----------1
From: "Rick Anderson" <rickand@unr.edu>
Subject: RE: Quit Check in Journal Issues? (2 messages)
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 14:42:42 -0700

> No one ever made the statement that publishers "purposely"
> withhold issues, as your
> scenario above suggests.

Actually, a number of people have made just that statement.  I've addressed
a number of groups and individuals about doing away with journal check-in,
and that's one of the first responses I get: "Why would publishers send you
your issues if they know you're not checking in?"  (And the answer, again,
is "Why would they want to keep them?")

> In our experience however, they do start
> renewals as
> "new" accounts, creating overlapping duplicate accounts; they do
> mistakenly put in 2
> year orders as orders for two copies; they do misaddress labels,
> with the result of
> sending your issues to places unknown; they do start renewals
> late; they don't
> always notify of title changes; they do attach your payment to
> the wrong title,
> etc.etc.

All very true.  Our new process handles some of the problems you describe
quite well, and handles others less well.  As I've said before, doing away
with check-in involves a conscious decision to manage print subscriptions
more loosely.  In our case, this decision was made so that we could refocus
effort on the more costly and heavily-used areas of the collection, which
are at least as deserving of our attention as the print journals.

> We also use the check-in history as a synopsis of estimating when
> the next issue will
> be out when there is a delay in the publication schedule of a
> title. So to say that
> the only use for check-in is to tell you that you received an
> issue is overly simplistic.

Actually, I think what I said was that that's the only thing check-in tells
_patrons_.  Obviously, the check-in process provides other information to
library staff.

> All of these problems represent a budgetary loss in one way or
> the other, and as you
> say, it's true that each institution decides on the value of the
> loss as to whether
> or not it's worth pursuing.  In our case, our budget is very
> tight, we cannot afford
> nor can we justify not getting what we paid for.

Neither can we.  Of course, we also can't afford to closely examine every
issue of every title we've paid for in every format.  Thus the necessity of
prioritizing, and that's why it seems ludicrous for me to invest valuable
staff time in the close management of Rolling Stone when we could be, say,
verifying our continued access to a $15,000/year online database -- or
setting up free-with-print access to a scientific journal.  (Before we did
away with check-in I had a huge pile of free-with-print titles that were
just waiting for us to register.  We didn't have time, because we were too
busy checking in Newsweek and Vogue.)  Staff time is a zero-sum commodity;
every minute we spend doing one thing is a minute we can't spend doing
something else.  So it behooves me, as a manager of my state's resources, to
make sure that the stuff we're doing with our time is of maximum benefit to
the library's patrons.  The question is not whether traditional check-in is
valuable; sure it is.  The question is whether it's more valuable than the
things we could be doing instead.

> We have 1600
> print titles, with a
> budget of just under a half million dollars, and I figure that
> our claiming affects
> the welfare of literally thousands of dollars worth of our
> collection.

You bet it does.  But are you also checking in all of your online journals
and databases, title by title?  (For the online format, this would mean
checking to make sure that content is added in a timely and accurate way and
making sure that databases are continually up and functional.)  If not, why
not?  Don't your arguments in favor of print check-in apply equally to
online products?  If you're concerned about getting what you pay for, you'd
better be checking everything you're paying for.  And if checking everything
you're paying for isn't an option for you, doesn't it make sense to figure
out which things are most important?  It seems to me that to do otherwise
would be seriously fiscally irresponsible.

> It's a paradox that
> your institution can
> afford to be so cavalier in their journal budget, but then be so
> conservative in
> their personnel budget!

Cavalier?  No, no -- "rational" is the term I prefer. ;-)  As for the
disconnect between the materials and personnel budgets -- hey, tell me about
it!  Unfortunately, there's not much I can do about that disconnect.  All I
can do is allocate my scarce resources in as caval-, er, I mean, rational a
way as possible.

> As to your statement that the publisher doesn't profit from the
> non correction of
> errors, I beg to differ.

Me too.  Luckily, that's not what I said.  I said that publishers would not
profit from withholding journal issues.  Of course they can profit from the
non-correction of certain errors, such as duplicate accounts or incorrect
invoices.  But you don't need traditional check-in to prevent those kinds of
errors, as we are currently demonstrating here in my library.

> And as to the comments about auditors only caring about
> expenditures over a certain
> amount....we were just audited two years ago.

Obviously, you have to shape your practices to your local requirements.  I
can't imagine our auditors doing what yours did.  If they did, I'd point out
to them that the bulk of our serials expenditures are for online titles and
that they need to spot-check all of those as well.  And if they said "Look
at the receivables you're missing," I'd shrug my shoulders and point at my
hardworking 2.5 FTE staff.  Like I said, give me 20 or 30 clerks and I'll
manage the heck out of our 15,000 print and online journals.  We'll kick all
kinds of butt; we'll be the scourge of the publishing industry.  Give me 2.5
clerks, and I'll do my best to ensure that every minute of work we spend
results in the best possible service to our patrons.

See, this is what I think we've absolutely got to bear in mind (cue the
faint sound of martial music): The serials department is a public service
unit, whether your organizational chart reflects that or not.  Nothing that
we do is of any worth unless it results in real service to our patrons.
That reality has to shape every decision we make, or else our departments
are nothing but a hole for our patrons' money.  Our job is not to manage a
journal collection.  Managing a journal collection is the means by which we
strive for a much higher goal: to get information to patrons.  When a
particular type of journal management gets in the way of that higher goal,
we need to change. (Now the music fades, and the camera shifts to a crowd of
muscular, square-jawed librarians looking resolutely into the future, a pile
of trashed Kardex files in a smoking heap behind them...)

> Journal check-in does take time, there's no question about it.
> But I believe that
> all of this work represents valid and responsible management of
> both the journal
> collection, and it's respective budget.

Then by all means, keep checking in.  I'm not telling anyone else what to
do.  In my situation, traditional check-in, claiming and binding constitute
a ludicrous misallocation of resources.  If that's not true for you, knock
yourself out.

> If a library had so many journal titles that they didn't want to
> spend the time to
> manage them properly (and especially if they can substantiate
> that use is down), I
> would think that a better solution would be to cut their titles
> down to a manageable
> size

No way.  That's completely backwards.  The size of the collection should be
determined by the patrons' needs, not limited by the ability of librarians
to manage it according to traditional practices.  If we need a big
collection in order to meet our patrons' needs and we can't handle that big
collection the way we've done in the past, then it's my job to figure out a
different way for us to handle it -- it's not my patrons' job to figure out
how to make do with an insufficient collection.  Their needs shape my
practices, not vice versa.

> This would then
> ensure quality service for all of their patrons, as opposed to
> sacrificing the
> service to some because they now represent a smaller segment of
> the patron base.

This last statement is rooted in two deep misapprehensions, which I'd like
to correct:

1. Doing away with check-in does not hurt patron access.  On the contrary,
I'm confident that we've enhanced it.  Journal issues get out to the stacks
faster, are better cared for in the stacks, are never "out at the bindery"
(as they used to be for weeks at a time), and can now be circulated
individually after they move to the main stacks.  We no longer implicitly
tell our patrons "Oh, the June issue of the Atlantic is missing?  Well, it's
been checked in, so it must be around here somewhere.  Try again tomorrow."
Now the message is "The June issue of the Atlantic is missing?  Well, which
article are you looking for?  We'll order a copy for you at no charge and
deliver it to your campus address within about 24 hours, also at no charge."

2. Doing away with check-in has not benefited one segment of our patron base
while penalizing another one.  For one thing, as I said above, those who use
our print journal collection are, if anything, better served by the new
process than they were by the old one.  For another, the patrons are not so
easily divided into discrete user populations.  Everyone benefits from
better full-text services, and everyone benefits from streamlined management
of print.

-------------
Rick Anderson
Director of Resource Acquisition
The University Libraries
University of Nevada, Reno      "I'm not against the modern
1664 No. Virginia St.            world.  I just don't think
Reno, NV  89557                  everything's for sale."
PH  (775) 784-6500 x273             -- Elvis Costello
FX  (775) 784-1328
rickand@unr.edu

----------2
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 15:28:38 -0600
From: Dan Lester <dan@riverofdata.com>
Subject: Re: Quit Check in Journal Issues? (2 messages)

Thursday, August 15, 2002, 12:25:40 PM, you wrote:

MT> From: "Hijleh, Renee" <hijlehrd@uwec.edu>

MT> etc.etc. All of these problems come to light by keeping track of the journal through
MT> check-in, and the resulting claims lists that arise when journals are missing.

Yes, check in is one way to know they're not coming.  But so is Prof.
Smith complaining that Underwater Basketweaving Weekly hasn't arrived
in a month, or a shelver noticing gaps, and so forth.

MT>  We also use the check-in history as a synopsis of estimating when the
MT> next issue will be out when there is a delay in the publication schedule of a title.

Assuming the receipt date is stamped on the issues, looking at a
recent issue or two will also answer that.  I've learned that many
librarians and patrons do that already without being trained, and
without looking up the history.

MT> nor can we justify not getting what we paid for.  We have 1600 print titles, with a
MT> budget of just under a half million dollars, and I figure that our claiming affects
MT> the welfare of literally thousands of dollars worth of our collection.

I'm sure it does.  But not checking in doesn't mean not claiming.
And, the welfare of thousands of dollars of materials costs you
thousands of dollars in staff time as well.  As Rick noted, it is for
you to decide the tradeoffs.

MT> probably represent a large amount of money! It's a paradox that your institution can
MT> afford to be so cavalier in their journal budget, but then be so conservative in
MT> their personnel budget!

Having worked in seven state university libraries in seven states, I
can assure you that such paradoxes are hardly unusual.  I know that
here in Idaho, where there is certainly little money, it is easier to
get almost anything than a new position.  We also have to beg to fill
a vacant position.  Materials budget money is hardly growing on trees,
but isn't as tight.  (A position is a long term commitment, materials
money isn't.) And, yes, I've been in other places where the reverse is
true.

MT> correction of duplicate accounts. For instance, if the title is a quarterly, and
MT> each renewal year, the publisher overlaps your sub one issue by starting your
MT> renewal early, then by the end of four years you will have paid for an extra year's
MT> worth of issues due to the cumulative overlap. If the sub cost you $400, then that
MT> is the extra amount eaten out of your budget that you should not have had to pay
MT> for,

True enough.  However, that's an extreme example.  Many of us would
have quit dealing with the publisher or jobber that couldn't do any
better than that.  We'd also make sure that the account was adjusted
to reflect what we'd paid for.

T> And as to the comments about auditors only caring about expenditures over a certain
MT> amount....we were just audited two years ago. They took our invoices, selected a
MT> broad range of titles, checked the computer to see that the complete volume was
MT> listed there, and then checked the stacks to see that the issues were indeed there.

Been there, done that, with books, journals, and equipment.  However,
as noted above, you'll find a wide variance in policies and procedures
(and in number of auditors available to do such things) among the
states and institutions.

MT> If a library had so many journal titles that they didn't want to spend the time to
MT> manage them properly (and especially if they can substantiate that use is down), I
MT> would think that a better solution would be to cut their titles down to a manageable
MT> size, and then take care of their collection in a responsible way.

I imagine that some bristling at this accusation of irresponsibility
is already going on.  Certainly no one would change how they handle
materials without appropriate approval from "upstairs".

MT> From: "Bob Scheier" <rscheier@nyit.edu>

MT> How would you claim if you do not checkin?

Answer above.  Also, I'm sure that most of us have had gaps and delays
reported by patrons and colleagues to us well before we'd routinely
claim, even when we ARE doing checkin.

Finally, neither Rick nor I are trying to convince anyone to not check
things in.  I'm just making sure that people consider alternatives
instead of just the old "we've done it that way for a hundred years,
and there's sure no reason to change" routine.  And, I believe Rick is
just answering the questions placed to him by those who've asked.
After all, we all receive answers we don't like at various times in
our lives.

cheers

dan

--
Dan Lester, Data Wrangler  dan@RiverOfData.com 208-283-7711
3577 East Pecan, Boise, Idaho  83716-7115 USA
www.riverofdata.com  www.gailndan.com  Stop Global Whining!