Reinventing Gifts & Exchange: Summary of responses thus far

On November 22, I posted a message requesting suggestions about
what to do with a traditional Gifts & Exchange unit. I would like
to share with you several of the excellent messages I have
received, in the hope of stimulating further discussion about the
issues involved.

G & E at the University of Missouri-Columbia: We have a unit that
is very traditional and barnacle-laden. An assistant and a clerk
are responsible (a) for gift materials (EXCEPT for gift
periodicals), (b) for all exchanges (EXCEPT those received at
Serials check-in), (c) for monographic receipts (EXCEPT those firm-
ordered), (d) for processing analyzed standing orders (exceptions
to the usual routine), (e) and for detritus from other departments,
such as the microfilming, the processing of output from the
University printer, and pre-cataloguing of theses and
dissertations, as well as back-up for Data Entry.

Some of the problems with this arrangement: (a) With two
resignations in hand, we know that training the new people will be
difficult, since they will have to learn the separate Acquisitions
and Serials routines, in addition to all the Gifts routines. (b)
Since G & E doesn't have a very clear focus, it is too tempting for
other departments to dump extraneous tasks on G & E and lose the
discipline and focus necessary to clarify and refine their own
operations.

To summarize in three sentences the principles that appear to
undergird the responses received: A department should be organized
around an easily comprehensible, cohesive core of tasks essential
to the library's mission. We must eliminate operations and tasks,
even units and departments, that are not essential. We need to
simplify dramatically the tasks that are essential, and in
particular eliminate the exceptions, the overlaps, the "hand-offs".

Carole Bell at Northwestern writes that her unit is traditional and
rather like MU's. An assistant handles gift books, exchanges, and
does searching for OP material and other miscellaneous tasks. She
adds that the ALCTS Gifts & Exchange discussion group meeting in
Philadelphia will be held in conjunction with the OP discussion
group. At Chicago this summer a G & E session on tax laws is
planned. She also mentioned that there is an obvious need for a
listserv devoted to G & E topics.  One almost got going here at MU
a few months ago, but with staffing at zero we cannot help. Any
volunteers?

David James at Johns Hopkins writes that his institution has
deliberately tried to make gifts an integral part of Acquisitions
and to eliminate as many special operations as possible.  This
process has taken three years, and, to no one's surprise, has not
been easy. One person in Monographs handles gifts, with 20-30 hours
of student help. Their routine begins with a search in OCLC and
then in the local NOTIS database if nothing was found in OCLC. From
this step on, it appears that gift materials are treated exactly
like approval books. An interesting step involves using PROCITE
software to maintain a database of all gifts received. (Necessary
because of limitations in NOTIS's reporting capability?)

Carol Hawks at Ohio States reports that they have carried
simplification of exchange to the point of nearly eliminating it.
Since the processing involved with exchanges is more expensive than
the material itself, and particularly since they no longer have any
free local publications, they have tried to eliminate as many
exchange arrangements as possible. The first step was to have the
selectors review all exchange material. What was not germane to the
collection was cancelled. The second step was to look for
alternatives to exchange for the remaining material.  Where they
could purchase the material or receive it as a gift, this was done.
The result was that over 500 exchanges were eliminated, and a
smaller number replaced with paid subscriptions. "Only a small
number in predictable areas such as the former Soviet Union will
remain as exchanges."

Many, many thanks to the kind people who responded to yet another
obstreperous request for help. I will crosspost this summary
to ACQNET. If any of you would like to contribute to this,
please post your thoughts, or send me a message and I will
summarize for the list a final time. Thanks, all of you.

L. Hunter Kevil
Head, Serials Department
University of Missouri-Columbia