Why Requests Fail:: Interlibrary Lending and Document Supply Request Failures in the UK and Ireland:

Citation

Nurcombe, V.J. (1998), "Why Requests Fail:: Interlibrary Lending and Document Supply Request Failures in the UK and Ireland:", Library Review, Vol. 47 No. 7, pp. 363-368. https://doi.org/10.1108/lr.1998.47.7.363.2

LCSH 1. Interlibrary loans ‐ Great Britain. 2. Interlibrary loans ‐ Ireland

This survey provides a wide range of comparative data for all librarians establishing the validity of and reporting on their own figures. Not only are they well presented in the many tables but the forms and questions used are also provided thus giving the basis for collecting comparative local data. The glossary includes acronyms for a range not only of the co‐operative groups and organisations in interlending but also of the formats and materials used for supply and verification. It appears at the front before the main text. Although there is no alphabetical index the contents page is sufficiently detailed and well supported by the list of tables so that specific information can be swiftly located.

The study was deemed necessary as 25 per cent of requests fail (1995) and, although many are due to incorrect references, there are many other reasons. The fall in BLDSC records of items not supplied due to incorrect references, from 57.7 per cent in 1995 to 13.4 per cent in 1996, may suggest that better checking is taking place. It could be due to the date and sampling errors. It is notable that this survey collected data at the same time as the EUSIDIC EUROLOG survey of document delivery services in Europe.

The early pages, after summarising the conclusions and recommendations, provide a background to the current state of interlending in the UK covering the problems, the role of the regional library systems and the union catalogues and the types of requesting libraries. It then proceeds to examine potential reasons for request failure, procedures for ILL and the BLDSC role. Failures are analysed by type of material, and problems of bibliographical verification and location of materials are discussed. The survey then analyses the failures of specific sites in supplying items, the speed of supply and the relationship of failure to subject, date and origin. Problems leading to failure are identified in a potentially useful conclusion to all ILL departments. All these should read and absorb the points made. Also notable are the conclusions regarding the influence and value of UNITY and VISCOUNT not only to their immediate users but to BLDSC and others trying to locate items.

Appendices include the Project Management Committee, a list of libraries taking part in the monitoring survey, copies of the monitoring forms, a reprint of the DSC supply code and a detailed analysis for Lancashire County Library covering a six‐month survey. To this is added a two‐page document from BLDSC of post‐project observations. This constructive document actually details changes made as a result of the survey as well as responding to some criticisms. Its A4 spiral bound floppy cover presentation should not be allowed to detract from its densely packed content.

The final words are worth repeating ‐ there are some items which you are just not going to get, such as the hypothetical suggestion of the student at the University of Wales at Lampeter on the Internet referring to an unpublished report produced in Czechoslovakia with the only copy held in Beirut. This discussion of the problems only serves to emphasise not only the vast success of the majority of the 4.1 million items requested at BLDSC annually but the care taken in trying to supply the minority of difficult items. An apology is made for the seeming concentration on the BLDSC but that is inevitable given the tremendous centralisation of ILL in the UK that their operation and success has achieved.