[Mcls-print-storage] Allocation numbers

[Ellen Seidel]

Hi Randy and all, 

I agree with your analysis. We prefer to be close to the predictable target, and we have a preference for the discard list to consider circulation as much as possible when distributing titles. However, we can also live with having some zero circulating items left on our shelves as our contribution to a shared collection. 

Ellen Seidel 
Head, Collection Management & Technical Services 
J. R. Van Pelt Library and John and Ruanne Opie Library 
Michigan Technological University 
906-487-3064 
eseidel at mtu.edu 

----- 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 GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern 
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/20120217/4738cba5/attachment.html