Key Factors for Consortial Success: Realizing a Shared Vision for Interlibrary Loan in a consortium of Canadian Libraries
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>Purpose</p> <p>The purpose of this paper is to identify the factors associated with the successful implementation of a shared interlibrary loan (ILL) system by the Ontario Council of University Libraries (OCUL), a consortium of 20 Ontario universities.</p> <p>Design/methodology/approach</p> <p>The paper is a descriptive review of the approaches taken in the consortial implementation of OCLC's VDX software. The paper elaborates on the building‐blocks and barriers to success as they were experienced, first by participants in OCUL's centralized implementation activities, and second at the local level by staff at Ryerson University Library, a member institution. Now end users can simultaneously search world‐wide catalogues, submit and track progress of requests, and receive materials rapidly. System functionality includes auto‐mediated interlibrary loans (direct requesting); use of link‐resolver software to transfer citation information from borrowing library catalogues to ILL request forms; and ISO peer‐to‐peer messaging.</p> <p>Findings</p> <p>Post‐implementation analysis reveals several key factors that contributed to the project's success. These include: planning, leadership, financial support, technical support, cooperation, staff commitment, communication, staff‐and end‐user centered focus, training and evaluation.</p> <p>Practical implications</p> <p>This may have broad application for similar complex projects.</p> <p>Originality/value</p> <p>The OCUL VDX implementation has achieved the originally expected economies of scale, service performance improvements and reduction in localized maintenance and system support. However, there have also been several unforeseen benefits such as the formulation and standardization of the OCUL ILL policies, and the development of Canada‐wide consortial reciprocal agreements. At the operational level, staff have had to adjust their management styles and develop confidence not only in their individual skills but also in cooperative thinking, reliance on centralized support, and in the overall system. Throughout the project the objectives have been clearly identified, and, for the most part, enthusiastically adopted, by consortium members. Recognizing that ILL is a service that is in transition, staff now look at business transformation and ways to identify, share and adopt best working practices.</p>
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Scholarly communication Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes | Not applicable | medium |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Other About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Theoretical or conceptual | medium |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it