ACQNET v2n048 (April 9, 1992) URL = http://www.infomotions.com/serials/acqnet/acq-v2n048 ISSN: 1057-5308 *************** ACQNET, Vol. 2, No. 48, April 9, 1992 ===================================== (1) FROM: Christian SUBJECT: Who's new on ACQNET today (13 lines) (2) FROM: Martin Cohen SUBJECT: Budget formulae (25 lines) (3) FROM: Maggie Rioux SUBJECT: Unwanted materials (28 lines) (4) FROM: David Marshall SUBJECT: Ordering staff productivity (49 lines) (5) FROM: Dick Vaughan SUBJECT: Martindale-Hubbell directories (7 lines) (6) FROM: Joseph Barth SUBJECT: Approval plans bids evaluation (7 lines) (1) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: April 9, 1992 From: Christian Subject: Who's new on ACQNET today Geffry Benjamin King Acquisitions/Reference Librarian Labat-Anderson, Inc. / USEPA Oppt Chemical Library E-mail: KING.GEFFRY@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV Julia E.M. Bidden Acquisitions Librarian New York University Law School Library E-mail: BIDDEN@NYUACF.BITNET (2) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tuesday, 07 April 1992, 08:41:07 EDT From: Martin Cohen Subject: Budget formulae ALL formulae are, it seems to me, eminently questionable. I worked in collections for 11 years, initially using someone else's (very silly) formula, then tinkering with elements of it because that's all that I was permitted, then devising one of my own (which made me feel like a dog in the manger). Eventually I jettisoned formulae altogether and went over to the old-fashioned history-and-politics method, which had a lot more credibility. (My move to Acquisitions a few years after that had nothing to do with budget allocation!!) In brief: when using a formula, there is NOT ONE datum that can be questioned, without possibility of an adequate defence, by the university administration, or by faculty, or by bibliographers. Since all data are collected by convention, every "reader" has a different mental picture of what that convention should, must, and ought to be. If that disagrees with the one the collections librarian has, alles kaputt collections librarian. Sticking with previous allocations plus statements of need (which you evaluate, of course - but in as qualitative a fashion as possible - tends to have a whole lot more credibility. It also works better - you get truer figures (if I can talk about "true" figures) out of it. (3) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 7 Apr 92 10:44:57 -0400 From: Maggie Rioux Subject: Problem with unsolicited materials What had formerly been an annoyance has grown to the point of being a problem recently. We have recently been getting a number of items which we did not order. Most recently was a Bowker _Broadcast & Cable Directory_. A year ago we had placed a firm order with the previous publisher for the 1991 edition, which was duly received. The 1992 edition came unsolicited from Bowker with a form letter that said they thought we might want this since we bought one last year & just send it back if we didn't want it. Also enclosed was an invoice for roughly $200.00! Well, we don't want it & plan to send it back, but it took some time on several staff members parts to figure out just what it was make the decision. Now we're probably going to be stuck paying for the return. In another instance, we ordered volume 2 of a 2 volume series & the company sent volume 1, just in case we wanted it too (@ $55.00). What do other libraries do in this case? Does this constitute unsolicited merchandise like the charity mailing labels we all used to get until the post office said we could keep the stuff & not pay? Can we keep it for free? How do you get the instigator to pay for the return? (4) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 15:15 EST From: David Marshall Subject: STUDENT ASSISTANTS IN ORDER PRODUCTION While both Janet Flowers and I addressed staff productivity in ACQNET 2:37, she had some questions regarding student assistants, an area I skipped over somewhat in my posting. We employ about 2.5 FTE a week of students in searching/order production. Our work flow is divided into two units. One unit is headed by a part-time librarian who supervises .5 FTE to process the bulk of the vendor forms selected. The other unit is headed by a librarian with 3 full-time and 2 FTE employees. This unit processes some foreign vendor forms and all other requests from the humble napkin to copy from the exalted _New York Times Book Review_. In the last fiscal year, students in the former unit processed 4,654 requests and, in the latter unit, they processed 10,089 requests. As our on-line system is integrated, searches are rolled over from the search mode to the order mode where bibliographic and other data are filled in for ordering. Therefore, students complete the work they begin. In addition to vendor forms, the work given students can be anything with good copy: requests where OCLC copy is found, review citations such as _Choice_ or even NYTBR citations, selected bibliographies, book-in-hand purchases, etc. On the whole, trained students need little more revision than the full-timers - neither need much. Each librarian involved reviews all requests before they are authorized for ordering and assigns a vendor although in the case of vendor forms that information will already have been added to an order request. Where needed the vendor is attached on-line and the request authorized for ordering in our Business Unit. There is no review of the purchase order itself. The key words in the above paragraph are "trained students." In the last decade, few students have stayed a year; rare indeed has been the student who stays more than a year. Training is an on- going process. When you think your staff is settled, they get better paying jobs on and off campus; some leave for internships with banks, congressmen, lawyers, lobbyists, etc. [this may be unique to our location?]. And for anyone not ever having been dependent upon students, let me remind you, there are papers, midterms, semester breaks, finals and the long summer break which inevitable involves temporary summer student help even if you do expect returning trained students in the fall. The up side is that one gets a chance to meet and work with a lot of bright young energetic people. It provides an additional pulse to the campus for traditionally hidden technical service personnel. Students have served us well and have helped us to avoid major backlogs and to undertake special projects. Nevertheless (and without any formal cost analysis to back me up), I would suggest that student assistant use is no longer cost effective for us and that it would be more efficient to create permanent positions. However, lacking the financial means and/or the reluctance of administrators to add new staff, I can recommend to others the use of students to assist in the ordering process. (5) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 7 Apr 92 16:27 EST From: Dick Vaughan Subject: Pre 1950 Martindale-Hubbell directories Does anyone know where/how/if we can obtain microform copies of older, pre-1950, Martindale-Hubbell Law directories? The current publisher Bowker/Reed was unable to supply us with a source. (6) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 08 Apr 92 09:51:19 EDT From: Joseph Barth Subject: Approval plans bids evaluation Does anyone have experience with writing evaluation criteria for approval plans from prospective bidders? I would welcome advice from librarians who have participated in a competitive procurement of approval plan services. Please reply to me at: uj7064@usma3.usma.edu ******* END OF FILE ****** ACQNET, Vol. 2, No. 48 ****** END OF FILE *******