[Mcls-print-storage] SCS Data Error

Thu Jan 19 12:03:10 EST 2012

Hi Rick,

Just for clarification in #1, I was not suggesting a shift from the commitment of retaining 2 copies to retaining 3 copies. I am perfectly comfortable with continuing on with a 2 copy retention plan. So my vote is for considering your #2 plan outlined below.

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: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 11:01:22 -0500
To: 'Doug Way' <wayd at gvsu.edu<mailto:wayd at gvsu.edu>>, 'Barbara J Cockrell' <barbara.cockrell at wmich.edu<mailto:barbara.cockrell at wmich.edu>>
Cc: <mcls-print-storage at mcls.org<mailto:mcls-print-storage at mcls.org>>
Subject: Re: [Mcls-print-storage] SCS Data Error

These are some interesting ideas, and parallel some of our own thinking here at SCS. A couple of comments:

1.       The 743,000 number that was the basis of our last call already reflects 3 or fewer circs per library AND a commitment to retain 2 copies. Julie’s suggestion keeps the same circulation criteria but suggests retention of 3 copies. That takes the total back to a level we discussed back in November—somewhere around 325,000. If retaining 2 copies is sufficient, then Doug is correct: the number of 743,000 stands. (Basically, the mistake we made was to substitute 3 or fewer circs per library for 3 or fewer across the entire group.)

2.       It may be worth considering sticking with the original list of 743,000. Remember that two copies of these will be retained. None has circulated more than 3 times in any library over the course of 11 years. That means that the maximum any of these titles could have circulated is 21 times over 11 years. For the vast majority of these titles, the aggregate circulation number is probably much lower. So one way to look at the question is this: Would two print copies satisfy user demand for 21 circulations in an 11-year period? That would represent a maximum demand of 1 circulation per year per copy.

3.       If the group does not want to go that route, we do think we have the data to support Barbara’s idea below. We also have some other ideas. But it strikes us as useful first to discuss whether we might proceed with the original list. We are not committed to it, but it doesn’t seem too unreasonable on second look.

4.       SCS spent a couple of days this week discussing an algorithm for equitable allocation of whatever withdrawal candidate list is finally produced. We think we have a good approach, and will be testing it over the next couple of weeks. We will report in more detail at the next monthly call.

We still think it might be useful to arrange a call to discuss the response to our data error sometime before the next regularly scheduled call. Randy, can you advise on that?

Thanks,
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

From: Doug Way [mailto:wayd at gvsu.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 9:05 PM
To: Barbara J Cockrell; Rick Lugg
Cc: mcls-print-storage at mcls.org<mailto:mcls-print-storage at mcls.org>
Subject: RE: [Mcls-print-storage] SCS Data Error

So, if I understand Rick’s initial message correctly, if we use what Julie is suggesting regarding three or fewer circs per library, then we would get back to that initial number of ~750K.  Since most of us have a bit of a cushion built into our initial numbers then if there are concerns with discarding certain “high use” titles then a library can set those aside and still have a fairly high yield.  If I am misreading that, let me know.

My two cents…

Doug

From: mcls-print-storage-bounces at mail.mlcnet.org<mailto:mcls-print-storage-bounces at mail.mlcnet.org> [mailto:mcls-print-storage-bounces at mail.mlcnet.org]<mailto:[mailto:mcls-print-storage-bounces at mail.mlcnet.org]> On Behalf Of Barbara J Cockrell
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 12:07 PM
To: Rick Lugg
Cc: mcls-print-storage at mcls.org<mailto:mcls-print-storage at mcls.org>
Subject: Re: [Mcls-print-storage] SCS Data Error

All,
I like Julie's suggestion about thinking about 3 or fewer circs. at an individual library.  Here's another take on that. There are probably titles that have circulated rarely or never in my library that may have circulated multiple times at another library.  I'd like to know about those items and weed them out of our library if the library at which an item has circulated is willing to keep that title.  Under our current rules these items aren't flagged as deselection candidates (since they circulate more than 3 times among all the libraries). Could they be identified?

Barbara

Dr Barbara Cockrell,
Associate Dean for Collections & Technical Services,
University Libraries,
Western Michigan University,
1903, W. Michigan Ave,
Kalamazoo, MI 49008-5353
phone 269-387-5143
fax 269-387-5077

'University Libraries: a recognized essential partner in enriching and elevating all aspects of scholarship at WMU'

________________________________
From: "Julie Garrison" <garrisoj at gvsu.edu<mailto:garrisoj at gvsu.edu>>
To: "Rick Lugg" <rick at r2consulting.org<mailto:rick at r2consulting.org>>, mcls-print-storage at mcls.org<mailto:mcls-print-storage at mcls.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 10:48:22 AM
Subject: Re: [Mcls-print-storage] SCS Data Error
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<mailto: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
_______________________________________________
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

_______________________________________________ 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/20120119/cf7afab8/attachment-0001.html