Andrew Sandeman makes some sensible and logical points and suggestions,
and it would be wonderful if others took this up and looked at the real
facts, even if only within their own library. We do need to take a long
hard honest look at the figures. Any service where the cost of providing
the end product (what ever those are), is well above a realistic cost is
doing something wrong. Some one said libraries need more and more of
everything, WHY? Perhaps they need more efficiency, better and lower
'processing' costs, better and cheaper locations, some central
development and change management funds (remember 'Overdue')?

Laser Foundation intend to continue to look at these issues, and if you
would like to refer to our new Call for proposals that was issued last
week you will see we will fund research into these areas.
f 

-----Original Message-----
From: Chartered Library and Information Professionals
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David McMenemy
Sent: 29 April 2004 11:28
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Press Release from the Laser Foundation - 'Who's in
Charge?'

Hi John,

With respect, on one hand you advocate more research into the services
people actually want, and on the other hint that the issue is about
buying more books for libraries.  Apologies if I've misread your point
there.  

What if Bill Gates had conducted the report and said libraries need more
PCs?  We'd have people saying, "well he would say that, wouldn't he"
But it seems in our profession, the minute someone allied to the book
trade gives an opinion, author, publisher, or bookseller, we all have to
sit up and take notice of what failures we all are!  Personally, I don't
think we are.

Public libraries will always need more of everything; more books, more
staff, more PCs, and better access to quality electronic databases.  I
think the point made by Adrian Smith yesterday is central to all of this
- Tim Coates highlights the issue of a student looking for copies of
classic fiction titles and highlighting the lack of access in the case
study he used.  Well he should try and access a copy of an educational
journal in a public library and then moan.  

This debate should centre around just what the public library of the
21st century should be.  Books will only be a part of that, in my
opinion.  They are one, of several, delivery mechanisms for information.
And I personally do not believe focussing on them as the sole issue is
the panacea for public libraries.

Cheers
David
---------------------------------------
David McMenemy
Lecturer,
Graduate School of Informatics,
Department of Computer and Information Sciences, University of
Strathclyde, Livingstone Tower,
26 Richmond Street,
Glasgow. 
G1 1XH
U.K.
Tel: 0141-548-3045
email: [log in to unmask]
www.cis.strath.ac.uk   



-----Original Message-----
From: Chartered Library and Information Professionals
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Briggs
Sent: 29 April 2004 11:08
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Press Release from the Laser Foundation - 'Who's in
Charge?'


Except that there has been no 'debate' as to what the real issue is.
Until there is some proper research into what services are actually
required by the public - and agreement that they will be provided - then
random 'reports' such this one will generate more heat than light.  Of
course, had the press release actually been headed 'Bookseller says
libraries should buy more books', then it might have got the press
attention it actually merited.

John Briggs

Andrew Sandeman wrote:
>
> you are right about Hampshire but this sort of response (in general, I

> really don't want to personalise this) - makes me despair, because it 
> discourages debate on  the real issue.
>
> Even at 55% (LISU), staffing costs are damagingly high and the effects

> (yes, there are other factors as well) include LISU 2003 p.4 "Only 
> 9.6% of total libraries expenditure was on books in 2001-02."
>
> We SHOULD be concerned that
> a) most of our (Paying) customers still want a good range of books 
> etc.as their top priority
> b) we are NOT spending 90% of our budget on what they want.
>
> There are some good things happening out there, but they need to 
> deepen and spread very
>
> rapidly if libraries are to recover their relevance to most of the 
> general public.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Briggs" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: 28 April 2004 16:52
> Subject: Re: Press Release from the Laser Foundation - 'Who's in 
> Charge?'
>
>> The figures quoted by the report are that Hampshire spends 
>> approximately half of its 'funds' on "staff", which is in line with 
>> the UK as a whole
> (see
>> Appendix 2).
>>
>> Andrew Sandeman wrote:
>>> A pity that a report which makes some important points - 
>>> controversial maybe, but the basic thrust is well supported by 
>>> evidence - should be
> met
>>> with this sort of 'debate'.
>>>
>>> Hopefully, perhaps elsewhere, we can have a more considered 
>>> discussion about how to achieve the STEP CHANGE in effectiveness 
>>> which is so clearly needed.
>>>
>>> For example, it looks as if many authorities spend (roughly) two 
>>> thirds
> of
>>> their budget on staffing,
>>> whereas I understand that the BBC spend approx.20%.
>>>
>>