I think one problem with the discourse on check-in is that so much of it
is built on the idea of the way things should be rather than the way they
actually are.

For example, we really should know whether we're getting everything
we've paid for.  In fact, let's all agree that it's _essential_ for us
to know whether we're getting everything we've paid for.  But there's a
problem: our agreement on that point doesn't change the reality, which
is that we're buying far more stuff than we can monitor closely.  Let's
be very clear about this: in the real world, no one checks in all of
their serials.  When you take both print and online formats into
account, there's just too many of them, and too few of us.  At my
institution, for example, we subscribe to a total of about 16,000 titles
and have a serials staff of 2.5 FTE.  This means that we have no choice
but to pick and choose what we monitor closely; it's a matter of simple,
inescapable mathematics.

So, to sum up: We have to know whether we're getting what we've paid
for.  However, our collection budgets so greatly outstrip our staff
resources that it's impossible.  So there has to be a compromise.  What
will it be?

---
Rick Anderson
Dir. of Resource Acquisition
Univ. of Nevada, Reno Libraries
(775) 784-6500 x273
rickand@unr.edu