> I would imagine that Rick can do away with the fire-retardent
> apparel (it's
> too hot to be wearing all that gear, anyway!) since some of the
> concepts he
> expresses are worthy of consideration.

Ouch!  He lures me into dropping my guard and then flames with faint praise!
:-)

> In terms of ILL versus rush purchase of monographs, yes, a lot of
> collection
> development and acquisitions is based on speculative use ... but that's
> where skill, knowledge of collections and communities of users creates an
> indefinable factor which cannot be quantitatively or
> qualitatively expressed.

I'm not suggesting that patron requests should entirely take the place of
librarian-led collection development.  But I do think that they could
largely take the place of ILL with nothing but beneficial results.

> Some libraries are
> not allowed have instutional credit cards which makes dealing with places
> like B&N.com or Amazon.com next-to-impossible -- nor do those vendors have
> everything in print immediately available, and items which are
> out-of-print
> or which are relatively rare because of short publication runs are also
> difficult to get shipped rush. Rather than relying on a vendor's
> concept of
> 'rush' or on a true inability to be able to produce a desired item in a
> short time, ILL is one sure way of getting what the patron wants in as
> speedily as possible.

Let me share with you the proposal I've submitted to the library
administration here at Nevada:

When a patron makes an ILL request, instead of immediately pursuing a loan
from another institution, we will forward that request to Acquisitions.  If
a copy can be purchased immediately -- either from a standard new-book
vendor or an out-of-print dealer -- we will buy it on a rush/notify basis.
If a copy is not commercially available, we will send the request back to
ILL and follow the usual ILL procedure.  In my experience on both sides of
the library-vendor relationship, it is usually possible to get a book _very_
quickly -- assuming you're willing to pay for speed.  This often means going
straight to the publisher for in-print titles.

PRO

1. This will get most requested books to patrons faster, and they'll be able
to check them out for the standard circulation period instead of the more
restrictive ILL loan period.

2. We will actually be acquiring books that we know patrons want, rather
than those that we think patrons might possibly want.

CON

1. This will slow down the processing of ILL requests, since they'll be
diverted to Acquisitions before being processed. (Our ILL manager thinks the
delay would probably be about 24 hours, though I think we could make it
shorter; also, it should dramatically reduce the number of ILL requests we
end up handling.)

2. We would end up acquiring books that are of little interest to anyone
other than the individual requestor.  (On the other hand, you could argue
that we're already acquiring books that are of interest to no one at all.)

It occurs to me that we're now edging away from the scope of SERIALST, but I
think the principle we're discussing has broad applicability to both
monographs and serials.

Rick

-------------
Rick Anderson
Director of Resource Acquisition
The University Libraries
University of Nevada, Reno      "I'm not against the modern
1664 No. Virginia St.            world.  I just don't think
Reno, NV  89557                  everything's for sale."
PH  (775) 784-6500 x273             -- Elvis Costello
FX  (775) 784-1328
rickand@unr.edu