[Mcls-print-storage] More from SCS

[Rick Lugg]

Hello everyone,

 

Following up on Andy's message this morning, we thought it might also be
useful to look at allocations on a percentage basis. This is in part to
address Sandy's question about the relationship between the number of
allocable candidates and the number of records (filtered) that each library
initially contributed.  It also gives us another way to look at goals and
equity across the group. Andy has put together three additional slides
(attached), one each for the <4, <5, and <6 thresholds. Since the yields are
expressed in percentages, they do not vary from chart to chart - only the
base number (maximum number of potential withdrawals) changes. 

 

I'd also like to make one other point in relation to targets, whether
expressed in percentage terms or raw numbers. As we understand it, there are
two objectives in regard to allocation. One is to assure equity (however the
group ultimately defines it) across the group. The other is to prioritize
withdrawal of those title-holdings with the lowest circulation. These are to
some degree competing objectives; i.e., we cannot control both of them
simultaneously. The only way we can hit targets exactly is to allocate
withdrawal candidates without respect to circulation levels. The only way we
can assure that the lowest-circulation candidates are withdrawn first is to
allocate without respect to desired targets. In either case, we disrupt the
original allocation when we introduce the second objective. Some options to
consider:

 

The core question, it seems to me, is whether the group is willing to
consider this a single collection. 

 

1.       If so, we can opt for hitting predictable withdrawal targets for
each institution, and ignore the question of where something has circulated
most. The biggest risk is that this method will remove a title-holding that
has circulated up to 3 times (over 11 years) in a single library from that
library, leaving a title-holding that has 0 charges on the shelves in
another library. Any user demand can be satisfied by borrowing the title
from the retaining library. While it is slightly more likely that demand
would originate at the campus that already experienced 3 uses, it's hard to
imagine this being a common experience.

 

2.       If not, we can opt to allocate solely by circulation, modified by
some sort of rank ordering in instances where the number of charges is the
same at multiple institutions. We can't know how these results will
distribute across the seven libraries until we actually perform the
allocation, so this is a less predictable course. On the upside, it will
assure that the least-used title-holdings are the ones removed across the
group. The rank ordering would provide some nudging in the direction of
targets, but probably not as much as wanted.

 

3.       We have experimented with a "blended" approach (in which, for
instance, an item with 1 charge is preferred for removal over a 0 charge
item from another library) as a way of weighting results toward the desired
percentages. But it's by nature somewhat imprecise. With that blended
approach, we can accommodate elements of both objectives, but it's far from
perfect. Here again, the results are not entirely predictable in advance,
but early experimentation has suggested that we can get within 10-20% of the
target. 

 

Just what we all need, more hard thinking. It's important to remember that
no one has ever done this before. We're pioneers, figuring out our way as we
go. That makes it hard, but also worthwhile. We're inventing the
infrastructure for shared print monograph collections-how cool is that? 

 

Thanks to everyone, and have a fine weekend,

 

Rick

 

Rick Lugg

Sustainable Collection Services LLC

63 Woodwell's Garrison

Contoocook, NH 03229

 

rick at sustainablecollections.com

 

p. 603-746-5991

f.  603-746-6052

 

www.sustainablecollections.com <http://www.sustainablecollections.com/>  

 

blog:  Sample  <http://sampleandhold-r2.blogspot.com/> & Hold

 

twitter:   @ricklugg 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.mlcnet.org/mailman/private/mcls-print-storage/attachments/20120210/8863bcc0/attachment-0001.html
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Addendum-Slides-Percentage.pptx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.presentationml.presentation
Size: 763606 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.mlcnet.org/mailman/private/mcls-print-storage/attachments/20120210/8863bcc0/Addendum-Slides-Percentage-0001.bin