[Mcls-print-storage] Allocation numbers

[Randy Dykhuis]

I often take silence as assent & occasionally get in trouble for it but so 
far there have been no dissenters to the proposed allocation scheme I 
floated. If there are concerns, it would be good to hear them by Monday so 
that SCS can get busy cranking out the deselection lists. I know that some 
of you are anxious to get cracking on this. 

To restate: 

Deselection titles would be allocated as shown below. Because most 
participants want a predictable & precise number of titles that they can 
deselect, individual library lists will not use circulation data as a way 
to allocate titles. Depending on what we learn this time around, this 
could be modified in future iterations of this process.

 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


=========================
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 



"Rick Lugg" <rick at r2consulting.org> wrote on 02/17/2012 06:38:31 AM:

> From:
> 
> "Rick Lugg" <rick at r2consulting.org>
> 
> To:
> 
> "'Randy Dykhuis'" <DykhuisR at mcls.org>
> 
> Date:
> 
> 02/17/2012 06:38 AM
> 
> Subject:
> 
> RE: [Mcls-print-storage] Allocation numbers
> 
> Randy’s summary of the situation seems right on target and very 
> helpful. I think he’s framed clearly the decision(s) needed to move 
> forward. It does seem that people have most interest in having a 
> predictable number of candidates. The only real downside to favoring
> that factor is that in some cases a copy with 3 circs in a library 
> might be withdrawn while a copy with 0 circs is retained in another 
library. 
> 
> While this may not be optimal, we’d suggest it’s tolerable: the 
> title remains secure and available; historical demand is not that 
> high (3 circs in 11 years); and this approach enables numerical 
> targets to be hit. That’s our take, but of course we’ll manage this 
> any way the group decides, to whatever degree the data supports.
> 
> If the group can make a decision today (Feb 17th), SCS can produce 
> the corresponding allocation lists by early March. We’ll deliver 
> them as quickly as we can once we know what to do, but it will take 
> some time. We are also fine with a later decision, as long as 
> everyone understands that delivery of the lists will be 
> correspondingly later. 
> 
> From: mcls-print-storage-bounces at mail.mlcnet.org [mailto:mcls-print-
> storage-bounces at mail.mlcnet.org] On Behalf Of Randy Dykhuis
> Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 4:00 PM
> To: mcls-print-storage at mcls.org
> 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 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.mlcnet.org/mailman/private/mcls-print-storage/attachments/20120217/9942e8d5/attachment.html