 |
 |
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