[PADG:1223] shelf ready services

["Rebecca Ryder" <rjryde01@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

At the University of Kentucky, we've had almost three years experience with 
the shelf ready services of our approval plan vendor.   We were among 
the first to "sign up" for the full shelf ready service on our approvals.  
There are many details to share about the shelf prep and cataloging issues, but 
I'd like to focus here on the binding issues.
Our monograph acquisitions department recruited the shelf ready 
services from the approval plan vendor.  My colleagues were very interested 
in improving order-to-shelf turnaround time in an environment of deminishing 
resources and constant change.  Of course, shelf ready option looked 
great!  My colleagues wanted to "try the service as is" without 
tinkering with the approval vendor's concepts.  The basic plans were very 
explicit  for cataloging, labeling, property stamping, barcoding and 
security stripping, but details about binding of paperbacks were less 
well-defined.  That's because the approval vendor outsourced the binding to 
a commercial binder.  The approval vendor was at the outset of the 
commercial binding learning curve and had yet to encounter many variations on 
the binding theme. 
When we entered "shelf readydom," we still had our feet firmly planted 
in another corporate culture.  Our binding policy was/is to inspect 
and/or bind most of the new paperbacks in the main library.  Many new 
paperbacks are sent for binding before they circulate.  There are many 
exceptions, of course.   Many libraries do not review their new 
paperback acquisitions so closely.  We do, because:1.  Our default 
format for firm or approval orders is paperback, therefore most titles are 
received in softcover2.  Cover art/advertisement is considered valuable 
and worthy of preservation3.  24-hour service in the main library, the 
use of book drops, and the 24-hr document delivery service to Vandy and Univ Tn 
Knoxville (books are packaged in tyvek bags for delivery via "pony express" 
within 24 hrs) motivates us to provide protection for these assets.
4.  Adequate budget support
 
Therefore, we had some very precise and detailed procedures for dealing 
with paperbacks.  The "paradigm shift" of letting the vendor "select" what 
would be bound was significant.  However.  We needed to try it, and we 
needed to work with all the parties to refine the system.  Thus, the 
approval vendor proposed a "flat rate" for binding.  At the outset, no 
special instructions were included in the approval vendor's binding 
profile.  
 
Needless to say, we found out differently after the first shipments 
arrived.  Keep in mind that the problems we encountered were due DIRECTLY 
to the profiles for selection set up with the approval vendor.  These were 
some of the problems/exceptions that our approval plan did not 
anticipate:1.  binding of music scores--double fan adhesive binding 
of music scores in single signature is not desirable2.  binding of 
pamphlets--normally, we'd handle these in-house at less than a $1.00 per 
title.  With the approval, we paid in excess of $10.003.  art 
catalogs:  heavy, clay coated textblocks were not adequately bound by the 
shelf ready stipulation4.  trimming:  gaaaack.  everything 
was trimmed.  There was evidence of information loss in every 
shipment.     
5.  In addition to bindng "too skinny", the vendor also bound "too 
fat",  in excess of 2.5 inches in an economy style binding with thin boards 
and C cloth.  Picture a C++ manual with a CD in an economy style DFA 
binding...6. Mixed media:  no stabilization for CDs, diskettes or 
videotapes.  We have a library policy to mainstream "mixed media" items, 
therefore, we try to "package" them for easy circulation.  A paperback 
book, commerically bound, with a loose CD requires another visit to the 
Preservation Dept.  Mixed media had to be "de-selected" from the approval 
plan's binding profile to be dealt with efficiently.7.  who is going to 
check for binding quality?   according to what standard?  and 
does everyone agree?   Is the acquisitions dept ready to inspect every 
volume for inner margin integrity, cover cloth appropriateness and/or 
spelling/call number on the spine?  Who would provide feedback to the 
vendors?  would everyone be speaking the same language?8.  other 
shelf prep details:  what kind of labels?  where are the security 
strips?  is the property stamping neat and non-invasive?  Is the ink 
approved?  where are the barcodes applied?  who would check for shelf 
prep quality?
 
These questions and concerns were addressed within the first six 
months.  Our shelf ready costs went up because we factored in more 
screening before binding and because we decided to upgrade to higher quality 
binding which featured less trimming and other custom features.  The 
current selection system and the shelf ready products have worked rather 
well.My acquisitions colleagues viewed me as a fussy control freak 
during the initial negotiations.  But, they have come to see that I had 
some valid points about how "some folks' bright ideas become other folks' 
headaches".  My main point was that the approval vendor did not offer many 
options because "no one had asked for those options".  That's a drawback if 
you want the dubious status of "first on the block..."  So, if more 
libraries ask for more options,  I'm certain that the approval vendors will 
respond.   At this point, we are the only library (according to the 
approval vendor) asking for "do not trim" options.  If other libraries 
request and/or specify this preference, I am certain that it will be in the 
binding vendors' best interests to supply.
 
Another minor detail is tracking the costs and quantity for ARL 
statistics.  I've asked the approval vendor if they can create a report 
that would provide that data.  They think they can comply.  In 
Preservation, we have accomplished success by asking vendors to supply what we 
need and what we want.  We have not been successful when we've relied on 
untested waters or passive approaches.  I think that the shelf ready 
services are a great assistance, but I think we need to work collaboratively 
with our colleagues to make sure that we are getting the level of 
qualitythat we require.  If we ask for what we want, we just might get 
it--especially if more than 1 or 2 people ask.If you would like more 
details, please feel free to contact me.  I hope that I portrayed this as a 
positive learning curve for all.   That's the way I view it.  New 
partners and greater goals.Regards,BeckyBecky 
RyderPreservation LibrarianWilliam T. Young LibraryUniversity of 
KentuckyLexington, Kentucky 40406-0456phone:  859-257-0500, 
ext. 2028email:  <A 
href="mailto:rjryde01@xxxxxxxxxxx";>rjryde01@xxxxxxxxxxx
 
----- Original Message -----From: "Paula De Stefano" <<A 
href="mailto:destefan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>destefan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>To: 
<PADG@xxxxxxx>Sent: Tuesday, 
February 20, 2001 5:54 PMSubject: [PADG:1217] Shelf-ready 
binding> As part of NYU Libraries' approval plan, our vendor has 
offered> to bind new paperbacks, as well as provide cataloging 
and> labeling, so they can go directly to the shelf when received. 
Is> this binding shortcut  coming up for anyone else? Are any of 
you> doing this already, or have any of you seen examples of the> 
bindings approval plan vendors are offering?>> 
___________________________________________________________________> 
Paula De Stefano> Barbara Goldsmith Curator for Preservation 
and>   Head, Preservation Department> New York 
University Libraries> 70 Washington Square South> New York, NY 
10012> Voice:  212/998-2563> Fax:    
212/995-4583> Email:  <A 
href="mailto:paula.destefano@xxxxxxx";>paula.destefano@xxxxxxx>