[Mcls-print-storage] Allocation numbers

[Barbara J Cockrell]

Hi Randy et al, My preference would be to work with the model of keeping titles where they circ. most as much as possible. I am OK about going with the predictable number alternative but only if we stay with the <4 circs (no higher) which it looks from your numbers as if that's what you are proposing. Barbara Dr Barbara Cockrell, Associate Dean for Collections & Technical Services, University Libraries, Western Michigan University, 1903, W. Michigan Ave, Kalamazoo, MI 49008-5353 phone 269-387-5143 fax 269-387-5077 'University Libraries: a recognized essential partner in enriching and elevating all aspects of scholarship at WMU' ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Randy Dykhuis" <DykhuisR at mcls.org>
> To: mcls-print-storage at mcls.org
> Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 3:59:30 PM
> Subject: [Mcls-print-storage] Allocation numbers
> At the end of last week, we received data from SCS about several
> potential allocation schemes. Based on conversation during our last
> conference call, the preferences seemed to lean either toward an
> allocation distributed by collection size or by the proportions we
> agreed to when we thought we had 735,000 candidates. Neither of these
> were perfect for everyone. This week I spoke individually to several
> participants and I think with a little rearranging, we can make this
> acceptable to everyone.
> Barbara posted to the list that WMU would be happy with 110,000 titles
> on their discard list and when I talked to Pamela, she indicated that
> CMU would be willing to reduce their title list as well. Given that,
> here's where we are:
> CMU: 37,000 titles
> EMU: 67,145 titles
> GVSU: 48,228 titles
> MTU: 49,177 titles
> SVSU: 52,673 titles
> WMU: 110,000 titles
> WSU: 169,844 titles
> That should add up to 534,066 titles. In addition, you all have your
> lists of unique titles that will increase your possible withdrawals
> somewhat.
> That leaves open Rick's question about how to use circulation data
> when creating the title lists. Should the lists be created without
> regard to where an item has circulated most? Or do we want to make
> sure that libraries that have the most circulations retain the titles
> (or conversely titles can be discarded in libraries that have zero
> circs).
> The ideal is that we have both predictable target numbers, such as
> shown above, and the titles on the discard lists are titles that are
> low use within each library. Since those are "competing objectives" as
> Rick says, my reading of the group is that you would rather have a
> predictable number of titles to discard and if that means that some
> titles on your shelves have zero circs you'll live with it.
> Is that an accurate assessment?
> =========================
> Randy Dykhuis
> Executive Director
> Midwest Collaborative for Library Services (MCLS)
> Lansing, MI & Indianapolis, IN
> Phone: (800) 530-9019 x119
> Fax: (517) 492-3879
> Cell: (517) 927-5121
> E-mail: dykhuisr at mcls.org
> Skype: randy dykhuis
> _______________________________________________
> Mcls-print-storage mailing list
> Mcls-print-storage at lists.mlcnet.org
> http://lists.mlcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/mcls-print-storage
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.mlcnet.org/mailman/private/mcls-print-storage/attachments/20120216/8fb8e52b/attachment.html