackling this very issue. Libraries were wrestling with budget constraints, user expectations, and the sustainability of services. Sound familiar?

The Future Was… Automation?

Technology was another hot topic, with Lancaster University’s PICKUP system getting a mention as an early attempt at automation. The newsletter also highlighted experiments with teleordering and the potential of online catalogues—ideas that, at the time, seemed both exciting and slightly futuristic. Meanwhile, faxes were hailed as a game-changer, dramatically speeding up the request process compared to traditional postal methods. Of course, even faxing had its frustrations—blurry pages, missing transmissions, and the occasional paper jam.

Looking at then versus now, it’s striking how interlending remains a balance between speed, cost, and collaboration. In 1989, waiting weeks for a journal article was standard; today, many requests arrive digitally within minutes—but barriers like paywalls still cause delays. Budgets were tight then, and they’re still a challenge now. The optimism around new technologies in the newsletter—whether automation, teleordering, or shared databases—mirrors today’s conversations about AI and linked data. What has endured is the commitment to resource-sharing, and the belief that no library can—or should—stand alone.

Looking Back, Moving Forward

Reading that first FIL newsletter, it’s striking how much has changed—but also how much has stayed the same. The tools have evolved, the challenges have shifted, but at its core, interlending is still about libraries working together to get people the resources they need.

So, while we might smile at the thought of 1989’s cutting-edge innovations, the drive to improve access to knowledge is something we can all still relate to. And who knows? Maybe in another 35 years, people will be looking back at our “cutting-edge” systems with the same fond amusement…

You can read issue 1 of The FIL Newsletter (as it was known back then) in our journal archive.

Got a Story to Share? FIL Wants to Hear from You!

Got a Story to Share? FIL Wants to Hear from You!

Whether you’re a seasoned pro or just getting started in interlending, your experiences, ideas, and challenges are what make our FIL community vibrant and valuable. We’re inviting members to contribute articles that highlight what’s happening on the ground in libraries like yours -this is your chance to share what you’ve learnt and spark new ideas.

Bright Idea

Why Submit an Article?

Writing for FIL isn’t just about getting published; it’s about connecting with others in the field and contributing to a community that thrives on shared knowledge. When you share your story, you help your peers find inspiration and solutions—and you might even discover new ideas yourself. It’s also a brilliant way to showcase the unique work happening in your library.

What Should You Write About?

Your article could focus on practical challenges, emerging trends, or future opportunities. Have you come up with creative solutions for tricky requests? Is data helping you refine workflows or predict demand? Perhaps your service is adapting to meet budget constraints, or you’re preparing for the future with new technology. Whatever you’ve learned, there’s someone else in the FIL community who could benefit.

We’re especially interested in hearing from libraries of all kinds—academic, public, NHS, museum, or specialist. How does interlending look in your sector? What makes your service stand out? This is a chance to showcase your work and celebrate the diversity of our interlending community.

How to Get Involved

Sharing your story strengthens the FIL community, inspires others, and highlights the vital role interlending plays in connecting people with information. If you’re ready to contribute, just contact us to start the conversation.

Your voice matters – Let’s hear it!

Systematic Reviews and Interlibrary Loans: Navigating Copyright Compliance

Systematic Reviews and Interlibrary Loans: Navigating Copyright Compliance

This article draws on work carried at Leeds Beckett Library by Rachel Davies (Academic Librarian), Tom Lennox (Library Services Supervisor – Lending), and Liesl Rowe (Senior Digital Library Advisor – Copyright) and is based on a presentation given by Tom and Liesl at the International Copyright-Literacy Event with Playful Opportunities for Practitioners and Scholars (Icepops) 2024, titled “Can Open, Worms Everywhere: Copyright, Interlibrary Loans, and Systematic Reviews.”

Working in Interlibrary Loan, we often find ourselves at the intersection of research needs and copyright restrictions. Recently, our team at Leeds Beckett Library faced a challenge—handling over 150 ILL article requests from a systematic review team. This situation raised important questions about how libraries manage such complex requests within the framework of copyright law.

Spotting Systematic Reviews in the Wild

Systematic reviews are the foundation of evidence-based research, especially in disciplines like healthcare and social sciences. These reviews meticulously gather and synthesise all relevant studies on a given topic, providing an unbiased, comprehensive analysis that informs everything from clinical practices to policy decisions. Conducted by teams of academics across institutions, systematic reviews demand access to vast amounts of research material—far more than most individual libraries can provide. That’s where Interlibrary Loans come into play.

Identifying systematic review requests within ILL workflows is often a challenge. Systematic review requests don’t arrive all together, neatly labelled. Instead, these requests are commonly received in smaller batches, often submitted by multiple researchers working on the project, without clear indications they are part of a collaborative review. Many libraries may not even realise they’re handling systematic review requests, which could explain the relative silence on the issue within the ILL community.

Despite this, our colleagues at UCLan have been especially helpful in sharing their experiences. While systematic reviews are rarely discussed among ILL professionals, UCLan was quick to offer guidance and insights into how they manage these requests within their institution. Their willingness to engage with us has been invaluable, especially as we continue refining our own processes at Leeds Beckett.

Single User vs. Group Demands

Silence in the library!

At Leeds Beckett, our team has become skilled at spotting patterns and identifying systematic review requests. However, a more pressing issue remains – ensuring compliance with copyright law.

Current copyright law limits articles supplied through interlibrary loans to single-user access. This restriction poses a significant challenge for systematic reviews, which often require access for multiple users across different institutions. Although the legal responsibility for compliance rests with the requester, who must sign a copyright declaration, ILL suppliers are also responsible for taking reasonable steps to ensure adherence to these rules.

This creates a dilemma: how can we support the inherently collaborative nature of systematic reviews while respecting copyright restrictions? To navigate this, I routinely contact requestors when we identify potential systematic review requests, to confirm that they understand and agree to the single-user limitation. While most academics are willing to affirm that they do not share ILL documents, it raises the question—are they truly complying with copyright, and as ILL practitioners, is there more we should be doing to ensure compliance?

CLA Conversations

Recognising the complexity of this issue, we decided to bring our concerns to the Copyright Licensing Agency (CLA). At Leeds Beckett, our team, Rachel Davies, Liesl Rowe and myself, explained the importance of systematic reviews to our research programme. We highlighted the challenges we face in supplying articles to groups of academics, particularly when they’re spread across multiple institutions. This conversation proved pivotal, directly leading to a positive development. As a result of our discussions, the new CLA license now includes provisions for sharing articles among groups of academics working on collaborative projects, even allowing for cross-institutional sharing.

Specifically, Section 2.4 of the new CLA license permits us to “make available, or permit the making available of, Digital Copies to a Collaboration Partner, via a Secure Network… for the purposes of a current Collaborative Project only and provided that the making available of Digital Copies does not amount to a Document Supply service.” While this update represents a notable advancement for collaborative research, the document supply service clause means we are unlikely to be able to provide systematic review materials through our traditional ILL networks. We are hopeful that future license revisions might address ILLs more directly, but in the meantime, we will need to explore alternative methods to provide these materials, while adhering to copyright regulations.

Strategies for Supplying

Since purchasing systematic review articles through our Collections budget isn’t feasible due to cost, we are working with our Digitisation team to find suitable methods of acquiring systematic review documents which comply with the new CLA provisions. We are also assessing the practicalities of establishing a secure network. One option under consideration is using Microsoft Teams to create secure, moderated areas for document sharing among authorised users for the duration of a project. We will need to ensure that this method meets the CLA’s security requirements and are currently evaluating its suitability for external collaborators, such as NHS participants.

While the new license introduces much-needed flexibility, there remains work to be done in fine-tuning our approach to ensure we adhere to best practices. We are eagerly awaiting further guidance from the CLA to help us implement these changes effectively.

A Call to Action

As we move forward, we’re eager to hear from other institutions navigating the same challenges. If your library is planning to take advantage of the new provisions for systematic reviews, we’d love to learn from your experiences. By sharing strategies and solutions, we can all improve our practices and ensure we’re supporting academic research within the confines of copyright law.

The End of an Era: Saying Goodbye to the Last of the Regional Transport Schemes

The End of an Era: Saying Goodbye to the Last of the Regional Transport Schemes

The Northern Region said a fond farewell to our regional van system, and I wanted to share a few thoughts because it truly is an end of an era for ILL.

Special delivery!

For those of you who are relatively new to interlending, you probably don’t appreciate how the regional van used to form the backbone of the UK’s inter-library loan service. When I joined Durham’s ILL team in 1997 the regional van was going strong, connecting every library in the UK with a seamless delivery service. On my first day I was given my very own, newly printed, copy of the British Library’s Directory of Library codes (yes in those days it was only available in hardcopy). For each library there was an entry with their BL code, address and other contact details as you’re no doubt familiar, but in those days, it also provided details of which regional transport scheme individual libraries belonged to.

If I wanted to send a book to a library in Cornwall, all I had to do was parcel and address it, write the region code in bold red on the parcel (SW in Cornwall’s case), and then pop the parcel into our orange crate. Parcels would be collected from each library twice a week, visiting half the region’s libraries one day and catching the other half on the next. The van would travel around your local area, and in the case of the Yorkshire and Northern Regions, it would end its journey with a trip to Boston Spa every other day.

Our last regional van collection

Our last regional van collection

Books being returned to British Library would be placed into the crate without need for any address or parcel. When you consider the number of books being shipped to British Library in our heyday something as simple as this must have saved an immense amount of staff time and effort over the years. Books being shipped to other libraries would be individually parcelled, making them easy to identify. Items for local region libraries would be delivered directly next time the route took the van past that particular library, and parcels for other regions would be forwarded on to that region’s own van scheme for delivery. By this means a book could be sent from Durham to Cornwall via van within a few days. If parcels ever went adrift, then they would end up in another library. Being the helpful souls that we are, the book would be forwarded on to the correct library within a couple of days, and very little was ever lost or damaged. Weight wasn’t an issue either. I remember borrowing vocal scores for music performances where we might need 120 copies of Handel’s Messiah: this was only possible because we borrowed them through the van. As a means of transporting books, it was unparalleled for the time.

Sadly, like all things, the service has been the victim of financial cuts. In 1999/2000 the South West was the first of the regions to lose their regional van service due to budget cuts. Other regions stopped their services with little or no warning throughout 2001/2002 until only Yorkshire and the Northern Region were left. (I have to own up here that I didn’t record in my ILL annual report when the Yorkshire regional van ceased operation, but the Northern Region has been the last man standing for a number of years now.) We nearly lost the Northern Region van in 2008 when MLA North East withdrew its support, but at the last moment the running of the service was taken over by Newcastle Public Library and the transition was seamless. Being reasonably close to Boston Spa the remaining Yorkshire and Northern Regional van services were the last to go because libraries could continue to use them for returning British Library books.

ILL borrowing has been declining for years whilst at the same time service costs have spiralled, so the cost per item rocketed. The regional van had a social value for the local libraries, so the northern universities effectively subsidised the service for the benefits of the other libraries in the region. The COVID pandemic proved to be the final nail in the coffin. After ceasing physical operations during lockdown, libraries were slow to resume their inter-lending services and the number of items being transported round the region was at an all-time low, just as petrol prices went through the roof. Newcastle Public Library finally pulled the plug in 2022, emailing us in May to say that the service was no longer financially viable and that the last collection would run on 23rd June 2022. There were a few misty eyes at this announcement, but in truth we knew that the service had been running on borrowed time for a long while now.

In its day the regional van was a superb service, easy to use and completely in keeping with the spirit of co-operation that makes inter-library loans possible. The regular drivers gave the service that personal touch and it was lovely to see familiar faces week on week. For those of you who have never used the regional van it must seem like an odd thing to lament: the delivery man? Really? But not too long ago the regional vans formed the backbone of UK interlending. For those old hands like me seeing the last part of this once-great service finally stop, it does truly feel like the end of an era.

Exploratory Analysis of ILL Demand at the University of Northampton

Exploratory Analysis of ILL Demand at the University of Northampton

At the Forum for Interlending (FIL) events held in 2022, several colleagues from different institutions commented that there has been a decrease in demand for inter-library loans (ILL). The University of Northampton has also seen changes in its ILL service. This initial analysis explores the question of whether demand for inter-library loans has decreased at the University of Northampton (UON) and if so, why this might be.

ILLs in demand

1. Background

The University of Northampton is one of the youngest universities in the UK, being awarded full university status in 2005. It provides education to around 12,000 – 15,000 students in the UK and abroad.

UON Library and Learning Services has had an ILL service running for many years. The service currently has one person 0.5FTE, assigned to deal with ILL requests, with support from other Information Assistants at busier times. The number of requests patrons can make is unlimited and there is no charge for the service. Charges are only made for damaged or lost books. For the period this analysis covers, requests were made by patrons via an online ILL form using their student ID and PIN, and received in the library management system, Sierra.

2. Scope

This ILL analysis looks specifically at the five years of data, covering the academic years 2017-2022, as no complete data is available before this time.

Only requests from UON patrons to borrow from other libraries has been included and not external requests for us to lend.

3. Data Extraction

Data on the number of ILL requests was manually extracted from the library management system, Sierra, for each of the five complete years from 1 August 2017 to 31 July 2022. As there was no way to run a report from Sierra on ILL data, information was copied and pasted into an Excel spreadsheet for further analysis.

4. Results

The total number of requests that were dealt with for each year from 2017-22 are shown in Figure 1. The steady decrease in requests is obvious, with an all-time low in 2020-21 for reasons that will be discussed later, before increasing slightly in the most recent year. Overall, it shows a significant decrease from 2017 to 2022 of 45%.

Figure 1: Total Requests 2017-22

Figure 1: Total Requests 2017-22

The total number of requests was further broken down into those requests that were completed and those that were cancelled, month by month for each academic year.

Completed requests are those where we successfully supplied the requested item. The total number of requests that were completed are shown in Table 1. Completed requests by month are shown in Figure 2. The highest number of requests completed was 2017-18, with the lowest number in 2020-21 and as expected, there is lower demand during Christmas and Summer holidays.

2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
1358 1007 807 487 750
Table 1: Completed Requests for Academic Years 2017-22

 

Figure 2: Completed Requests by Month for Academic Years 2017-2022

Figure 2: Completed Requests by Month for Academic Years 2017-2022

Requests were cancelled if the item was already available via our discovery system NELSON, the item was open access, it was a duplicate request, or we were unable to fulfil. The total number of requests that were cancelled are shown in Table 2. Cancelled requests by month are shown in Figure 3. The number of requests cancelled follows a similar pattern to those completed, with the highest number in 2017-18 and the lowest number in 2020-21.

2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22
387 283 220 153 215
Table 2: Cancelled Requests for Academic Years 2017-22

 

Figure 3: Cancelled Requests by Month for Academic Years 2017-22

Figure 3: Cancelled Requests by Month for Academic Years 2017-22

5. Influencing Factors

While the figures clearly demonstrate a decrease in the number of ILL requests from our patrons, the figures cannot be considered in isolation. To understand these a bit more in our own context, I considered what the main influencing factors could be. There have been world events, changes at the university and within the library, which may all have had an impact on these results.

World Events

The most obvious world event which has impacted all ILL services is that of the COVID-19 pandemic. Like all organisations we had to temporarily suspend ILL requests for any physical items, but work continued from home on digital requests. Even when loaning of physical items resumed, not all libraries were able to return immediately to the usual level of service pre-pandemic, so the ability to request physical books was limited. The UON Academic Services team dealing with library acquisitions became more focussed on purchasing online content to enable students access to the resources they needed, when not able to be on campus. This was reflected in the ILL approach, where e-books were purchased when no physical item could be borrowed from another location. Inevitably, not all books exist in electronic form, which meant many requests, which would normally have been filled through the ILL process, could not be met. This is reflected in the dramatic drop in numbers for 2020-21.

University

The university itself is constantly evolving. In 2018 the university re-located its Park and Avenue campuses to a single site at Waterside, closer to Northampton town centre. The university library had already moved to purchasing e-first, so a large proportion of the collection could be accessed online.  In the lead up to the move there was a focus on collections management within the library, completing a review of what print stock was required. More recently the faculties were re-structured moving from four to three more focussed areas and in 2021, the university introduced semesterisation.

The collections review enabled the library to ensure the most relevant content was available, which may have decreased the need for students to request resources not held by the library. The introduction of semesterisation is most likely to impact the peaks of requests throughout the year, rather than the number of requests.

Library

The collections review undertaken as part of the pre-move preparation took place alongside the use of newly introduced reading list software. Talis Aspire was introduced pre-2017-18, however, the use of its review function for collection management was not implemented until 2017-18. This new process enabled more accurate collection management, ensuring the specific resources required for each course were known and purchased if possible. Again, this more focussed approach may have reduced the need for resources the library does not already own.

Whilst considering how managing collections may have affected the number of ILL requests, there are also potential barriers to consider. For an ILL request to be made, the patron was required to provide their unique PIN as part of accessing the ILL request form. This was used for other university functionality as well, such as accessing printers, before the move to Waterside. After the move, the PIN was only required for limited functions, such as borrowing a laptop. The reduced use of the PIN saw an increase in emails to the ILL inbox asking how to access their PIN. Answering these queries did not always convert into ILL requests being made.

6. Summary

It is clear the number of ILL requests has decreased significantly over the last five years and a combination of the events described may have played its part in that. There are all sorts of factors that can impact the delivery of an ILL service, some common to all and those unique to each organisation. Any change in those circumstances, however small, is likely to have some form of impact on services. While no definitive conclusions can be made, it is helpful to undertake this exploratory review as a starting point and then track what happens when further changes are made.

Since compiling the data for this review, the library has changed its library management system, implementing Alma mid-July 2022. From an ILL perspective there have been some changes to our processes, most notably removing the need to use a PIN to make an ILL request. Looking ahead it will be interesting to see how this change will impact these figures. Early indications are that it has had a significant impact on the number of requests. Something to explore further!

One Form to Rule Them All…. Update

One Form to Rule Them All…. Update

One Form to Rule Them All

In the world of ILL, nothing ever stands still and Durham’s experience with a single resource request form (FIL Journal, issue 70, February 2022, pages 21-25) is certainly no exception. During the COVID pandemic we set up a single form to cut through the confusion of all the services and request methods we had in operation at the time. Students just needed to tell staff what they wanted, and our triage team would check requests and forward them on to Customer Services, ILL or Acquisitions to satisfy the request.

Jump forward and the situation has completely changed. Panic over COVID has waned and we’re no longer going into complete lockdown whenever a new wave hits us. Students are heading back to campus and libraries are scaling back on the additional services they offer. When COVID struck, Durham was in the throes of tendering for a new library management system, so this was dusted off and in August 2022 we ended up with a sparkly new Alma system. Compared to our previous system Alma is unbelievably complex. To keep things simple the decision was taken fairly early on to just go with the out of the box request forms available in Alma, rather than try to design another single request form which would do everything the old one did, plus automate the triage process and push the data into the separate request forms.

Online request formKnowing that we would be moving back to individual request forms we made sure that the forms were clearly visible, conveniently placed and we planned plenty of user information advertising the changes. As soon as we went live with Alma and put the new forms into operation, we started getting compliments (particularly from lecturers) about how simple and fast the new service was. Part of this will be because we automated RapidILL, so article requests with sufficient information would be shunted into RapidILL without any ILL staff intervention and supplied direct to the user at any time of the day or night. For these requests we effectively have a 24/7 service, rather than 9-5pm, Monday-Friday. Cutting out the time the requests languished in the triage team email will have helped dramatically. When designing the single request form, we were overly optimistic about how quick the triage process would be. In practice this ended up a low priority task and junior staff were often whisked away to do other work when other areas were short staffed. It wasn’t unusual for requests to take 6 – 10 hours to reach ILL and there were days (too many of them) when no requests were forwarded to us at all. Getting requests feeding directly into Alma was a relief and our customers have certainly noticed the difference.

So, my conclusions having tried a one-stop-form? (And I should stress here that this is only my personal opinion.) While the students initially cried out that the services were too complicated, they haven’t complained when we withdrew the single form. They are using a smaller range of services and are coping fine without the extra help. Lecturers prefer the individual forms because they know what they want and can go straight to the service they need, without the need to add extra notes to the request to ensure that the library buys, rather than borrows, the title. (Too many mistakes happened that way.) As an interim measure, the single form was useful at a time where there was too much confusion in everyday life, with lockdown rules changing on an almost daily basis, but the format we were forced to use was massively staff-time intensive. Our experience of using the single form has had its benefits: it caused a fundamental change in how we operate, and teams are now more relaxed about passing requests about internally. For the ILL team, at this current time, the single forms are the best option and current customer feedback seems to back this up.

In short, while you can change services due to public outcry, you’ll never be able to please everyone at the same time, and as the situation changes you have to be flexible and just do the best you can. In an ideal world it would be lovely to have a single form which students could use (with automated triage this time, to keep things speedy) running alongside individual service forms for the expert users who know exactly which service they want. For me, that’ll have to stay a fantasy for the time being, but it’s definitely on my wishlist for the future.