[PADG:2123] Re: prioritizing book repairs

[Shannon Zachary <szachary@xxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with others that use-driven selection is a practical method for
prioritizing repair work--although I have noticed in serving our special
collections libraries that staff selection focuses very heavily on new
acquisitions: often this material is what is most commanding *their*
attention.

We've used two systems with good success.

1) One of the curatorial staff is assigned to keep a running file of books
that need repair or conservation attention, as identified by staff or
patrons during use. Periodically at a staff meeting the curatorial staff
prioritize this list.

2) Always now when we do a boxing project in the stacks (measuring fragile
volumes for a commerical custom-cut box of acid-free corrugated board) we
note books that need further treatment by stamping, in small letters, at
the base of the spine of the box "[year] Tag for Conservation." This way
it is easy to later identify materials that need attention.

Finally, I've come to regard large detailed item-level surveys with some
reserve. I prefer to have a precise, short-term goal for any survey--to
prepare a grant proposal, to identify funding or staffing needs, or to
answer a few specific questions. I've found that working through the
treatments specified in a detailed item-level survey can take so long that
the range of treatment options available changes and the survey is no
longer paying back the effort it took to execute it.

Shannon Zachary, Head, Conservation Services
Preservation Division, University Library
The University of Michigan
837 Greene St. / 3202 Buhr Bldg.
Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1048
Phone: 734/763-6980 Fax: 734/763-7886
email: szachary@xxxxxxxxx