Decentralization of Serials Bu bkatz@COSY.UOGUELPH.CA 06 Apr 1991 23:26 UTC
Ann M. Tenglund at St. Bonaventure University asks about experience in breaking apart a central serials allocation and re-distributing same among the various academic departments. At the University of Guelph Library we did this very thing about a year ago. We had a central serials renewal allocation, which was used for all non-reference serials renewals that had been originally subscribed to be- fore 1975/76. In the latter year, new subscriptions became the responsi- bility of the requesting departments' allocations (with some exceptions if the title was very interdisciplinary). There had been much discussion on the idea of decentralizing the renewals "pot" over the years since 1976, and after three subscription cancellation "projects" we had the data to be able to do this. The cancellation projects (the first one was in 1975/76 and the most recent in 1987/88) called on the academic depts. to identify those titles which supported their teaching and research programs. Some titles, clearly, were identified by more than one dept. We were able to set up "apportionments" between depts. for those titles, so that up to five depts. could "claim" a title. With the data in hand, refined by the successive rounds of cancel- lations, we were reasonably confident that we knew exactly which depts. should get their appropriate shares of the renewals allocation added to their deptl. allocations. We used the immediately preceding renewal cost of the subscription as the amount to be transfered. There was some concern among the faculty "reps" from the academic depts. as to the effect this would have on their deptl. allocations once the next re- newal period was in full force. We have completed this period, and as all on this list are aware, the cost of renewals has far exceded most reasonable estimates! As a result, some depts. were significantly overcommitted in their deptl. allocations as soon as the renewals were attributed to them. We are looking carefully at this situation, especially if the university's administration will not be forthcoming with the necessary increase in the acquisitions budget, in order to avoid yet another round of cancellations. But the effect of the redistribution, even the impact as a result of renew- als, had positive benefits. For example, it is now *very* clear as to the real costs of certain programs -- what is the cost of having a first rate graduate program in physics or chemistry, for example. The univ. admin. can see this very clearly indeed, as the "cost" of doing "business"! It's also clear to everyone concerned, that the library's acquisitions budget is disproportionally distributed as between discipline groups, compared to what the older "book" portion (that which used to be allocated by academic dept.) would have seemed to indicate. The arts, humanities and even the social science depts. are *NOT* receiving the same proportion of funding for library allocations as are the various sciences, agriculture, vet. medicine, etc. This is a fact which has certain political implications when it stands out so clearly! I hope that these early impacts we have experienced will help your own efforts. As I imply, I think the excercise well worth while and I'm sure that my colleagues here agree with me on this point. Bernard Katz, Head, Humanities and Social Science Division University of Guelph Library bkatz@cosy.uoguelph.ca