ACQNET v3n071 (September 13, 1993) URL = http://hegel.lib.ncsu.edu/serials/stacks/acqnet/acqnet-v3n071 ISSN: 1057-5308 *************** ACQNET, Vol. 3, No. 71, September 13, 1993 ========================================== (1) FROM: Monique Sheehan SUBJECT: Electronic ordering, Data Research Associates (20 lines) (2) FROM: Lee Bracken SUBJECT: Automated acquisitions systems (14 lines) (3) FROM: Penny Swanson SUBJECT: Approval plans (10 lines) (4) FROM: Christian Boissonnas SUBJECT: Firm order returns, ethics (121 lines) (1)------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Monique Sheehan (Lyndon State College) Subject: Electronic Ordering on DRA Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1993 14:19:17 -0400 We hope to begin using the acquisitions module of our automated system (DRA) soon. One of our concerns is its capacity for electronic ordering. We'd like to hear from any sites that have done electronic ordering with DRA or any other automated library system. What automated system do you have? Did you have to purchase additional hardware/software? If so, what? With which vendors do you do electronic ordering? Is it "true" electronic ordering (do you get an immediate response that gives the status of your order)? How do you send electronic orders? (Is anyone sending them over Internet?) What problems have you encountered? Thanks for any information you can supply. (2)------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Lee Bracken (Harvard University) Subject: Stand-alone ordering package Date: Sat, 11 Sep 1993 11:31:24 -0400 I'm fairly new to this group and appreciate the fact that it exists. I'm interested to know if anyone can recommend a stand-alone acquisitions ordering software package. I would like a package that allows me to keep track of individual item orders. Also important: a fund accounting component, so that I can keep track of expenses and encumbrances. I know there are systems that are integrated with cataloging, but I am only looking for a stand-alone package to run on a DOS computer. Any informa- tion will be most appreciated. (3)------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Penny Swanson (Douglas College) Subject: Approval plans for small libraries Date: Mon, 13 Sep 1993 02:24:27 -0400 Has anyone, in a small library, successfully made use of approval plans? We are a community college that collects approximately 5000 items per year. We would like to consider some type of approval plan, to speed the acquisi- tions process. If anyone has any experience or advice to offer, I would be grateful. (4)------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Christian Boissonnas (Cornell University) Subject: Firm order returns, ethics Date: Thu, 09 Sep 93 18:18:01 EDT Recently a colleague wrote to ask about the practice in some libraries of returning firm order books because they were not what was expected or appropriate for their collections. Our colleague asked: Was this unethi- cal or poor business practice? This is how I responded: "You ask about the propriety of returning books that were firm-ordered. The Acquisitions Department at Cornell does not return books that were firm-ordered unless they were damaged, misrepresented in the vendor's announcements, or sent in error by the vendor. The latter would include titles not matching the purchase order citation, duplicate shipments, or books sent after a cancellation had been sent and given a reasonable chance of getting at the vendor before the book was sent. For particularly expensive titles that we really do not want we ask the vendor for permission to return. Such permission is asked for infrequently and is usually given, unless the vendor indicated on his invoice accompanying the item that it was non-returnable. Even then it's worth asking for because we occasionally get it. Prior to sending firm orders we negotiate with the vendors involved and reach certain understandings. We believe that these are con- tracts, legally and morally. One such understanding always deals with the issue of returns. We believe that, as a result of the above policy, we are likely to get more favorable terms from the firms we deal with, including exceptions when we really need them. We have no real evidence that this in fact happens but we generally enjoy posi- tive relationships with our vendors and feel that we get the service that we expect. Further, we believe that working the way we do is the correct way to manage a business relationship. This policy is generally understood by selectors, although not always agreed with. I do not know if this policy is followed in all Cornell processing centers (there are four.) The ethics involved are less well understood and new acquisitions librarians are often altogether ignorant of the fact that there is an ethical issue. It is generally assumed in bookselling that approval and blanket plans either explicitly or implicitly carry the right for the library to return unwanted books, at least up to a certain point. Vendors usually have taken the position that an approval plan with a return rate of 10% or less is successful. Conversely it is generally assumed that a firm order is a commitment to purchase an item and pay for it unless the supplier was in error. That is implicit in the word 'firm.' The ALCTS Acquisitions Section has drafted a _Statement on Principles and Standards of Acquisitions Practice_ which is now up for review by the ALCTS Executive Board. Three of its provisions are relevant to this situation: 'An acquisitions librarian: ... 4. subscribes to and works for honesty, truth, and fairness in buying and selling, ... 8. fosters and promotes fair, ethical, and legal trade practices. 9. avoids sharp practice.' Fairness, it seems to me, implies taking into account prevailing understandings in the industry and not single handedly changing these understandings. It also includes not unilaterally changing under- standings reached over time, whether written or not, with vendors with whom one does business. To do either of those would be a 'sharp practice.' It does not mean however, that one cannot negotiate with one's vendors to reach a different understanding of what constitutes a firm order in the context of the relationship with that vendor. Such negotiation, however, must take place before the understanding is changed. So, to assess the ethical dimension of your problem you really need to review what understandings you currently have with your vendors. If you warn them that you intend to reserve the right to return what they send you in response to firm orders and they agree and don't change your pricing structure, then you have done as much as is called for from an ethical point of view. There may be reasons why you might not want to do that, but they do not involve ethics. You certainly run the risk of having to pay more for your material, and you will pay more for processing it (returning books is very expensive, so expensive in fact that we don't do it for books below certain price thresholds, even if the vendor was at fault.) But these are really economic arguments. They may very well be successfully counterbalanced by the fact that a few returned and not paid-for expensive titles are well worth the additional costs in purchasing and processing. Only you can tell where the balance tips on this. Another reason why you might not want to do that is the potential impact on your institution outside of your own library. From a broad, university-wide perspective, I don't think that your changing your understanding would negatively impact on the other libraries in your system, at least as far as the mainstream booksell- ers (Coutts, Yankee, etc.) are concerned. They know and understand that your library has many parts that speak independently. As far as other vendors and publishers are concerned, however, there is a definite risk, especially with publishers. They do not understand that you have many accounting systems and budgets. If you get in- volved in a disagreement with them over the propriety of a firm order, they are likely to cut off all business with your libraries until the issue is resolved. This has happened to us many times: We would order a book and get the order returned, usually after considerable time has passed, with a note that the order would be filled only after Cornell's account was settled. Digging into this we would find that a university department's account, not even one of the libraries, was involved. I am sure this has happened to you. Resolving such prob- lems is always difficult and expensive. Obviously it would be prefer- able not to risk increasing their number." Would anyone care to comment, either about the issue or my perception of it? ****** END OF FILE ****** ACQNET, Vol. 3, No. 71 ****** END OF FILE ******