ACQNET v5n020 (June 18, 1995) URL = http://hegel.lib.ncsu.edu/serials/stacks/acqnet/acqnet-v5n020 ISSN: 1057-5308 *************** ACQNET, Vol. 5, No. 20, June 18, 1995 ======================================== (1) FROM: Peter Stevens SUBJECT: Feather River Report, PART I (181 lines) ________________________________________________________________ Date: Tue, 06 Jun 1995 13:58:16 -0700 (PDT) From: Peter Stevens (Univ. of Washington) Subject: FEATHER RIVER REPORT: PART I [Ed. Note: I have divided Peter's report into 2 parts to make the issues more manageable.] The 5th annual FEATHER RIVER INSTITUTE ON ACQUISITIONS was held May 18-21, 1995, at the historic Feather River Inn, operated by the University of the Pacific. The inn is located high in the California Sierras, in Blairsden, CA, about a 90 minute 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 very picturesque and relaxed setting. Unlike larger conferences which meet in cities and in large convention halls, at Feather River the conferees gather in front of a spacious fireplace, on couches, easy chairs and around tables. Everyone has an opportunity to participate in discussion. Since all attendees stay and eat their meals in the same facilities, there is also a lot of opportunity for networking and informal conversation. More than a few attendees this year noted the opportunity that Feather River affords to eat like a lumberjack. A new pastry chef was in residence this year, yet another indicator of the steady annual improvements in this institute. This year's institute was attended by librarians from about 9 Eastern libraries, 7 Midwest libraries and 21 Western libraries, plus 2 from Canada. There were also representatives of about a dozen book and serials vendors. Many attendees said that Feather River was the best conference they had ever attended. It's not too early to begin thinking about next year's FEATHER RIVER INSTITUTE ON ACQUISITIONS, which is scheduled for May 16-19, 1996. The call for papers for the 1996 Institute will be issued in September 1995. For further information, contact Ron Ray at the University of the Pacific, at rray@uop.edu. There was a waiting list established this year, since the number of applicants exceeded the limit of 65 attendees, so early application is a good idea. This year's theme was CONTROVERSIES AND DEBATES IN ACQUISITIONS. This year's papers, as in the past, will be published in a future issue of _Library Acquisitions: Practice and Theory_. The program and my own, unauthorized summary of each presentation follows: Friday, May 19, 1994: "The Economics of Monographs Acquisitions: Results of a Time/Cost Study" Pam Rebarcak (Iowa State University) lb.paz@isumvs.bitnet This report was from an 8-year longitudinal study of technical services costs at Iowa State but also reflected study of over 70 articles on this subject of technical services costs. While all acquisitions librarians are spending money on operations, only some acquisitions librarians know what that money goes for. Cost factors in acquisitions include such things as the automated system in use, organizational structure, work flows, acquisitions methods, type of material acquired and staffing patterns. Cost studies can engender staff reactions, ranging from "we already know all this" to "we don't need to know this" to "we don't want to know this." Since you cannot manage what you cannot measure, it's very important that acquisitions costs be calculated. At Iowa State, technical services' cost centers were devised for a wide range of processing. In ordering, receiving and claiming, for instance, 29 tasks were identified. One week sample periods were scheduled at the same time each year, so that costs could be tracked. It was found that the cost per receipt averaged $7 per record, without overhead; $10, with acquisitions' overhead and $13, if technical services overhead costs were included. Over this 8-year period, costs for searching, claiming and maintenance decreased while receiving costs increased. This cost study data allowed Iowa State to assess the cost impact of implementing NOTIS as well as determining the cost of pre-OCLC Promptcat processing. "Building Bridges between Acquisitions and Collection Development: Communication Models for the Electronic Environment" Margaret Axtman (University of Minnesota) m-axtm@vm1.spcs.umn.edu AND: Barbara Stelmasik (University of Minnesota) b-stel@maroon.tc.umn.edu These 2 speakers presented 3 different models of acquisitions and of bibliographers, each covering the spectrum of what acquisitions and collection development librarians do today. In the "traditional" model, bibliographers communicate with acquisitions via paper, telephone and in person, selecting from catalogs, slips, bibliographies and reviews. In this model, acquisitions works with authorized selection request forms and vendor notification slips. In the "transitional" model, bibliographers use traditional tools but add to them online searching for selection and verification, communicating with acquisitions in the traditional way but also via electronic mail and online request forms. Finally, in the "techno" model, bibliographers flag records in vendor databases for ordering, use electronic notification services for selection, move records into local online systems for acquisitions and receive electronic requests from library users. Fund monitoring is online, rather than via printed reports. Acquisitions, in this model, continues to receive traditional requests in paper format but also receives many requests online, as well as by gopher and WWW forms, via vendor databases and by direct transfer of records. Much ordering is electronic in this model. Both parties, acquisitions and collection development, in this new model face the need for ruthless efficiency in order to keep up with selection and ordering responsibilities. "Outsourcery, in Acquisitions and Technical Services" Gary Shirk (Yankee Book Peddler) gshirk@office.ybp.com Wearing a sorcerer's tall hat, (a prop that appeared in later venues during the meeting) this speaker compared outsourcing and magic, each of which can create very high expectations but provide a very different reality. Outsourcing can require much more library staff involvement than is originally anticipated. To bring expectations and reality into some conformance, a lot of work must be done in advance to draft detailed specifications, evaluation methods, monitoring schemes, etc. Like magic, outsourcing can require a lot of apparatus and a complicated set-up. Outsourcing involves risk, contract management, complex relationships among many parties (including acquisitions, collection management, cataloging, systems, administration, bibliographic utilities, book and serial vendors, and the library's online system vendor). With mutual dependency comes less control and more risk. Increased pressure for standardization is likely with outsourcing, as are added costs for any local peculiarities and customizing. Before outsourcing, libraries need to consider: what are their core competencies; what they need to preserve, in the way of staff expertise; who the library is competing with; what strategic partnerships need to be created; areas of weakness in expertise in the library; and would the library be able to recreate the operation internally ever again once it outsources the activity. Before outsourcing, libraries need to examine their strategic rationale for engaging in it; is it just to cut costs? There must be mutual benefits for both the library and the vendor in outsourcing and a durable partnership can reduce risk. As with magic, the real magic in outsourcing is in the details that make it work. "Prioritizing Firm Order Costs and Vendor Services" Scott Smith (Blackwell North America) smithsa@bnamf.blackwell.com AND: Richard Brumley (Oregon State University) brumleyr@ccmail.orst.edu In this intensive exercise, conference attendees were divided up into 6 groups, each to act as a mythical bookselling company, with the assignment of developing a business plan to maximize company earnings while maintaining competitive services. Each attendee received a 7-page handout, detailing their company's financial conditions and the ramifications of various changes in company strategy. Each company was required to determine its profits, what changes were to be made to achieve those profits and the rationale for those decisions (all in about 30 minutes). Fortunately, most groups had at least 1 representative from the business sector to provide help for the overwhelmed librarians. Popular cost cutting strategies included reducing advertising, travel, entertainment and conference expenditures while slowing the ordering of books from publishers. Popular service enhancement strategies included more automation and customer service staff, higher discounts and better quality control. DEBATE: Any Technical Services Operation can Sustain a 25% Budget Reduction without Significant Erosion of Service. Two debate teams, each consisting of 3 people, argued either for or against this proposition, in the usual debate format of a few minutes each for presentation of the case, rebuttal, audience discussion, summary by each team and a polling of the audience as to the winning team. It was not uncommon for debaters to be arguing against their personal opinion. Arguing FOR the proposition were Joe Barker (UC-Berkeley), Ann McKee (Faxon) and Peter Stevens (Univ. of Washington). They cited evidence that most organizations have built-in slack that can be excised; that management overhead can be consolidated; that the materials budget could be cut; that staff can be cross-trained and empowered; and that excessively-high quality standards could be reduced; and that the resulting organization would be leaner and more efficient. Arguing AGAINST the proposition were Joyce Ogburn (Yale), Sharon Propas (Stanford) and Barbara Woodford (Ebsco), who claimed that such a cut would devalue and demoralize staff, violate union contracts, and lead to higher turnover, lower quality control, less time to plan and manage, large backlogs, no claiming and generally be a disaster. ****** END OF FILE ****** ACQNET, Vol. 5, No. 20 ****** END OF FILE ******