- Email: [email protected]
vendors of library materials
180
ALAAnnualConference
--
1995
and African American patrons. To facilitate the process, a monthly memo is being sent to the branches. Visits to the branch by the selectors occur regularly to collect information on their needs. Weekly calls are made to the branches to check on these needs. Highlights of children's books are provided for the branches. Circulation statistics for each branch are also being used to guide purchasing. Selection assignment is also being rotated to avoid biases. Cate Dixon, Assistant Director, Fort Worth (Texas) Public Library, recounted their experience dealing with one budget crisis after the other. In 1987 they first began to centralize the materials selection process. Fort Worth is believed to be the only public library that has a vendor in total charge of selecting children's books. In 1992 when a budget cut occurred with a reduction of staff from 150.25 to 142.5 FIE. They followed the policy of cutting hours instead of cutting materials budget with the hypothesis that circulation of materials would have no correlation to the number of hours open. This turned out to be correct. Fort Worth received another cut in 1993 and this time the response was to privatize technical services. Sixty percent of the selection and processing of materials from major vendors are contracted out. Best sellers are the easiest to be outsourced as it is a simpler to write the specification. Vendors work from selection specifics provided. They will select according to profiles of each branch and begin selection with those titles reviewed in October each year. Materials for children ages birth through high school are to be selected. Children's literature is defined as literature for children from birth through 14 years of age or 8th grade. Young adults are ages 15-17, or grades 9-12. Only young adult fiction titles are selected. The tools specified to be used for selection are School Library Journal, Booklist and Kirkus. They must have a good review in all three publications, or a starred review in Booklist. No reissues or reprints are accepted. They also want all books from Caldecott, Newbery winner and honor books, Coretta Scott King Award, ALA Notable Books and the Texas Bluebonnet Award Master List. Books excluded include pop-up books, books with moveable parts, book and toy combinations, cloth books, vinyl or plastic books, and books smaller than 4" × 4." The Forth Worth specifications also include books of regional interest, that is, Texas and Southwest as well as Spanish and bilingual titles published by American publishers. Each branch also has a specific selection profile for the vendors listing the annual budget, cost limitation per title, percentage of books from various categories such as picture books, easy readers, books classed by Dewey numbers and so on. Lists of authors are also provided for procurement. Fort Worth's average cost per item of contracted children's new books is $15 and the average cataloging and processing cost per titles is $4.30.
PH S0364-6408(96)00022-1
William W. Wan Assistant Director of Libraries for Technical Services Texas Woman's University Denton, TX 76204 lnternet: [email protected]
A L C T S AS Acquisitions Administrators and Acquisitions LibrarianslVendors of Library Materials This session on consolidation with one vendor was co-chaired by JoAnne Deeken (Clemson) and Stuart Grinell (Ambassador Book Services). The first order of business was to elect the following new co-chairs: Cynthia Coulter (University of Northern Iowa) and John Riley (Ambassador Book Services).
ALAAnnmdConference- - 1995
181
The main presentation covered vendor consolidation. Deana Asfle (Clemson) shared her views on the pros, cons, and implications of consolidation with one vendor. Astle noted that individual circnmqtances dictate the most appropriate way for a particular library to decide this matter. She also reviewed recent changes that are driving librarians to seek new services from their vendors. These include the economic squeeze, the decline of public support, the increase in user demands, and new methods of communication, such as CD-ROMs. Astle detailed the history of vendor services and their evolving role. Initially, the primary function of vendors was speedy and accurate order fulfillment. Over the past 10-15 years, the marketplace has asked for value-added services, such as reports, access to the vendor's database, F r P of data, and, of course, greater discounts. Sketching the advantages and disadvantages of consolidation, Astle saw the following advantages: Life is easier for the staff (assuming a good vendor). There would be an economy of scale that could lead to streamlining of processes. The vendor can provide management reports and F r P data. Finally, there is the opportunity to build a solid working relationship between the two parties. On the disadvantages side, she expressed concern about the "eggs in one basket" risk. She also noted that not all vendors earl obtain all materials; there is often a need for a specialist vendor. Finally, she noted that consolidation could ultimately lead to the loss of the expertise of the specialized vendors and the disappearance of small jobbers. Astle then tossed out some questions to stimulate the discussion. She wondered how the consolidation trend would affect libraries' ability to obtain the world's literature, what the impact of losing specialized vendors would be, and whether our expectations and demands are reasonable. The discussion was thoughtful. This report will categorize the points rather than follow the actual flow.
ADVANTAGES OF CONSOLIDATION Several participants testified to the value (especially in terms of cost savings) of having consolidated their orders. They noted that, because of the economy of scale, the vendor could offer them a better discount. Others took the opposite position and cited cases where it had not worked for their library. One librarian noted that the vendors benefit from consolidation as well. They can expect guaranteed expenditures and can streamline their processes if they are handling a large volume for one customer. Others noted that it is difficult for librarians to meet their promises, given budgetary uncertainties. The fact that vendors are also consolidating (i.e., being bought by other vendors) was also mentioned.
DISADVANTAGES One participant countered Astle's concern about the "eggs in one basket" risk. His perspective was that the eggs are not so fragile. His point was that there is less risk now because of automation. At least now (compared to the Abel failure), librarians can easily determine what orders are outstanding and reorder from another vendor. To this point, several noted the major difference between monographs and serials, with prepayment still being a serious concern.
IMPLICATIONS OR CONCERNS Several participants echoed the theme that consolidation with one vendor is not an accurate reflection of practice. Even those libraries who "consolidate" still send some orders elsewhere. A
182
ALAAnnualConference-- 1995
primary example of why this is necessary is those publishers who will not work through vendors. So, consolidation does not mean all; it means most. Someone raised the possibility that the trend toward consolidation may be a reflection of another trend: the downsizing of acquisitions departments. The vendors in the audience agreed that customers were approaching them, with requests for additional services because of staffing shortages. Other vendors reported that they are providing shelf-ready (i.e., fully processed) materials for a few accounts. Another trend that is leading to increased demands on vendors is that of greater attention to user needs. Several librarians reported pressure to improve performance and service (e.g., turn-around) to their customers. One individual reported that being part of a consortium could lead to pressure to consolidate with a particular vendor in order to gain a better discount. Others noted a trend that may or may not be related to consolidation. This is the increasing formalization of the relationship with vendors. In Ohio, V'trginia, and Texas, libraries must use a bid process to select their vendors. (New York also requires informal RFPs.) Some in the audience thought that using the RFP process or at least a written approach was valuable because it provides a clear definition of needs. One participant expressed concern about how the vendor would be evaluated when there was no point of comparison. Others noted the importance of benchmarking, especially in times of greater accountability. On the question of whether the vendors are in predatory mode, the vendors present noted that the market is indeed shrinking. This results in their getting business either by taking it away from a competitor or going into the international market. Fortunately, the market is growing in other areas, particularly in the Far East. This led one vendor to question how librarians go about selecting vendors. This individual was concerned because his company offers very sophisticated technological services. However, they sometimes find that the librarian is not impressed and would rather remain with another vendor that they "like better." Librarians responding to this issue noted the importance of the right fit between the vendor's services and the librarian's needs. They also stressed the importance of vendors hiring sales representatives who are competent and professional so that there can be respect and trust between them and the librarian. One person noted that we are not yet at a machine-to-machine environment. There is still the need for personal communication in our transactions. Therefore, the personal style of the company and its staff is very important. Much of the discussion focused around the increased demands being placed upon libraries and librarians and the vendors in turn. However, one person reminded the group that the needs may vary greatly from one library to another. One vendor implored librarians to ask for the help of the integrated library systems vendors in meeting the new technological demands. She noted that the ILS vendors need to cooperate in moving toward EDI standards as quickly as possible. This will result in significant savings for the vendors and ultimately the library. Another vendor reiterated that the cost of research and development for a vendor is significant. Customization for every customer is especially expensive. To this, a librarian responded that she saw the vendor's role as responding to the librarian with a resounding "no" when a request was not reasonable or logical. One librarian was concerned that the costs of the new services would be attached to the book budget. Others were less concerned because they viewed the budgets as whole budgets. A vendor wanted feedback from librarians regarding the reasonableness of adding service charges to orders for "Cat and Dog Publishers." There was consensus that librarians (1) want the book, (2) expect the vendor to supply it, (3) do not want to reorder from another source, (4) do not mind reMonable service charges, and (5) usually want to see the charges broken out separately on the invoice. There was a brief discussion of the web but no one could anticipate what its impact upon vendors might be, There was also some disagreement about whether vendors are the best source for CD ROMs because of the licensing issues.
ALAAnnual Conference-- 1995
183
The meeting concluded with a brief discussion of procurement and credit cards. This information was of particular interest to those librarians who had not yet gained access to resources such as these. In summary, the meeting showed that both the librarian and the vendor must consider many factors as they establish business relationships, whether the business is consolidated or not.
PII S0364-6408(96)00023-3
Janet L. Flowers Head/Acquisitions Academic Affairs Library University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Internet: janet_flowers @unc.edu
Just-in-Time Services in Acquisitions: Rush Ordering, Interlibrary Loan, and Document Delivery: A Report from The Acquisitions'Administrators Discussion Group The meeting began with the announcement that Kay Granskog (Michigan State University) will become the new chair of the group. The audience then elected Lisa German (Wright State) as the new vice-chair/chair-elect. Nancy Slight-Gibney, current chair, was the discussion facilitator. Slight-Gibney described a recent self-study of the Technical Services Department in the University of Oregon Library. She noted that the study had resulted in the identification of strategic areas to address. One of these was "just-in-time services," which sparked her desire to hear a talk on this topic. However, the invited speaker was unable to attend, so the entire meeting was a lively exchange of ideas on various topics.
RUSH MATERIALS The discussion centered on the following topics: factors affecting the demand for rush materials, categories of rush materials, levels of rush service, and tips on improving success. The audience identified the following factors as affecting the level of demand in a given institution. First, the scarcity of funds have resulted in more responsiveness to individual user requests rather than anticipation of needs (i.e., just-in-time rather than just-in-case). Second, if processes in Acquisitions and Cataloging are slow, users try to bypass the usual delay by requesting special treatment. Third, many libraries are moving to a more client-oriented approach to their services. Fourth, the size of the cataloging backlog can affect requests. Fifth, some users want everything treated as priority! Members described different categories of orders as those requiting special treatment. The two primary ones were rush for reserve and rush for individuals. In addition, many libraries also give priority treatment to out of print rifles from antiquarian dealers. Several individuals noted variations on rush treatment: just for ordering or just for cataloging or in both processes. The group was advised to think carefully about the definition of rush and whether the treatment was really necessary because this is an expensive service to provide. Individuals in the audience shared the following tips: 1. Establish standard turn-around times for provision of the service (7 to 10 days was suggested). 2. Normalize the service as much as possible to increase efficiencies and reduce costs. 3. Use new services such as PromptCat to improve service in general and therefore the rush items as well.
ALAAnnualConference
--
1995
and African American patrons. To facilitate the process, a monthly memo is being sent to the branches. Visits to the branch by the selectors occur regularly to collect information on their needs. Weekly calls are made to the branches to check on these needs. Highlights of children's books are provided for the branches. Circulation statistics for each branch are also being used to guide purchasing. Selection assignment is also being rotated to avoid biases. Cate Dixon, Assistant Director, Fort Worth (Texas) Public Library, recounted their experience dealing with one budget crisis after the other. In 1987 they first began to centralize the materials selection process. Fort Worth is believed to be the only public library that has a vendor in total charge of selecting children's books. In 1992 when a budget cut occurred with a reduction of staff from 150.25 to 142.5 FIE. They followed the policy of cutting hours instead of cutting materials budget with the hypothesis that circulation of materials would have no correlation to the number of hours open. This turned out to be correct. Fort Worth received another cut in 1993 and this time the response was to privatize technical services. Sixty percent of the selection and processing of materials from major vendors are contracted out. Best sellers are the easiest to be outsourced as it is a simpler to write the specification. Vendors work from selection specifics provided. They will select according to profiles of each branch and begin selection with those titles reviewed in October each year. Materials for children ages birth through high school are to be selected. Children's literature is defined as literature for children from birth through 14 years of age or 8th grade. Young adults are ages 15-17, or grades 9-12. Only young adult fiction titles are selected. The tools specified to be used for selection are School Library Journal, Booklist and Kirkus. They must have a good review in all three publications, or a starred review in Booklist. No reissues or reprints are accepted. They also want all books from Caldecott, Newbery winner and honor books, Coretta Scott King Award, ALA Notable Books and the Texas Bluebonnet Award Master List. Books excluded include pop-up books, books with moveable parts, book and toy combinations, cloth books, vinyl or plastic books, and books smaller than 4" × 4." The Forth Worth specifications also include books of regional interest, that is, Texas and Southwest as well as Spanish and bilingual titles published by American publishers. Each branch also has a specific selection profile for the vendors listing the annual budget, cost limitation per title, percentage of books from various categories such as picture books, easy readers, books classed by Dewey numbers and so on. Lists of authors are also provided for procurement. Fort Worth's average cost per item of contracted children's new books is $15 and the average cataloging and processing cost per titles is $4.30.
PH S0364-6408(96)00022-1
William W. Wan Assistant Director of Libraries for Technical Services Texas Woman's University Denton, TX 76204 lnternet: [email protected]
A L C T S AS Acquisitions Administrators and Acquisitions LibrarianslVendors of Library Materials This session on consolidation with one vendor was co-chaired by JoAnne Deeken (Clemson) and Stuart Grinell (Ambassador Book Services). The first order of business was to elect the following new co-chairs: Cynthia Coulter (University of Northern Iowa) and John Riley (Ambassador Book Services).
ALAAnnmdConference- - 1995
181
The main presentation covered vendor consolidation. Deana Asfle (Clemson) shared her views on the pros, cons, and implications of consolidation with one vendor. Astle noted that individual circnmqtances dictate the most appropriate way for a particular library to decide this matter. She also reviewed recent changes that are driving librarians to seek new services from their vendors. These include the economic squeeze, the decline of public support, the increase in user demands, and new methods of communication, such as CD-ROMs. Astle detailed the history of vendor services and their evolving role. Initially, the primary function of vendors was speedy and accurate order fulfillment. Over the past 10-15 years, the marketplace has asked for value-added services, such as reports, access to the vendor's database, F r P of data, and, of course, greater discounts. Sketching the advantages and disadvantages of consolidation, Astle saw the following advantages: Life is easier for the staff (assuming a good vendor). There would be an economy of scale that could lead to streamlining of processes. The vendor can provide management reports and F r P data. Finally, there is the opportunity to build a solid working relationship between the two parties. On the disadvantages side, she expressed concern about the "eggs in one basket" risk. She also noted that not all vendors earl obtain all materials; there is often a need for a specialist vendor. Finally, she noted that consolidation could ultimately lead to the loss of the expertise of the specialized vendors and the disappearance of small jobbers. Astle then tossed out some questions to stimulate the discussion. She wondered how the consolidation trend would affect libraries' ability to obtain the world's literature, what the impact of losing specialized vendors would be, and whether our expectations and demands are reasonable. The discussion was thoughtful. This report will categorize the points rather than follow the actual flow.
ADVANTAGES OF CONSOLIDATION Several participants testified to the value (especially in terms of cost savings) of having consolidated their orders. They noted that, because of the economy of scale, the vendor could offer them a better discount. Others took the opposite position and cited cases where it had not worked for their library. One librarian noted that the vendors benefit from consolidation as well. They can expect guaranteed expenditures and can streamline their processes if they are handling a large volume for one customer. Others noted that it is difficult for librarians to meet their promises, given budgetary uncertainties. The fact that vendors are also consolidating (i.e., being bought by other vendors) was also mentioned.
DISADVANTAGES One participant countered Astle's concern about the "eggs in one basket" risk. His perspective was that the eggs are not so fragile. His point was that there is less risk now because of automation. At least now (compared to the Abel failure), librarians can easily determine what orders are outstanding and reorder from another vendor. To this point, several noted the major difference between monographs and serials, with prepayment still being a serious concern.
IMPLICATIONS OR CONCERNS Several participants echoed the theme that consolidation with one vendor is not an accurate reflection of practice. Even those libraries who "consolidate" still send some orders elsewhere. A
182
ALAAnnualConference-- 1995
primary example of why this is necessary is those publishers who will not work through vendors. So, consolidation does not mean all; it means most. Someone raised the possibility that the trend toward consolidation may be a reflection of another trend: the downsizing of acquisitions departments. The vendors in the audience agreed that customers were approaching them, with requests for additional services because of staffing shortages. Other vendors reported that they are providing shelf-ready (i.e., fully processed) materials for a few accounts. Another trend that is leading to increased demands on vendors is that of greater attention to user needs. Several librarians reported pressure to improve performance and service (e.g., turn-around) to their customers. One individual reported that being part of a consortium could lead to pressure to consolidate with a particular vendor in order to gain a better discount. Others noted a trend that may or may not be related to consolidation. This is the increasing formalization of the relationship with vendors. In Ohio, V'trginia, and Texas, libraries must use a bid process to select their vendors. (New York also requires informal RFPs.) Some in the audience thought that using the RFP process or at least a written approach was valuable because it provides a clear definition of needs. One participant expressed concern about how the vendor would be evaluated when there was no point of comparison. Others noted the importance of benchmarking, especially in times of greater accountability. On the question of whether the vendors are in predatory mode, the vendors present noted that the market is indeed shrinking. This results in their getting business either by taking it away from a competitor or going into the international market. Fortunately, the market is growing in other areas, particularly in the Far East. This led one vendor to question how librarians go about selecting vendors. This individual was concerned because his company offers very sophisticated technological services. However, they sometimes find that the librarian is not impressed and would rather remain with another vendor that they "like better." Librarians responding to this issue noted the importance of the right fit between the vendor's services and the librarian's needs. They also stressed the importance of vendors hiring sales representatives who are competent and professional so that there can be respect and trust between them and the librarian. One person noted that we are not yet at a machine-to-machine environment. There is still the need for personal communication in our transactions. Therefore, the personal style of the company and its staff is very important. Much of the discussion focused around the increased demands being placed upon libraries and librarians and the vendors in turn. However, one person reminded the group that the needs may vary greatly from one library to another. One vendor implored librarians to ask for the help of the integrated library systems vendors in meeting the new technological demands. She noted that the ILS vendors need to cooperate in moving toward EDI standards as quickly as possible. This will result in significant savings for the vendors and ultimately the library. Another vendor reiterated that the cost of research and development for a vendor is significant. Customization for every customer is especially expensive. To this, a librarian responded that she saw the vendor's role as responding to the librarian with a resounding "no" when a request was not reasonable or logical. One librarian was concerned that the costs of the new services would be attached to the book budget. Others were less concerned because they viewed the budgets as whole budgets. A vendor wanted feedback from librarians regarding the reasonableness of adding service charges to orders for "Cat and Dog Publishers." There was consensus that librarians (1) want the book, (2) expect the vendor to supply it, (3) do not want to reorder from another source, (4) do not mind reMonable service charges, and (5) usually want to see the charges broken out separately on the invoice. There was a brief discussion of the web but no one could anticipate what its impact upon vendors might be, There was also some disagreement about whether vendors are the best source for CD ROMs because of the licensing issues.
ALAAnnual Conference-- 1995
183
The meeting concluded with a brief discussion of procurement and credit cards. This information was of particular interest to those librarians who had not yet gained access to resources such as these. In summary, the meeting showed that both the librarian and the vendor must consider many factors as they establish business relationships, whether the business is consolidated or not.
PII S0364-6408(96)00023-3
Janet L. Flowers Head/Acquisitions Academic Affairs Library University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Internet: janet_flowers @unc.edu
Just-in-Time Services in Acquisitions: Rush Ordering, Interlibrary Loan, and Document Delivery: A Report from The Acquisitions'Administrators Discussion Group The meeting began with the announcement that Kay Granskog (Michigan State University) will become the new chair of the group. The audience then elected Lisa German (Wright State) as the new vice-chair/chair-elect. Nancy Slight-Gibney, current chair, was the discussion facilitator. Slight-Gibney described a recent self-study of the Technical Services Department in the University of Oregon Library. She noted that the study had resulted in the identification of strategic areas to address. One of these was "just-in-time services," which sparked her desire to hear a talk on this topic. However, the invited speaker was unable to attend, so the entire meeting was a lively exchange of ideas on various topics.
RUSH MATERIALS The discussion centered on the following topics: factors affecting the demand for rush materials, categories of rush materials, levels of rush service, and tips on improving success. The audience identified the following factors as affecting the level of demand in a given institution. First, the scarcity of funds have resulted in more responsiveness to individual user requests rather than anticipation of needs (i.e., just-in-time rather than just-in-case). Second, if processes in Acquisitions and Cataloging are slow, users try to bypass the usual delay by requesting special treatment. Third, many libraries are moving to a more client-oriented approach to their services. Fourth, the size of the cataloging backlog can affect requests. Fifth, some users want everything treated as priority! Members described different categories of orders as those requiting special treatment. The two primary ones were rush for reserve and rush for individuals. In addition, many libraries also give priority treatment to out of print rifles from antiquarian dealers. Several individuals noted variations on rush treatment: just for ordering or just for cataloging or in both processes. The group was advised to think carefully about the definition of rush and whether the treatment was really necessary because this is an expensive service to provide. Individuals in the audience shared the following tips: 1. Establish standard turn-around times for provision of the service (7 to 10 days was suggested). 2. Normalize the service as much as possible to increase efficiencies and reduce costs. 3. Use new services such as PromptCat to improve service in general and therefore the rush items as well.