[Mcls-print-storage] Allocation numbers

Sat Feb 18 14:41:28 EST 2012

I apologize for not chiming in earlier, but I am in agreement with Barbara.  I would strongly prefer the blended approach.  I think it sets a model for a best practice, could save money and staff time in ILL/document delivery, it is an easier "sell" to our campuses ('we're keeping books here that were used a lot'), and I think it may maximize withdrawals and deduplication (if I have a local "high use" title on my withdrawal list, I am very unlikely to discard it, so why have another library that had little or not use keep that book?).

If some additional flexibility is need to help libraries reach their targets GVSU would be willing to reduce its withdrawal number by 10,000 to 15,000 titles.  Hopefully that will still allow us to accomplish our goals, while hopefully allowing the group to implement what is in my mind the best practice that could be used as a model in the future.

My 2 cents...
Doug
________________________________
From: mcls-print-storage-bounces at mail.mlcnet.org [mcls-print-storage-bounces at mail.mlcnet.org] on behalf of Barbara J Cockrell [barbara.cockrell at wmich.edu]
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 5:44 PM
To: Randy Dykhuis
Cc: mcls-print-storage at mcls.org
Subject: Re: [Mcls-print-storage] Allocation numbers

I maybe in a minority but my preference is to go with the blended approach (Rick's #3 from his Feb 10 email). If SCS allocate any circulation ties so that they are distributed in favor of helping libraries with low targets and particularly pressing needs to reach their targets then that should get institutions close to their targets.

Barbara

________________________________
From: "Randy Dykhuis" <DykhuisR at mcls.org>
To: mcls-print-storage at mcls.org
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 4:50:51 PM
Subject: Re: [Mcls-print-storage] Allocation numbers

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
_______________________________________________
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/20120218/09e90a16/attachment.html