ACQNET v8n020 (June 9, 1998) URL = http://www.infomotions.com/serials/serials/acqnet/acqnet-v8n020.txt ISSN: 1057-5308 *************** ACQNET, Vol. 8, No. 20, June 9, 1998 ==================================== (1) FROM: P. Stevens SUBJECT: Report from Feather River: Part 1 of 2 (165 lines) (1)---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 01 Jun 1998 11:12:10 -0700 (PDT) From: Peter Stevens (Univ. of Washington) Subject: Feather River report [Ed. note: Many thanks to Peter Stevens for providing this report for ACQNET!] Eighth Annual Feather River Institute on Acquisitions May 14-17, 1998 Feather River Inn, Blairsden, California (Unofficial notes from Peter Stevens, University of Washington Libraries) The eighth annual FEATHER RIVER INSTITUTE ON ACQUISITIONS was held May 14-17, 1998, at the historic Feather River Inn, operated by the University of the Pacific. The rustic inn is located at 4,400 feet in the northern California Sierras, in Blairsden--about 60 minutes' drive northwest of Reno, Nevada. Limited to 65 participants, this institute brings together acquisitions and collection development librarians and library vendors for an intimate, highly participative and informal gathering in a picturesque, remote and relaxed setting. Attendance this year consisted of just 49, including 34 collection development, technical services and acquisitions librarians, one university administrator, one publisher representative, and 13 library supplier representatives or staff. Unlike other much larger acquisitions conferences which meet in cities and in large convention halls, the conferees at Feather River meet in front of a large fireplace, on couches and around tables. Everyone has an opportunity to participate in discussion. Since all attendees stay at and eat their meals in the same facilities, there is also a lot of opportunity for networking and informal conversation. This year's cool, often damp weather did not prevent attendees from enjoying golf, hikes and other outdoor activities. Late on Saturday afternoon, the planning committee succeeded in providing a very picturesque snowstorm for the entertainment of those planning an early Sunday morning departure. This year's theme was ACQUISITIONS: THE PILGRIM'S PROGRESS, with eight papers, each followed by much discussion, plus one open discussion on current and future issues. Most of the papers should appear in _LIBRARY ACQUISITIONS: PRACTICE AND THEORY_, in about a year. My own unauthorized summary of each paper and subsequent discussion follows (with my apologies, in advance, for any misrepresentations of what the speakers were trying to convey). Friday, May 15, 1998: FIVE BLIND MEN AND THE ELEPHANT: DIFFERING PERCEPTIONS OF THE INTRODUCTION OF AN APPROVAL PLAN (Martin Cohen, McGill University, cohen@lib1.lan.mcgill.ca and James Galbraith, Blackwell's) McGill was a highly decentralized library system, undergoing provincial cuts in higher education, when Martin Cohen attempted to introduce a large, central approval program from Blackwell's. This program was intended to help reduce technical services staffing so that more staffing could be moved into public services. The original plan was to move to shelf-ready approval books after one year's experience with broad approval coverage. After 18 months, both library and vendor expectations were, not surprisingly, unfulfilled. Neither staff cuts nor shelf-ready approval books had been realized, though more consideration is now being accorded to the idea of shelf-ready firm order books. In some ways, the McGill experience was typical of grand outsourcing schemes. While the original expectations of this project went unfulfilled, there was an increase in the number of books received on approval (which helps cut selection and acquisitions costs). This change was important at McGill, where full-time bibliographers are being replaced by part-time selectors. As at other libraries, McGill is moving towards larger, more general approval funds to encourage selection decision-making based on collection development rather than fiscal considerations. Not all of this project's problems can be laid at the feet of the McGill folks, however, since Blackwell's was undergoing internal consolidation at the time, which limited its responsiveness. SLICING THE PIE: IMPLEMENTING AND LIVING WITH A JOURNAL ALLOCATION FORMULA (Robert Sorgenfrei, Colorado School of Mines, rsorgenf@mines.edu) Steep serials inflation rates at the Colorado School of Mines resulted in severe cuts in the monographic budget, despite several serials cancellation projects. In response to this crisis, a faculty-library committee was formed on campus to study the situation and recommend solutions. One of the solutions was to devise an allocation formula for serials allocations; the other recommendations were more funding, more electronic resources, more cooperative efforts and more departmental involvement. A chemical engineer on this committee worked out the serials allocation formula based on student FTE, the volume of research, indirect costs and other factors. Library materials funding was increased by 15% and the formula helped convince committee members that allocations were equitable, with much split and shared funding of journals. Perhaps inevitably, problems with this serial allocation formula appeared in 1997-1998, with some funds facing severe budget cuts due to changes in formula factors (primarily the average cost per serial factor). While the initial formula allocations were widely seen as equitable, application of the formula beyond the initial allocations resulted in fund changes too drastic to be implemented. Particularly with serial allocations, there has to be some rational continuity from year to year. It was decided, then, to abandon use of the formula for subsequent allocations, instead using the initial base amounts and factoring in some inflation adjustments. Serial allocation formulas can be useful for establishing base budgets or for allocation of new monies, but the library should retain control of funds, be able to pull the plug on any drastic allocation changes generated by the formula, and have a review mechanism built into any formula arrangement. HOW FAR HAVE WE COME: BENCHMARKING TIME AND COSTS FOR MONOGRAPH PURCHASING (Nancy Sleight-Gibney, University of Oregon, nsg@oregon.uoregon.edu) The University of Oregon technical services completed a cost study prior to automating in 1982-1983 and desired to update its cost review after having automated its ordering. Standard ALCTS cost categories were used in eleven sampling periods, with adjustments for unrepresentative days. Even though overhead at Oregon (benefits, etc.) is relatively high at 45%, Oregon's unit costs were lower than costs reported at other academic libraries, with an average total cost of $9 to acquire a volume and $28 for cataloging. Costs were gathered for a wide variety of processing categories including firm orders, standing order monographs, serial acquisitions, domestic approvals, other approvals, and gifts and documents. While firm orders cost $9 to acquire and pay for, domestic approvals cost less than $2, with gifts costing slightly more than $2. From 1982-1983 to 1997-1998, pre-order and order activities dropped, as a proportion of total unit cost, from 46% to 38%; payment costs declined from 22% to 12%; order maintenance increased from 11% to 15%; and receiving remained at about the same percent. Since 1983-1984, acquisitions at Oregon has had more pressure to deal with, since orders are in the online catalog, with many more questions to answer, more claiming, etc. An 8-page handout was distributed. At Oregon, reorganization of technical services is underway, with the serials department being dissolved. This cost data will be useful in determining how many staffing hours are needed for the activities being dispersed among other technical services departments. This cost data is also useful in outsourcing considerations, though costs are not the major factor in such decisions. WHEN WRITE IS WRONG: A LOOK AT THE PROFESSIONAL LITERATURE IN LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE (Bill Fisher, San Jose State University, fisher@sjsuvm1.sjsu.edu) To initiate discussion on this topic, attendees were quickly divided into groups, each to delineate the criteria of an ideal journal, but from different viewpoints: authors, editors, journal publishers, readers. An interesting diversity of viewpoints emerged, some of them in serious conflict. Back in 1937, the professional literature of librarianship was surveyed and found to be "lifeless." Since then, surveys of the professional literature have found little change in this assessment of quality. Much of the library literature is not research-based and even the literature that is research-based is not rigorous. Much of the library literature is from the academic side of the profession, much of that aimed towards promotion. After one or two publications, most authors generally disappear from the literature. The complaints about library literature (high quantity, low quality) are mirrored in other fields such as nursing and accounting. ****** END OF FILE ****** ACQNET, Vol. 8, No. 20 ****** END OF FILE ******