FEATHER RIVER INSTITUTE 1998

WHO’S NUMBER ONE?: EVALUATING ACQUISITIONSDEPARTMENTS

PETER H. STEVENS

Head, Acquisitions Division

University of Washington Libraries

Suzzallo Library, Rm 2170B

Box 352900

Seattle, WA 98195-2900

Internet: stevens@u.washington.edu

Web: http://weber.u.washington.edu/;acqdiv/

Abstract—This paper is a first attempt at articulating the criteria that characterizeacquisitions departments at the forefront of book acquisitions. Scoring values wereassigned to each of these criteria in an attempt to provide acquisitions practitionerswith a framework within which to assess progress on improvements in a numericalway. These criteria are intended to stimulate discussion among acquisitions profes-sionals about ways to improve their own acquisitions operations and to identifyhigh-performing acquisitions departments. This paper was written in the hope ofencouraging wider participation in acquisitions discussions among working profes-sionals in the field and to begin the identification of best acquisitions practices.© 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd

Keywords—Acquisitions, Assessment, Scoring sheet

INTRODUCTION

The literature of acquisitions librarianship is replete with articles about the principles, philos-ophy, tenets, roles, and future of acquisitions librarianship and how individual acquisitionsdepartments have accomplished specific changes or studied particular issues or problems. Whilethese articles can be valuable and thought provoking, there has been a notable shortage of articlesfor working professionals about how they can move their own departmental operations toward theforefront of acquisitions practice.

Pergamon

Library Collections, Acquisitions, & Technical Services, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 79–85, 1999Copyright © 1999 Elsevier Science LtdPrinted in the USA. All rights reserved

1464-9055/99 $–see front matter

PII: S0364-6408(98)00127-6

79

What are the factors that characterize departments at the forefront of acquisitions librarianship?Identification of such factors should be of great value to acquisitions librarians who seek to offertop quality services to library selectors and library users. Beyond identifying such factors, thisquestion should be asked: Can such factors be given scoring values so that acquisitions profes-sionals can rate their own departments and compare their scores with other acquisitions depart-ments, as well as their progress in moving, over time, toward the forefront? The idea of competitionamong acquisitions departments can make some librarians uncomfortable, especially with anydiscussion of numerical scores and ratings. Where there are winners, the thinking goes, there willalso be losers. Competition can serve, however, as a powerful tool in enabling individuals andorganizations to make major performance improvements by identifying what constitutes excellenceand in measuring progress toward achieving excellence.

In the Association of Research Libraries, some very valuable work on identifying the bestpractices among interlibrary loan departments and on criteria for evaluating library directors hasalready been done. The time has come to apply this kind of thinking to acquisitions librarianship.Acquisitions librarians spend huge amounts of money acquiring resources for enormous numbersof library users, with a premium placed on obtaining library materials quickly, accurately,efficiently, and at high discounts. Everyone benefits if acquisitions services are improved. Mostacquisitions librarians, when asked who are the big names in the field, might respond with thenames of those who speak frequently on acquisitions topics and who generate lots of acquisitionsentries in library literature. There may well be no relationship between fame as an acquisitionslibrarian and the excellence of the acquisitions department that that individual heads. By identifyingthe top performing acquisitions operations, it should be easier to name the top acquisitionslibrarians in terms of excellence in providing acquisitions services. This shift of focus could be apotent avenue toward improving the standards of acquisitions librarianship.

Unfortunately, it is fairly common for librarians to enter the acquisitions field without anyrelevant training or background. Library schools rarely have courses on or much exposure toacquisitions in their curricula. Acquisitions departments often have just one professional who lackscontact with acquisitions peers within or outside his or her own institution. Standards for excellencein acquisitions services have the potential for providing these new acquisitions librarians greatassistance in assessing and improving the departments they head. It is not easy to learn aboutacquisitions practices and operations. Only vendor representatives visit large numbers of acquisi-tions departments. Most acquisitions librarians do not regularly attend library conferences or sharenews of their accomplishments and innovations. Submissions to ACQNET tend to be highlyspecific questions about sources of supply. Annual reports of acquisitions departments are hard toobtain and, once obtained, not easy to decipher. The Web has provided a window into at least fourdozen acquisitions departments, with some sites offering detailed descriptions of workflow,re-engineering efforts, annual reports, and other valuable sources of information. Still, the numberof acquisitions departments on the Web remains woefully small.

Inherent in any such list of criteria are some values and some biases. My personal bias is towardan aggressively user-oriented acquisitions operation that is highly efficient, keenly responsive tolibrary users and selectors, and unwilling to rest on its laurels. I value technology for what it canmean to enhanced service for library users. As a practitioner in a public institution, I feel bound tobe open in my operations and to share information about everything from departmental proceduresto which book suppliers we use and what discounts we get. My own background includes workingin the acquisitions departments of three university libraries and one public library and runningacquisitions departments in three libraries over 26 years.

I should also note, at this point, that many acquisitions librarians do not have the power toinfluence all of the factors on my suggested list. Most acquisitions librarians have little control over

80 P. H. STEVENS

the choice of the integrated library system at their institutions and in its acquisitions offerings.Many of us are hampered by institutional limitations that can preclude some of the options in mylist. I have chosen to concentrate on book acquisitions at the large university level for the purposesof this discussion and to ignore serials, gifts, accounting and other areas important to manyacquisitions operations. To provoke discussion, I have put together a scoring sheet with a list ofsome criteria or recommended practices. On this scoring sheet I have weighed the criteria that I feelare especially important by giving them double points. Any coincidence between these doublepoints and my own acquisitions operation is purely fortuitous.

CRITERIA

These criteria or hallmarks of acquisitions excellence are not in any priority order.

1. An online order file (because manual order files are badly outdated and cannot form thefoundation for excellence in acquisitions services); an old-fashioned department would stillbe filing cards in a manual order file.

2. Orders that display with their status (on order, received but not yet processed, etc.) in theonline catalog (because most records for materials on order or in process should be easilyaccessible by library users); an outdated acquisitions operation would have an order file thatis not readily accessible by library users.

3. An acquisitions Web site with a minimum of a three-star rating (because acquisitions shouldcommunicate its values, goals, structure, and operations to its customers and share what itdoes with its acquisitions peers).

4. Many order requests are received online or via e-mail (which indicates that the acquisitionsdepartment is up-to-date electronically and open to submission of order requests in waysthat are convenient for its selectors).

5. Order requests are accepted in a wide range of formats (instead of requiring that all requestsbe submitted on a special form for the convenience of the staff in acquisitions).

6. Approval programs are heavily used (which bring in large numbers of books, soon afterpublication, at a much lower cost than ordering them individually).

7. Approval records are obtained via FTP, rather than being keyed manually (which saves onone of acquisitions’ most expensive activities, keying bibliographic and order records fromscratch).

8. Approval programs have very low return rates (which indicates highly tuned approvalprogram parameters).

9. OCLC Export or some other source of bibliographic records is heavily exploited (to reduceexpensive manual keying while greatly improving the quality and usefulness of acquisitionsrecords in the online catalog).

10. Heavy use of library book suppliers (instead of ordering directly from large numbers ofpublishers, which is much more expensive).

11. Regular monitoring and evaluation of library book suppliers (so that only the fastest, highestdiscounting, and responsive suppliers are used, rather than, say, sources dictated by traditionor the library director).

12. Most purchase orders are sent electronically, over the Internet (rather than printed, burst,stuffed in envelopes, and mailed, which is too expensive and too slow).

13. A procurement card is used for certain kinds of orders (so as to avoid expensive rushprepayments for urgently needed materials).

81Evaluating Acquisitions Departments

14. Library accounting is linked electronically with university accounting (to speed up pay-ments to library book suppliers and to reduce library paperwork).

15. Cataloging on receipt is exploited in acquisitions to move books through technical servicesmore quickly and efficiently (rather than trucking such books to another processing delayin copy cataloging).

16. Departmental unit costs and productivity are regularly measured and reported to acquisi-tions’ customers (so that acquisitions staff and library selectors can understand more aboutthe costs of acquisitions services).

17. Departmental activities are regularly reported, and annual reports are shared widely (so thatthere can be selector scrutiny of acquisitions operations as well as a record of accomplish-ments and innovations).

18. Average speed of supply for U.S. rush orders is known and is fast (so that library users andselectors know that this area is a high priority for acquisitions services).

19. Average speed of supply for U.S. non-rush orders is known and is prompt (so that selectors’expectations for promptness will be informed).

20. U.S. average net discount on firm orders is well above 10% (to stretch the purchasing powerof the library book budget).

21. U.S. average net discount on approval books is well above 10% (to stretch the purchasingpower of the library book budget).

Again, my interest is in identifying some of the more important characteristics, where bookacquisitions are concerned, of departments at the forefront of acquisitions librarianship. This list isneither comprehensive nor exhaustive, but is offered as a starting point for discussion.

SCORING SHEET

As for point values for these criteria of highly rated acquisitions departments, here is a scoringsheet for your consideration, with some annotations for one department (mine).

Points criteria and point values1 Online order file

YES 5 20 points; NO5 0 points

(20 points for us because we have had an online order file for many years)

2 Orders that displayYES 5 20 points; NO5 0 points

(20 points for us because we have enjoyed public display of order and in-process records since1988)

3 Web siteYES, 5 stars5 20 points; YES, 4 stars5 16 points; YES, 3 stars5 12 points; YES, nostars5 8 points; NO5 0 points

(20 points for us because we have a five-star acquisitions Web site)

82 P. H. STEVENS

4 Online requestsYES, 100% of requests received online5 20 points; YES, 50% of requests online5 10points; NO5 0 points

(8 points for us because 45% of our order requests are received online from library selectors onour Innovative system)

5 Requests in any formatYES 5 20 points; NO5 0 points

(20 points for us because over 98% of our order requests are received online, via e-mail, Webforms, or printouts rather than on our special order request form)

6 Lots of approvalsYES, 100% of books purchased5 20 points; YES, 50% of books purchased5 10 points;NO 5 0 points

(10 points for us because 46% of our purchased books were acquired via approval programs forten countries last year)

7 Approval FTPYES, 100% of approvals5 20 points; YES, 50% of approvals5 10 points; NO5 0 points

(12 points for us because 61% of our approval records were obtained via FTP over the Internet)

8 Low approval returnsYES, 0% return rate5 10 points; YES, 1–5% return rate5 8 points; YES, 5–9% returnrate5 6 points; NO, over 10% return rate5 0 points

(6 points for us because our overall approval program return rate this year is 6%)

9 OCLC ExportYES, 100% of records input5 20 points; YES, 75% of records input5 14 points; YES,50% of records input5 10 points; NO5 0 points

(10 points for us because about 50% of our records are input via OCLC Export)

10 Heavy supplier useYES, 100% of orders to suppliers5 10 points; YES, 90% of orders to suppliers5 9 points;YES, 80% of orders to suppliers5 8 points; NO, majority of orders go to publishers5 0points

(9 points for us because over 95% of all orders are sent to major suppliers)

11 Monitoring of suppliersYES, monitor speed and discount monthly5 10 points; YES, monitor speed and discountannually5 5 points; NO, no monitoring5 0 points

(8 points for us because we monitor speed and discount nearly every month of the fiscal year)

83Evaluating Acquisitions Departments

12 Electronic ordersYES, 100% of orders and approval selection forms go out electronically5 20 points; YES,50% of orders and forms go out electronically5 10 points; NO, all orders and formsmailed5 0 points

(15 points for us because at least 75% of our orders are issued electronically to 35 vendors in14 countries)

13 Procurement cardYES, we use one5 10 points; NO, we don’t have or use one5 0 points

(0 points for us because we are not yet using a procurement card, but hope to be using one withina few months)

14 Accounting linked with university accountingYES, linked5 10 points; NO, no electronic link5 0 points

(10 points for us because our university accounting system is linked electronically with thelibrary online system)

15 Cataloging on receiptYES, 100% of receipts5 10 points; YES, 66% of receipts5 7 points; YES, 40% ofreceipts5 4 points; NO, none5 0 points

(0 points for us, though cataloging on receipt is being investigated here)

16 Unit costs and productivityYES, report on both annually5 10 points; YES, report on either costs or productivityannually5 5 points; YES, report on one or both every few years5 3 points; NO, no suchreports5 0 points

(3 points for us because we survey unit costs every few years)

17 Annual reportsYES, issued annually and available on Web site5 10 points; YES, written annually but notavailable on Web or shared5 0 points

(10 points for us because we issue annual reports annually and make them available on ourhomepage)

18 Average speed of supply, U.S. rush ordersDon’t know5 0 points; Under 1.0 week5 20 points; 1.1–3.0 weeks5 10 points; Longer50 points

(10 points for us because our average turnaround time on U.S. rush orders is from 1 to 3 weeks)

19 Average speed of supply, non-rush U.S. ordersDon’t know 5 0 points; Under 4.0 weeks5 20 points; 41–5.0 weeks5 10 points; 5–6weeks5 5 points; Over 6 weeks5 0 points

(5 points for us because our average U.S. turnaround time is 5–6 weeks)

84 P. H. STEVENS

20 U.S. average net discount, firm orders, non-rushDon’t know 5 0 points; 15% or higher5 20 points; 12–14%5 15 points; 11–12%5 10points; Under 10%5 0 points

(20 points for us because our average U.S. net discount is 15%)

21 U.S. average net discount, approval booksSame as scoring as for 20 (above)

(20 points for us because our average U.S. approval discount is 16%)

TOTAL POINTS (Maximum: 340 points)

(236 points for us, with room for improvement)

CONCLUSION

In summing up, let me say once more that this list of criteria is very limited and reflects my ownacquisitions orientation. This list is intended as a first effort and aimed to encourage otheracquisitions librarians. Other acquisitions librarians are invited to carry this work forward and todevelop additional criteria for serials, gift, and other aspects of acquisitions librarianship, as wellas criteria that have wider applications to acquisitions departments, large and small, academic andpublic, public institutions and private. More attention to best acquisitions practices and criteria forexcellence in acquisitions librarianship can help to raise the standards for this important field withinthe profession and improve services to library users.

85Evaluating Acquisitions Departments