(1)==========================================================================
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 03:19:54 -0400
From: J.Tousley_at_iaea.org
Subject: RE: ACQNET: paper vs. e-order forms
John raises an interesting point which my boss likes to expound from time to
time. Just because it is possible to automate something does not
necessarily mean that it is an improvement in the process nor that it is a
more effective or efficient way of doing the task. An activity that can be
done in a simple manual way should always be considered when they are in
fact both effective and efficient.
We are now using an online version of our library procurement form which is
completed by the requestors. But the administration still requires physical
signatures, so all we've done in effect is provide unlimited access to
copies of the form but we've not really automated the process, and as the
form is quite unwieldy to use most users still just print it out and
complete it with pen & ink due to the many reasons listed by John in the
email sent earlier. We very often do this also with forms provided by
vendors on Internet. It's just easier.
Joanna Tousley-Escalante
* Head, TSU
* VIC Library - IAEA
* Vienna, Austria
* j.tousley_at_iaea.org
* 431 2600-22624
(2)=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 12:45:12 -0400
From: Mary Bushing <mbushing_at_montana.edu>
Subject: RE: ACQNET: paper vs. e-order forms
I agree 100% with John's comments about how the e-forms vs. the paper
forms work for selectors and collection development administrators and the
effect charging for them might have upon profiles and orders. I find that
more and more of my routine work MUST be done at the keyboard and less and
less is portable. The slips are one thing that I can still stuff in my
briefcase and do whenever. The advantage of being able to sort and revisit
is a major issue as well. I could live with single copy slips rather than
multi-copy slips. I could use the copy machine in the exceptional case when
another copy is needed. I would hate to have to do my selection on line.
Like John, I will adjust to what happens but this is not a development I
look forward to with pleasure.
I must admit I have been one of those people all along who argued that
while the money invested in the vendor databases and electronic
infrastructures have provided us with many other capabilities, the use of
these databases for selection was never something that I could see working
very well. If selectors cannot find time with paper tools (catalogs, slips,
requests) to do their review of titles and options, I could never understand
how CD coordinators thought that these same selectors would find more time to
do it attached to a computer. But five or six years ago when I would
express this opinion at vendor forums, others thought I was being a bit
backwards. I was just trying to be practical. I admit that I am getting
older and that there could be some advantages to my doing selection online.
I could order the things rather than handing off that part of the work to an
acquisition clerk to do - but since I am at the top of the pay scale, I am
not sure that use of my time is in the best interests of the library.
Anyway - thanks, John, for your well-stated comments.
Mary C. Bushing, Ed.D.
Associate Professor
Information Resources Development Librarian
Montana State University Libraries - Bozeman
Bozeman, MT 59717
(406) 994-4994
(406) 994-2851 (fax)
alimb_at_montana.edu <mailto:alimb_at_montana.edu>
(3)=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 10:25:31 -0700
From: Rick Anderson <rickand_at_unr.edu>
Subject: RE: ACQNET: paper vs. e-order forms
> I admit that I am getting older and that there could be some
> advantages to my doing selection online. I could order the things
> rather than handing off that part of the work to an acquisition clerk
> to do
Yikes! Better not do that, Mary -- an acq clerk needs to vet your
order first to make sure the library doesn't have the item already, or that
it hasn't already been ordered on someone else's behalf. Also, the library
needs to create an order record so that the receiving clerk knows why the
book is coming in when it arrives.
That said, I have to say that John's and Mary's comments are rather
disheartening from an acquisitions point of view. Not because they
seem wrongheaded or misguided to me -- in fact, just the opposite. I
think they've made very valid points. Electronic selection, I think,
primarily simplifies life for the acquisitions staff rather than for the
CD staff. We should bear in mind, though, that sometimes collection
development folks will benefit in the long run from the implementation of
processes that are more troublesome for them in the short run. For example,
one thing that acq staffers love about online selection is that online forms
provide information that is a) legible and b) complete. John used the word
"scribble" to describe the process by which fund codes are entered on
paper forms, and that is, unfortunately, all too accurate a term in many
cases. (This is, of course, a far worse problem with self-generated order
slips than with vendor-generated ones.) When CD officers fail to provide
complete and legible order info, they are the ones who ultimately suffer when
delays result. Online ordering may not make life any _easier_, but the price
you pay in convenience may be worth it in light of the increased speed and
efficiency that such ordering can make possible in acquisitions. Of
course, it may not. Depends on the situation.
Rick Anderson
---
Rick Anderson
Electronic Resources/Serials Coordinator
University Libraries
Univ. of Nevada - Reno
rickand_at_unr.edu
(4)=========================================================================
Date: Tues, 12 Sep 2000 08:30:34 -0700
From: Eleanor Cook <Appalachian State U.) <Cookei_at_appstate.edu>
Subject: RE: ACQNET: paper vs. e-order forms
Let's think "out of the box" for a minute! Let's say that selectors
could see not only the basic bibliographic description of a book (like
today's selection slip or the old "proofie") but could also link to reviews,
cover art, and table of contents. This being supplied by the publisher
and passed on (or not) by the vendor. Using web technology, let's say
selectors could instantly access the author's or the editor's email
address, if they wanted to ask a question.
So OK - does one have to read every book full text before it is
ordered? Selectors cannot do that and we know it. Hence the beauty of the
slip that one can peruse at leisure. BUT - we will slowly migrate to
more digital possibilities. If one could download all this information
to a Palm device and peruse it where and whenever, and then upload it
later to the local ordering system (so that acq staff could vet it and
send it on) - perhaps collection development and acquisitions could enjoy
the best of both worlds. And I say "hear hear" to doing away with the
"scribbling," which has always been the bane of the acquisitions
staff's existence.
I'd say the transition is worth investigating!
Eleanor Cook
*********************************************************************
Eleanor I. Cook 828-262-2786 (wrk)
Interim Coordinator, Acquisitions 828-262-2773 (fax)
& Serials Coordinator
Materials Processing Team
Belk Library, ASU Box 32026
Appalachian State University
Boone, NC 28608-2026 cookei_at_appstate.edu
*********************************************************************
Received on Tue Sep 12 2000 - 20:44:10 EDT