[Mcls-print-storage] Retention Lists Redux

[Doug Way]

I can't speak for everyone else, but I know at GVSU we're aware that what we are doing here is taking a very conservative approach in looking at the lowest of the low-hanging fruit.  I think our hope is that over time we would look at adding more titles into the fold, but I am not sure as a group in the state we're all yet comfortable with or committed to managing our collections in such a manner.

So I would agree there is a great deal of opportunity that is being left on the table.  I think what the retention lists do is allow many of us to act with a high level of comfort that somewhere is consciously committing to retaining the titles we're withdrawing.  I also think that in many ways what we're committing to is something more casual (not sure that's the right word), agreeing to "collective management" of these shared titles over the long-term instead of necessarily retention.

As I said above, I think this is a conservative approach that does not immediately bring us to collaboratively managing all of our titles, but it does take us in at least a first step in that direction and that is a huge thing.  Over time, hopefully we can then begin to act more collaboratively on the other titles in our collections (as well as those that we do not yet own), but I am comfortable with this as a first step.

My 2 cents,
Doug (who clearly has time to catch up on email today...)

From: mcls-print-storage-bounces at mail.mlcnet.org [mailto:mcls-print-storage-bounces at mail.mlcnet.org] On Behalf Of Rick Lugg
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 10:27 AM
To: mcls-print-storage at mcls.org
Subject: [Mcls-print-storage] Retention Lists Redux

Hello all,

We at SCS have continued to think about the retention commitments issue, and have a few new comments for your consideration:


1.       Andy prepared the attached very simple graph this weekend. I think everyone will find it interesting.


2.       You'll note that the thinking about retention commitments has been selective. That is, the group wanted title-specific retention lists for those cases where we were drawing down the number of holdings to 2. However, there remain an almost equal number of titles that already showed 2 holdings. Since we took no action on these, there are no formal retention commitments for another 884,000 title-holdings with characteristics identical to the 736,000 already assigned.


3.       Similarly, for uniquely-held titles, we took no action in cases where there were fewer than  50 copies in the US or where no Hathi version existed. That leaves another 1,098,000 titles without explicit retention commitments.



4.       There are 277,000 titles which were held by 3-7 libraries and were exempted from withdrawal either because of high circulation or because they were published in 2005 or later. No retention assignments were made for these, either.


5.       This suggests a couple of things:


a.       Maybe we are acting prematurely on a too-specific subset of the group's collective collection. Any retention policy developed would ultimately need to account for these other cases.


b.      One approach would be to keep the currently-assigned retention commitments informal for the next couple of years. As previously agreed, pilot libraries would withdraw only from the authorized lists, but would not yet commit to the 25-year retention of low-circulation items. Instead, wait for the next round of analysis. By the time the group is expanded in 2014, a retention policy could be developed and new allocations established across the entire membership. Only at that time would formal, long-term retention commitments be established-amortized more fully across the final membership of the group, and shaped by 2 additional years of use and overlap data.

This would dramatically simplify the situation, enabling progress on agreed withdrawals, and conscious inaction on the retention lists. A strategic delay of this sort would allow more time for definition of retention requirements, evolution of MARC 583 practice, and ultimately would focus retention on high-use and unique items, along with the titles where 2 holdings remain. It should also enable retention to be prioritized and shared more fully.

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.mlcnet.org/mailman/private/mcls-print-storage/attachments/20120323/4f40c850/attachment-0001.html