[Mcls-print-storage] SCS Data Error
Ellen Seidel
eseidel at mtu.edu
Thu Jan 19 13:31:39 EST 2012
Reading Rick's message and Randy's messages together, it sounds like we can reach a point that keeps us at or near the 743k withdraw mark while retaining a viable safety-net collection. I agree a phone conservation would help me think through the implications more clearly.
Re:Randy's example #2 with titles 4 and 5, the difference between 3 circs and 5 circs over 11 years doesn't strike me as significant as the difference between 3 circs and 11 circs (my library accounting for half-or-more of the total). I suggest that is why we need the highest number of potential withdraws possible, so local second-guessing can occur if desired. One data limitation we knowingly are working around is the difference between total circs on an item, and a history of those circs. To me, in the example above, 1 circ per year for 11 years is different from 11 circs in one year and never again.
Tom's additional thoughts point toward issues that might be addressed via the allotment algorithm. Is it possible to allocate the pick-lists by assigning titles first to libraries with no circs on the title? Eventually, we may all end up responsible for some unwanted titles, but I think that is shared (pain) part of the project.
Ellen Seidel
Head, Collection Management and Technical Services
J. R. Van Pelt Library and John and Ruanne Opie Library
Michigan Technological University
906-487-3064
eseidel at mtu.edu
----- Original Message -----
From: "Randy Dykhuis" <DykhuisR at mcls.org>
To: mcls-print-storage at mcls.org
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 12:18:41 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [Mcls-print-storage] SCS Data Error
Ever since Rick let us know about the "mistake" I've tried to wrap my head around this & every time I've had to lie down with a cold compress. I finally used a spreadsheet to show a few different scenarios. I want to share this to make sure that we're all on the same page (and that I'm thinking about this correctly). Basically, it shows the same thing that Rick states in the second bullet of the message he sent earlier today but I think there are some other implications that we can consider as well.
The worksheet below illustrates the current situation & criteria as I understand them. It shows 5 example titles and various scenarios for holdings & circ. The final column indicates whether that particular title will show up on a deselection list.
Laying it out like this showed me that we were using very conservative criteria when we said we wanted to discard only items that had circulated 3 or more times across the entire group. Based on this, we can loosen the criteria significantly and still retain the titles that are most valuable to our users.
If we go with the criteria that Julie, Doug, & Barbara advocated, I think it looks something like this:
If this is correct (Rick: Advise please!), it's easy to see why the number of deselection candidates went from 745,000 to around 250,000. It shows, I think, why we can go with the proposed withdrawal of 743,000 titles and still consider our strategy safe across the entire group.
But looking at this, I'm curious about Title 4 and Title 5. In the case of Title 4, we say it's valuable enough to retain because it circulated 5 times at 4 libraries, even though it was owned by all 7 and never circ'ed at 3 libraries. It will not show up on a deselection list because it exceeded the limit of 3 circs at any given library. Should we loosen the criteria to say that we'll accept titles that circulate 21 or fewer times across the entire group, regardless of the number of times it may circulate at any particular library? In the most extreme case, this would lead to a title that is owned by everyone but that circulated 20 times at one library and zero times everywhere else. It would be a candidate for deselection. Presumably, the library that had the 20 circs would want to keep it & SCS would need to make sure that the title does not show up on that library's deselection list but could show up on lists for other libraries.
At this point, perhaps that is someplace we don't want to go but throw it out as food for thought.
PS: If the worksheets that are embedded in this message did not retain their formating & none of the columns line up, the Excel file is attached.
=========================
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-bounces at mail.mlcnet.org wrote on 01/19/2012 11:01:22 AM:
> From:
>
> "Rick Lugg" <rick at r2consulting.org>
>
> To:
>
> "'Doug Way'" <wayd at gvsu.edu>, "'Barbara J Cockrell'"
> <barbara.cockrell at wmich.edu>
>
> Cc:
>
> mcls-print-storage at mcls.org
>
> Date:
>
> 01/19/2012 11:01 AM
>
> Subject:
>
> Re: [Mcls-print-storage] SCS Data Error
>
> Sent by:
>
> mcls-print-storage-bounces at mail.mlcnet.org
>
> 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
>
> p. 603-746-5991
> f. 603-746-6052
>
> www.sustainablecollections.com
>
> blog: Sample & Hold
>
> 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
> 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] On Behalf Of Barbara J Cockrell
> Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 12:07 PM
> To: Rick Lugg
> Cc: 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>
> To: "Rick Lugg" <rick at r2consulting.org>, 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
>
>
> From: Rick Lugg <rick at r2consulting.org>
> Organization: R2 Consulting LLC
> Reply-To: Rick Lugg <rick at r2consulting.org>
> Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 12:45:42 -0500
> To: <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
>
> p. 603-746-5991
> f. 603-746-6052
>
> www.sustainablecollections.com
>
> blog: Sample & Hold
>
> twitter: @ricklugg
>
>
> _______________________________________________ Mcls-print-storage
> mailing list 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
> http://lists.mlcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/mcls-print-storage
> _______________________________________________
> Mcls-print-storage mailing list
> 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 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/20120119/148dd6b1/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Mcls-print-storage
mailing list