This has prompted me to start gathering information for titles with problematic claiming.  We can use this as another consideration or data point during our serials review this spring.  There is the possibility that we will have to make major cuts for next year.  Why pay for a title that we have problems getting?

Tracey Thompson
Acquisitions Librarian/College Asst. Professor
New Mexico State University Library
MSC 3475 PO Box 30006
Las Cruces, NM 88003

Phone: 575-646-8093
Fax: 575-646-7077
Skype: Jenymn
SL: Jenymn Mersand
Email: thomtd@nmsu.edu

-----Original Message-----
From: SERIALST: Serials in Libraries Discussion Forum [mailto:SERIALST@list.uvm.edu] On Behalf Of Amy Carlson
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 1:51 PM
To: SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU
Subject: Re: [SERIALST] Cease claiming, checking in, binding

Aloha--

I think one of the problems we face is that there is still too much print
that we want. We have a number of titles that are not available in
electronic format yet and a surprising number of titles that come bundled
in either an electronic collection (that we can no longer afford) or with
print. On top of that we eliminated some of the time/cost saving mesaures
years ago. We can only eliminate more steps when we eliminate more print.

We're steadily working on it, but at the same time, we're looking at a
large number of specialized materials from the Pacific and Asia that we
can only receive in print. The more startling trend is electronic only
options bundled in collections or packages for domestic titles, where the
titles used to be availble in electronic only as a single title. I hope
this doesn't continue. Ultimately, once we reduce the titles in print, we
may be able to find others solutions for auditing and processing. We'll
have to.

Amy Carlson
Serials Department
Hamilton Library
University of Hawai'i at Manoa
808.956.7692
acarlson@hawaii.edu

On Tue, 19 Jan 2010, Fred Jenkins wrote:

>
> Of course, there is a corollary that we are all dancing around here.  If a
> particular print title is no longer of enough value that you care if it came
> in or not, why are you still subscribing?
>
> Fred W. Jenkins, Ph.D.                                
> Associate Dean for Collections & Operations
>  & Professor
> University of Dayton Libraries
>
> 106A  Roesch Library                        (937) 229-4272
> 300 College Park                                (937) 229-4215 (fax)
> Dayton, OH 45469-1360
>
>
>
>
> Rick Anderson <rick.anderson@UTAH.EDU>
> Sent by: "SERIALST: Serials in Libraries Discussion Forum"
> <SERIALST@list.uvm.edu>
>
> 01/19/10 12:03 PM
>
>                              Please respond to
>     "SERIALST: Serials in Libraries Discussion Forum"            
>                           <SERIALST@list.uvm.edu>
>
>
> To
> SERIALST@LIST.UVM.EDU
> cc
> Subject
> Re: [SERIALST] Cease claiming, checking in, binding
>
>
>
>
> > Your direct labor costs can be readily measured.  Your opportunity cost is
> > obscure.
>
> One of the standard mistakes we make in libraries, IMHO, is that we measure
> what's easy to measure and ignore what's hard to measure, even when what's
> hard to measure is more important.  I would suggest that direct labor costs
> -- though easily measurable -- are much less important than opportunity
> cost, which may not be measurable in exact units but can be enormous.  I
> don't have to be able to measure opportunity cost in units to know that one
> staff-hour spent on print management is a staff-hour not spent on
> online-resource management.  At my institution, usage of printed materials
> has been falling rapidly for more than a decade, while usage of online
> materials has been skyrocketing over the same period.  If (as I do) I
> consider control to be a means to the end of patron service rather than an
> end in itself, then I should probably consider sacrificing some control of
> low-use print in favor of greater control of high-use online.  But that's me
> and my institution.  Your mileage may vary.
>
>
> > Your aggregate investment in man-hours will decline as your portfolio of
> > subscriptions declines.  There are not any sunk costs associated with the
> mere
> > adoption of the procedure.
>
> You're right.  The cost associated with the adoption of any procedure is
> almost entirely opportunity cost.  See above.
>
>
> > Not remarking issues as they arrive and failing to make periodic
> complaints to
> > your agency over issues not delivered is an indication that you have, in a
> > rough-and-ready way, elected to write-off part of the inventory for which
> you
> > have paid. 
>
> That's technically correct, but misleadingly phrased.  To put it more
> accurately: I cease traditional check-in and claiming practices if I
> determine that those practices have an insufficient impact on patron service
> to justify them, especially when higher-impact activities are waiting in the
> wings.  Traditional claiming has a real-world impact on far fewer issues
> than are actually claimed (it has no impact on those that would come whether
> claimed or not, and none on those that will never come regardless of
> claims).  Check-in creates records that have little or no real-world impact
> on patron access (the fact, for example, that an issue has arrived doesn't
> help a patron if the issue isn't on the shelf).  The creation of meaningless
> and low-impact records would impose no meaningful opportunity cost if
> higher-impact tasks were not available for staff to do.  But, in my
> library's case anyway, they are.  That's the argument for doing away with
> check-in -- not that check-in isn't valuable, but that it isn't valuable
> enough.
>
> --
> Rick Anderson
> Assoc. Dir. for Scholarly Resources & Collections
> Marriott Library
> Univ. of Utah
> rick.anderson@utah.edu
> (801) 721-1687
>
>
>