It does matter when material comes back. The bulk of borrowing is not done
by reservations (this needs a degree of purpose on the part of the user in
knowing what they want). Most borrowing is done either by browsing for
something to read, or through a need to find the best items in a general
subject area. How many book purchases are also made on the principle of
browsing? A great deal otherwise the book shops would not invest so much
effort into displays etc. Apart from this, the obvious reason why we need
to insist on a return date is that if we did not then there would be nothing
left on the shelves! Not much of an experience for someone browsing the
shelves.
This is the 21st Century and I for one still want the experience of
browsing, selecting and handling a wide choice of books in my local library.
John Murphy
Group Manager, ICT Development
-----Original Message-----
From: A forum for discussion of the issues arising from implementing the
Internet [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Frances
Hendrix
Sent: 18 January 2002 10:23
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Date stamps
I have been following this debate now for a week or more, and have to say am
amazed at the detail, passion, concern, etc. But I do wonder if the actual
date has any use for any one other than the borrower, and if only the
borrower, does it actually matter when they bring it back, unless there is a
waiting list? Most people do bring stuff back (at some stage), and all this
effort for stamping and charging fines, is it really cost effective? When I
borrow books from professional bodies of which I am a member , I simply get
a polite letter if they need it back. Are we hanging on to 'old' practices
for no good reason than we do not want to move on, and like the 'authority'
of the date stamp, and the excuse we may need the data?
This is the 21stCentury isn't it?
I have however enjoyed the debate, learnt a lot, and it speaks volumes!
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Usher" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 7:05 PM
Subject: Re: Date stamps
> Date stamps - like a lot of things in libraries (*and* other
organisations,
> commercial as well as public, lets not kid ourselves, or beat ourselves
up),
>
> "Dead, but won't lie down"?
>
> In my 'umble opinion, technology is changing things (phone renewals =
> technology?), and some of the old tools and processes still do useful
jobs, but
> we just don't cost them out, because they're already there. Can we still
> actually afford them?
>
> It was very useful and practical to shelf-check the Brown Issue (yes, I'm
that
> old...) against the shelves before sending overdues, in case items were
not
> discharged properly (or snuck back on the shelves by a user to prevent
fines),
> but we stopped doing that when we automated loans and overdues, many moons
ago.
>
> Staff wanted to check a printout (Line Impact printed, continuous
feed,15"x11",
> green music-ruled, 3" thick...) before automated overdues were sent out,
so we
> tried it - but two weeks later the reports hadn't been checked (what a
> surprise...), so, out went the overdues!
>
> The problems (or should I say challenges?) that the pre-overdues shelf
checks
> addressed were shifted about (generally to customer complaints), but
they're
> still there. Perhaps we should address the real problem of Quality Control
on
> discharge? and have book security systems work on entry as well as exit?
>
> Perhaps we sometimes aren't actually concerned with being pro-active in
the
> "Modernisation" (aargh! - apologies, had a funny turn there...) of our
services,
> but prefer to allow them to wither on the vine, and accept the
consequences?
>
> Or we take firm measures to remove old ways, whether staff like it or not
(and
> whether we've considered it properly or not), and accept the consequences?
>
> I suggest that, *IF* we *want* to phase out date stamps, we need to ensure
that
> that:
>
> The systems we deploy to create and extract Management Information (MIS)
are
> simple to use and cost-effective, like an OPAC - not a set of techie tools
like
> BusinessObjects, Crystal Reports etc. (bit of a challenge to the suppliers
> lurking on the list - e.g. Dan at Geac earlier on).
>
> That we have a management commitment to provide *all* front-line staff
with
> fingertip access to timely, current, MIS (not just managers or
supervisors), in
> the format necessary for their purposes, just as we do Circulation and
OPAC
> systems, and the cost-benefits can be demonstrated to wean staff off the
desire
> to keep date stamps/labels.
>
> This would also demonstrate that staff have been given the tools to manage
their
> stock properly. If any question arises that this is not being done
properly, the
> technology cannot be blamed.
>
> However, suspect we'll do some mix of all of this, the human condition
being
> what it is!
>
> Regards
>
> John
>
> ps. Is a handful of 5"x3" catalogue cards still probably the best way to
> shelf-check the catalogue? Answers on 2nd class snail-mail postcard,
please!
>
> -------------------------------------------
> John Usher
> ICT Development Manager
> Islington Library & Information Service
> Education Department
> Central Library
> 2 Fieldway Crescent
> LONDON N5 1PF
>
> Tel: +44 (0)20 7527 6920
> Fax: +44 (0)20 7527 6926
> Switchboard: +44 (0)20 7527 6900
> mailto:[log in to unmask]
> http://www.islington.gov.uk/libraries
>
> This email account may be opened by others in the owner's absence
>
>
>
>
****************************************************************************
************
> This email and any files transmitted with it may contain information
> which is privileged and confidential, the disclosure of which is
> prohibited by law and intended solely for the use of the individual or
> entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in
> error please note any dissemination, distribution or copying of this
> message is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender immediately
> if you have received this email by mistake and delete it from your
> system.
>
> Email transmissions cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as
> information can be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late
> or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept
> liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message
> which arise as a result of email transmission. If verification is
> required please request a hard copy version.
> Thank you for your co-operation.
>
****************************************************************************
************
|