Resource Services

COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF SHELF-READY APPROVALS

In early 1999, Central Library and Science and Engineering Library collection development staff and Resource Services (RS) administrators decided to explore the use of shelf-ready services offered by major approval vendors. Rationale behind the decision was, and the subsequent goal remains, to decrease time required for approval books to get to shelves while, at the same time, controlling costs, freeing up time of staff who perform processing functions, and maintaining quality cataloging and physical processing of approval material.

Several basic assumptions were made: 1). material can get to library shelves more quickly; 2) processing can be more efficient and cost effective by eliminating duplicate efforts and multiple hand-offs; 3) better service to library users is the objective rather than elimination of staff positions; 4) only LC copy will be considered at this time to avoid issues that expanded consideration would entail; 5) participants will help with the profiling process; 6) RS will draft procedures for use by Central and Science staff for check-in and review of shelf-ready material in their own libraries.

Profiles for shelf-ready services were designed for domestic approval books received from Blackwell's Book Services (BBS) for three Central Library subject areas: Political Science, Philosophy, and Psychology, and for all subjects within the Science Library. At the same time, a profile was established for OCLC's cataloging service, PromptCat, for remaining approval books received from Blackwell's.

A method was devised by which approval books, received shelf-ready from BBS, could be compared with BBS approvals processed in-house. Blackwell's approval books were divided by subject into three groups: Group 1: Political Science, Philosophy, Psychology, and all Science disciplines - to be received shelf-ready from the vendor; Group 2: Classical Studies, Economics, and Sociology - to be treated similarly within RS to Group One in terms of processing, i.e., no review period, no binding, no custom work beyond that attached to the fund profile; Group 3: all other Central approvals from BBS - to be processed under current procedures.

A spreadsheet was designed to record data from each of the three groups. Data included invoice date; date item was received; date record was created; dates when the item was cataloged, marked, and discharged from RS; and date item was discharged by home library. Vendor reports, Acorn records, and log scans were the tools used to capture this information. Several books from each group, selected at random from several shipments, were evaluated. Only those with LC copy were considered within all 3 groups. For each of the groups, the time elapsed from the date that the item was invoiced and shipped to the library until it was discharged for shelving by the home library was computed.

Although quality of PromptCat bibliographic records as well as outsourced physical processing were given some attention, there was no formal methodology for comparison with quality of the same in-house procedures. However, initially there were some obvious problems. The Central Library expressed concern about the small font on the labels, making them difficult to read. BBS increased the size of the font to their maximum allowance. Although the font remains smaller than preferred, it is now acceptable. There was also a problem with label protectors not adhering. BBS was asked to discontinue the use of protectors, but it soon became evident that protectors were necessary to keep ink on the labels from smearing. Thus, application of label protectors was resumed.

The Science Library, receiving fewer books than Central, did not have a problem with the label font or the protectors. In late December, Science staff reported that there had not been one incorrect call number to date for those Science items that arrived labeled. Their main concern was, and continues to be, the number of books, approximately one-third, that come unlabeled. (Solutions to this problem are addressed below.)

Appendix A shows recorded dates, as mentioned above, from the first shipment of shelf-ready approvals received in August to a shipment received in early November. Because this was a first attempt at receiving shelf-ready material and because there were some bugs to be worked out in all three groups, the time lapse between shipment and shelving is probably somewhat longer than it might be a year from now. There were also system problems in October that resulted in some delay in local processing.

Computations show that it took an average of 18 days for material in Group 1 (received shelf-ready) to reach the shelf from the time it was invoiced and shipped from BNA. Group 2 books (no review, no binding) averaged 26 days, and Group 3 (standard procedures), 43 days, including on shelf review and binding.

Even though books in Group 2 took 8 days longer to reach the shelves than those in Group 1, it should be noted that they were in-house and readily available for patron requests. Among the sampling in Group 2, there are 3 instances where the books were processed within 14-15 days of the invoice date, probably as a result of a patron's request.

Problematic shelf-ready books were returned to RS staff with inserted flags, especially designed to tally the number and types of problems encountered. Appendix B analyzes the shipments of approximately 261 shelf-ready eligible approval books received from early August to late November. Of the 261 total, 92, or approximately 35%, were returned to RS as problems. Eighty of the 92 had only provisional records; thus, no call number for labeling. Of the 80, RS staff found LC copy, LC different ed., or PCC records for 38, almost one half of them. These 38 were copy cataloged, labeled, and sent to the shelves by RS staff. Thirty-nine books of the 80 had member copy, and were routed to original catalogers, 1 book had no copy, and 2 were duplicates.

The 12 remaining books of the 92 returned to RS had marking or location problems. Seven of the 12 should have been labeled as SCI,REF or OBSV. (Observatory labeling has been rectified by establishing a separate sub-account with BBS for the 0600 fund.) Two books were missing the ownership stamp, 1 was missing a date due slip, and 2 had "other" problems.

Appendix C compares costs between physical processing done by RS and that done by BBS. Physical processing includes the application and recording of 2 bar codes, a date due slip, a spine label and protector, a theft detection strip, and an ownership stamp. For RS costs, departmental staffing overhead is included, but RS, Library, and University overhead costs are not. RS is able to provide physical processing of a single item for $1.63 while the same service from BBS costs $2.89. On a larger scale, local processing of 10,000 volumes would amount to $16,340.75. The cost of BBS processing for 10,000 volumes would be $28,880.40 (plus theoretical savings of .5 FTE at the LAI or LAII level or approximately $10,000).

In summary, our goal has been only partially met. Shelf-ready material does actually decrease time required for approval books to get to the shelves. Based on the sampling of our comparative evaluation, shelf-ready books (Group 1) reached the shelves 25 days sooner than those that were processed using current routines (Group 3). Books that were locally processed the same as shelf-ready books (Group 2) took 8 days longer than vendor supplied shelf ready material, but they were on hand and easily accessible for patron requests. If time is of the essence, then it may be somewhat difficult for RS to compete. However, in terms of cost, it appears that physical processing can be done more cheaply within RS, and perhaps more to the satisfaction of individual libraries.

RS RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Of 261 books received, PromptCat provided only provisional records for 80 of the books, or approximately 30%, because there were no LC records available at the time they did their searching. RS staff found LC copy, LC different ed., or PCC records for almost half of these because records had appeared during the time between PromptCat handling and receipt at VUL. Therefore, we recommend that our PromptCat profile be revised to include LC core and PCC full records. (These records are currently being treated in-house as LC copy.) This change should substantially reduce the number of books coming with provisional records and unlabeled.

2. Whether or not a decision is made to extend shelf-ready processing to additional subject areas, we recommend that the review period be eliminated for all appropriate profiles in order to expedite processing and subsequent shelving. Binding is still recommended. Of 121 books taken into consideration, 55, or 45%, were paperbacks that went directly to the shelves. Over a period of time, this could make a big difference in preservation of the collection.