ACQNET v3n080 (October 4, 1993) URL = http://hegel.lib.ncsu.edu/serials/stacks/acqnet/acqnet-v3n080 ISSN: 1057-5308 *************** ACQNET, Vol. 3, No. 80, October 4, 1993 ======================================= (1) FROM: Birdie MacLennan SUBJECT: ALCTS Bylaws vote (57 lines) (2) FROM: Arnold Hirshon SUBJECT: ALCTS Bylaws vote (62 lines) (3) FROM: Gloria Barker SUBJECT: Acquisitions with Innovative Interfaces (21 lines) (4) FROM: Lee Bracken SUBJECT: Stand-alone ordering systems (11 lines) (5) FROM: Janet Flowers SUBJECT: Workshop on Management of Acquisitions (16 lines) (1)------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Birdie MacLennan (University of Vermont) Subject: ALCTS Bylaws/Reorganization Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1993 00:40:11 -0400 I'm not sure I can add much more to that which has already been said about the ALCTS Bylaws and proposals for reorganization, but, for whatever it's worth, I will try to keep my commentary brief and to the point. First, I appreciate Christian's Machiavellian quote about the process of change (or the development of a "new order") and his thoughts on the processing of a new order, which so eloquently mirrors the dilemmas reflected in _The Prince_ and in ALCTS. Some things never change .... including the process of change & peoples' reactions to it. Second, I have not followed all the specific details of the process leading up to the proposed Bylaws and am limiting my comments to just a bit of the recent dialogue and to the actual proposal that solicits my vote. In the _ALCTS Newsletter_ (4:6/7, 1993, p.69,) Arnold Hirshon notes that "Clearly the most unknown aspect of the proposed restructuring is the structuring of forums. You are being asked to discard the current 'section' structure in favor of a new and untried method for bringing together your interests. It is difficult to say exactly how forums will work in practice ... we cannot see the new paradigm through our old concepts. We must make a leap of faith ..." Having just lived through a fairly major restructuring of the technical processing/collection management services division at my library, which did away with the old departmental structure in favor of a team-oriented approach, I can't help but wonder WHAT SPECIFICALLY the proposed ALCTS focus groups will consist of and how they will be broken down. The "Description and Purpose of Forums" section (also p. 69 of _ALCTS Newsletter_ 4:6/7) gives an ideal framework, but not specifics. In the smaller venue of the library reorganization at UVM, chaos would have ensued if staff did not have a named structure and place to fall into at the actual point of implementation. The new structure was derived out of the old -- not by a total discarding of it -- with input from all levels of staff affected by the reorganization. While some "leap of faith" was involved, so was a well-thought out plan and named sense placement for where everyone would end up in the re-shuffling. Faith alone is not enough. Without such placement and a defined sense of purpose and naming of specifics that seem more broadly representative of all affected groups and persons that derive professional meaning from the (current) ALCTS section structure, I find thinking about a sense of belonging in the proposed organizational structure tentative at best, nebulous at worse. For these reasons, I have already sent in a vote of "no" on the proposed changes. P.S. The other thing I find myself wondering about is what in heavens name should I list on that ALCTS committee volunteer form I was thinking of sending in? Has anyone drafted (or worked on a draft) for a new volunteer form? (2)------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Arnold Hirshon (Wright State Univ.) Subject: ALCTS Bylaws vote Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1993 09:41:52 -0400 Christian puts forth probably the most reflective and cogent discussion about the ALCTS reorganization that I have seen. We disagree only at the conclusion. Some might say that it is the conclusion that is everything, but in this case I think that people would miss a great deal if they attempted to reduce what has been said purely to the bottom line. As for Christian's conclusion of "what's the rush?" the answer is not quite so simple. Given the very complicated ALA calendars, if we had delayed the vote on the GENERAL structure until after Midwinter, the balloting on the bylaws would have taken place on the Spring ballot. This would have meant that many people would have been asked to run for section office on the Spring ballot at the same time that the membership would have been asked to vote on eliminating the sections. The Board found this to be an unfair and unreasonable situation to ask candidates to be in. The Board also was clear that if the bylaws were approved this Fall, then considerable effort would be expended before and at Midwinter to flesh out the much-needed details as to how forums would work. If additional enabling provisions were needed concerning forums, those could appear on the Spring ballot, but at least we would not have had a conflict between candidates and bylaws. Why else to "rush?" Anyone who has been involved in a reorganization within his or her own institution knows that the talk about reorganizing can be endless. Sooner or later, someone has to make a decision and we have to try something. Major corporations merge and consolidate their operations in less time than it takes for most of us to reorganize a cataloging workflow! Two years were given to the discussion. The hearings were relatively sparsely attended (generally about 100 people). The "on air" debate through listservs and mail also saw a very small percentage of the membership responding. It was frankly time that the entire membership was given an opportunity to voice its opinion. To those who don't attend conferences (which is the vast majority of the ALCTS membership) things will not seem to change much through the organization, save that programming and other actions will (we hope) occur more quickly. So, "why rush?" Because eventually we need to come to some decision and try something. There are some who disagree with any change and will seek to stall it to death. There are others who agree with the change and who want to keep trying to make things perfect before finally voting on it. But reorganizations are the same as marriage: if you keep waiting for the right time, it will never happen. If the management literature tells us anything today, it is to have a bias for action. Tom Peters has said: "Once you do it, then you can think about what you did wrong. In the sixties and seventies we got hung up on this 'strategy business' that you've got to think forever and then do it perfectly right the first time. ... the guy who runs Johnsonville Foods ... says 'Anything worth doing is worth doing poorly.' Look at the first telephone, it's not worth writing home about. But without it you don't have modern telephones. Look at the first airplane. ... The point is ... do it, experiment from it, learn from it, correct it and improve it. ..." I hope Christian will reconsider his viewpoint, but even if he sticks with his position he has done the profession a great deal of good. I appreciate his efforts to heal the profession -- and ALCTS -- rather than to rend it further. Thank you, Christian! (3)------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Gloria Barker (Wheaton College) Subject: Transition to Innovative Interfaces Acquisitions Module Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1993 12:57:13 -0400 Dear Fellow III Users: We recently completed training in the III Acquisitions Module. Since our whole way of ordering, receiving, bill-paying, and record-keeping will change, I was curious how other III users batch their work, organize their workflow, and perform certain tasks. When are students, para- professionals, and professionals used? What paper records did you keep during the transition? Do you use the III order forms, or did you create your own? We do not have electronic ordering, but hope to eventually. Since we have started the fiscal year on our stand-alone system, what suggestions do you have about keeping track of financial records in two different databases. What problems did you encounter during your switch to III? Any information or advice you can give me would be appreciated. Please send your comments to me directly, or through ACQNET. Thank you. (4)------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Lee Bracken (Harvard University) Subject: Stand-alone ordering package Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1993 16:46:21 -0400 A couple of weeks ago I posted a request for suggestions on pc-based stand- alone acquisitions ordering software packages. I want to thank everyone who responded. You were all very helpful. Just for your information two popular suggestions were the Bibbase system and the MATSS system from Midwest Library Service. I'm exploring these as well as some others. Thanks again for your responses and support! (5)------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: Janet Flowers (Univ. of North Carolina) Subject: Workshop on Management of Acquisitions Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1993 16:25:36 +0501 (EDT) Suzanne Striedieck and I are leading a workshop prior to the Charleston Conference. We are looking forward to this and hope that some of you will be able to attend. The slant of our workshop may be different than you might think from the title. The workshop is not about matters such as how to set up searching sequences or to assign vendors or to manage budgets. It actually is about how to synthesize your skills to manage yourself, others and the work effectively. We will share our work on this topic, invite group discussion, and analyze some case studies. Participants will also receive an extensive annotated bibliography of resources we have found useful. If you are interested in knowing more about the workshop, please contact me. ****** END OF FILE ****** ACQNET, Vol. 3, No. 80 ****** END OF FILE ******