The PricewaterhouseCoopers report on public library procurement, Better Stock Better Libraries, available online at the snappy URL http://www.mla.gov.uk/webdav/harmonise?Page/@id=73&Document/@id=24696&Section[@stateId_eq_left_hand_root]/@id=4332 (surely someone at MLA has the skill and wit to construct more user-friendly URLs rather than rely on the defaults thrown out by their content management system), has generated a certain amount of comment: see this Technorati search.
It recommends:
"1. The local library authority remains the accountable body for the
delivery of a ‘comprehensive and efficient’ library service;
2. The role of the local library authority should be to specify
requirements and outcomes – a commissioning function – rather
than selecting and sourcing stock – a procurement function;
3. Stock selection can be most efficiently managed and delivered
regionally, with selection of niche specialisms such as ethnic
minority language materials done nationally.
4. The purchase of a very large proportion of all stock should be
through a national eMarketplace, on the basis of best value supplier
offers
5. Servicing and processing will be undertaken within regional hubs
and delivered direct to local libraries, where items can be scanned
and placed on the shelf.
6. An increase in the use of stock analysis tools to inform
commissioning at local authority level
7. An eMarketplace that includes real time information on price,
availability and delivery times provided by suppliers
8. A single national bibliographic database
9. Automation of financial workflow to encompass invoicing, payment
and receipting; and
10. Shared LMS interoperability standards to enable integration
of local, regional and national activities [presumably just public libraries..why not all sorts, why not real interoperability with all manner of catalogues and data sources-TR]"
But the recommendations give little clue as to how they will offer practical improvements in service for library users. Of course there is some lip service to users, but they seem to have started their analysis not from what Britain's library users want and need, but from the existing processes and structure of the library supply market.
Consider this sequence of events under current arrangements:
1. A reader identifies an item they want to read/view or listen to.
2. The reader goes to their public library systems online catalogue. If the item is already held, the reader can probably reserve it. If the item is not held, neither of the public library systems I use allow a reader to request an item not already in stock online. So...
3. The reader therefore has to fill in a paper request and pay a fee, if they can find a member of staff who understands that there is a world of information beyond their library authority, and that it is their job to help the reader find such material . The principle of universal availability of publications is more honoured in the breach than the observance. Readers will find it particularly difficult to ask for newly published, or about to be published material. I have been told on occasion when asking for such items, "No you can't ask for that; we can't get things that aren't on the catalogue." "Oh yes I can", I say, sotto voce, "I know, I'm a librarian".
How would this change under the PWC arrangements? The only obvious difference is that interoperable catalogues at a national level could allow readers to see everything currently available. But there needs to be interoperability with a far wider range of datasets than just those....with Amazon, both the main Amazon area and with wishlists and listmania lists, with library catalogues outside the public library sector, with Librarything...and so on.
I suppose the trouble is they've looked at library procurement without realising that it's a means to an end for the people who use libraries. The question they should have asked was not how can we make the existing system more efficient, but how can we better serve the people.
Technorati Tags: MLA, procurement
Recent Comments