Great to see the list coming to the boil over this topic - so much heat (and
light) has compelled me to join in.

I believe that a quotation in one of the e-mails holds the key to this
discussion.  It was claimed that public libraries have done a 'dammed good
job' over the years.   This is an extravagant claim which, with particular
reference to stock management, is totally subjective and unsubstantiated,
and one which I'm sorry to say I do not agree with.  
What we can claim is great expenditure in effort, honest endeavour,
imagination and innovation, but I'm sure most of us will agree that is not
enough.

Up to the 1990's librarians, for logistical reasons, had no access to
detailed information about local or global demand and thus were compelled to
use a scattergun approach to acquisition.  During the 1960's and 1970's and
1980's, when money was available in relative abundance, this inevitably
helped us record some success since, if you fire enough pellets you are
bound to hit some of your targets.  Unfortunately no account was taken of
the thousands of 'pellets' which missed - have a look some time, they are
sitting around on our shelves......and I was equally to blame as I was one
of those firing the shotguns!

With the almost universal take up of automated LMS's we no longer have any
excuse for this scattergun approach to acquisition (and also, equally
importantly to stock movement to maximise use of existing resources).  It is
now possible to move from intuitive approaches (guesswork?) to informed
stock decision making,  based on evidence contained in our databases.  I
said 'it is possible', but frankly little movement has taken place because
we are mired down by inertia and, dare I say it, because we are a bit
precious about our 'stock skills'.  Skill in stock purchase that is not
informed by hard fact about demand or need is useless and wasteful, whether
that skill is held in house or by Library Suppliers.

However the issue is not without hope.  I have been holding stock management
seminars all over the UK in the last twelve months (20 in total, attended by
representatives from more than 120 local authorities) and it is clear from
the attendance figures and lively discussion at the seminars, that there is
a recognition of the need and an appetite for, change.  In the seminars I
have espoused the cause of the EBSM methodology which I used for over 15
years while at West Lothian Libraries.  In essence it is possible to extract
evidence of stock use and produce action reports to guide stock acquisition
(and existing stock movement) to take account of local demand.  The PwC
report suggested that local demand identification must be central to BSBL
and I can confirm that this demand identification can be provided in great
detail.

To answer Frances Hendrix's point, experience using evidence based
techniques indicates that in fiction and non fiction there are surprising
variations between local communities.  I don't believe in aiming for
'balanced stocks' (whatever the phrase means), since the quest for this
leads to a series of mini British Libraries containing lots of unused and
unwanted stock. Instead I aim for stock which addresses local needs.  Tools
to take account of non users and to ensure continuing stock breadth exist
within the concept too.  All you need do use local intelligence gathering as
at present, then purchase stock to meet these perceived needs and then
inform stakeholders - but for goodness sake don't keep pumping resources
into these stock areas without analysing performance of your recent
purchases!
Sad to say none of the LMS's offer help in this area.  Some now offer
improved access to use data, but access only.  What we really need to know
what to do with it.  Advice on how to make use of this vital information
source is not provided by your LMS, so the seminars encourage libraries to
adopt the EBSM methodology, either by extracting the data in house and going
on to take appropriate action as informed by the techniques OR by
subscribing to SmartSM (www.bridgeall.com ) the new tool which facilitates
adoption of the methodology.

I am totally agnostic in the debate around supplier versus in house
selection but please, please make your stock decisions, whether for
acquisition or stock movement, informed decisions!
If you can't afford SmartSM (one director told me that he feels he can't
afford it but equally he can't afford not to take it),  then at least try to
use the EBSM methodology.  To re-quote Frances' re-quote,  for heavens sake
'just do it!!'

Maybe then we CAN begin to claim that libraries are doing a dammed good job.

George Kerr
Library Consultant