National Resource Sharing Working Group
In the Mail: Report of a Survey of ILL Delivery
The National
Resource Sharing Working Group (NRSWG) conducted a survey of inter-library loan
delivery time between 13 September 1999 and 17 September 1999.
The
survey collected information from a range of libraries across Australia on the
time taken by postal and courier systems to deliver material requested by
standard interlibrary loan. The report provides benchmarks of delivery time
from a wide range of locations throughout Australia.
The survey also
raised a number of important issues related to library involvement in decisions
about postage and carrier services, contractual and other agreements, and
performance measurement.
ILL postal delivery times are a key part of
overall ILL turnaround time. While postal delivery is often considered an area
outside the control of ILL staff, it impacts on perceived library performance
in delivering ILL services and impacts on service standards, both individual
and national. This survey goes some way towards highlighting areas of possible
improvement.
Comments on the findings of this report are welcome -
they should be directed to:
Susan Magnay, Chair, National Resource Sharing
Working Group
State Library of New South Wales
Telephone: (02) 9273
1557
Email: smagnay@ilanet.slnsw.gov.au
or
Tom Ruthven
A/g Director Interlending Services
National Library of Australia
Telephone: (02) 6262 1265
Email: truthven@nla.gov.au
Foreword
Resource sharing has been strongly supported by Australian libraries over the years. Libraries have always acknowledged that they cannot be self-sufficient and that effective inter-library loan (ILL) and document delivery (DD) processes are critical for maintaining access to information. Structures and systems such as the National Bibliographic Database (NBD) and the Australian Interlending Code¹ have been established as key tools for sharing among Australian libraries. In addition, recent surveys, such as the Australian Library Collections Task Force report Looking for Books,² have indicated significant user reliance on ILL services (particularly by researchers) and the need for these services to be more efficient, timely and cost-effective.
The National Resource Sharing Working Group was established in 1999 at the initiative of the National Library of Australia with support from peak industry bodies such as the Council of Australian State Libraries (CASL), the Council of Australian University Libraries (CAUL) and the Australian Library and Information Association (ALIA). It was established to respond to the need to improve ILL services and practices throughout Australia. The role of the National Resource Sharing Working Group is to ensure that a robust, reliable and cost-effective interlending system, built on cooperation and agreed service standards and policies, is in place to serve Australian libraries and their users.
This survey was undertaken by the National Resource Sharing Working Group to collect information from a range of libraries across Australia on the time taken by postal and courier systems to deliver standard interlibrary loan material.
The primary aim of the survey was to provide a general estimate of delivery times that could be used to:
- inform national ILL standards development processes;
- inform the development of performance standards for inter-library loan (ILL) and document delivery (DD) processes in individual libraries;
- inform libraries' decisions about choice of delivery service or carrier; and
- provide benchmarks of delivery from a range of locations throughout Australia.
Not only did the survey achieved this aim, the information collected for the survey also indicates that delivery is a more complex area than it would at first appear. The survey data raises a number of important issues related to library involvement in decisions about postage and carrier services, contractual and other agreements, and performance measurement. The report provides a wealth of information for libraries to use to target areas for improvement in their own ILL delivery processes.
I would like to thank the fifteen participating libraries and their staff whose time and effort were crucial to the success of this survey. In addition, thanks go to the multitude of libraries which completed and returned survey forms.
Comments on the findings of this report are welcome - they should be directed to Susan Magnay, Chair of the National Resource Sharing Working Group, at the State Library of New South Wales on email smagnay@ilanet.slnsw.gov.au or phone 02 9273 1557 or to Tom Ruthven, Director Interlending Services, at the National Library of Australia on email truthven@nla.gov.au or phone 02 6262 1265. Further information on the activities of the National Resource Sharing Working Group is available at: http://www.nla.gov.au/initiatives/nrswg/
Jan Fullerton
Director-General
National Library of Australia
Introduction
Fifteen lending libraries were involved in the survey from ten institutions in all States and Territories except the Northern Territory. This included representation from university, National, State, public, hospital and special libraries. In addition, a large number of receiving libraries throughout Australia were involved in the survey, completing parts of the survey forms and mailing these to the National Library of Australia for collation and analysis.
More details about the methodology are included at Appendix 1. Copies of the Survey Form (Appendix 2) and Participant Questionnaire (Appendix 3) used are provided for information.
It should be noted that the study covered only standard ILL requests within Australia. The survey did not cover documents sent electronically (eg. Ariel, fax) or by Fast or Premium Track arrangements.
Australia Post "metropolitan" and "country" postcode divisions were used in grouping and analysing delivery time data as this was most relevant to assessing delivery times, particularly given the large Australia Post sample in the survey. Wherever metropolitan or country locations are referred to, these are based on the Australia Post postcode divisions.³
The results of this survey should be seen as indicative rather than as providing definitive measures for benchmarking. Overall, the sample size was reasonable - survey data for 881 ILL items was received and used to develop the findings of this report. However, once broken down into various dispatching and receiving locations, these divided samples were not always large enough to draw even indicative conclusions, particularly for country locations. In hindsight, it may have been useful to run the survey for a longer period to increase the sample size. This would have improved the ability to identify trends with confidence and would reduce the likelihood of any unusual one-off event influencing the survey data. That given, the survey does provide useful indicators of delivery trends and highlights a range of significant issues for libraries to consider.
Turnaround Time
One of the issues the National Resource Sharing Working Group is examining is the performance of inter-library loans (ILL), in particular, the turnaround times for requests. There are a number of elements of the supply process which are relevant to turnaround time, including:
- The time elapsed from when the patron puts in a request to when the ILL staff forward it to a potential supplier;
- The time taken for the request to reach the supplier (this depends on how the request is sent);
- The time taken by the supplying library to read, retrieve, copy or process for loan and dispatch the request;
- The time elapsed from when the supplying ILL library staff member puts it in their 'out tray' to when their carrier dispatches it;
- The transit time for the requested material to be delivered to the requesting institution's central mailing centre;
- The time taken for the item to be delivered from the requesting institution's central mail centre to the ILL office; and
- The time that lapses between the ILL office receiving the item and the patron being informed that the item is available.
The aim of this survey was to collect information about the efficiency of postal and courier systems in delivering ILL material around Australia. The survey concentrated on the time taken by the courier or mailing firm to deliver an item from when it is dispatched to when it is received (elements 4 to 6 above). The survey did not measure the time periods outlined in the other points above or for the specific time taken for each of elements 4, 5 & 6.
The survey findings highlight the importance that libraries need to give to each step of the supply process, even when it may seem that parts of it are outside their control. While ILL areas may not be directly involved in delivery, this forms part of the turnaround time upon which users measure a library's ILL performance. In addition, as discussed later in the report, a well-managed contract with a postal carrier can exert influence over the delivery process, and improve the predictability and speed of delivery.
Survey Assumptions
The survey had a number of limitations which were taken into consideration when analysing the data:
- the internal mail component of the delivery time (before and after) is not known which made it difficult to compare data and to identify which part of the delivery time was attributable to the postal carriers;
- it was not known whether the item was actually posted on the date on the survey forms, or received (rather than opened) on the receiving date on forms;
- there were very small sample sizes for many locations;
- the survey data did not cover all delivery type and location combinations;
- as the Australia Post standard service was used for a significant number of items, data in this survey could not be used to make comparisons between carrier types for different locations; and
- the time of posting was not included on the survey forms which had implications for comparison of survey data on delivery times with carrier delivery time standards.
It should also be noted that in analysing the data it was assumed that delivery would only occur on working days and so weekends were excluded when calculating delivery times.
Delivery Type
The majority of libraries (90% - ie. 9 out of 10 institutions/libraries use Australia Post for at least part of their ILL delivery) and a majority of items (66%) in the survey used Australia Post standard delivery services (ie. services where same day or overnight delivery is not guaranteed). Only one library did not use Australia Post services on a regular basis. Local delivery services (eg. library vans) were the second most popular form of delivery. Less than half of participating libraries/institutions used an external courier service other than Australia Post (generally in addition to Australia Post), although the majority of these used Australian Air Express. One library used 'pigeon holes' for some local customers to arrange their own collection of ILL requests.
The widespread use of Australia Post indicated a potential for collaborative arrangements between libraries/institutions. Based on the data from this survey, such cooperative arrangements do not appear to be common with external carriers. However, one library did indicate that such a contract was currently being negotiated (by a State Health Department for the Department and related Area Health Services). The only existing special arrangements identified between libraries were the delivery services operating in local areas (eg. library vans). There were no libraries in the sample that identified that they used specific delivery arrangements for particular libraries.
Close to two-thirds of institutions/libraries used more than one delivery method. Three institutions/libraries used an external postal service for most deliveries plus a local delivery service for at least some local deliveries. Only three libraries used more than two delivery methods. While the number of delivery services used is not necessarily significant in itself, it may have an impact on a library/institution's ability to negotiate with service carriers. There may be benefits for some libraries/institutions in consolidating their mail deliveries with one carrier to be able to negotiate greater price discounts or service improvements.
From the data obtained from this study, it would appear that participating libraries made distinctions, when selecting a delivery service, on the basis of location (eg. different local and interstate delivery services) and/or material type (eg. loans vs copies). Possible reasons for selecting particular services may relate to:
- cost (eg. ability to negotiate price discounts, price based on item size, remote/distant locations etc);
- postage type (eg. surface or air);
- type of items (eg. parcel or letters)
- security (eg. low number of lost items, tracking system);
- delivery times (eg. reliability, speed); and/or
- coverage (eg. local or Australia wide service).
The reasons for particular choices were not obtained by this survey, although it would be useful to collect this information for a future study. These issues are particularly important to consider when entering into formal arrangements with external carriers. A toolkit or checklist to assist libraries to make informed decisions when choosing postal carriers could be useful.
Campuses/branches of participating institutions generally had the same delivery arrangements. There was only one organisation which was an exception to this (each library had its own separate delivery arrangements) probably due to the dispersed locations and de-centralised management of the various sections of the organisation.
Local delivery services were not always used for libraries on the service route. For example, on occasion, ILL deliveries to some metropolitan public libraries were sent by post rather than via the library van service otherwise used. There were also occasions when survey forms indicated a different delivery type than would have been expected from the information provided on the Participant Questionnaire. There may be several reasons for this including:
- special arrangements were required for individual items;
- accidental misassignment on the survey form;
- the delivery service used was decided by mail staff not library or ILL staff (it was probably ILL staff who completed the survey forms);
- the information in the Participant Questionnaire was generalised; or
- ILL staff in participating libraries were not aware of all the delivery services used by the library.
ILL staff should be aware of any contracts or special arrangements for delivery which may have an impact on their work processes - eg. if there were differences in postage for different locations or different types of items (eg. loan or copy) or if particular delivery services were being used because price discounts had been negotiated or tracking of particular items was required. In those situations, it would be of benefit to include information about delivery services used as part of ILL staff training. Alternatively, where decisions about delivery are made by mail-room staff, ILL staff may need to inform them of special ILL requirements where these exist. Some libraries may find it advantageous for ILL staff to have direct control over their own mail pick up and delivery.
Postage Information
Participating libraries were asked whether they preferred street addresses or mailboxes and surface delivery or airmail. Less than half of the institutions/libraries indicated that they had any preference for using street as opposed to mailing addresses. Surface mail was generally used more than airmail.
While the use of street or mailbox addresses did not seem to be an issue of particular interest for the participating libraries, there are wider implications. For example, only Australia Post can deliver items directly to a post office box address. Other carriers can deliver to the nearest post office but would then need to post the item again with Australia Post to be delivered to the post office box.
Prices
Few participating libraries provided specific pricing information for the survey, several because the information was confidential. Where provided, prices were based on a range of criteria - weight (rate per gram or kilogram), destination (different rates for local metropolitan delivery and others), or volume (discount based on volume of mail). This may have implications for libraries as the way charges are calculated may significantly affect costs, even for the same volume of mail.
Libraries require data on their postal use and characteristics (eg. package size, destinations, volume) to be able to identify their requirements and effectively negotiate with carriers (or to inform mail staff to ensure ILL requirements are met when they negotiate with carriers). The survey did not collect data about whether this type of data collection was already being undertaken by libraries/institutions.
Contractual or Other Agreements
Information was sought from participating libraries as to whether they had a contract or other agreement with one or more of their carriers. If they did, information was also sought on:
- whether these contracts included price discounts (amount did not need to be identified) and performance standards (eg. delivery times), and
- whether regular performance measurement was undertaken.
The majority of participating institutions/libraries did have some form of agreement with at least one of their postal carriers. These were generally agreements with the institution rather than with the library or ILL area. The survey provided no data on the degree to which libraries or ILL sections were involved in developing specifications for use when selecting carriers, although this would be of value where they have special needs which may not be met by standard services, or may not be required by other parts of the institution.
While information about price discounts and performance measures cannot be published due to confidentiality considerations related to commercial contractual relationships with carriers, a range of issues were raised in this area.
In the first instance, ILL staff need to be aware that a contract or agreement with a carrier exists. As indicated elsewhere in this report, the specific services provided by this courier may have implications for ILL practice. In addition, there may be restrictions about the information that can be released about specific arrangements within the contract, and staff need to be aware of this to avoid any inadvertent breach of contract. ILL staff should also be aware of any performance standards within a contract, and should consider being actively involved in monitoring the performance of carriers.
Contracts/agreements should focus not only on price (eg. obtaining a discount) and service types (eg. standard, parcel, overnight etc), but also the service delivery standards associated with particular services (eg. setting clear delivery time standards, security issues such as tracking systems.
The inclusion of clear performance standards in a contract is critical for managing carrier performance. In addition, the inclusion of such standards should be accompanied by regular performance measurement and monitoring. Lack of performance monitoring may have implications for the library/institution's ability to guarantee service levels to customers, and for undertaking informed re-negotiation of contracts, or informed comparison with other suppliers. This would be the most effective way for libraries to exert some control over the postal delivery element of the ILL turnaround process.
To address these issues there might be value in developing a standard contract or checklist which covered all the considerations relevant to postal delivery by Australian libraries. Development of a recommended performance measurement tool for inclusion in such a contract might also be useful. Of course, any contract conditions and performance measurement processes would need to be negotiated with individual suppliers.
Information sought about contracts showed that agreements were generally made on an institutional basis (which may have included several campuses, branches or sections) rather than between institutions. This was unlike local delivery services between a number of libraries (such as library vans) which were generally of an inter-institutional, collaborative nature.
Delivery Time Standards
Where participating libraries provided delivery time standards, these varied (sometimes significantly) even for the same carrier. In addition, it was not possible to obtain definitive delivery time standards from any courier. Possible reasons for these variations may be:
- specific State/Territory delivery timetables (rather than a generic national timetable to different locations);
- differences between letter and surface parcel delivery times (generally letters have a faster delivery time than parcels); and
- different delivery services provided by a carrier may have different delivery times (the particular service/s used by participating libraries could not be identified in this survey).
In addition, some standards were quoted in ranges of up to five days (eg. delivery in 1-5 days). There were also variations in the latest collection times - some mention posting before 12 noon for delivery standards to be met, others note that up to 6pm may be acceptable for most locations.
Difficulties in establishing standard delivery times have implications for supplier selection, contract development and performance monitoring. In particular, any delivery standards included in a contract should be explicit (eg. a general reference to "Australia Post standard delivery times" is not useful if there may be a dispute about what these are) and specific (a range of five days is not necessarily useful if predicability is required).
Collection times also have implications for library practice and ILL processes. The time an article is posted was often a key factor in determining whether delivery time standards could be met. The advertised times for meeting standards varied from location to location and for different delivery services (from 12pm to 6pm). Staff should be aware of latest pick up times to be able to maximise the likelihood of speedy delivery. It should be recognised that such collection times may also have an internal mail component built in (eg. latest collection time is 4pm rather than 6pm as mail needs to be processed by the internal mail area before being collected by courier service).
Delivery Times
The delivery times identified in the survey were subdivided into various categories for analysis. Locations were divided using Australia Post postcode differentiation of metropolitan and country locations. Deliveries were further subdivided into 'within State/Territory' and 'between State/Territory' deliveries.
Due to the survey assumptions outlined earlier in this report, the survey data about delivery times should be considered as indicative rather than absolute - ie. the survey results do not provide definitive values for delivery times of ILL around Australia, but they do provide an indication of some delivery time trends. In addition, in some cases (particularly for country locations) the data available for analysis was very small. Some observations can, however, be made about likely delivery times and reliability.
As it was not possible to obtain definitive delivery time standards for any carrier and because there were concerns about contractual confidentiality, it was not considered appropriate to compare delivery times by various carriers with advertised or agreed standards. However, for individual libraries to measure the performance of their carriers, it would be useful to determine not only actual delivery times but also, and more importantly, how these delivery times compare against agreed delivery standards.
Overall
- All packages in the survey were delivered within 10 days.
- The delivery times in the Australia Post 'Print Post Delivery Standards' (Appendix 4) provided a reasonable general indicator for likely delivery times from and to specific locations (both within a State/Territory and interstate) if an additional day was added to all the indicated times. Around 90% of all survey items arrived within those times.
Delivery Within a State/Territory
A number of observations can be made based on the survey data:
- delivery within a metropolitan area was generally (although not always) quicker than metropolitan delivery to country areas in the same State/Territory;
- 86% of packages were delivered within a metropolitan area within 2 days;
- 88% of packages were delivered from metropolitan to country areas in the same State/Territory within 3 days;
- there were not enough examples of items sent from country areas (to either metropolitan or country locations) to make meaningful observations or comparisons with items sent from metropolitan locations;
- NSW had the least reliable delivery services for both metropolitan (delivery times ranged from one to five days) and country destinations (delivery times ranged from one to six days); and
- local delivery services (eg. library vans) were not necessarily faster than external carrier services but were likely to have more predictable delivery times due to set delivery and pickup routes.
The fact that local delivery services were generally no quicker than external services raises issues about contestability and the value of periodic benchmarking of internal or locally provided services with external delivery services. For example, if an internal or local service is less efficient than an external carrier with respect to a key service standard such as delivery time, it may be worth reassessing whether it is worth continuing with this service. The only way to assess this is to undertake some benchmarking on a regular basis. Of course, any such consideration would need to take into account a range of issues such as comparisons of price and overall service quality, relationships with other libraries, issues of control and staff expertise (in areas such as tendering and contract management).
Delivery Between States/Territories
A number of observations can be made based on the survey data:
- interstate delivery, on average, was longer than delivery within a State/Territory;
- 98% of items delivered interstate were delivered within 5 days;
- there was no clear trend for differences in delivery time based on country or metropolitan receiving locations;
- there was insufficient data to compare country and metropolitan areas as dispatching locations;
- NSW metropolitan deliveries, both for dispatch and receiving, were consistently the least reliable as for within State/Territory deliveries;
- delivery to and from States/Territories other than NSW was reasonably predictable; and
- while the survey data was generally small for non-Australia Post carriers, there was evidence of consistent differences in delivery times to particular locations by different carriers.
ILL postal delivery times are a key part of overall ILL turnaround time. They impact on perceived library performance in delivering ILL services and impact on service standards, both individual and national. The current Australian Council of Libraries and Information Services (ACLIS) Australian Interlending Code does not specify turnaround times for standard ILL (only for Fast Track and Premium Services). The issue of standards is currently being considered by the National Resource Sharing Working Group. Any standards developed for standard ILL delivery turnaround time would need to incorporate appropriate timeframes for postage (this survey may provide a guide). Alternatively, consideration may need to be given to allowing libraries to increase ILL charges to enable dispatching libraries to utilise faster delivery services for standard services. Individual libraries may also wish to consider these indicative timeframes when developing their own service levels for ILL. While non-post delivery may be an option for copies (fax, Ariel etc), this would not usually be the case for loans. As for other standards of ILL delivery (eg Fast Track) there is a trade-off between time and cost.
Recommendations for Library's ILL Operations
- Libraries/institutions may wish to investigate options for establishing collaborative arrangements with other libraries/institutions for provision of delivery services. This might include negotiating joint contracts with postal carriers or establishing "common use" agreements or panels of suppliers for groups of libraries.
- ILL staff training may need to include information about their institution's mail handling procedures, postal delivery and contractual agreements with postal carriers.
- Libraries may need to ensure that address/contact information obtained from customers is appropriate for use by their postal carrier and that staff are aware of any special address/delivery requirements their carriers have.
- Libraries should consider establishing routine data collection systems (or build these into contracts with suppliers) to obtain relevant data about their postage use and requirements.
- It would be useful for ILL staff to be involved in the specification of requirements for selecting a postal carrier and in performance monitoring.
- More attention may need to be paid to including and measuring performance standards such as delivery time in contracts with postal carriers.
- Libraries may wish to consider benchmarking local delivery services such as library vans against external carrier services on key indicators such as cost and delivery time.
General Recommendations
- The indicative delivery times to 'within State/Territory' locations and to interstate locations should be taken into consideration in the development of national turnaround time standards for ILL services.
- That consideration be given to developing an instrument (checklist/toolkit) for libraries to use for choosing an appropriate postal carrier and service.
- That consideration be given to developing an evaluation tool for delivery times which could be used by libraries to measure the performance of carriers (and which may be able to be incorporated into a contract with postal carriers).
Appendix 1: Methodology
The survey was conducted for one working week between 13 September and 17 September 1999. During that period, participating lending libraries included a survey form in each envelope and parcel containing standard ILL items dispatched.
Separate forms were used for loans and copies which indicated:
Dispatching library
- name;
- date dispatched;
- delivery method used; and
Receiving Library
- date received;
- suburb/town and postcode; and
- NUC symbol or name.
In addition, each dispatching library completed a separate Participant Questionnaire which collected the following information:
- number of survey forms dispatched; and
- delivery service, address and postage details, delivery time agreements, and prices for both loans and copies.
It should be noted that the study covered only standard ILL requests within Australia. The survey did not cover documents sent electronically (eg. Ariel, fax) or by Fast or Premium Track arrangements.
The survey results were divided by location and delivery type rather than according to whether packages contained loans or copies, as these were the most useful indicators of likely delivery time. Australia Post "metropolitan" and "country" postcode divisions were used in grouping and analysing delivery time data as this was most relevant to assessing delivery times, particularly given the large Australia Post sample in the survey. Wherever metropolitan or country locations are referred to, these are based on the Australia Post postcode divisions.
Appendix 2 : Survey Form
NB. A similar form was used for Loans.
The National Resource Sharing Working Group seeks the support of the Australian library community in responding to this survey. The survey is being undertaken between 13 September 1999 and 17 September 1999.
This survey will collect information from a wide range of libraries across Australia about the efficiency of postal and courier systems in delivering material that has been requested by standard interlibrary loan.
Instructions for completing the survey form are printed overleaf.
All these forms should be completed and posted to the National Library of Australia.
The information gathered during this survey will allow Australian libraries to have benchmarks of delivery time from a wide range of locations throughout Australia. Results of the survey will be widely distributed and be of use to all libraries, not only those who participate in the survey.
More information about the National Resource Sharing Working Group (NRSWG) can be found on the National Library of Australias web site at: http://www.nla.gov.au/initiatives/nrswg/
For further information on this survey please contact:
Patricia Woods
Document Supply Service
National Library of
Australia
Telephone: (02) 6262 1421
Email: pwoods@nla.gov.au
For further information on the NRSWG please contact:
Susan Magnay
Chair, National Resource Sharing Working Group
State Library of New South Wales
Telephone: (02) 9273 1557
Email: smagnay@ilanet.slnsw.gov.au
NATIONAL RESOURCE SHARING WORKING GROUP (NRSWG)
Survey of Delivery Time
All you are required to do is to write the date on which you opened this envelope or parcel in the place marked 'Date received', your librarys name or NUC symbol and your postcode.
Background: This survey will measure delivery time, i.e. the length of time it takes for an envelope or parcel to reach your library after it leaves another library. We are conducting the survey in order to measure the amount of time it takes for ILL materials to reach various parts of Australia. We would appreciate your cooperation in completing the form below. Ten libraries have agreed to survey their delivery times. One of these sheets is included in every envelope and parcel which is dispatched by these libraries during the survey period (13 September 1999 to 17 September 1999).
Completed forms: Please collect all the survey forms you receive in one batch - regardless of which library sent them and send them to:
Reply Paid 013
Delivery Survey
Document Supply Service
National Library of Australia
CANBERRA ACT 2600
Forms received after 15 October 1999 may not be considered in the survey. To help us to make this survey worthwhile, please complete and return every survey form you receive.
Thank you for your assistance.
COPY
TO BE COMPLETED BY SENDING LIBRARY:
Please complete this form by writing the date you sent this envelope or parcel and what method was used. Dispatching library: .................................... Date despatched: .. Delivery method: Post / Courier / Other (specify) .. |
TO BE COMPLETED BY RECEIVING LIBRARY:
Please complete this form by writing the date you received this envelope or parcel and who you are. Postcode is required for all libraries. Date received........................................ Suburb/Town and Postcode for your library . Receiving Library: (NUC symbol or name of your Library) ......... |
Appendix 3 : Participant Questionnaire
Name of your Library ..
Location (Town/Suburb) .
NUC symbol ..Post Code ..
1. How many survey forms did your library dispatch during the survey period (13 September 1999 to 17 September 1999) (This information will be used to assess the response rate to the survey) Loan .. Copy . |
The questionnaire below will establish your usual dispatch methods for items that are sent out for standard requests. There is a separate questionnaire for LOANS and COPIES. FastTrack will not be considered in this survey.
2. LOANS
A. When sending LOANS to other libraries from standard requests: Do you use Australia Post or a courier service? Please provide the name of the courier service. . Do you send items to street addresses or mail boxes? . Do your standard loans usually go by surface delivery or airmail? . B. According to your agreement or contract with your Courier or Australia Post how many days should parcels take to reach the following destinations from your Library? |
Canberra |
.. |
Perth |
.. |
Sydney |
.. |
W.A. country |
.. |
NSW country |
. |
Hobart |
. |
Brisbane |
. |
Tasmania country |
. |
Queensland country |
. |
Melbourne |
. |
Adelaide |
. |
Victoria country |
. |
S.A. country |
. |
Darwin |
. |
N.T. country |
. |
C. Most organisations negotiate bulk prices for courier and postal services, which are usually based on a rate or flagfall per parcel plus a rate per kilo, according to the items destination in Australia. In order to provide cost benefit analysis, please provide details of the cost structure of your delivery methods. (Please ignore this question if this information is considered confidential) Flagfall per parcel . Additional rate per kilo for sending items to: |
Canberra |
.. |
Perth |
.. |
Sydney |
.. |
W.A. country |
.. |
NSW country |
. |
Hobart |
. |
Brisbane |
. |
Tasmania country |
. |
Queensland country |
. |
Melbourne |
. |
Adelaide |
. |
Victoria country |
. |
S.A. country |
. |
Darwin |
. |
N.T. country |
. |
D. Comments (Please add any information you think relevant) |
3. COPIES
A. When sending COPIES to other libraries from standard requests:
Do you use Australia Post or a courier service? Please provide the
name of the courier service.
.
Do you send items to street addresses or mail boxes? .
Do your standard copies usually go by surface delivery or airmail? ..
B. According to your agreement or contract with your Courier or Australia Post how many days should parcels take to reach the following destinations from your Library? |
Canberra |
.. |
Perth |
.. |
Sydney |
.. |
W.A. country |
.. |
NSW country |
. |
Hobart |
. |
Brisbane |
. |
Tasmania country |
. |
Queensland country |
. |
Melbourne |
. |
Adelaide |
. |
Victoria country |
. |
S.A. country |
. |
Darwin |
. |
N.T. country |
. |
C. Most organisations negotiate bulk prices for courier and postal services, which are usually based on a rate or flagfall per parcel plus a rate per kilo, according to the items destination in Australia. In order to provide cost benefit analysis, please provide details of the cost structure of your delivery methods. If the table below is not relevant to your cost structure, please provide details overleaf. (Please ignore this question if this information is considered confidential) Flagfall per parcel . Additional rate per kilo for sending items to: |
Canberra |
.. |
Perth |
.. |
Sydney |
.. |
W.A. country |
.. |
NSW country |
. |
Hobart |
. |
Brisbane |
. |
Tasmania country |
. |
Queensland country |
. |
Melbourne |
. |
Adelaide |
. |
Victoria country |
. |
S.A. country |
. |
Darwin |
. |
N.T. country |
. |
D. Comments (Please add any information you think relevant) |
Appendix 4 : Print Post Delivery Standards
To: |
Sydney |
Canberra |
Melbourne |
Hobart |
Brisbane |
Perth |
Adelaide |
Darwin |
From: |
||||||||
Sydney |
1 |
1 |
2 |
4 |
2 |
4 |
3 |
5 |
Canberra |
1 |
1 |
2 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
5 |
Melbourne |
2 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
2 |
4 |
Hobart |
4 |
4 |
3 |
1 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
6 |
Brisbane |
2 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
1 |
5 |
4 |
5 |
Perth |
4 |
4 |
3 |
5 |
5 |
1 |
3 |
5 |
Adelaide |
3 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
1 |
4 |
Darwin |
5 |
5 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
5 |
3 |
1 |
Notes:
- The delivery standards are based on business days and do not include weekends.
- For near country locations, add 1 business day.
- For far country locations, add 2 business days.
- The delivery standard for articles lodged for Same State Metro delivery is 1 day.
- The delivery standards are applicable for Print Post articles lodged by 12 noon.
Reproduced from Appendix 1 - The Guide to Print Post (As from February 1997), Australia Post.
ENDNOTES
(1) Australian Council of Libraries and Information Services Australian Interlending Code, Canberra, ACLIS, 1997. http://www.nla.gov.au/aclis/illcode.html
(2) Cantrell, Leon, Looking for Books: a report on access to research monographs by academic and higher degree students at Australian university libraries, National Library of Australia, September 1999. http://www.nla.gov.au/initiatives/alctf/cantrell.html
(3) See The Guide to Print Post (As from February 1997), Australia Post.
