[WEB4LIB] Re: FW: Important Article -II

[Dan Lester]

At 11:05 AM 3/29/99 -0800, David Merchant wrote:
>Not to sound flippant, but since a serial generally costs a lot more than a
>book, sometimes very very very much more than a book, my answer to

I've got no problem with flippant.  I'm not arguing your point, but the 
PRINCIPLE is the same.  Is a thousand dollar journal that is used only ten 
times a year a better or worse expenditure, and why, than ten hundred 
dollar books used once a year each?  (Note that that is intended as a 
rhetorical questions, not the start of a new discussion)  Consider that an 
essay question on the final of a class in collection development.

>>The problem you state is easily handled by "cooperative collection
>>development" or what is set up in some states or consortia as "last copy
>>storage".  NO ONE discards their copy if it is the last in the system, or
>>the last copy is sent to a central repository.
>
>OK, my fault, I should've said "book Y would not be very popular, so lets
>not buy it" and if every library thought that, it would never be bought,
>etc.  How would the cooperative collection development  handle that?
That is just another aspect of cooperative collection development.  If 
library X and library Y are both interested in the history of the Balkans, 
one tries to buy everything there is on the history of Albania while the 
other tries to buy everything available on the history of Montenegro.  And, 
of course, I'd hope that they had other partners to pick up the other areas 
of the Balkans, too.  But each library would buy SOME on the other parts of 
the region, as required by their local needs.  I've not worked in a SALALM 
library in over a decade, but the system works pretty effectively for those 
libraries specializing in the Latin American world.

>Library A must buy a book they'd rather not buy so that the other libraries
>won't have to and thus have at least one copy for ILL, then Library B must
>buy the next book, which they'd rather not buy either, so that other
>libraries won't have to but it'll be available by ILL.

Yup, that's about it, though you placed it in negative terms rather than 
positive.

>The logistics of
>managing that Globally would be daunting to say the least.  Between two
>libraries, that would be do-able I would think.

Well, I'm old an cynical enough to think that NOTHING will ever work 
"globally" for all libraries, all peoples, etc.  But that doesn't mean we 
shouldn't work in those directions.  What is it that the bumper stickers 
say: "Think globally, act locally"?  You can define local and global to 
suit your needs, of course.

>That article is
>looking for a "Golden Bullet" for collection development, and there just
>ain't one folks.

No argument.  Panaceas don't exist, and are unlikely to, at least in this 
world.  But again, we can work on improving cooperation and coordination, 
too.  I was working in an academic library in Ohio when Fred Kilgour was 
starting OCLC and there were plenty who said that would never work 
either...that fifty odd academics in one state couldn't possibly agree on 
anything.  And, they almost didn't.  But by good will, Fred's strength of 
leadership, a few prayers, and some good luck, it came about, and even 
spread a bit.   Heavens, it has finally spread to the Pacific 
Northwest....just thirty years late.  o-)

>And if we go that route, and go more and more to it (OK, this may be a
>slippery slope fallacy but bear with me), then access time to books
>increase yet again.

Oh, come on.  Quit thinking about traditional books.  Think about getting 
the right information to the right user at the right time.  If the on 
demand publishing means it comes out of the laser printer connected to my 
workstation, fine with me.  I don't need to wait for UPS, USPS, FedEx, or 
anyone else delivering it to me in codex form in the case of most materials 
of little use.

>There goes the library's budget!

Well, what you describe sounds like ILL to me.

>But the library is still spending ("wasting") monies on books that aren't 
>used by the 80% of the patrons.
Check your books on the Pareto Principle.  80/20 rule, or 90/10 rule if you 
prefer.  Every library has books that are five or ten years old that have 
never been read, and particularly every academic library.

One of the areas I handle for this library is collection development for 
Computer Info Systems (in the Coll of Business).  I recently weeded the 
collections and got rid of a couple of old books on Business Use of the 
Apple ][.   A colleague thought they should be kept for their historical 
value.  Well, I hope someone keeps them for historical value, but that 
should be MIT or CalTech or the Baker School or someone else.  They just 
aren't needed at Boise State for BBA and MBA students.

>Ugh.  Scanned.  Studies have shown over and over that reading a book
>electronically is not as easy as reading it off of paper.  For articles,
>for short subjects, for some research, electronic options would be great.
>But to read some tome of forgotten lore electronically?  Nah.  Of course,
>one could print it out.

Exactly.  That's what laser printers and paper are for.  To be used.

> Which would mean high quality printer and all that
>paper printing out and out ... shifting the cost of production of the book
>from the publisher to the library or the patron or both.
Of course.  That is already happening, and will continue to as we see ever 
more electronic publishing.  I'd much rather have the people who want it 
print it and take it, just like students do with periodical articles.  No 
one knows how to take notes any more....students just photocopy the article 
and take it home, saving the hassle of checking things out or of taking 
notes.  I see the same many times a day as students print full text 
articles from the full text journals we have on the web from ABI Inform and 
other sources.  And, the vast majority are smart enough to print out the 
text file rather than the .pdf file when they print it, too.  They learn 
quickly that it is as easy, or easier, to read, is machine manipulable, and 
loads and prints much faster.  Besides, what will they do with all those 
tree farms down in your part of the world if they don't turn them into paper?

>>Consider that multitude of alternatives out there.....let's think outside
>>of our traditional library boxes.
>
>I do all time :-).  I just don't believe that looking outside of the
>traditional box should mean discarding that box.  The answers aren't

Oh, I'm not in favor of discarding the box, or the codex.  Books will be 
around, and new ones published, longer than you or I will be around.  But 
they'll be augmented/supplemented by alternatives, too.  Just as TV didn't 
destroy radio, ebooks won't destroy printed books.  But, just as the uses 
of radio changed after television was around, the uses of books will change 
too.  Radio used to have dramas, performances, and so forth, where now it 
is almost completely news/talk/music in some combination.  Radio 
changed.  Radio survived.

>always outside.  Once in awhile, they are some old tried and proven 
>method.  Maybe just once in a great while, mind you!

No argument.  I'm not planning to throw out any babies with any 
bathwater.  But we must also remember that some old things that still work 
get discarded by changing technology, changing demands of consumers, and so 
forth.  Phono records.  Vacuum tube hardware.  8 track stereo.  And on and 
on.  I don't expect that to happen with books, at least until our 
grandchildren get jacks in back of their ears.  Even then, fine books will 
be cherished and preserved in museums, just as fine art is today.

cheers

dan

--
Good, Fast, and Cheap: Which two of the three would you like?
Dan Lester, 3577 East Pecan, Boise, ID 83716 USA 208-383-0165
dan at 84.com   http://www.84.com/  http://www.idaholibraries.org/
http://library.boisestate.edu/   http://www.lili.org/  http://www.postcard.org/