1 / 15

Collection Managers Forum June 2, 2004 - Monographs -

Collection Managers Forum June 2, 2004 - Monographs -. Duplicate Monographs Test Virtual Approvals Support for Next Year. Duplicate Monographs Test Results as of May 25, 2004 (first 11 weeks). Definition of Duplicate. 1 Circulating copy in OSUL, HEA, LAW or Regionals

lihua
Download Presentation

Collection Managers Forum June 2, 2004 - Monographs -

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Collection Managers ForumJune 2, 2004- Monographs - Duplicate Monographs Test Virtual Approvals Support for Next Year

  2. Duplicate Monographs TestResults as ofMay 25, 2004(first 11 weeks)

  3. Definition of Duplicate • 1 Circulating copy in OSUL, HEA, LAW or Regionals • 5 + Available copies in OhioLINK (or # you specify) • Between March 8 – May 24 (first 11 weeks) • 448 monographs tagged as dups (EPRICE = $24,435.)

  4. Firm Order SummaryReturned to requestor = 64 titlesof those: • 46 titles = $2,547. Unindicated, standing order, dup on approval, etc. (Would have been returned under old criteria) • 18 titles $2,013. TRUE SAVINGS (Dup for test criteria – requestor did not re-order)

  5. Known Dups Firm Ordered –by category • Reserve: 73 titles (104 copies) $5,458. (incl. Stone) • Replacement: 45 titles $2,515. (incl. Brt1) • Low Priority: 42 titles $1,285. (incl. 6 SC) • Circulating: 23 titles $468. • High Use: 15 titles (17 copies) $961. • Reference: 13 titles (15 copies) $1,066. • Fac./Patron: 6 titles $407. • At risk: 0 titles $0. 217 dups titles ordered $12,160.

  6. Impact on Firm Orders • New definition of duplicate resulted in: 18 titles not ordered = $2,013. true savings • Invisible change: Locations submitting fewer dup requests

  7. 217 known dups ordered for $12,160. (Price before shipping). • 34% reserves: dups in OSUL and 1 online * Dups for Stone Lab (33 titles for $3,013.) – distant loc. • Few low priority dups ($1,285.) requested * 6 were for Spec. Collections – not true dups

  8. Approval Summary Total rejected/returned = 145 titles • Total returned $8,222. / YBP (95%) HAR (5%), of those: • 57 titles $4002. Dup for same location, standing order, etc. (Would have been rejected under old criteria) • 88 titles $4,220. TRUE SAVINGS (Returned because of test only) • Known duplicates still selected = 19 titles $760. - All YBP

  9. Dup Test Benefits • 88 approvals returned due to test : $4,220. in true savings • 18 firm orders not placed $2,013. intrue saving • $6,233. over 11 weeks (~$31,000 / yr.) redirected by you to purchase unique titles

  10. The Future ? Test appears successful at redirecting resources to purchase more unique items. Should it be continued ?

  11. Another Change on the Horizon:Virtual YBP Approval • CAC Recommends: • Important to have virtual approvals operational before move to Ackerman • Separate virtual approvals from shelf-ready processing test

  12. Test group • Marti Alt, Susan Logan, Mary Scott, Susan Wyngaard • Voted on basics: • Virtual selection first; then will test shelf-ready • Two files: 1) virtual books, 2) virtual notification slips • Start with broad subject profiles; can narrow later • In beginning, will physically review selections when received to evaluate test (no return option) • Indicated training needs; will test training materials • Next step, have YBP switch test groups’ profile from physical to virtual books and slips

  13. -Support for next year - Funds will need ongoing attention • Allocations may appear less due to negative carry-forward • Budget is stable; cost of materials is rising • YBP is trying to sell “not held in OhioLINK” titles • Move to online fund reports for more current status (OSCAR fund status is posted daily)

  14. What support could you use? • Did receiving more fund alerts by e-mail this year help you manage your funds? • Would you attend a roundtable discussion / workshop on fund management techniques for a flat budget year?

  15. Thank you for your ideas. Discussion? Questions?

More Related