A. Three Coordinated Profiles (Barb’s Proposal):

Summary:

For each subject area, the three libraries would have their own individual plans; however, the plans would be pre-coordinated so that the publishing universe would be divided among the plans according to subject and publisher, with allowance for intentional duplication.

Details:

Plans could be divided by subject, publisher or a combination of both, though it would be simplest to choose just one. If we chose publisher, we could make a master list of all publishers Swarthmore and BMC/HC have selected for books. Then we divide them three ways, duplicating major publishers (Oxford, Cambridge, etc.) for whom we know we’d want more than one copy in the consortium. It might make sense to also consider subject areas along with these major publishers so that, for example, all Oxford UP books would go somewhere but we would pre-determine which libraries would get which subject ranges:

Oxford + PS1-79 à Bryn Mawr

Oxford + PS1-79 à Swarthmore

but

Oxford + PS 85-490 à Haverford

If we want to divide subject areas only for the major publishers, then we’d likely need additional profiles to accomplish this. (English lit/Minor pubs for SC; English lit/Major pubs for SC; English lit/Minor pubs for HC, and so on)

In addition, we would want to have access to the lists of books selected for each library. It would probably be simplest for Blackwells to give us passwords to allow us to view each other’s lists. The selectors at each campus would decide from the lists if a second copy of any title is needed at their campus; these would then be firm ordered.

This plan would require a good bit of work upfront, but should allow for most titles to arrive at their ‘home’ library with little or no subsequent intervention by staff. Time would be spent by librarians in reviewing lists of books that will be sent to the other two libraries and deciding which of these ought to be duplicated. There are some holes in the plan, but I think they are small. At least I think it is worth trying as a test. (Barb Weir, November 2003)

B. Two Coordinated Profiles (Literature Bibliographers’ Discussions):

Summary:

The HC/BMC profile would be set up so that it does not duplicate Swarthmore’s profile. Haverford and Bryn Mawr bibliographers would look at Swarthmore’s list of titles to decide what to duplicate.

Details:

Given that Swat buys fewer books in PR/PS that HC/BMC, that a high percentage of them duplicate titles that HC/BMC get, and that Anne has more selection territory to cover than Bob or Scott, we decided to let Swat take the lead as follows.

1. Swat will get all books they now get according to their profile; HC/BMC will somehow be able to know weekly what those books are.

2. HC/BMC will get only those books that currently match their profile but do not match the Swat profile; somehow we will remove from the HC/BMC shipping lists books that HC/BMC would get but that duplicate what Swat is getting

3. HC/BMC will look at the list of books that Swat gets and decide which of those to dup/triplicate.

4. Shipments will continue to be sent as they now are.

(Bob Kieft, December 2003)

C. One Profile with Deliberate Distribution (Margaret’s Proposal):

Summary:

When the books come in we divvy them up deliberately and duplicate at the bibliographer’s request.

Details:

Combine the Bi-college and Swarthmore approval plans, so that there is a single tri-college shipment that goes to Haverford.

Librarians from the three colleges use the shipment list to register their preferences.

The Bryn Mawr and Haverford librarians take the Swarthmore choices and mark the books accordingly. If there are items to discuss, the Bryn Mawr and Haverford librarians call their Swarthmore counterpart. If a book is substantially different than the titlewould suggest, that information is also given to the Swarthmore librarian. If the librarians need to reconcile a difference in opinion over an approval slip, the phone conversation could also include a question in this regard.

If a second or third copy of a title in the shipment is wanted, it can be ordered through Blackwell or can be ordered direct. Librarians can decide as a blanket rule or on a case-by-case basis about how to order second copies.

Titles that all three librarians have marked as “Tri-Co” can be assigned to each college in succession.

Haverford would handle the billing as it does now with Bryn Mawr. Whatever books a library chooses will be billed by Haverford. The staff at Haverford will also ship out the books the day following the librarians’ approval meeting to the other two libraries.

Given the logistics of three locations, regular face-to-face meetings between Bryn Mawr/Haverford and Swarthmore don’t seem like the best choice. Also rotating the books between libraries, either as shipped from Blackwell or on the van, has a number of drawbacks. We need to be able to communicate easily. The combination of the electronic list with occasional calls for special problems seems workable and has some flexibility. (Margaret Schaus, November 2003)

D. One Profile with Random Distribution (Peggy’s Proposal):

Summary:

When the books come in we divvy them up randomly and adjust or duplicate at the faculty’s request.

Details:

An even more radical idea: we don't even bother to look at the lists the other schools are getting, and assume that when we create the profiles we try to get what we think we will need, i.e., Eric's example on gender studies. Perhaps we build in a bit more duplication of the major publishers (Oxford, Cambridge), but we save staff time in looking at the lists. The books will be *somewhere* in the TriCo. Any conscious duplication can be done through faculty requests later and not through bibliographer review (this happens a lot at Swat already, where a faculty member sees that Haverford has something in Tripod and then places an order for the book here). Isn't the idea of the approval plan to radically limit staff time, and to free up bibliographers' time to select firm order titles? Could the new book list somehow provide faculty with an opportunity to see what the other schools got that week and make decisions on what they want on their own campuses--could we create a sub-list of just approval titles? (Peggy Seiden, November 2003)