[Mcls-print-storage] SCS Data Error

[Julie Garrison]

Hi Rick,

Thanks for bringing this to our attention so quickly. My first reaction when I read this was OUCH!!!  And then I started thinking…. maybe this is an opportunity to really make sure we know what numbers are important to us.

Looking at only three circulations across seven libraries, means that it circulated at fewer than half of your libraries (if we all own the item) in the past 11 years. That isn't a very compelling number. What if we thought about circulations in terms of individual libraries instead (and forgive me SCS is I'm creating a nightmare situation here). What if we looked at how many titles we have 3 or more copies of across our libraries that has circulated NO MORE than three times at ANY given library? So, we aren't concerned with overall circulation as much as we are with low circulation across libraries? Does this make sense?

Secondly, this is a pilot to learn and understand our overlap. Is it possible that we don't have a large enough overlap to move forward without considering ways to expand the group? Do we need SCS to develop some  proposals for how we could add libraries to our group and expand our number of titles? Of course we would also be sharing the titles available for deselection with a greater number of libraries, so am not sure overall how that will increase our numbers.

Those are my initial thoughts to get the ball rolling in considering our new reality.

Julie


Julie Garrison
Associate Dean, Research and Instructional Services
Grand Valley State University
204 JHZ, 1 Campus Drive
Allendale, MI 49401
616-331-3636
garrisoj at gvsu.edu


From: Rick Lugg <rick at r2consulting.org<mailto:rick at r2consulting.org>>
Organization: R2 Consulting LLC
Reply-To: Rick Lugg <rick at r2consulting.org<mailto:rick at r2consulting.org>>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 12:45:42 -0500
To: <mcls-print-storage at mcls.org<mailto:mcls-print-storage at mcls.org>>
Subject: [Mcls-print-storage] SCS Data Error

Hello everyone,

I regret to announce that we have uncovered a fundamental problem in our calculation of the MCLS shared print opportunity. In applying the circulation criteria of “3 or fewer charges” we inadvertently pulled that data from individual library tables rather than from aggregated circulation activity. As a result, SCS initially identified 743,347  shared withdrawal candidates. Once we substitute the correct data, the new result is 265,770 titles. Obviously, this changes the picture significantly. On behalf of all of us at SCS, I am very sorry for this mistake, and we will do everything possible to rectify it. What we can’t do, of course, is change the reality of the situation – that there are substantially fewer titles that meet the current criteria than originally expected. But we will consider and estimate the effect of other scenarios, and will help MCLS to find its desired balance between collection security and responsible withdrawal.

One example: if circulation criteria were adjusted to “5 or fewer charges” (over 11 years and across 7 libraries), with all other criteria remaining unchanged, 354,386 withdrawal candidates would result. That might be a middle way forward. SCS has some other thoughts about supplementary strategies, but none will return us to the previously projected numbers of withdrawal candidates. Now that our error has been corrected, we can only honor the data. The opportunity is only as large as the criteria and the data permit. Once we have a new base number for shared withdrawal candidates, we can use the same approach to allocating them across the group as agreed last week. But ultimately everyone’s numbers will be lower.

Please note that this does not affect uniquely-held titles. The associated withdrawal candidate lists sent last week by Andy remain valid and actionable. That work can begin at any time.

Clearly, we need to discuss this before the next regularly-scheduled conference call. Randy, do you want to set up a Doodle poll to find a time – or shall I? If wanted, we can provide numbers on allocations to individual libraries under both the “3 or fewer” and “5 or fewer” aggregate circulations. We recognize that we need to keep moving steadily, as some libraries have immediate space needs.

Once again, we deeply regret our mistake and the consequent overstatement of opportunity. If you could have seen our faces when we realized our error... But we are glad we caught it now and can correct it before producing lists or removing books. We will continue to work with MCLS to refine and validate all of the elements of this ground-breaking project.

Thanks, and best regards,

Rick

Rick Lugg
Sustainable Collection Services LLC
63 Woodwell’s Garrison
Contoocook, NH 03229

rick at sustainablecollections.com<mailto:rick at sustainablecollections.com>

p. 603-746-5991
f.  603-746-6052

www.sustainablecollections.com<http://www.sustainablecollections.com/>

blog:  Sample & Hold<http://sampleandhold-r2.blogspot.com/>

twitter:   @ricklugg


_______________________________________________ Mcls-print-storage mailing list Mcls-print-storage at lists.mlcnet.org<mailto: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/20120117/ed47960f/attachment-0001.html