This is a fair concern, Gary. There's not much point in trying to drive
costs down by creating a monopoly suppler. I would think that the
competition authorities would have something to say about it, too.

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: Gary Porter [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 10 August 2005 14:32
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Public Libraries: Efficiency and Stock Supply Chain Review


Does a central buying consortium imply a single, central supplier? This
would be bad news. It has always been in the interest of library
authorities to have a choice of flourishing, competing companies.
Competition between companies drives improvements in products and
services, and these benefit library customers. Library authorities must
be able to shift their business to another supplier if they are unhappy
with the services of their current supplier. To be customers of a
monopoly is bad news.

My own POV.



Gary Porter

Area Service Manager - Resources
Tel  01522 550358
       01522  550351
      

>>> Frances Hendrix <[log in to unmask]> 09/08/2005
17:37:15 >>>
I think we are being slightly naive however about the power of the
supermarkets, and how they actually DRIVE demand. For instance price
is
a vital factor for many in buying in supermarkets, otherwise would
they
really buy chickens that are reared in appalling situations and grown
quickly for size not flavour and filled with all sorts of substances
and
water? Likewise for ducks, even in worse conditions, the eggs that
come
form battery hens., and then of course the demands made on farmers,
fruit growers etc in insisting on a certain size and shape., even
driving some growers out of the market? 
 
They, the supermarkets have enormous power and clout with the
government
and local authorities. By comparison public libraries have little
clout,
and of course they need to consider the preferences and demands of the
local community but they don't have the where withal to satisfy those
demands. However a central purchasing agency would cut down huge
amounts
of duplication and save money. But why are people so luke warm about
this. Again supermarkets can make huge mark ups because they buy in
huge
quantities and mainly centrally.
f,

________________________________

From: lis-pub-libs: UK Public Libraries
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Steven Heywood
Sent: 08 August 2005 11:49
To: [log in to unmask] 
Subject: Re: Public Libraries: Efficiency and Stock Supply Chain
Review


I couldn't agree more on the need on evidence-based stock selection
and
the need to respond to the local market, George. This is why I'm
baffled
by those models of supplier-selection which work on a
you-take-what's-offered basis. If the librarians don't put in the
effort
to find out what their customers (and, importantly, potential
customers)
need and then buy accordingly they risking losing their market and
going
into fatal decline. The supply chain goes all the way from customer
demand to withdrawal and possible replacement and that's something I
don't think can be safely outsourced wholesale. IMHO
 
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 <http://libraries.rochdale.gov.uk/>  

	-----Original Message-----
	From: George Kerr [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
	Sent: 08 August 2005 11:03
	To: [log in to unmask] 
	Subject: Public Libraries: Efficiency and Stock Supply Chain
Review
	
	
	

	Having finally managed to read through and digested the PKF
report 'Public Libraries: Efficiency and Stock Supply Chain Review', I
hope my English colleagues don't mind if I, as an 'outsider', make
some
observations.

	 

	The report has been long awaited and was expected to review all
aspects of the stock supply chain.  In my opinion this brief has not
been fully met - in fact it appears to me that an extremely important
aspect of the supply chain has been almost ignored.  I refer to the
role
of public library customer demand in stock supply.

	 

	In paragraph 8.3 is the following quote :

	'The decision as to which books to buy is the start point in
the
supply chain.  Books are selected either by individual libraries
within
an authority, by a central buying team on behalf of a library
authority
or through supplier selection, where the library stock supplier is
responsible for selecting stock for a library authority (following set
parameters and customer metrics).' 

	 

	I agree that this, by and large, describes what happens now and
is based, I assume, on responses from some of the stakeholders.  As a
consequence, because this is now sanctioned by the PKF report, this
false premise will become the accepted view.   I cannot stress
strongly
enough that the real start point should not be the decision as to
which
books to buy but instead, a detailed analysis of customer demand!  Can
you imagine supermarkets, among the most successful and efficient
organizations in the country, starting their supply process by
allowing
local managers to sit down and voice their opinions on what to buy,
without first producing such an analysis?

	 

	Unfortunately this is what happens in public libraries at
present and the PKF report is a missed opportunity to make us face up
to
this deficiency in our supply process.

	  

	Could it be said that the PKF brief was not meant to cover
customer demand?  I don't believe this to be so. The PKF report is
about
efficiency in a supply chain and there is no better example of
efficiency in such a chain, as that shown by the major supermarkets.
These organizations leave no stone unturned in their efforts to
identify
what customers want and they then go ahead and supply it in an
extremely
focused way.  Efficient supply clearly implies identification of
demand
and avoidance of waste, and this,  supermarkets do extremely
effectively
- public libraries on the other hand, do not!.

	 

	Remembering that we are talking about efficiency, why do public
libraries not put much more emphasis into identifying, in detail, 
what
their customers want (to borrow) and then go ahead and supply.  In
this
scenario we are much more likely to supply enough of what people want
to
read and much less of what they don't.  'Books are for use' after all!
The necessary data to enable this to be done in a structured, highly
detailed way which also addresses local variations in demand (yes
these
do exist despite suggestions to the contrary in the report!) already
exist in massive detail within all of our management systems.  

	 

	Of course there is also a need to build in safeguards so that a
wide range of minority reading interests are catered for and this can
be
done.  What public libraries should not do is to continue to supply
more
and more unwanted material year after year.  This is tantamount to the
local small supermarket continually stocking mangoes or paw-paws,
which
are then left to rot on the shelves (our unwanted stock only molders
there!).  Leave the exotic stock to the larger libraries where there
may
be proven demand and for goodness sake stop running out of potatoes!

	 

	The only other mention of customer demand/satisfaction appears
in paragraph 13.2.   'Library authorities must understand their
customer
needs. These range from the opening hours that customers would prefer,
to the stock that libraries have on their shelves.'   PKF say that
this
is an issue outside their term of reference, but as I explain above I
don't believe this - customer demand and satisfaction are  genuine
efficiency issues.

	 

	For anyone interested in looking in more detail about evidence
based stock management and decision making, could I refer you to an
article in LAR in February 1998 where I talk about some techniques to
provide stock structured stock management as a rebuttal to Audit
Commission criticisms about public library stock management.  I find
it
astonishing that it is now 7 years on, and many public libraries are
still getting away with the same sloppy, unstructured stock management
processes.

	Incidentally some of the techniques described in the article
would work beautifully for libraries that wish to go down the route of
supplier selection since they provide a detailed evidence base to use
as
the core of a detailed specification, which could be provided to
suppliers.

	 

	If the thought of the scale of the changes in working practices
required to go down the route of Evidence Based Stock Management is
daunting, I am currently offering one-day seminars to help libraries
take this step.  The seminar talks clients through 18 assorted 'tools'
to ensure that stock selection and management is more focused and
relevant to customer demand, but with a range of safeguards to ensure
appropriate levels of stock breadth.  Do get in touch even if only for
a
discussion.

	 

	George Kerr

	Freelance Library Consultant

	 

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.



Note: We are a Microsoft Office site.  Our base version is Office 2000.
Please make sure that files you send can be read in this format.

Any form of reproduction, dissemination, copying, disclosure, modification,
distribution and/or publication of this e-mail is strictly prohibited save
unless expressly authorised by the sender.

The information contained in this message is intended for the named
recipients only. It may contain privileged and confidential information and
if you are not the addressee or the person responsible for delivering this
to the addressee, you may not copy, distribute or take action in reliance on
it.  If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender(s)
immediately by telephone. Please also destroy and delete as soon as possible
the message from your computer.

****************************************************************************
*****
****************************************************************************
*****