- Email: [email protected]
Toward a methodology of evaluating serials vendors
Library
Acquisrrrons:
Practiceand
Theory. Vol. 9. pp. 5 I-60,
0364-6408185
1985
$03.00+.00
Copyright @ 1985 Pergamon Press Ltd
Printed in the USA. All rights reserved.
ISSUES IN BOOK A ND SERIAL A CQ - UISITIONS
TOWARD A METHODOLOGY OF EVALUATING SERIALS VENDORS
SHARON
C. BONK
Assistant Director for Technical Services State University of New York at Albany Libraries Albany, NY 12222
INTRODUCTION The theme of the conference is new solutions to old problems. 1 am not sure I can offer a permanent solution or panacea for the problems in supply of serials. What I shall attempt to do is identify the component parts in evaluating the booksellers or subscription agents a library uses to supply serial publications. Here I encounter two of the oldest and most difficult of all serialsrelated problems-the definition of “serial,” and the problem of conducting any meaningful comparison with unique titles as the basis of the study. For the scope of this paper I wish to exclude periodicals, newspapers, business and legal services and other sole-source type of publications. 1 include nonperiodical serials: annuals, biennials, monographs in series, analyzed sets, multivolume series, supplements, proceedings, minutes, and reports published by trade and scholarly publishers, societies, and associations. Consequently, the vendors with whom I am concerned are those which supply these publications: booksellers and subscription agents. I shall use the term “vendor” or “serials vendor” to mean the company other than publisher that supplies this type of publication. For those firms which supply both subscriptions and other serials, 1 limit myself to consideration of them in the context 1 have defined. My remarks are based on academic library experience but will be appropriate to any medium to large serials operation which uses the services of multiple vendors to supply a diverse variety of publications.
EVALUATION
AND ORDER
PLACEMENT
Because of multiple and inextricably linked reasons that inhibit changing source of supply on whim/impulse/sales presentation or even on specific, well-reasoned purpose, the initial selection of source of supply of serials is extremely important. How is that decision made? By whom? What 51
52
SHARON
C. BONK
criteria are used to decide upon a source for specific types of publications? What data are used to make the decision or determine which source (including publisher) meets the criteria? I stress these questions because order placement should be dependent upon an ongoing evaluation of sources of supply against the library’s objectives in placement of standing orders. Evaluation of the source of supply should be dependent upon clear objectives of what is expected from the source of supply and/or what is not expected because of local capabilities or local priorities. Absolute lowest cost (list price minus discount plus service charge plus postage) may be secondary in value to the supply of printouts in order by local library codes. However, cost may be a factor in selecting among several vendors who are all able to supply such printouts. These objectives should be clear to the person making the order decision, the vendor, and the library staff who actually process the materials after initial ordering. In libraries where vendor selection, order placement, budget planning, receiving, claiming, payment, and fund accounting are all part of the same department, the objectives for evaluation and vendor selection may be more easily decided. In libraries where these responsibilities are divided among departments, there may be conflicting objectives and priorities which need to be mediated or understood. At the daily operations level, a vendor’s ability to handle claims effectively may be a major concern. However, at the managerial level, the ability of a vendor to supply a variety of library-specific reports may be top priority. If a specific vendor is not able to do both effectively, there will be a conflict in satisfaction levels within the library. Most serials orders are placed with the expectation that the choice of vendor is being made for the long term, an almost permanent commitment. I say “almost permanent” for three reasons: ESjiciency-If the choice is made correctly, all the library’s orders will be filled consistently and without need for worry by the library staff. Practicalir_r~--Little time is available to review systematically the scope of all purchasing of serials and to make major changes in source of supply unless there is pressing need (e.g., vendor out of business; breakdown in supply). If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Unwritten contract-The account representatives of some vendors are quick to note a major drop in numbers of new orders or an increase in cancellations. They contact the librarian to see what the problems are in order to reverse the trend. If there are no major problems in service, but local library considerations dictate a change in vendor, offense may be taken. The librarian may be cajoled, harrassed, or begged not to change to another vendor. A firm’s fiscal health is assumed to be the librarian’s responsibility and should be put ahead of the library’s priorities. There may also be a fourth reason-the existence of an unarticulated sense of comfort or complacency on the part of the librarian toward the status of the serials accounts. This may be based solely on the brochures that the vendors produce extolling service, technological advantages, and personal service. 1 am not saying that vendors take advantage of serials librarians who are too overwhelmed with work to know what is happening around them. 1 am saying that these attitudes do exist and thus add to the reasons to pursue after-order evaluations. These reasons are why I am practical enough to entitle these remarks, “Toward a Methodology.. . .” 1 realize the monumentality of the task before anyone who begins an evaluation of serial vendor services. I know the excuses and the problems which make it potentially so difficult to accomplish: lack of staff to collect data; lack of librarian’s time to outline a meaningful study and evaluate data gathered; special payment arrangements whereby the records do not reflect actual prices; different expectations for different types of vendors; and the dangers of comparing apples and oranges. This list could be continued. 1 also know that countering all these inhibiting factors is the useful and perhaps revealing data that lurks in the records of current orders. This data is potentially useful in ongoing selection of source of supply and the improvement of a vendor’s performance. Also lurking in these figures or
Toward a Methodology of ~~aIuating Serials Vendors
53
patterns is the possibility of vendors sitting securely with the knowledge that it is difficult to prove poor service, that major changes in sources of supply cause operational difficulties to libraries and that it is unlikely there will be any major change in source of supply.
THE LITERATURE The RTSD Collection Management and Development Committee is in the process of issuing guidelines and methods for comparison of vendor performance with respect to firm orders. No plans exist for a similar work on serial vendors. Kuntz and New have drawn up lists of vendor selection criteria and discuss how to select a new vendor. 11, 21 It is implicit in both articles that this selection is at the major account level and not for a title-by-title selection of vendor. There is little literature about the methodology of actual results of the use of these criteria or that of other libraries in a comparative manner after the major vendors have been selected. Far more has been writen about the evaluation of vendors of firm orders and approval plans. Indeed, the ability of an approval plan vendor to handle standing orders is often a criterion in selecting an approval vendor. A brief review of the literature on serials agents/standing order booksellers indicates that the majority of the writing by librarians deals with the decision to order a title from the publisher or through a bookseller/agent. 13-71These articles, textbooks, and a guide to agents conclude that the savings in handling renewals and the existence of other order-related service make the agent worth any service charge imposed. 18-101 The other literature on serials vendors is written by the booksellers and subscription agents themselves. Unremarkably, this literature has as its theme that the bookseller/subscription agent is the librarian’s best friend and that the company’s staff is an extension of the library’s staff. Clasquin and Thyden have been frequent spokesmen for the large subscription agencies. [ 1l-151 Serials Review has had a number of articles by serials vendors who are primarily booksellers. [ 14191 Each described the internal systems for maintaining current interaction with publishers and libraries. There is value to librarians to read this descriptive literature about operations and services, especially if they cannot visit the \ites of operation. There are few impartial views of the library/vendor relationship or the vendor/publisher relationship. Perhaps the best and the closest to an impartial examination of the business aspects of library supply of serial publications is ‘T?re Role of Subscription Agents. 1201Alan Singleton, a staff member of the Primary Communications Research Centre at the University of Leicester, presents information gathered from British publishers and serials agents about market size, trade discounts, payment cycles, and the value of agents to publishers, among other topics only wondered about by librarians or learned about through the agents.
TOWARD A METHODOLOGY Since there is little written on the mechanics or results of actual evaluation of serials vendors, one may conclude that either all librarians make perfect choices for each order or that few have tried to evaluate vendor performance in any systematic way. I suspect there are some cases at either extreme. I also suspect that most persons responsible for large seriais order/receiving operations are fully occupied by the day-to-day work involved in maintaining currency in operations, and that the amount of time required to plan and carry out systematic evaluations of a large number of vendors supplying even greater numbers of orders is not readily available. Also, since
54
SHARONC.
BONK
there may exist the predisposition not to change vendors unless in extreme circumstances, the precious time is spent on equally worthy projects. Instead of developing a set formula for evaluation. I will discuss the thought process and analysis that are necessary to design of studies. Since each library has different goals. mix of vendors, and mix of titles, no one set of rules or one set of objectives for studies is applicable to all. 1 offer a number of questions which should be asked and choices which need to be made to define the scope of the study and the measurement of performance. I also offer selected examples from studies conducted at SUNYA. There are many aspects of vendors’ services and many variables related to the actual orders received through each vendor. Therefore, it should be made clear at the outset of the evaluation, just what is to be considered as the focus of the study. Is it a study of one vendor’s performance against the library’s selection criteria and the vendor’s stated policies and services? Is it the number or frequency of claims to orders or volumes received? Is it the adequacy of a vendor’s response to claims? Is it a comparison of vendors in specific areas? Is there intent to justify change in vendor? A cautionary note is appropriate, for trying to manipulate or deal with too many diverse topics in one study is fraught with difficulty, as well as being extremely time-consuming. The librarian or designer of the study must have thorough knowledge of the size and content of the account with the vendor. including approximate numbers of orders, dollars spent, title mix (nature of the serials, publishers, frequencies), geographical origin, special distribution arrangement, exceptional titles or problem areas, etc. Library criteria for use of a vendor’s services should also be clear. Are there weighted values placed on terms of supply and services? In order to judge the cost benefits of some services, one should know library costs in personnel or dollars for the processing of serials orders and receipts. The design of the data to be gathered should be based on distinct, measurable objectives. It should be clear to the designer, the person collecting data, and the person who analyzes and uses the data what the study is designed to accomplish. In any comparative study among vendors care should be taken to compare like services, publications, agents. For example, unless the title mix is very similar, a comparative study on the overall number of claims placed in a given period or overall service charge incurred would not be meaningful. To have a meaningful comparison of several vendors’ ability to supply one or more types of seriab requires that similar orders be selected for study. Unless the mix of titles of types of serials (monographs, trade. society, foreign publishers, irregulars. low discount, net price publications) is the same for each vendor, a sampling of invoices and receiving records is not adequate. Time must be taken to gather information on similar types of orders as it is unlikely that any library would have sufficient numbers of duplicate copies on order with different vendors to make a comparison in service on the same titles. In reviewing pricing policies of different vendors, it must be clear to the evaluator what the invoiced price includes. Is there a separate service charge for each title? Is the service charge based on the specific titles or is it a set percent of invoice? Is it listed separately in the invoice? How does the library record it? (This is particularly important to know if one is planning to use kardex records and not invoices.) Does absence of any service charge on the invoice mean that no service charge is being assessed, or does net mean list price plus an unstated handling charge? After assembling the data, the librarian should be able to assess the net effect on the serials budget. Timely delivery is difficult to evaluate unless there are multiple orders on campus with different vendors. Otherwise a group of libraries may agree to compare information on titles. Tools useful in claiming-the OCLC database, Books in Series, BNA’s serials list, and publishers catalogs-can give an indication of the adequacy with which standing orders have been filled. These sources are also useful to test the accuracy of reports on unfilled orders-NYP;
Toward a Methodology
DEFINE
LIBRARY
of Evaluating
55
Serials Vendors
CRITERIA
What values/ priorities are placed on each aspect of service? Prompt receipt Overall cost Error free delivery, invoices Necessity to claim Existence of statistical reports Bibliographic sophistication of vendor’s staff What are the costs of processing that are common to all orders (e.g., initial order, posting of payment)? What are the costs associated with processing receipts and invoices from specific vendors? Frequency of problem invoices/shipments Frequency of claims Duplications/ returns Special staff required to handle particular vendor’s orders Number of subsequent invoices for price adjustment What is the library’s capability to produce similar statistical reports? Staff costs Computer costs REVIEW VENDOR
ACCOUNT
Size Number of orders Annual expenditure Title and publisher mix Geographical specialization Trade Society Academic/scholarly Business Trade association Vendor policies Discount Calculation of handling charge, ifany Postage/ transport charge Method of delivery Special services DEFINE OBJECTIVES Study of one vendor’s service Comparison of several vendors Change in library procedure DEFINE
MEASUREMENTOFOBJECTIVES
Compare servicesagainst promotional literature Compare services against library criteria Improvement in efficiency DATA COLLECTION Definition of data to becollected to support measurement of objectives Design of forms, if applicable Define appropriate period of study DeBne appropriate size of sample Brief staff who will collect data so that they will be able to make appropriatejudgments DATA ANALYSIS Statistics Trends
FIGURE
1: STEPS IN EVALUATING
A VENDOR’S
SERVICES
SHARON
56
C. BONK
Define ObJeCtlve of the Study
Define Measurement
Study of one vendor’s servtces
Comparison of services against statements promotional literature Comparison
Comparison of several vendors. Prtcmg pohcy Discount Service Charge Transportatton Promptness of supply Ability tosupply matertaf on order Timely deliver) Mtssed publications Supply of a specific type of sertal Annuals Proceedings Monographrc series Adequacy of reporting on ctatms Availability of Statistical Content Format Adequacy of Customer Staff Toll free number
Reports on library’s orders
Service
Special Servtces Change m library procedures
of Objectives
and
against library criteria
Library Criteria Monetary effect on the sertals budget of vendor’s pricing policy
Length oftimefrom
publication
to recetpt
Length of time from publication Gaps in holdings
to receipt
Receipt of volumes or status reports Accuracy of reports Timeliness Cost savings by use of the reports Problem solving ability; followup Useful; relevant
Customized or policies?savings?
improvement
in efficiency; monetary
benefits
Savmgs insertals budget
Effect of pricing policy on budget
Savings in staff time
Costs/savings in processing orders of the different vendors Billing receiving problems
Service to patrons
Timely delivery Completeness in supply
FIGURE 2: DETERMINING
AND MEASURING
OBJECTIVES
volume never published, title ceased, series cancelled. The holdings in OCLC have been particularly heipfui in proving to vendors the existence of volumes in series. Libraries using common automated serials systems may communicate and share passwords or other order/receipt-related information. In a study of price and delivery time of 50 nonperiodical serials, I enlisted the assistance of I2 large academic and research libraries in the northeast. I had already reviewed the SUNYA vendor service policies on drop shipment, pricing and transportation, and was aware of how closely vendors were following their stated policies. I was interested in determining if there were significant variations in delivery time among different vendors and if there were significant variations in
Toward a Methodology
of Evaluating
57
Serials Vendors
pricing that might have an impact on the SUNYA’s serials budget. Because of the large number of orders that had been placed with several dealers, I was interested to see if other libraries’ vendor choices revealed any distinct variation from that of SUNYA. If they did, 1 would know if 1 should focus my attention on particular accounts or if 1 should reexamine my criteria for order placement for particular types of serials or specific types of publishers. I was also interested to see if I should increase or decrease the order consolidation that had been a priority over the last several years. Fifty-one serials were selected in rough proportion to the type of standing orders we had placed with vendors as follows: Publisher
Frequency
28 U.S. academic scholarly presses 8 foreign publishers with U.S. distributors. 4 societies 3 trade 8 other (specialist, single title, etc.)
32 annual biennials series 13 monographic 6 irregular
SUNYA had ordered these through six vendors and five publishers. The selection of titles was weighted toward general reference but also included physical sciences, social sciences and humanities. Excluded were particularly troublesome publications of university departments, government publications, memberships and services. Libraries who responded all supported doctoral-granting institutions, except for one state library. All were within a 400-mile radius of SUNYA. This was an attempt to equalize shipping distances from Europe, publishers, and any vendors or publishers who had east coast or northeast distribution offices. Of course, shipping methods (library-rate mail, UPS, air freight, surface) are part of vendor services and/or price considerations, but mode of transport was not part of the information collected. I was aware that library staffing patterns and vacations vary, so my intent was not to judge the difference in receipt dates in days, but in weeks or months. Information gathered on each title was source of order, latest volume received, date of receipt, price paid (indication of the discount, service charge, postage charge), information on whether the volume was received as the result of a claim, and any additional comments from the cooperating library. Results were returned to each library without naming other libraries or the vendors. Publishers were indicated. My observations were: OFor the types of serials and publishers selected, there seems to be no need for SUNYA change its policy of using vendors rather than publishers.
to
aOrders received vendors.
by
@Specific publishers they serve.
directly
from publishers
do not always arrive
seem to offer similar problems
to a number
lSUNYA’s major vendor for standing orders compared comparison to other vendors and publishers.
before orders
handled
of vendors and the libraries
well in delivery
time and cost in
*One of SUNYA’s vendors showed a pattern with SUNYA and other libraries to be behind 2+ months in delivery of orders. This vendor’s prices were also higher in several instances.
SHARON C. BONK
58
*For publications distributed both in the U.S. and abroad, orders to vendors original publication tend to be filled sooner and at substantially lower prices.
in country
of
lDespite
the expected differences in method of shipment, local staffing situations, and priorities, many of the libraries posted receipt within days of each other if they used the same vendor or within a week or two if they were using different sources.
The time consumed by review of serials receiving records, the production of claims, and the handling of vendors reports on claims are all labor-intensive. Consequently, claims-related services of vendors are valuable to libraries. However, the existence of a claims service does not guarantee the effectiveness of that service. Claims services should include more than forwarding the library’s claim to the publisher. They should include internal monitoring of standing orders to issue claims to the publisher before a library sends a claim to the vendor so that vendors may report on status, relieve the library of claiming, and reduce the staff time spent handling library claims, many of which may be premature and unnecessary. There should be prompt follow-up to a library’s claim, including problems encountered if the volume is not forthcoming in a reasonable length of time. Each serials unit has probably relied on a vendor’s internal claim system to supply material it did not realize was missing until a library patron’s request for it or a subsequent volume’s arrival focused attention on the now missed volume. To compound the problem in some cases, the missing volume may no longer be available. In either case, the purpose of the standing order-automatic and prompt receipt of newly published materialhas been defeated. Because of the nature of the title mix and difference in frequencies placed with a number of vendors, a study of claiming frequency like that of Green will not be appropriate to standing order supply. [21] The number of claims sent to any vendor compared to those sent to another vendor is not meaningful unless the titles supplied by each vendor are comparable. If there is an equal distribution of regularly published annuals, volumes in sets, new editions, numbered monographic series in each sample under study, then some degree of comparison can be made. However, the aim of the study should not be the gathering of statistics as much as identifying a pattern in problems of supply. At SUNYA a study was done over a period of a year to determine the necessity for staff to regularly monitor the status of standing orders with publishers and vendors and the adequacy of the publishers’/vendors’ responses to claims. Secondary purposes were to obtain statistics on the amount of claiming being done by staff, to assess the effectiveness of individuals’ time spent claiming, and to identify staff having problems in making appropriate claims. The study had three parts: a period of original claims generation; recording of receipt of responses; the follow-up on nonresponses. It must be noted that the serials unit had spent considerable time over the previous two years improving the serials records, removing dead wood, cancelling inappropriate titles on standing order, verifying orders with vendors, and making selected cross-references in the records. The staff responsible for claiming submitted all claims during a specified month to a Library Technical Assistant who has the responsibility for serials searching, verification and problem solving in the unit. The LTA verified the validity of the claim. At this point information was gathered on the vendor to whom the claim was sent, the date, and the type of standing order (annual, monographic series, etc.), as well as information on the individuals* judgment in determining whether an item should be claimed. The statistics on the numbers and types of claims were not used to rank vendors, but to identify patterns in the type of orders requiring claiming from each vendor. Files of copies of claims are normally kept near the check-in files for easy reach of the person who receives the response. These files are routinely weeded as material is received. These weeded copies of answered claims were given to the LTA with notification of date and type of response. This information was also tallied. The librarian and LTA reviewed the statistics and
Toward a Methodology of Evaluating Serials Vendors
59
the actual unanswered claims. The period of response was extended to reduce the number of unanswered claims to review. When the unanswered claims were examined, the information was used to determine which type of order each vendor seemed to have difficulty with. This information with sample claims was used as talking points with the vendors. In some cases specific letters about continuing problems were sent; in other cases, selective transfer of orders was made, and caution was used in placing new orders with certain vendors. The data also gave management information to use when a reduction in force hit the serials unit and required that selected activities be eliminated or reduced. The data gave guidance on which types of orders needed to be monitored more closely than others, which vendors could be relied upon to supply the orders, and how much staff time was needed for a bare-bones claiming operation. Personal customer service is certainly difficult to compare, and I have no methodology to suggest, but I do have some indicators of adequacy of service. Since serials orders can be complex, the vendors’ customer service representatives have to have the ability to handle the inconsistencies that are inherent in serials. Their insight and problem-solving abilities are often the key to detecting title changes, combined volumes, etc. The number of foul-ups and/or successful followups can indicate the level of knowledge of serials work on the part of a vendor’s staff. Knowledge of your library’s account is also a positive attribute of service. Frequent changes in staff who interact with the library or handle the orders may also indicate internal problems that may affect the library by an increase in shipping or billing errors. An objective review of the actual purpose and value of the visits of account representatives to the library should also reveal the adequacy of the service. Are the personal visits useful? Are the representatives sufficiently informed about the specifics of the library account to discuss the firm’s services and policies in the context of the library? Do they report back to the organization and initiate solutions to specific problems discussed? Are the visits substantive or only pleasant interludes with occasion for gossip and a meal-both of which may contribute, consciously or unconsciously, to a less objective attitude toward the reality of the services provided or prices charged? As an acquisitions librarian 1 am particularly aware of the reaction this view may raise on the part of many. Conflict of interest is possible in many situations, and 1 raise it as one of the shadings in an already complex set of variables.
SUMMARY All too recently 1 wrote a memorandum to the state auditors in response to their suggestion that serial orders should be bid on an annual basis. In this memo 1 stated, somewhat pontifically, that initial selection of a vendor is a careful one, based on a knowledge of past and current performance in fulfillment, pricing, problem resolutions, and value-added services. The selection is made with the plan and hope that the vendor will be the long-term supplier of publications for the library. The problems and ideas presented here are an attempt to share with others approaches to keeping the practice in line with the theory. To the experienced and jaded serials librarian 1 have offered a way to break down the complexity of comparisons in large serials order tiles into manageable parts and shared some concrete examples of this methodology. To those who are just undertaking responsibility for serials acquisitions, I gave you an indication of what “fun” you have in store for yourselves.
REFERENCES I. Kuntz. Harry. “Serials Agents: Selection and Evaluation,” Serials Librarian 2( Winter 1977). pp. 139- 150.
60
2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. IO.
II. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.
SHARON
C. BONK
New, Doris E. ‘Serials Agency Conversion in an Academic Library.” Serials Librurran 2(Spring 1978). pp 277-285. Carvasso. Elizabeth. “Agents ----Are They Worth It?” Australian Special Obrarres Netvs I I(June 1978). pp. 39-42 Coplen, Ron. “Subscription Agents: To Use or Not to Use,” Specral Libraries 7O(December 1979). pp. 519-526. Nientimp, Judith A., and Greenfield. Stanley R. “The Librarian and the Subscription Agent,” Special Libraries 63(July 1972). pp. 292-304. Paul. Huibert. “Are Subscription Agents Worth Their Keep? Serrais Librarian 7(Fall 1982). pp. 31-4 I. Wyner. Peter. “Periodical Agents and Their Services---Are They Worth ItT’ Ausrralian Sperral Lrbrartes News I i(June 1978). pp. 43-45. Baker. R. “Acquisitions Methods.” rn Serrab Lzbrarianship, ed. by Ross Bourne. London: Library Association. 1980. pp. 13-22 Tuttle. Marcia. Infroducrion IO Serials Managemenr. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1983. Katz, Bill, and Gellatly. Peter. Guide lo MagazineandSeriul Agenfs. New York: Bowker. 1975 Clasquin, Frank W. “Library and Subscription Agent Electronics.” Serials Librarran 7(Spring 1983). pp. 7- 15. Clasquin, Frank W. “The Subscription Agency: A Vested Maturity,” Serials Librarian 4(Spring 1980). pp. 30 I-305. Clasquin. Frank W. “The Subscription Agency and Lower Serials Budgets.” Serf& Librarian i(Fall 1976). pp. 39-43. Thyden, Wayne R. “Sertals Publishing: A World of Variation,” Serials Librarian 6(Fall 198 If. pp 69-76. Thyden, Wayne. “Subscription Agency Size: Threat or Benefit,” Serials Librartan 7(Spring 1983). pp. 29-34. Bernstem, Barry. and Buell, Vivian. “Ballen Booksellers International: Automated Serials System.” Serials RevfeH 9(Summer 1983). pp. 61-64. Franz. Ted. “Automated Standing Order System at Blackwell North America,” Serrals Revret+ 7(Januaryi March 198l).pp.63-66. Maddox, Jane. “Serials Management at Otto Harrassowitz,“.Serrals Revrent 7(July/ September 1981). pp. 75-71. Duchin, Douglas, and Secor, John. “Manual Continuations Processing at Yankee Book Peddler.” Serrals Revren ti(July/September 1980). pp. 79-84. Singleton. Alan 7&e Rofe o~s~bser~pfian Agents Leicester, England, Primary Communications Research Centre. University of Leicester, 198 I. Green. Paul R. “The Performance of Subscription Agents: A Detailed Survey,” Serials Librarian S(Winter 1983). pp. 7-22.
Acquisrrrons:
Practiceand
Theory. Vol. 9. pp. 5 I-60,
0364-6408185
1985
$03.00+.00
Copyright @ 1985 Pergamon Press Ltd
Printed in the USA. All rights reserved.
ISSUES IN BOOK A ND SERIAL A CQ - UISITIONS
TOWARD A METHODOLOGY OF EVALUATING SERIALS VENDORS
SHARON
C. BONK
Assistant Director for Technical Services State University of New York at Albany Libraries Albany, NY 12222
INTRODUCTION The theme of the conference is new solutions to old problems. 1 am not sure I can offer a permanent solution or panacea for the problems in supply of serials. What I shall attempt to do is identify the component parts in evaluating the booksellers or subscription agents a library uses to supply serial publications. Here I encounter two of the oldest and most difficult of all serialsrelated problems-the definition of “serial,” and the problem of conducting any meaningful comparison with unique titles as the basis of the study. For the scope of this paper I wish to exclude periodicals, newspapers, business and legal services and other sole-source type of publications. 1 include nonperiodical serials: annuals, biennials, monographs in series, analyzed sets, multivolume series, supplements, proceedings, minutes, and reports published by trade and scholarly publishers, societies, and associations. Consequently, the vendors with whom I am concerned are those which supply these publications: booksellers and subscription agents. I shall use the term “vendor” or “serials vendor” to mean the company other than publisher that supplies this type of publication. For those firms which supply both subscriptions and other serials, 1 limit myself to consideration of them in the context 1 have defined. My remarks are based on academic library experience but will be appropriate to any medium to large serials operation which uses the services of multiple vendors to supply a diverse variety of publications.
EVALUATION
AND ORDER
PLACEMENT
Because of multiple and inextricably linked reasons that inhibit changing source of supply on whim/impulse/sales presentation or even on specific, well-reasoned purpose, the initial selection of source of supply of serials is extremely important. How is that decision made? By whom? What 51
52
SHARON
C. BONK
criteria are used to decide upon a source for specific types of publications? What data are used to make the decision or determine which source (including publisher) meets the criteria? I stress these questions because order placement should be dependent upon an ongoing evaluation of sources of supply against the library’s objectives in placement of standing orders. Evaluation of the source of supply should be dependent upon clear objectives of what is expected from the source of supply and/or what is not expected because of local capabilities or local priorities. Absolute lowest cost (list price minus discount plus service charge plus postage) may be secondary in value to the supply of printouts in order by local library codes. However, cost may be a factor in selecting among several vendors who are all able to supply such printouts. These objectives should be clear to the person making the order decision, the vendor, and the library staff who actually process the materials after initial ordering. In libraries where vendor selection, order placement, budget planning, receiving, claiming, payment, and fund accounting are all part of the same department, the objectives for evaluation and vendor selection may be more easily decided. In libraries where these responsibilities are divided among departments, there may be conflicting objectives and priorities which need to be mediated or understood. At the daily operations level, a vendor’s ability to handle claims effectively may be a major concern. However, at the managerial level, the ability of a vendor to supply a variety of library-specific reports may be top priority. If a specific vendor is not able to do both effectively, there will be a conflict in satisfaction levels within the library. Most serials orders are placed with the expectation that the choice of vendor is being made for the long term, an almost permanent commitment. I say “almost permanent” for three reasons: ESjiciency-If the choice is made correctly, all the library’s orders will be filled consistently and without need for worry by the library staff. Practicalir_r~--Little time is available to review systematically the scope of all purchasing of serials and to make major changes in source of supply unless there is pressing need (e.g., vendor out of business; breakdown in supply). If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Unwritten contract-The account representatives of some vendors are quick to note a major drop in numbers of new orders or an increase in cancellations. They contact the librarian to see what the problems are in order to reverse the trend. If there are no major problems in service, but local library considerations dictate a change in vendor, offense may be taken. The librarian may be cajoled, harrassed, or begged not to change to another vendor. A firm’s fiscal health is assumed to be the librarian’s responsibility and should be put ahead of the library’s priorities. There may also be a fourth reason-the existence of an unarticulated sense of comfort or complacency on the part of the librarian toward the status of the serials accounts. This may be based solely on the brochures that the vendors produce extolling service, technological advantages, and personal service. 1 am not saying that vendors take advantage of serials librarians who are too overwhelmed with work to know what is happening around them. 1 am saying that these attitudes do exist and thus add to the reasons to pursue after-order evaluations. These reasons are why I am practical enough to entitle these remarks, “Toward a Methodology.. . .” 1 realize the monumentality of the task before anyone who begins an evaluation of serial vendor services. I know the excuses and the problems which make it potentially so difficult to accomplish: lack of staff to collect data; lack of librarian’s time to outline a meaningful study and evaluate data gathered; special payment arrangements whereby the records do not reflect actual prices; different expectations for different types of vendors; and the dangers of comparing apples and oranges. This list could be continued. 1 also know that countering all these inhibiting factors is the useful and perhaps revealing data that lurks in the records of current orders. This data is potentially useful in ongoing selection of source of supply and the improvement of a vendor’s performance. Also lurking in these figures or
Toward a Methodology of ~~aIuating Serials Vendors
53
patterns is the possibility of vendors sitting securely with the knowledge that it is difficult to prove poor service, that major changes in sources of supply cause operational difficulties to libraries and that it is unlikely there will be any major change in source of supply.
THE LITERATURE The RTSD Collection Management and Development Committee is in the process of issuing guidelines and methods for comparison of vendor performance with respect to firm orders. No plans exist for a similar work on serial vendors. Kuntz and New have drawn up lists of vendor selection criteria and discuss how to select a new vendor. 11, 21 It is implicit in both articles that this selection is at the major account level and not for a title-by-title selection of vendor. There is little literature about the methodology of actual results of the use of these criteria or that of other libraries in a comparative manner after the major vendors have been selected. Far more has been writen about the evaluation of vendors of firm orders and approval plans. Indeed, the ability of an approval plan vendor to handle standing orders is often a criterion in selecting an approval vendor. A brief review of the literature on serials agents/standing order booksellers indicates that the majority of the writing by librarians deals with the decision to order a title from the publisher or through a bookseller/agent. 13-71These articles, textbooks, and a guide to agents conclude that the savings in handling renewals and the existence of other order-related service make the agent worth any service charge imposed. 18-101 The other literature on serials vendors is written by the booksellers and subscription agents themselves. Unremarkably, this literature has as its theme that the bookseller/subscription agent is the librarian’s best friend and that the company’s staff is an extension of the library’s staff. Clasquin and Thyden have been frequent spokesmen for the large subscription agencies. [ 1l-151 Serials Review has had a number of articles by serials vendors who are primarily booksellers. [ 14191 Each described the internal systems for maintaining current interaction with publishers and libraries. There is value to librarians to read this descriptive literature about operations and services, especially if they cannot visit the \ites of operation. There are few impartial views of the library/vendor relationship or the vendor/publisher relationship. Perhaps the best and the closest to an impartial examination of the business aspects of library supply of serial publications is ‘T?re Role of Subscription Agents. 1201Alan Singleton, a staff member of the Primary Communications Research Centre at the University of Leicester, presents information gathered from British publishers and serials agents about market size, trade discounts, payment cycles, and the value of agents to publishers, among other topics only wondered about by librarians or learned about through the agents.
TOWARD A METHODOLOGY Since there is little written on the mechanics or results of actual evaluation of serials vendors, one may conclude that either all librarians make perfect choices for each order or that few have tried to evaluate vendor performance in any systematic way. I suspect there are some cases at either extreme. I also suspect that most persons responsible for large seriais order/receiving operations are fully occupied by the day-to-day work involved in maintaining currency in operations, and that the amount of time required to plan and carry out systematic evaluations of a large number of vendors supplying even greater numbers of orders is not readily available. Also, since
54
SHARONC.
BONK
there may exist the predisposition not to change vendors unless in extreme circumstances, the precious time is spent on equally worthy projects. Instead of developing a set formula for evaluation. I will discuss the thought process and analysis that are necessary to design of studies. Since each library has different goals. mix of vendors, and mix of titles, no one set of rules or one set of objectives for studies is applicable to all. 1 offer a number of questions which should be asked and choices which need to be made to define the scope of the study and the measurement of performance. I also offer selected examples from studies conducted at SUNYA. There are many aspects of vendors’ services and many variables related to the actual orders received through each vendor. Therefore, it should be made clear at the outset of the evaluation, just what is to be considered as the focus of the study. Is it a study of one vendor’s performance against the library’s selection criteria and the vendor’s stated policies and services? Is it the number or frequency of claims to orders or volumes received? Is it the adequacy of a vendor’s response to claims? Is it a comparison of vendors in specific areas? Is there intent to justify change in vendor? A cautionary note is appropriate, for trying to manipulate or deal with too many diverse topics in one study is fraught with difficulty, as well as being extremely time-consuming. The librarian or designer of the study must have thorough knowledge of the size and content of the account with the vendor. including approximate numbers of orders, dollars spent, title mix (nature of the serials, publishers, frequencies), geographical origin, special distribution arrangement, exceptional titles or problem areas, etc. Library criteria for use of a vendor’s services should also be clear. Are there weighted values placed on terms of supply and services? In order to judge the cost benefits of some services, one should know library costs in personnel or dollars for the processing of serials orders and receipts. The design of the data to be gathered should be based on distinct, measurable objectives. It should be clear to the designer, the person collecting data, and the person who analyzes and uses the data what the study is designed to accomplish. In any comparative study among vendors care should be taken to compare like services, publications, agents. For example, unless the title mix is very similar, a comparative study on the overall number of claims placed in a given period or overall service charge incurred would not be meaningful. To have a meaningful comparison of several vendors’ ability to supply one or more types of seriab requires that similar orders be selected for study. Unless the mix of titles of types of serials (monographs, trade. society, foreign publishers, irregulars. low discount, net price publications) is the same for each vendor, a sampling of invoices and receiving records is not adequate. Time must be taken to gather information on similar types of orders as it is unlikely that any library would have sufficient numbers of duplicate copies on order with different vendors to make a comparison in service on the same titles. In reviewing pricing policies of different vendors, it must be clear to the evaluator what the invoiced price includes. Is there a separate service charge for each title? Is the service charge based on the specific titles or is it a set percent of invoice? Is it listed separately in the invoice? How does the library record it? (This is particularly important to know if one is planning to use kardex records and not invoices.) Does absence of any service charge on the invoice mean that no service charge is being assessed, or does net mean list price plus an unstated handling charge? After assembling the data, the librarian should be able to assess the net effect on the serials budget. Timely delivery is difficult to evaluate unless there are multiple orders on campus with different vendors. Otherwise a group of libraries may agree to compare information on titles. Tools useful in claiming-the OCLC database, Books in Series, BNA’s serials list, and publishers catalogs-can give an indication of the adequacy with which standing orders have been filled. These sources are also useful to test the accuracy of reports on unfilled orders-NYP;
Toward a Methodology
DEFINE
LIBRARY
of Evaluating
55
Serials Vendors
CRITERIA
What values/ priorities are placed on each aspect of service? Prompt receipt Overall cost Error free delivery, invoices Necessity to claim Existence of statistical reports Bibliographic sophistication of vendor’s staff What are the costs of processing that are common to all orders (e.g., initial order, posting of payment)? What are the costs associated with processing receipts and invoices from specific vendors? Frequency of problem invoices/shipments Frequency of claims Duplications/ returns Special staff required to handle particular vendor’s orders Number of subsequent invoices for price adjustment What is the library’s capability to produce similar statistical reports? Staff costs Computer costs REVIEW VENDOR
ACCOUNT
Size Number of orders Annual expenditure Title and publisher mix Geographical specialization Trade Society Academic/scholarly Business Trade association Vendor policies Discount Calculation of handling charge, ifany Postage/ transport charge Method of delivery Special services DEFINE OBJECTIVES Study of one vendor’s service Comparison of several vendors Change in library procedure DEFINE
MEASUREMENTOFOBJECTIVES
Compare servicesagainst promotional literature Compare services against library criteria Improvement in efficiency DATA COLLECTION Definition of data to becollected to support measurement of objectives Design of forms, if applicable Define appropriate period of study DeBne appropriate size of sample Brief staff who will collect data so that they will be able to make appropriatejudgments DATA ANALYSIS Statistics Trends
FIGURE
1: STEPS IN EVALUATING
A VENDOR’S
SERVICES
SHARON
56
C. BONK
Define ObJeCtlve of the Study
Define Measurement
Study of one vendor’s servtces
Comparison of services against statements promotional literature Comparison
Comparison of several vendors. Prtcmg pohcy Discount Service Charge Transportatton Promptness of supply Ability tosupply matertaf on order Timely deliver) Mtssed publications Supply of a specific type of sertal Annuals Proceedings Monographrc series Adequacy of reporting on ctatms Availability of Statistical Content Format Adequacy of Customer Staff Toll free number
Reports on library’s orders
Service
Special Servtces Change m library procedures
of Objectives
and
against library criteria
Library Criteria Monetary effect on the sertals budget of vendor’s pricing policy
Length oftimefrom
publication
to recetpt
Length of time from publication Gaps in holdings
to receipt
Receipt of volumes or status reports Accuracy of reports Timeliness Cost savings by use of the reports Problem solving ability; followup Useful; relevant
Customized or policies?savings?
improvement
in efficiency; monetary
benefits
Savmgs insertals budget
Effect of pricing policy on budget
Savings in staff time
Costs/savings in processing orders of the different vendors Billing receiving problems
Service to patrons
Timely delivery Completeness in supply
FIGURE 2: DETERMINING
AND MEASURING
OBJECTIVES
volume never published, title ceased, series cancelled. The holdings in OCLC have been particularly heipfui in proving to vendors the existence of volumes in series. Libraries using common automated serials systems may communicate and share passwords or other order/receipt-related information. In a study of price and delivery time of 50 nonperiodical serials, I enlisted the assistance of I2 large academic and research libraries in the northeast. I had already reviewed the SUNYA vendor service policies on drop shipment, pricing and transportation, and was aware of how closely vendors were following their stated policies. I was interested in determining if there were significant variations in delivery time among different vendors and if there were significant variations in
Toward a Methodology
of Evaluating
57
Serials Vendors
pricing that might have an impact on the SUNYA’s serials budget. Because of the large number of orders that had been placed with several dealers, I was interested to see if other libraries’ vendor choices revealed any distinct variation from that of SUNYA. If they did, 1 would know if 1 should focus my attention on particular accounts or if 1 should reexamine my criteria for order placement for particular types of serials or specific types of publishers. I was also interested to see if I should increase or decrease the order consolidation that had been a priority over the last several years. Fifty-one serials were selected in rough proportion to the type of standing orders we had placed with vendors as follows: Publisher
Frequency
28 U.S. academic scholarly presses 8 foreign publishers with U.S. distributors. 4 societies 3 trade 8 other (specialist, single title, etc.)
32 annual biennials series 13 monographic 6 irregular
SUNYA had ordered these through six vendors and five publishers. The selection of titles was weighted toward general reference but also included physical sciences, social sciences and humanities. Excluded were particularly troublesome publications of university departments, government publications, memberships and services. Libraries who responded all supported doctoral-granting institutions, except for one state library. All were within a 400-mile radius of SUNYA. This was an attempt to equalize shipping distances from Europe, publishers, and any vendors or publishers who had east coast or northeast distribution offices. Of course, shipping methods (library-rate mail, UPS, air freight, surface) are part of vendor services and/or price considerations, but mode of transport was not part of the information collected. I was aware that library staffing patterns and vacations vary, so my intent was not to judge the difference in receipt dates in days, but in weeks or months. Information gathered on each title was source of order, latest volume received, date of receipt, price paid (indication of the discount, service charge, postage charge), information on whether the volume was received as the result of a claim, and any additional comments from the cooperating library. Results were returned to each library without naming other libraries or the vendors. Publishers were indicated. My observations were: OFor the types of serials and publishers selected, there seems to be no need for SUNYA change its policy of using vendors rather than publishers.
to
aOrders received vendors.
by
@Specific publishers they serve.
directly
from publishers
do not always arrive
seem to offer similar problems
to a number
lSUNYA’s major vendor for standing orders compared comparison to other vendors and publishers.
before orders
handled
of vendors and the libraries
well in delivery
time and cost in
*One of SUNYA’s vendors showed a pattern with SUNYA and other libraries to be behind 2+ months in delivery of orders. This vendor’s prices were also higher in several instances.
SHARON C. BONK
58
*For publications distributed both in the U.S. and abroad, orders to vendors original publication tend to be filled sooner and at substantially lower prices.
in country
of
lDespite
the expected differences in method of shipment, local staffing situations, and priorities, many of the libraries posted receipt within days of each other if they used the same vendor or within a week or two if they were using different sources.
The time consumed by review of serials receiving records, the production of claims, and the handling of vendors reports on claims are all labor-intensive. Consequently, claims-related services of vendors are valuable to libraries. However, the existence of a claims service does not guarantee the effectiveness of that service. Claims services should include more than forwarding the library’s claim to the publisher. They should include internal monitoring of standing orders to issue claims to the publisher before a library sends a claim to the vendor so that vendors may report on status, relieve the library of claiming, and reduce the staff time spent handling library claims, many of which may be premature and unnecessary. There should be prompt follow-up to a library’s claim, including problems encountered if the volume is not forthcoming in a reasonable length of time. Each serials unit has probably relied on a vendor’s internal claim system to supply material it did not realize was missing until a library patron’s request for it or a subsequent volume’s arrival focused attention on the now missed volume. To compound the problem in some cases, the missing volume may no longer be available. In either case, the purpose of the standing order-automatic and prompt receipt of newly published materialhas been defeated. Because of the nature of the title mix and difference in frequencies placed with a number of vendors, a study of claiming frequency like that of Green will not be appropriate to standing order supply. [21] The number of claims sent to any vendor compared to those sent to another vendor is not meaningful unless the titles supplied by each vendor are comparable. If there is an equal distribution of regularly published annuals, volumes in sets, new editions, numbered monographic series in each sample under study, then some degree of comparison can be made. However, the aim of the study should not be the gathering of statistics as much as identifying a pattern in problems of supply. At SUNYA a study was done over a period of a year to determine the necessity for staff to regularly monitor the status of standing orders with publishers and vendors and the adequacy of the publishers’/vendors’ responses to claims. Secondary purposes were to obtain statistics on the amount of claiming being done by staff, to assess the effectiveness of individuals’ time spent claiming, and to identify staff having problems in making appropriate claims. The study had three parts: a period of original claims generation; recording of receipt of responses; the follow-up on nonresponses. It must be noted that the serials unit had spent considerable time over the previous two years improving the serials records, removing dead wood, cancelling inappropriate titles on standing order, verifying orders with vendors, and making selected cross-references in the records. The staff responsible for claiming submitted all claims during a specified month to a Library Technical Assistant who has the responsibility for serials searching, verification and problem solving in the unit. The LTA verified the validity of the claim. At this point information was gathered on the vendor to whom the claim was sent, the date, and the type of standing order (annual, monographic series, etc.), as well as information on the individuals* judgment in determining whether an item should be claimed. The statistics on the numbers and types of claims were not used to rank vendors, but to identify patterns in the type of orders requiring claiming from each vendor. Files of copies of claims are normally kept near the check-in files for easy reach of the person who receives the response. These files are routinely weeded as material is received. These weeded copies of answered claims were given to the LTA with notification of date and type of response. This information was also tallied. The librarian and LTA reviewed the statistics and
Toward a Methodology of Evaluating Serials Vendors
59
the actual unanswered claims. The period of response was extended to reduce the number of unanswered claims to review. When the unanswered claims were examined, the information was used to determine which type of order each vendor seemed to have difficulty with. This information with sample claims was used as talking points with the vendors. In some cases specific letters about continuing problems were sent; in other cases, selective transfer of orders was made, and caution was used in placing new orders with certain vendors. The data also gave management information to use when a reduction in force hit the serials unit and required that selected activities be eliminated or reduced. The data gave guidance on which types of orders needed to be monitored more closely than others, which vendors could be relied upon to supply the orders, and how much staff time was needed for a bare-bones claiming operation. Personal customer service is certainly difficult to compare, and I have no methodology to suggest, but I do have some indicators of adequacy of service. Since serials orders can be complex, the vendors’ customer service representatives have to have the ability to handle the inconsistencies that are inherent in serials. Their insight and problem-solving abilities are often the key to detecting title changes, combined volumes, etc. The number of foul-ups and/or successful followups can indicate the level of knowledge of serials work on the part of a vendor’s staff. Knowledge of your library’s account is also a positive attribute of service. Frequent changes in staff who interact with the library or handle the orders may also indicate internal problems that may affect the library by an increase in shipping or billing errors. An objective review of the actual purpose and value of the visits of account representatives to the library should also reveal the adequacy of the service. Are the personal visits useful? Are the representatives sufficiently informed about the specifics of the library account to discuss the firm’s services and policies in the context of the library? Do they report back to the organization and initiate solutions to specific problems discussed? Are the visits substantive or only pleasant interludes with occasion for gossip and a meal-both of which may contribute, consciously or unconsciously, to a less objective attitude toward the reality of the services provided or prices charged? As an acquisitions librarian 1 am particularly aware of the reaction this view may raise on the part of many. Conflict of interest is possible in many situations, and 1 raise it as one of the shadings in an already complex set of variables.
SUMMARY All too recently 1 wrote a memorandum to the state auditors in response to their suggestion that serial orders should be bid on an annual basis. In this memo 1 stated, somewhat pontifically, that initial selection of a vendor is a careful one, based on a knowledge of past and current performance in fulfillment, pricing, problem resolutions, and value-added services. The selection is made with the plan and hope that the vendor will be the long-term supplier of publications for the library. The problems and ideas presented here are an attempt to share with others approaches to keeping the practice in line with the theory. To the experienced and jaded serials librarian 1 have offered a way to break down the complexity of comparisons in large serials order tiles into manageable parts and shared some concrete examples of this methodology. To those who are just undertaking responsibility for serials acquisitions, I gave you an indication of what “fun” you have in store for yourselves.
REFERENCES I. Kuntz. Harry. “Serials Agents: Selection and Evaluation,” Serials Librarian 2( Winter 1977). pp. 139- 150.
60
2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. IO.
II. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.
SHARON
C. BONK
New, Doris E. ‘Serials Agency Conversion in an Academic Library.” Serials Librurran 2(Spring 1978). pp 277-285. Carvasso. Elizabeth. “Agents ----Are They Worth It?” Australian Special Obrarres Netvs I I(June 1978). pp. 39-42 Coplen, Ron. “Subscription Agents: To Use or Not to Use,” Specral Libraries 7O(December 1979). pp. 519-526. Nientimp, Judith A., and Greenfield. Stanley R. “The Librarian and the Subscription Agent,” Special Libraries 63(July 1972). pp. 292-304. Paul. Huibert. “Are Subscription Agents Worth Their Keep? Serrais Librarian 7(Fall 1982). pp. 31-4 I. Wyner. Peter. “Periodical Agents and Their Services---Are They Worth ItT’ Ausrralian Sperral Lrbrartes News I i(June 1978). pp. 43-45. Baker. R. “Acquisitions Methods.” rn Serrab Lzbrarianship, ed. by Ross Bourne. London: Library Association. 1980. pp. 13-22 Tuttle. Marcia. Infroducrion IO Serials Managemenr. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1983. Katz, Bill, and Gellatly. Peter. Guide lo MagazineandSeriul Agenfs. New York: Bowker. 1975 Clasquin, Frank W. “Library and Subscription Agent Electronics.” Serials Librarran 7(Spring 1983). pp. 7- 15. Clasquin, Frank W. “The Subscription Agency: A Vested Maturity,” Serials Librarian 4(Spring 1980). pp. 30 I-305. Clasquin. Frank W. “The Subscription Agency and Lower Serials Budgets.” Serf& Librarian i(Fall 1976). pp. 39-43. Thyden, Wayne R. “Sertals Publishing: A World of Variation,” Serials Librarian 6(Fall 198 If. pp 69-76. Thyden, Wayne. “Subscription Agency Size: Threat or Benefit,” Serials Librartan 7(Spring 1983). pp. 29-34. Bernstem, Barry. and Buell, Vivian. “Ballen Booksellers International: Automated Serials System.” Serials RevfeH 9(Summer 1983). pp. 61-64. Franz. Ted. “Automated Standing Order System at Blackwell North America,” Serrals Revret+ 7(Januaryi March 198l).pp.63-66. Maddox, Jane. “Serials Management at Otto Harrassowitz,“.Serrals Revrent 7(July/ September 1981). pp. 75-71. Duchin, Douglas, and Secor, John. “Manual Continuations Processing at Yankee Book Peddler.” Serrals Revren ti(July/September 1980). pp. 79-84. Singleton. Alan 7&e Rofe o~s~bser~pfian Agents Leicester, England, Primary Communications Research Centre. University of Leicester, 198 I. Green. Paul R. “The Performance of Subscription Agents: A Detailed Survey,” Serials Librarian S(Winter 1983). pp. 7-22.