ACQNET v2n038 (March 18, 1992) URL = http://www.infomotions.com/serials/acqnet/acq-v2n038 ISSN: 1057-5308 *************** ACQNET, Vol. 2, No. 38, March 18, 1992 ====================================== (1) FROM: Christian SUBJECT: Who's new on ACQNET today (8 lines) (2) FROM: Peter Stevens SUBJECT: Publishing Center for Cultural Resources (8 lines) (3) FROM: Vicky Reich SUBJECT: Publisher/vendor marketing strategies (26 lines) (4) FROM: Mary McLaren SUBJECT: Academic Book Center survey (14 lines) (5) FROM: Joe Barker SUBJECT: Academic Book Center survey (13 lines) (6) FROM: Joseph Santosuosso SUBJECT: Electronic order confirmation, X12 (39 lines) (7) FROM: Scott Wicks SUBJECT: Order staff productivity (34 lines) (8) FROM: Peter Stevens SUBJECT: Fernando Garcia Cambeiro (9 lines) (1) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: March 18, 1992 From: Christian Subject: Who's new on ACQNET today Barbara K. Nelson Firm Order Librarian Auburn University Libraries E-mail: NELSOBK@AUDUCADM.DUC.AUBURN.EDU (2) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1992 13:12:27 -0800 (PST) From: Peter Stevens Subject: Publishing Center for Cultural Resources Recent claims to Publishing Center for Cultural Resources at their address in New York at 430 East 66th St, No. 2 have come back as "moved, left no address" while calls to their number 212-260-2010 have had not been answered. Does anyone have a current address or phone number for this distributor? (3) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 17 Mar 92 10:47:24 PST From: VICKY REICH Subject: Publisher/vendor marketing strategies Dear ACQNET friends, I am speaking at a NASIG workshop session on the effectiveness of publish- ers/vendors marketing strategies from the acquisitions librarian point-of-view. We expect the audience to be mostly SSP publishers. I'd like to talk from a wider perspective than just my own opinions and ask that (those of you who like myself always have an opinion) consider the questions below. If you prefer to respond via a phone conversations than e-mail, send me a message with your number and I will call you. Thank you very much for your time. 1. In what ways are acquisitions procedures and policies different today than 3 years ago, and how do you predict they will evolve 3 years from now? 2. Has the process for choosing what materials are bought for your library changed in the last 3 years, and what changes do you predict for the next 3 years? 3. What happens to the marketing brochures, catalogs, etc., that are mailed directly to the acquisitions department? Is this material distributed to selectors, tossed,...? I will summarize responses for ACQNET. (4) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 18 Mar 92 09:44:25 EST From: Mary McLaren Subject: Academic Book Center survey Responding to Academic's vendor survey: We, too, received the questionnaire asking for evaluations of their competitors' performance. I was very surprised when I received it, as this was the first time I had ever seen such a request coming from a vendor. We opted to answer only those questions which pertained to Academic itself and to those which pertained to business practices, in general. We did not fill out the section which asked for the comparison with other named vendors' services. The cover letter accompanying the questionnaire stated that some of the respondents "may feel uncomfortable" sharing the competitors' assessment with them. We evidently fit into that category, because we returned it to them with that part left blank. (5) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 18 Mar 92 07:34:41 PST From: Joe Barker Subject: Academic Book Center survey I received the form too, thought it unusual and conceivably out of line, but I completed as much of it as I thought appropriate and ethical. I did not give any information that could be interpreted as revealing the discounts I get from other vendors, because I think that's unethical. The only problem I had in saying what I think discounts should be is that I don't want to be a sucker and tell a vendor up front what might become an acceptable maximum discount. The parts on evaluating services are fair game, and we should welcome the opportu- nity to tell all our vendors what we think of their services. Follow your conscience and the laws of your state. (6) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 18 Mar 92 12:54:00 EST From: Joseph Santosuosso Subject: Comment on Meta Nissley's Question re Electronic Order Confirmation This note is a comment concerning Meta Nissley's recent question about how to determine whether a vendor has received electronically transmitted orders. In the world of electronic data interchange (EDI) this can be accomplished in two ways. I am using EDI here to refer to the exchange of unambiguous informa- tion in highly structured STANDARD electronic formats -- specifically the ANSI ASC X12 formats. This is not to be confused with proprietary formats for exchanging information electronically, for example electronic ordering capabil- ities that allow clients to order only from one vendor. ANSI ASC X12 provides something called a functional acknowledgement (the 997 transaction set) that is used much like a receipt for registered mail. When a party receives an X12 message, an X12 translator checks the syntax of the message and then returns a 997 to the sender to indicate that the message was received and that it was syntactically correct or syntactically incorrect. Most organizations with any volume of EDI activity use functional acknowledgements. In our EDI work at Faxon we have found the use of functional acknowledgements necessary. Another way in which ANSI ASC X12 provides confirmation of receipt for elec- tronically transmitted orders is through the ANSI ASC X12 855, the purchase order acknowledgement transaction set. The 855 is used by the seller to acknowledge the buyer's order. It can also be used to return information received in the order that the seller cannot process -- incorrect catalog numbers, unavailable items, etc. Use of 855 transaction sets is very much driven by the relationship between a seller and a buyer and by their unique requirements. Use of 997 transaction sets is much more straightforward and standardized. The acknowledgement of electronically received orders in the EDI world is one of the areas where EDI holds a real advantage over existing business practices. While the volume of EDI in the library and publishing community is low now, it is growing. With widespread implementation of EDI the situation that Meta Nissley describes will become obsolete. (7) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 18 Mar 92 12:45:58 EST From: Scott Wicks Subject: Order staff productivity I would like to echo the sentiments regarding the difficulty we all have when comparing productivity statistics, the apples and oranges of technical servic- es. I would be happy to report how many orders my staff can process in an hour's time. The key word is "process." By process I mean: - search for duplication in the collection - search for previous manifestations (editions) in the collection - search for other possible sources (does title come in on an existing standing order? on approval? Is it a foreign title?) - search for on-line bibliographic copy (LC file, RLIN data base) - create on-line bibliographic record (from available on-line copy or from scratch) - key in order data (vendor, claim interval, fund, notes to vendor) In addition to the process steps, there are other factors to consider: - What type of equipment does your staff use for the ordering process? - In what format does the order request come to your department staff? - How complete is this information (will your staff have to perform detailed (and creative) searches to decipher what is really wanted?) - How is the language expertise of your staff (can they handle Vietnamese and Arabic vernacular)? I assume that, for many of you, the ordering process steps listed above are grouped differently and divided amongst different staff. Can you, then, compare your staff's productivity with that of CUL staff? I leave that to you. Average time to complete one order: 4.8 minutes or 12.5 orders per hour 7.5 minutes or 8 orders per hour [factoring in productive time ratio] (8) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1992 11:47:49 -0800 (PST) From: Peter Stevens Subject: Fernando Garcia Cambeiro I appreciate those people who have e-mailed me and ACQNET with their US address and phone number for this vendor. Unfortunately, the phone number in the recent ACQNET has been disconnected and mail to the 7331 NW 35th address, Box 014 Skyway USA comes back as non-forwardable. I've switched my on-line vendor file record back to Buenos Aires for this vendor. ******* END OF FILE ****** ACQNET, Vol. 2, No. 38 ****** END OF FILE *******