Apr 23, 2026 | Articles
By Kip A. Darling
In late 2025, a small but persistent issue showed up in the Alma Resource Sharing workflow with integrated RapidILL.
This example highlights how issues identified in day-to-day practice can be shared through the community and taken forward in a way that leads to wider improvements.
When newly received requests were populated in Alma, a DOI entered as a full URL (for example, https://doi.org/…) did not trigger automatic population of other bibliographic details, such as the ISSN. The shorter DOI format (10…) worked as expected.
The key issue was not just the formatting. It was the impact on automation.
If a user submitted a request with a full DOI URL, the system could not always complete the process automatically. Where insufficient metadata existed for RapidILL to accept the request, it would stop and move into a mediation queue, requiring staff intervention.
This meant that requests submitted outside staffed hours, such as evenings, weekends, or holidays, were delayed unnecessarily. Requests that should have gone straight through were instead held until someone was available to intervene. This is the kind of issue that is easy to work around locally, but has a wider impact when it happens regularly.
The issue was shared with colleagues in the IGeLU RapidILL Working Group. Led by Dr Lynne Porat, further testing across institutions helped confirm that this was not a local setup issue, but something affecting the wider community.
A support case was then raised with Ex Libris, supported by clear examples and testing. The issue was taken forward by their development team, and a fix was scheduled for the April 2026 Alma release.
Following that release, testing shows that both DOI formats now work as expected, and requests can once again move through the workflow without interruption.
Why this matters
This is a small fix, but it makes a real difference.
When automation works, requests can be processed quickly, including outside normal working hours. When it breaks, even in small ways, delays build up and staff have to step in to fix things manually.
Fixing this issue helps to:
- keep requests moving without staff intervention
- avoid delays outside staffed hours
- reduce manual corrections
- make the workflow more reliable
The role of community and partnership
This example shows how sharing issues and working on them together can lead to real improvements.
The IGeLU RapidILL Working Group helped test and confirm the problem across institutions and supported the evidence behind the case. That made it easier to show that this was not just a local issue, but something worth fixing at system level.
It also shows the importance of responsive vendor support. Once the issue was clearly described, it was taken forward and resolved.
Many improvements are raised through formal channels such as Idea Exchange and CERV, alongside work identified and supported through practitioner communities.
This is one example of the kind of work being taken forward across the community, where small, practical issues are identified and improved for the benefit of all.
Further examples of RapidILL Working Group improvements
Alongside this issue, further ideas have been taken forward to improve resource sharing workflows.
One recent enhancement allows libraries to configure an additional information field within request forms. This enables users to provide more detail for digital requests, which is then shared with lending libraries. Following significant work to champion this enhancement, it was released in Rapido in April 2026 and is scheduled to be rolled out to RapidILL users in May.
There is also ongoing work examining how Author and Editor data is routed in lending requests, following cases where metadata has not been mapped to the expected fields.
These improvements are small in isolation, but they help to reduce friction, improve data quality, and support more consistent processing across systems.
A practical takeaway
If something in your workflow is not behaving as expected, it is worth checking whether others are seeing the same thing.
Raising it, testing it, and sharing it can turn a local workaround into a wider fix.
Ongoing improvements
This is not about a single change, but about the steady work of improving how systems behave in practice.
Each of these adjustments removes a point of friction, whether that is improving automation, clarifying data, or making requests easier to process.
Individually, these changes are small. Taken together, they help services run more smoothly, reduce delays, and support a more reliable experience for both staff and users.
With thanks to colleagues who continue to raise, test, and take forward improvements on behalf of the community.
Opportunity to get involved
Does your library use RapidILL? If you have an interest in how it works in practice and would like to contribute to improving the system for the wider community, there is currently an opportunity to get involved.
The IGeLU RapidILL Working Group is looking to strengthen UK representation and welcomes expressions of interest from colleagues who would like to contribute their experience and insight.
If this is something you might be interested in, you are welcome to reach out to Dr Lynne Porat via her contact details on the RapidILL Working Group webpage.
Jan 21, 2026 | Articles
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.
Jul 10, 2025 | Articles
At Interlend 2025 we asked delegates, what’s next for your interlibrary loan service? Libraries from across the UK shared some insights about how their own services are developing:
- Moving to new library management systems to update workflows and improve integration.
- Combining ILL request forms with other services like book buying and scanning to create simpler, one-stop user requests.
- Expanding reciprocal borrowing partnerships through ISO-ILL, both within consortia and with new partners outside usual networks.
- Introducing rapid ILL services and joining digital lending consortia such as WHELF+ to speed up access for users.
- Planning for possible changes to Read & Publish agreements to keep services running smoothly.
- Working more closely with other teams and external partners to support these changes.
These points show how libraries are focusing on practical improvements, collaboration, and making things easier for users. As the ILL landscape evolves, it’s clear that adaptability and partnership will be key to meeting future challenges and user needs.
