Yesterday (7/22) we talked about suggesting a few possible scenarios for statewide delivery. Here's one possibility, pie-in-the sky kind of thing:

Hub Option: Public library systems, regional library councils (3Rs), (and school library systems if interested) would be invited to participate in the LAND delivery system as "hub" connectors. The one criteria for joining LAND would be that the system would need to have its own internal delivery system - there would be no point in joining if they did not have a means of distributing items to their members. There would be a fee, presumably higher than the current cost for an individual library to join. I'm not speculating on who would pay, at this point. This would create the potential for 27 new LAND stops - 23 public library systems and 4 of the 3Rs since only 4 have delivery services. I'm assuming there would be little interest among school library systems, and no ability to pay.

Each hub would agree to distribute items received in LAND to its member libraries through its own delivery system. There would be no change in the way existing LAND members, mostly academic libraries, experience delivery. They would remain "full" members and get their daily delivery. The "hubs" would be added stops, but this concept should not have a detrimental effect on turnaround time. For current LAND members, there would be no difference. A few added stops in each area of the state should have minimal impact. And for the hubs and the smaller libraries that connect through the hubs, there would be substantial improvement in turnaround time. Let's say SUNY Geneseo needs to send an item to a public library in the Albany area. Right now, they would need to put the item in the mail. With this new option, they would put the item in LAND for delivery to the Capital District Library System. CDLC would then send the item out in their regional delivery system and the borrowing library could receive it in as little as 2 days, rather than the usual mailing time of 7-10 days. The borrowing library would return the item in the same way - send it back to the system office, which would then put the item into the LAND delivery.

This delivery option would work independently, utilizing the existing interlibrary loan process. If we also had a statewide discovery tool or catalog, delivery could be even more personalized.

One-way hub option:
This would work similar to the hub model proposed above, but LAND would be used one way only. Libraries that are part of a system and not on LAND [an individual public library, for example], would request an item from a LAND library. The library would ship the item to the library directly by a means other than LAND so turn-around time is not impacted. When the individual library is done with the item, they would use their local courier system to ship it back to their main system's office, and the system would ship it back to the lending library via LAND. The system would be a LAND stop but not the individual libraries within the system.

This model would avoid having the system be a processing/sorting center, which could be a plus. What would need to be considered is workflow on the part of the lending library.

Tiered Delivery:
This could make it possible for more libraries to participate in statewide delivery by offering a variety of options and costs. Each library could select the option that best met its needs and budget.
DAILY Delivery via courier (such as the existing LAND system) is the premium option. Libraries that subscribe to daily delivery would be guaranteed a quick turnaround time and would be serviced by the courier every weekday, Monday-Friday. This would be the highest cost option.
3X Delivery via courier would be the "middle-of-the-road" option. Libraries would be serviced by a courier service every Monday, Wednesday and Friday. The service could be set up with a different courier company than the one LAND uses, to avoid confusion. Presumably this would be less expensive than daily delivery. Libraries would be guaranteed a turnaround time, but of course the interval would be longer than the daily option. (This could be offered as a 2X option instead, if that proved more reasonable.)
UPS Campus-Ship (or other) option: For libraries with a less frequent need for delivery, this would be a more cost-effective choice. Some regions (CLRC and RRLC among them) are already active with Campus Ship and we could build on our existing list to include additional participants. This is a pay-as-you-go option and would work well if a library had only occasional need for shipping.

If all of these choices were managed at the state level, libraries could choose to participate at the most appropriate level.

Another thought on tiered delivery:
If libraries were willing to pass along a portion of the delivery cost to their users, they could present the menu of delivery options directly to the user.
For example:
We can have it sent to you via UPS - it's free
We can have it here for you in 3 days - you will have to pay $x
We can have it here for you tomorrow - you will have to pay $xx

Regarding Another thought...:
Is it possible for the library to offer all of these options to the users (or for the library to choose the delivery method on a case-by-case basis) or does the library need to choose one of the options and stick with it?

From Delivery group summit discussion re: possible scenarios:

Hub option there is no incentive for drivers

Option, instead of regional system, if one of the other stops would act as the LAND stop for a Library not on LAND
Volume here an issue. Would have to have a cap. If volume became too much the surrogate library would have to become their own LAND stop.

In areas where travel is difficult, like the North Country, have three smaller hubs. Some of the couriers are traveling in these areas already.
This possible dead end.
Three times a week option hub. Would affect turn around time.

Should focus be on those libraries that can not afford land and try and develop a solution for them while leaving the existing successful systems alone?

Tiered delivery:

Buy standardized mailers for smaller libraries who can not afford to be part of LAND.
Possible obstacle is varying size/shapes of materials.

Conclusion:
Every library can not be on one system.

Where do we go from here?
Make the options more available.
Change the margins.
Make known where the libraries that are not in LAND are available.