This is important, and that's why the evidence shouldn't be exclusively from
the library management system's data (though that is extremely powerful and
not often well-used). This can be used for market-testing purposes - get
some "unusual" titles /formats/media at a library to see if that attracts
new customers and/or increased use by existing customers - but that's no
substitute for market research and analysis beyond the library walls. The
usage stats, plus catalogue analysis, plus the results of market research
plus the experience of the person doing the selection, plus the context of
that selection combine to create the evidence base for the selection. This
isn't necessarily as onerous as it first appears, though it would be dead
easy to make a meal of it.

There are obvious dangers in only involving parts of this evidence base. For
instance, market research may suggest that there's a demand for books on
carpentry at Library X but the issue figures and the experience of the local
staff states that books on carpentry don't issue at that library. If it
turns out that there are only two such books at that library, both
accessioned in the seventies then both of the above statements may be
reconcilable (though there's always the possibility that what people say
they want and what they actually use are three different things). Similarly,
market research may suggest that there's a demand for pop-up books; the
issue figures for those in stock may be poor; they may have a mayfly-like
existence on the catalogue; and the staff know that these books get wrecked
by browsers; should they buy some more? It's a judgement call on the
selector's side and if the context of the buy is that it's for a collection
for use in supervised environment then they might not even have to think
twice about it and can just get some. There are lies, damned lies and
statistics; the wider the range of independent evidences brought into play
the less scope there is for accidental or deliberate biases and hobby horses
to come into force.

And of course there always has to be some element of risk, otherwise we'd
still be sitting in caves waiting for the next passing rabbit. So there will
be loss-leaders and a few blind guesses; and there will be a few titles that
we should have on principle because they represent minority interests; or
local specialities; or forgotten classics due a revival by BBC drama. But
hopefully there won't be a dozen histories of Marks & Sparks at Library X.

Steven

Steven Heywood
Systems Manager
Rochdale Library Service
Wheatsheaf Library
Baillie Street
Rochdale OL16 1JZ
Tel: (01706) 864967
[log in to unmask]
http://www.rochdale.gov.uk/libraries
http://libraries.rochdale.gov.uk


-----Original Message-----
From: Judith Rhodes [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 08 August 2005 16:16
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Public Libraries: Efficiency and Stock Supply Chain Review


Evidence-based - but what about our non-users? our lapsed users? If all our
selection is evidence-based, what happens to pushing the boundaries,
reaching out to a wider audience?

Judith Rhodes

---------------------------------------------------
Judith Rhodes
Stock Services Librarian
Leeds Library & Information Service

[log in to unmask]
tel. 0113 214 3328


 

                      George Kerr

                      <[log in to unmask]> To:
[log in to unmask]
                      Sent by: cc:

                      "lis-pub-libs: UK Subject: Re: Public
Libraries: Efficiency and Stock Supply
                      Public Libraries" Chain Review

                      <LIS-PUB-LIBS@JISC

                      MAIL.AC.UK>

 

 

                      08/08/05 14:57

                      Please respond to

                      Grrek

 

 




The real issue I am trying to raise is the lack of use of our evidence base
to guide stock management decisions generally, leaving us hugely dependent
on intuition. Despite many attempts by a range of people over the years it
was proved impossible to get the makers and shapers in our profession to
pick up this topic - I guess it is just too hot.

At the risk of letting this discussion move into the realms of Supplier
Selection (which in principle is not an issue for me), I only made the
point that detailed analysis of existing stock must surely be essential for
a 'supplier selection' specification, because in my experience this is not
the case. I spoke at a CPI seminar several years ago along with
contributors who had been involved in supplier selection experiments. From
memory the main criticisms about supplier selection were about the
difficulties in producing a detailed specification which would ensure
supply of the sort of stock which was needed by users. Again from memory,
there was a strong feeling that the sort of detailed stock use analysis
(and suggested management action) which I was describing would fit that
particular bill rather well.

Reading between the lines, I have the feeling (practitioners please correct
me if I am wrong) that specifications for supplier selection are based on
community and/or library profiles allied with discussion between librarians
and suppliers. These can provide additional information but with hardly
the sort of detail necessary. Suppliers still have scope for
interpretation and while I am not suggesting at all that they would seek to
abuse this, the specification needs to be much more prescriptive than in
the past if we are to persuade more libraries to go down this route.

I have not come across any evidence that ongoing supplier selection is
based on the rigorous interpretation of current stock use. It still
appears to me that in supplier selection as in library staff selection,
decisions are still based largely on personal opinion. No matter how many
members of staff provide their opinions, this method of identifying demand
and potential use, is a mere mouse compared with the evidence produced, on
an ongoing basis, from our thousands of customers. We have access to a
rich seam of information obtained from our 'proxy consultation' - we MUST
start to use it.

Regular scanning of this list throws up lots of interesting topics which
though often marginal, prompt lots of discussion. I do hope that this
topic which is after all about how we operate our core service, will be
really fruitful. Let's generate some heat (and hopefully some light will
appear as well!)

George Kerr
Freelance Library Consultant





________________________________________________________________________

The information in this email (and any attachment) may be for the
intended recipient only. If you know you are not the intended recipient,
please do not use or disclose the information in any way and please
delete this email (and any attachment) from your system.

Service of legal documents is not accepted by email
________________________________________________________________________

This e-mail and any attached files are confidential and may also be legally
privileged. They are intended solely for the intended addressee. If you are
not the addressee please e-mail it back to the sender and then immediately,
permanently delete it. Do not read, print, re-transmit, store or act in reliance on it. This e-mail may be monitored by Rochdale Council in accordance
with current regulations.

This footnote also confirms that this e-mail message has been swept for the
presence of computer viruses currently known to the Council. However, the
recipient is responsible for virus-checking before opening this message and
any attachment.

Unless otherwise stated, any views expressed in this message
are those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views
of Rochdale Council.

As a public body, the Council may be required to disclose this email and/or any response under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 unless the information in the email and/or any response is covered by one of the exemptions in the Act.