ABSTRACT
When we think of “evaluation,” it is as a thoughtful, planned process, performed deliberately and thoroughly, and bringing all relevant facts and opinions to bear. In the academic library environment in particular, we favor evaluation by consensus, consulting the widest possible range of interested and affected constituencies. Situations can arise, however, which preclude a reasoned and leisurely pace; reacting to a crisis can mandate a “gut level” assessment, and force evaluation and the resulting decisions into a very short timeframe. As we learned at Stanford this past year, such “quick and dirty” evaluation does not necessarily yield inferior results.
