> I think if you are indifferent as to whether the paper subscriptions you order
> arrive and indifferent to the condition of the issues over time, by all means
> cease these activities.

The question isn't whether one cares about the receipt of paper
subscriptions.  The question is whether traditional check-in and claiming
processes make enough difference to justify their cost -- and remember that
we're not just talking about the relatively modest direct labor cost, but
also the much more important opportunity cost.  When staff members invest
time in the creation of records that don't matter (such as those that catch
changes in frequency, or show that the April issue arrived on April 7) or
when they spend time submitting claims for issues that are going to come
whether you claim them or not (or that won't come no matter how many times
you claim), then you've got a problem.  How big the problem is, and whether
the right solution is to stop those activities, are questions that each
individual institution should investigate and answer locally.  But no one
should shy away from the question based on the suggestion that to question
those practices constitutes indifference to one's responsibilities.
Actually, I'd argue that just the opposite is true: failure to review the
costs and benefits of traditional practices reflects indifference to
patrons.

--
Rick Anderson
Assoc. Dir. for Scholarly Resources & Collections
Marriott Library
Univ. of Utah
rick.anderson@utah.edu
(801) 721-1687