Date sent: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 10:03:03 +0000
Priority: normal
Subject: Re: Re[2]: New BL charges - location search
From: "ELAINE C DEAN" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Send reply to: [log in to unmask]
Here at Newcastle we feel equally as strongly about the
issues raised by Elaine and others.The NUKL response is
particularly annoying when after checking COPAC there will often
be more than one location. Lets hope the training that Jean Naylor
says is in process is intensive.
I think the point Mieko was making was that very often the BL do not
pick up that an item is held by a backup. If we subsequently find a
backup location we then have to send the request back to the BL to
be authorised and we are charged £3.90 even though we have done
the work. This does seem a little bizarre. Perhaps BL could ensure
that COPAC and the OPACs of all the backups are routinely
checked before reporting NUKL.
One of the problems I find is the BL's current practice of reporting
O/O and not supplying locations. In this case we would search for a
location to speed up delivery and, if it turns out to be a backup we
have to waste time cancelling the request from BL and getting it
authorised for the backup. This is no easy process at the moment
because BL are not geared up for it. If we are willing to pay the
new premium rates for searching, could this practice change?
Elaine
Date sent: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 14:35:19 +0000
Subject: Re[2]: New BL charges - location search
From: [log in to unmask] (Jean Naylor)
To: [log in to unmask], "Ursula McKean" <[log in to unmask]>
Send reply to: [log in to unmask]
>
>
> To all on the mailing list.
>
> May I add to Ursula's very helpful statement:
>
> The issue of locations is one that has been raised by both UK and
> International customers alike. From September, the 'paid' locations,
> who currently need authorisation from the BL will no longer exist as
> such- all are opting to become backups.
>
> The backup process entails more than just a 'stamping', as, even if a
> customer stated which backup held the material, that information would
> be checked (including any limitations on lending etc) and possibly
> other backups/locs found. The £3.90 charge includes also the whole
> administrative process of sending the forms on etc.
>
> We accept that the BL location checking has been less than
> satisfactory and we are putting in place an intensive period of
> training to address this. However, we can only be as good as the
> tools we use and many of those are not totally accurate or up-to-date.
> We also have to rely on organisations to keep us informed about
> cancellations of titles etc.
>
> Jean Naylor
> UK Marketing
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________ Reply Separator
> _________________________________
> Subject: Re: New BL charges - location search
> Author: "Ursula McKean" <[log in to unmask]> at Internet
> Date: 3/23/00 2:19 PM
>
>
> Having had the benefit of attending a DSC Open Meeting, may I put in
> my tuppenceworth?
>
> As I understand it, the BL's problem is that the cost of Y searches
> are supposed to be covered by the standard fee, which actually
> doesn't even start to pay for them.
>
> Under the new setup, there will be three kinds of search instruction
> to replave X and Y searches, which we'll be able to specify
> precisely (e.g. S, or SB, or SL, or SBL)
>
> S search - from DSC stock only
> B search - from DSC backup libraries L search - locations
>
> We will get the S (replacement for X) for the basic unit cost. For a
> B search we will be charged £3.90 + VAT - because this involves
> extra searching and processing. For an L search also there will be
> the same extra charge, but this will cover 4 initial locations plus
> any further locations the DSC has to provide for a successful result
> to the borrower. These are VAT rated because they are services,
> not loans.
>
> It's quite correct to say that DSC won't accept a location provided
> by the borrower without checking it for themselves, and will charge
> for this. But as I read it this will only be a serious problem if we
> want to borrow from the official DSC backup libraries.
>
> [deletion]
> > From October we plan to send our initial requests as X searches since our
> > experience suggests that location information supplied by BL is not worth
> > paying 3.90 for.
>
> The DSC representatives at the meeting did accept that there have
> been 'speculative' locations provided, and that they would have to
> do something serious about this with the introduction of charges;
> let's see what happens!
>
> [deletion]
>
> > As a relative new comer (implementing an ILL module and reviewing charges
> > to end users) I find some of the current ILL practice hard to comprehend
> > but this one completely stuns me. The person at BL I spoke with did say
> > this charge was controversial...
> >
> [deletion]
>
> > Mieko
>
> Is it worth starting a discussion on how we see ILL provision as
> eking out the problems of our serials and book stock (or lack if it)?
> We certainly do that here and are trying to resist passing on costs
> to readers or deparetments as hard as we can, as a matter of
> policy. We see it as balancing the Library stock in a rapidly
> changing environment in a cheaper way than buying stock could
> ever do, especially where some readers and departments are
> affected more than others.
>
> Ursula
>
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Ursula McKean, Assistant Librarian
> Scottish Crop Research Institute
> Invergowrie, Dundee, Scotland DD2 5DA
> [log in to unmask]
> tel: (UK) 01382-562 731 fax: (UK) 01382-562 426
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
ooooooooooooooooooOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooo
Elaine Dean
Inter-Library Loans Dept
Main Library
University of Sheffield
Western Bank
Sheffield
S10 2TN
Tel 0114 222 7245
Fax 0114 222 7290
email= mailto:[log in to unmask]
ooooooooooooooooooOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooo
Sheila E Bennett
Inter Library Loans
Tel: 091 2227601
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
