[Mcls-print-storage] Allocation numbers
Rick Lugg
rick at r2consulting.org
Mon Feb 20 17:05:32 EST 2012
Hello, list denizens –
We at SCS spent some time today discussing our approach to the blended model, so we can be ready to proceed if the group decides to move in that direction, using the ranges suggested in Randy’s message. We’ll be experimenting with it over the next day or two as your deliberations continue. Our approach will be along these lines:
1. Identify all allocable candidates with zero charges, and assign them according to the proportional goals outlined in Randy’s message.
2. Next identify all allocable candidates with 1 charge, and allocate those according to proportional goals.
3. If this does not achieve what we need, make further adjustments, which may include some instances where a 1 charge candidate at a particular institution is favored over a 0-charge candidate at another.
We understand that it may take more time to decide about allocation. In the meantime, it would help us to have a decision on *what* we will be allocating. Those who have spoken to date seem more comfortable with a circulation threshold of <4 (Scenario 3a) rather than <5 or <6 (Scenarios 3b and 3c).
Scenario 3a yields 534,067 allocable candidates. It includes any title-holding that has circulated 3 or fewer times. It is the basis of the most recent set of numbers sent by Randy (below). Does anyone object to this – i.e., prefer a higher circulating threshold?
Thanks,
Rick
Rick Lugg
Sustainable Collection Services LLC
<mailto:rick at sustainablecollections.com> rick at sustainablecollections.com
From: mcls-print-storage-bounces at mail.mlcnet.org [mailto:mcls-print-storage-bounces at mail.mlcnet.org] On Behalf Of Randy Dykhuis
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 9:07 AM
To: mcls-print-storage at mcls.org
Subject: Re: [Mcls-print-storage] Allocation numbers
I thought I'd been hearing that folks were in favor of set targets but Barbara & Doug are advocating a blended approach. No one has advocated for Rick's second option - basing the lists only on circulation so I think we can throw that one out.
As I understand Rick's message, the blended approach could mean as much as a 20 percent swing, either way, from the target amount. He did also say it could be 10 percent. Assuming the "worst" case. If we reduce GVSU's allocation by 12,000 titles, as Doug offered, and split those among EMU, MTU, and SVSU*, the range of allocations in the blended approach could look like this:
CMU: 29,600 - 44,400 titles
EMU: 56,916 - 85,374 titles
GVSU: 28, 982 - 43,474 titles
MTU: 42,542 - 63,812 titles
SVSU: 45,338 - 68,008 titles
WMU: 88,000 - 132,000 titles
WSU: 135,875 - 169,844 titles (WSU's allocation was at the maximum number they can withdraw so in the blended approach they can go no higher.)
In this approch, we won't know the exact allocation until the lists are run. Some libraries are likely to get more titles on its list, which means that others get fewer because this is essentially a zero-sum game - there is a set maximum number of titles that can be withdrawn.
The basic argument for strict allocation numbers without regard to circulation is predictability - each participant knows precisely how many titles will be on their deselection lists. While some libraries will keep items that have had zero circs locally while discarding some that have had as many as 3 circs locally, these titles will remain accessible and easly obtainable through MeLCat. In addition, none of the titles are high demand - any item that has more than 4 circs since 1999 is automatically excluded from consideration for deselection.
The basic argument for the blended approach is that it is more likely that each library keeps only the titles that have circulated locally while discarding those that have zero circs locally but may have circulated in other participating libraries. This comes closer to matching deselection lists with local activity, and it would preclude some ILL/resource sharing activity to ask for a title for which there is known demand. It has the added virtue of perhaps arousing less opposition throughout campus.
I think that fairly states the case for each approach. I'd like to see for a decision one way or the other in the next couple of days so that we can get SCS working on this.
*Choosing these institutions is fairly arbitrary & could be done differently, including or excluding other participants.
=========================
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
Doug Way <wayd at gvsu.edu> wrote on 02/18/2012 02:41:28 PM:
> From:
>
> Doug Way <wayd at gvsu.edu>
>
> To:
>
> Barbara J Cockrell <barbara.cockrell at wmich.edu>, Randy Dykhuis
> <DykhuisR at mcls.org>
>
> Cc:
>
> "mcls-print-storage at mcls.org" <mcls-print-storage at mcls.org>
>
> Date:
>
> 02/18/2012 02:41 PM
>
> Subject:
>
> RE: [Mcls-print-storage] Allocation numbers
>
> 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-> 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> 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/20120220/90fcc906/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Mcls-print-storage
mailing list