Repurchasing Journals Lost in a Major Disaster:

Library and Vendor Perspectives

Patricia Smith, Beth Oehlerts, Glenn Jaeger, and Sandy Belskis

0098-7913/$–see fro

doi:10.1016/j.serrev.

Smith is CoordState Universitye-mail: Patricia.SmOehlerts is MetaColorado State UUSA; e-mail: Beth.Jaeger is PresideWrentham, MA 02Belskis is GeneraInc., Wrentham, Mcom.

Recent disasters and their effects on libraries remind us of the vulnerability of librarycollections. A water-related disaster at Colorado State University (CSU) in 1997resulted in a large recovery operation, the last part of which included a project toreplace by repurchasing more than 9,000 bound journal volumes. This project beganwith a sampling technique to help determine replacement cost, continued with adetailed request for proposal, and ended with a productive collaboration betweenCSU Libraries and Absolute Backorder Services, Inc. The article includes perspectivesby both library and vendor staff. Serials Review 2006; 32:26–34.D 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

The recent series of natural disasters impacting librariesillustrates not only the vulnerability of library collec-tions but, despite careful planning, the impossibility ofpreventing such catastrophes. Unfortunately, the num-ber and magnitude of these disasters seem to beincreasing. The flood at the University of Hawaii atManoa in 2004, for example, swept through a technicalservices area destroying many hard-to-replace items,while the widespread devastation caused by HurricaneKatrina in 2005 is just being assessed at the time of thiswriting. The many types of libraries in Katrina’s wakeand the variety of collections affected will require avariety of solutions.

These emerging stories again bring to mind thehorrific experience of suddenly finding one’s collec-tion destroyed and trying to decide what to do. In1997, Colorado State University Libraries (CSU)found itself coping with replacing over 500,000

nt matter D 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

2006.01.001

inator, Acquisitions Services, ColoradoLibraries, Ft. Collins, CO 80523, USA;ith@ColoState.edu .

data/Preservation Management Librarian,niversity Libraries, Ft. Collins, CO 80523,Oehlerts@ColoState.edu .nt, Absolute Backorder Service, Inc.,093, USA; e-mail: jaeger@ absolute-inc.com .l Manager, Absolute Backorder Service,A 02093, USA; e-mail: Belskis@absolute-inc.

26

volumes after a large water-related disaster. AsHawaii and the many victims of Katrina begin thelong road to recovery and seek advice from otherlibraries, we thought it might be useful to offer anupdate of our experience using one of the wayslibraries may recover lost collections—replacingbound journals by repurchasing.

Background

CSU’s flood of 1997 occurred one evening in July duringtorrential rains in Fort Collins, rains that filled and thenflooded the streets west of the library. As storm drainsfailed, water overflowed into the excavated area outsidethe garden-level windows of the lower level of MorganLibrary, creating such pressure on the windows thatwater broke through and immediately flooded the lowerlevel. One of our most important collections, our boundjournal volumes from 1970–1996, was on this level andfloated in eight feet of water for three days before theywere removed, put in trailers, and frozen for later freeze-drying. Initially, CSU experienced many of the reactionsthat Hawaii and now Katrina victims have: libraryorganizations called offering help and publicized ourplight; many libraries, publishers, societies, agencies,and other donors generously offered to donate materi-als; and we set about the awesome task of deciding howbest to organize and carry out the restoration andrecovery of our collection.The multitudinous phases we passed through in

identifying damaged materials, replacing them through

Volume 32, Number 1, 2006 Repurchasing Journals Lost in a Major Disaster

a large gift operation, and repairing nearly 200,000water-damaged volumes are described in detail by CSUlibrary staff in what was, for us, a highly cathartic bookcalled Library Disaster Planning and Recovery Hand-book.1 The final stage in our recovery–replacingmaterials through repurchasing–was not covered indetail because we had not yet begun this part of theoperation when the book was published. Thus, wethought it might be useful if we updated our experienceby treating one important part of our last step torecovery—repurchasing bound journals lost in a majordisaster. Because this implementation ended in acollaboration with a vendor, we include both a libraryand a vendor perspective.

Insurance and Costs

Both the University and its insurance company weremotivated primarily by the costs of recovery. This realitydetermined the organizational structure of our recovery:first, accept and process gifts to replace as many volumesas possible; next, repair and restore as many freeze-driedvolumes as possible; and last, and presumably mostexpensive, repurchase outright. As a result, the planningfor and repurchase of missing and irreparably damagedvolumes came last.At the outset, all parties–the University, the Library,

and the insurance company–needed compelling data forthe cost of replacement. We also needed to convince theinsurance company that part of the cost of replacing lostitems was the cost of acquiring, binding, reshelving, andupdating cataloging records. Estimates based on averageprices from external sources like Bowker Annual wouldnot do: costs had to be based on our actual losses. Earlyon, we made the decision that the collection had to bereplaced with print. Although the idea of replacingeverything digitally was appealing, it was not practical.In the late nineties, digitization was in its infancy, anddigital back runs did not go back as far as we needed.Also, in a disaster, the damage to journal volumesoccurs in a scattered fashion; libraries cannot purchasedigital runs in bits and pieces. Furthermore, weconsulted a copyright firm about whether we couldreplace bound volumes digitally according to theexisting copyright law for replacing collections. Wewere told that we could make the digital versionavailable only via on-site terminals and could not allowremote use. Thus, the University confirmed the decisionthat we would replace damaged volumes in printversions only.Because the damage from the flood was localized in

the lower level, and everything in the lower level waseither lost or damaged, we were easily able to pullcomplete lists of affected materials from our onlineintegrated library system (Innovative). With damagedvolumes from more than 14,000 journal titles, wedetermined that a statistically valid random sample wasrequired to obtain the average cost of a total-lossvolume. We turned to our University Statistics Depart-ment for help. This proved to be one of the bestdecisions we made in achieving settlement with our

27

insurance company. Using the samples our statisticianhelped us identify, we then asked Absolute BackorderService, Inc., one of our back-volume vendors, toobtain appraisais for everything in the sample and tocheck both publisher and vendor sources as necessary.Once we had the price of an average volume, we wereable to move ahead with the insurance settlement andplanning for repurchasing materials.

Identifying Core/Critical Volumes to beReplaced

The insurance settlement resulted in a large sum ofmoney that could be spent as the University deter-mined. With this latitude, the University questionedwhether everything was critical for replacement. TheLibrary agreed that rarely used materials did not needto be replaced merely because we once owned them. Asa result, the settlement money was seen as anopportunity not only to replace the core materials lostin the flood but also to purchase new collections,particularly electronic ones. Because the University alsosaw other opportunities to use the money, the Libraryneeded to make persuasive arguments for keeping asmuch of the money for library enhancements aspossible.

Despite many articles in library literature aboutdefining core collections, we found little practicalguidance in identifying what was bcoreQ or bcriticalQin our situation, so we decided to use the termsinterchangeably in describing the project. We agreedthat classics in the field as defined by faculty andexperts should be replaced, but to select themajority of the core, we developed several strategies,including user requests and faculty involvement asfollows:

1) During the early period when the Library wastrying to recover from the flood by processinggifts and repairing anything that could berepaired, we indicated that a volume was unavail-able by putting a code in our online catalog thatdirected patrons to interlibrary loan with thenote: bFlood-See ILL.Q As a result, we had a five-year record of all total-loss volumes requested viainterlibrary loan. Using these records, we desig-nated titles with an interlibrary-loan request ascore/critical.

2) Next, we gathered input from our campus facultyby placing all of the journal titles on a Web pagefor review and asked the faculty to select thehighest priority titles in their areas. Unfortunately,this activity took place at the end of the springsemester so response from faculty was uneven. Tocounter this effect, we asked the collectiondevelopment librarians to review the entire listand note any major omissions.

We ended up designating about one third of allvolumes still missing after repairs and gifts as core/critical volumes to be replaced. These volumes were

Patricia Smith et al. Serials Review

spread across 980 or so titles covering a wide variety ofLibrary of Congress classifications and totaled 9,246physical volumes.

The Library prepared a master file of these volumes inan Excel spreadsheet to be used in the bid process and asan order list for the vendor. The volumes were listed asthey had been originally bound and not necessarily asbibliographic volumes.

RFP Process to Select Vendor/Contractor

Since the Library’s staff was already overstretchedwith the demands of flood recovery in addition to all

Figure 1. Journal Repurchasing Process (the flowchart).

28

regular duties, the Library needed to minimize theimpact of repurchasing the core/critical volumes. CSUdecided to outsource as much of the acquisitions andprocessing as possible even though such a modelwould require a contractor to provide services welloutside the normal scope of serial vendor services. Inthe fall of 2001, Library staff developed a detailedRequest for Proposal (RFP) of the Library’s expect-ations (see Fig. 1).To avoid conflict of interest, the University Purchas-

ing Department oversaw the RFP and bid process. TheRFP developed by CSU included the following keyelements:

Volume 32, Number 1, 2006 Repurchasing Journals Lost in a Major Disaster

! The contractor would acquire the 9,246 journal/serialvolumes and provide exact replacements of the lostvolumes. Each replacement had to be bbest buys,Qthat is, the least expensive volume in acceptablecondition, and any replacement volume exceeding$300 had to be quoted individually.

! The contractor would provide binding services con-forming both with the original volume lost and withthe Library’s standards for binding, which weredefined in the RFP.

! The contractor would provide physical preparation,marking services, and quality control for all volumes.

! The contractor would provide reports in electronicformats and submit billing requests according to theRFP specifications.

! The contractor would provide no more than 1,000volumespermonthwithacompletiondateof18months.These stipulations equalized workloads on Librarystaff, allowed adequate time for processing each ship-ment, and required the contractor, not CSU, to provideany storage required by irregular acquisition.

! Finally, the contractor would provide archivalphotocopying of volumes not obtainable throughcommercial sources and would take care of anycopyright issues. The contractor was also expected tosupply color photocopying if present in the originalvolume. As a precaution, the Library required thecontractor to provide an estimate of the scope andcosts of such copying before proceeding with archi-val copying.

Knowing we were breaking new ground made uswonder whether we would have any bidders for such acomprehensive project. So we were pleased to havebidders. After a careful review process that includedreviewers external to the Library staff, the Universityawarded the bid to Absolute Backorder Service, Inc.Thus began a partnership that became one of the chieffactors in our success in obtaining replacements for ourmost important journals.

Library Perspective on Implementation

Organizing and Setting the Stage for Implementation

To manage the project, the Coordinator for Acquis-itions Services acted as Library Liaison for the entireproject, and the Library’s regular staff, particularlythe coordinators in Technical Services, developed theRFP and procedures for replacing the volumes andupdating the records in our online catalog for eachvolume. To minimize further impact on regular staff,the Library hired a temporary librarian to overseethe receipt process and work with the vendor. Also,two assistants were hired on a temporary basis toprocess the materials as received and to update thelibrary’s holdings. Fortunately, space for these newpositions was conveniently available on the lowerlevel of Morgan Library with room not only forthree staff workstations and computers but enoughfloor space to receive a complete shipment from thevendor.

29

After the University and Absolute Backorder Service,Inc. signed the contract, several weeks were spent infinalizing the arrangements for implementation beforethe actual purchase of the volumes began. During thisperiod, Absolute staff made an on-site visit to CSU toreview the specifications in the RFP and to learn moreabout CSU’s binding specifications. Thanks to Absolute’scommitment to the RFP and to our needs, problems wereminimized. Open communications begun at this on-sitevisit continued for the life of the project via e-mail andcontinued to contribute to its success. Absolute was care-ful to notify us when deliveries were imminent or ship-ments were delayed, and we were quick to answerquestions and head off problems. Indeed, the many e-mail exchanges gave us a detailed history of the projectthat could easily be shared with subcontractors and otherparticipants and sometimes solve problems by referenceto solutions in earlier e-mails. Open communicationsmeant that we accepted every volume as bound by Abso-lute and returned fewer than a dozen volumes as errors.

The project got underway when Absolute sent theLibrary its list of volumes that were estimated to costmore than $300. Using this list, Library selectors assigneda purchase priority number of 1, 2, or 3 to each of therepresented titles with the understanding that the pur-chase of these expensive volumes would be deferred to theend so that costs could be controlled. Because of delayshere and elsewhere, the actual ordering of individualvolumes took longer than projected. As a result, Absoluterequested a prepayment so that it could continue to orderfrom its suppliers and fulfill the contract quota of 1,000volumes per month. After discussions with Universityadministrators, the Library agreed, but the result was thatwhen the first shipments arrived, they exceeded both the1,000 volume/month limit and our capacity to store themin the project room. Again, the Library turned to theUniversity and arranged for Absolute’s shipments to bedelivered to storage space in the University’s maildepartment and then trucked to the library as spacepermitted. As in all things, even the best laid plans can goawry.

Tracking the Materials in the Library

One of the decisions that stirred some debate in theLibrary was where to track the volumes being replaced.The library’s integrated library system was consideredbut rejected. We decided to suppress from the onlinecatalog the item records for each volume declared a totalloss so users would not be confused. Prior to the bidprocess, therefore, the technical services staff did amassive clean up of the serial records to make sure theinformation on what volumes the library owned was asaccurate as possible. A lesson learned over and overagain during our flood recovery was the importance ofalways having up-to-date records for bibliographic anditem holdings. As volumes were received, the temporaryproject staff created new item records for the core/criticalvolumes and updated the serials holding statement in theserials check-in record. After the core/critical project wascompleted, Library staff deleted all of the originalrecords from our integrated library system.

Patricia Smith et al. Serials Review

To manage the ordering and receiving process,systems staff in the Library created an in-house data-base, using Access software, a database we called TotalLoss Repurchase (TLR). The TLR was designed toretrieve the order records from several indexed fields–title, call number, ISSN, and the original local biblio-graphic number–and could record the receipt as (1)bound exact, (2) bound differently, or (3) bound inanother volume. Volumes not purchased could berecorded as (1) unavailable, (2) returned to vendor, or(3) order canceled. Drop-down boxes allowed us torecord the status of the order as it was received or asAbsolute otherwise reported on it; and a notes box,which added to its user-friendliness, gave us theopportunity to add status, receipt, binding, or otherinformation (see Figures 2 and 3 for screen prints).

Late in the project, when Absolute had the technologyin place to supply digital reproductions of out-of-printvolumes, project staff found it easier to record digitalreproductions in the TLR note field rather than ask foryet another TLR modification. But modifications didenhance its usefulness. Early in the project, for example,project staff realized that the TLR could be tweaked tohelp produce the weekly reports tracking Absolute’sprogress, and with another tweak, the TLR providedcumulative totals as well. Finally, the TLR database wasalso a useful tool to help prevent regular staff inAcquisitions, Collection Management, and Gifts fromrepurchasing a volume through normal acquisitionchannels or accepting gifts for volumes on order.

As volumes were delivered to the Library, project staffunpacked them, checked for damage, and groupedvolumes by title. After recording the receipt in theTLR database, project staff created item records foreach volume for the Library’s online catalog andupdated the journal’s summary holdings in the online

igure 2. Journal Table from Total Loss Database Screen Shot.

F

30

check-in record. A project code was used in the recordto identify the volume as one purchased by the project.As a result, collection analysis reports show which partsof the Libraries’ collection are Core/Critical replacementvolumes.As always, our expectations and the supplier’s reality

occasionally clashed. When filling orders for a boundvolume, Absolute sometimes had to purchase extravolumes to obtain the volume we needed. For instance,when we ordered the first issue of Journal of BiologicalChemistry, Absolute had to buy 51 issues boundtogether. In these instances, Absolute offered us theremaining parts or volumes at a discounted price; andthe project staff made decisions on what to accept on atitle-by-title basis. Also, early in the project, the decisionwas made to accept bbound differentlyQ volumes andadd them to the collection as long as they contained thecontent we needed. The Library accepted duplication,since staff had learned during earlier stages of floodrecovery that perfection simply is not possible (oraffordable) in the context of such great loss.

Invoicing and Accounting

The Library had specific billing requirements not onlyto keep the invoices separate from our regular invoicesbut also to account for all costs of the project to theUniversity. The Library used its automated Acquis-itions system to track invoices and payment for theproject by setting up new fund codes and accounts totrack expenditures for core/critical repurchasing. TheRFP required Absolute to provide separate invoices forthe cost of the journals, the binding, and all physicalprocessing performed on the volumes. The Librarycould then separate the costs of binding and costs ofphysical processing from the journal costs and easilymonitor the price of the journals we were purchasing.

Figure 3. Individual Record for Volume from Total Loss Database.

Volume 32, Number 1, 2006 Repurchasing Journals Lost in a Major Disaster

This clear picture of costs allowed the Library toproject expenses and helped when we had to decidehow many of the volumes over $300 we could affordto buy as the project neared completion.

From the beginning, one of the ways the Library trackedthe status of the journal project was to evaluate the datain Absolute’s monthly report. Absolute’s project man-ager sent a cumulative monthly report, as an e-mailattachment, to the Library’s project coordinator thatincluded the number of volumes at Absolute’s bindery,volumes shipped, volumes still being searched, andvolumes unavailable. With this information, we wereable quickly to track the monthly progress. After justthree months, remarkably, Absolute was able to reportthat 77 percent of our order lines were filled by out-of-print suppliers, with just 966 replacement order lines leftto fill. These reports were valuable also in keeping thelines of communication clear. Early in the project, forexample, we realized that Absolute counted biblio-graphic volumes while we wanted counts that matchedour physical volume orders. After a couple of e-mailexchanges, we began to speak the same language.

Digitizing Select Volumes

In January 2003, after an unsuccessful search for theremaining high-priority journals, Absolute began inves-tigating the option of digitally reproducing out-of-printjournals and supplying the print reproduction to theLibrary. Since we were nearing the contract deadline andspeed was of the essence, the Library asked Absolute toprovide samples and probable costs. Library staff eval-uated the quality of the samples and gave Absolute itsapproval to reproduce a selected number of high prioritytitles. Since thiswas new territory for both the Library and

31

Absolute, the processmovedmore slowly than hoped, butthe Library was pleased with the final product.

Library Conclusions

In June 2004, the contract and the replacement journalproject ended, approximately twenty-six months afterthe contract was signed. The Library received 93 percentof the original journal orders and the cost of replacementdid not exceed the contract dollar amount. On balance,we were pleased to find that our careful preparation wasvaluable almost everywhere in insuring the success of theproject. Were we to repeat the experience, we wouldallow more time for finalizing the outsourcing contract,setting up the project after signing the contract, andworking out arrangements for digitization and printingtoward the end. Nevertheless, in the course of the project,we broke new ground for ourselves and our staff atnearly every step. The most significant of these advancesinclude our development of a sampling technique todetermine the approximate cost of serials replacements;the completeness, thoroughness, and detail of the RFPthat permitted us successfully to outsource both acquis-itions and processing; and conducting a highly successfuland rewarding collaboration with a back-volume ven-dor. Our hope is that our experience in the face of greatloss will offer a sense of optimism and occasionalguidance to others in the same situation.

The Vendor Perspective on Implementation

Appraisal for Replacement

Determining the breplacement valueQ for journals lost ina disaster requires both experience and access to amultitude of resources. Insurance companies and libra-

Patricia Smith et al. Serials Review

ries alike often seek this service from an establishedback-volume vendor. Appraising the CSU collectionwas unique in various ways. The submission of randomsamples was innovative and functional. Even thoughthe University required the Library to expand thenumber of its title samples, the sampling techniqueoverall saved both time and money. Each title sub-mitted requires research, which can take from fifteenminutes to one hour each. For the CSU sample, wechecked availability and prices from the primary source(publisher) and also through global secondary sources,which consist of all the major back-volume vendors. Ifa title was unavailable from a primary source, ourresearch defaulted to a secondary source. Finally, wecross-referenced our own inventory for respectiveactivity history to determine relative supply anddemand statistics. These data were then compiled intospecific dollar values, itemized, signed, and deliveredback to the library.

Another major issue to consider in an appraisal is themeaning of breplacement.Q Since libraries acquired theircollections primarily through acquisitions with subscrip-tion agents and publishers directly, they are entitled,theoretically, to a replacement value for pristine copiesrather than the wholesale value for used (stamped)journals. The insurance company, however, will likelywant to find the cheapest copy available. The conditionof the cheapest copy, however, may not be acceptable tothe library, and some compromise between the libraryand the insurance company may be necessary. In short, avendor offering an appraisal must be careful to deter-mine what is acceptable.

Given the subjective nature of pricing for out-of-printjournal issues, vendors must also be prepared to defendtheir figures when appraising. Due to the magnitude ofCSU’s loss, the insurance company wanted to doublecheck the values of our appraisal and hired consultantswho solicited quotations from alternate back-volumevendors. They asked four of our colleagues to quoteprice and availability of items they had in stock. Theseoffers were then compiled and cross-referenced againstour appraisal evaluations.

Finally, replacement appraisals must always remainan inexact science. Though prices of items in back-volume inventories are likely to be lower than those stillavailable from publishers, many needed items are not ininventories at all, so only partial figures can becompiled. Adding to the complexity of pricing is thevariety of vendor discounting practices.

The Bid Process

The CSU Request For Proposal (RFP) was availableonline to all vendors registeredwith the State ofColorado.Vendorswere also invited to a Pre-ProposalConference inFort Collins for the purpose of answering any questionsrelated to the proposal. Since the RFP consisted of goals,specifications, requirements, and deliverables, the Pre-Proposal Conference was an excellent opportunity toreceive detailed responses to our inquiries.

During the bid process, Absolute learned an importantlesson from the library staff about the cost of recovering

32

the loss of a collection. Labor for processing (securitystrips, bar codes, call numbers), binding, and shelving areindeed a part of replacement costs when libraries submitclaims to an insurance company.For purposes of preparing our bid, Absolute’s Presi-

dent and its General Manager decided to split the bidresponse into two tasks. The General Manager and herteam concentrated on research for the title list, and thePresident’s group worked on the details of the bidrequirements. The title list with the associated volumesrequired presented exactly how the library held the title,in short, how the volume was physically bound. Thiswas important for replacing volumes during the fulfill-ment process yet a challenge for submitting accurateprices for the bid. CSU wanted to replace just over 9,000bindings, which translated to 10,200 bibliographicvolumes. This conversion enabled us to calculate theprojected material costs (per volume) and the specificbinding costs as separate entities. Over the next fiveweeks, we met on a daily basis to review our progressand were able to achieve our goals with one day tospare.

Developing Workflows

Once Absolute received notification that its bid hadbeen chosen, staff designed workflows to accommodatethe agreed upon parameters. An on-site visit to CSUfor training was an important part of the equation. Thebest approach was for management staff to be bhands-onQ from the beginning. This enabled training onproper procedures and realistic expectations on timeand throughput. Training each staff member in everystep enabled us to assign tasks based on eachindividual’s strengths on speed and accuracy. We werefortunate to have a low turnover of staff during theduration of the project and experienced little downtime due to personnel changes. In addition to manage-ment, we had two key staff members available on adaily basis for processing and utilized existing ware-house staff for receiving and shipping. Additionalresources were available as needed from the collationdepartment. We established three workstations forprocessing to turn around shipments quickly. Absoluteprinted a copy of the order from CSU (348 pages)which listed titles and required volumes. This reportwas a master list to record receipts, binding, process-ing, shipping, and any additional notes on condition.Through experience, we determined that having allinformation recorded together would assist with track-ing progress.The mechanics for the primary processes (sourcing,

ordering, receiving) were familiar to us, yet we needed tocreate unique identifiers for handling purposes. First,our bwantQ lists were segregated into two very largealpha-sorted files, one for titles beginning bAQ throughbIQ and one for titles bJQ through bZ.Q We found it easierto manage orders and receipts by working with half ofthe titles first. Next, when we placed orders with oursuppliers, we used purchase order numbers with uniquesuffixes to easily identify the incoming boxes for theCSU project. Last, we designated a special bship toQ

Volume 32, Number 1, 2006 Repurchasing Journals Lost in a Major Disaster

address for the CSU items to include bLoading Dock 3Qon the shipping labels. Our first two changes were quitesuccessful; our last, however, was much less so. Whetherour orders were shipped to us via Motor Freight, UPS,USPS, FedEx, or DHL, all boxes arrived at LoadingDock 1 for us to separate.Absolute occupies 8,000 square feet of office and

warehouse space. We decided to dedicate 1,500 squarefeet of our warehouse for processing CSU’s material.With the exception of binding, our company performedall requirements of the contract with CSU. Once materialwas received and inspected, it was routed to either theprebound or unbound section for additional work. Ourvision was for the raw products to be organized at thefurthest point and then move through the various stagesin assembly-line format. The prebound material wasstaged for security strips, bar coding, and call numberlabels. The unbound material was processed through ourbinder’s (Acme Bookbinding) automated system wherebinding slips were generated and attached to the relatedvolumes. Acmewas logistically close enough to us to offerfree weekly pickups and delivery. Upon the return of ourvolumes from the bindery, we processed according to theguidelines for prebound volumes with the exception thatAcme saved us a step by putting call numbers on thespine.Shipments were then dispatched to a designated

address via Motor Freight. We negotiated favorablerates with the carrier by guaranteeing regular shipmentsover the next eighteen months. The boxes were packedin heavy-duty cartons, palletized, banded, and finallyshrink-wrapped for secure shipment.

Binding

Binding was a new territory for Absolute. Absolute’smanagement team toured Acme’s facilities to gain abetter understanding of the binding process andterminology. We learned the standards for bindingand software available to prepare shipments and hadtraining on ABLEk Library binding software both atAcme’s facilities and on-site. Acme provided phone andonline support as needed. We arranged for weekly pickup and deliveries with a four-week turnaround time.Unbound material received from suppliers was routedto workstation 2 and shelved alphabetically. Thecontract stated that complete bibliographic volumeswould be supplied whether or not all issues/parts wereneeded to complete CSU holdings. Complete biblio-graphic volumes were compared to the order to bind inlike pagination (unless exceeding 2U spine width forstandard binding). Issues not required for binding wereplaced alphabetically on pallets for shipments pendingreturn of bound material. Binding slips were createdfor Acme via ABLEk and shipments boxed for weeklypick up. Upon return, bindings were verified foraccuracy and routed to shelving at the processingworkstation.

Processing

CSU provided detailed instructions on how to processbindings to be shelf ready. We determined that the most

33

efficient way to flow material through the processingstage was in groups of 150–200 bindings at a time. Wealso divided the work into three workstations. The firstgroup inserted security strips, attached bar codes, andstamped each item with CSU’s property stamps. Inaddition, any previous owner markings were obliter-ated. The second group recorded the status on themaster order list and created bibliographic sheets andcall number labels (for previously bound material). Staffat the third workstation wrote the volume informationin the binding and applied the call number labels. Onceprocessing was completed, material was returned alpha-betically to shelving awaiting shipping.

To provide final quality control, two members ofmanagement processed the shipment, numbering boxes,and filling them alphabetically when possible as well aschecking the volume against the master order list.Absolute’s accounting staff adapted its QuickBooksinvoicing system to create packing lists with the numberof physical bindings and box numbers for each title toassist the Library staff when checking the receipt of ashipment.

Digitizing to Create Print Copy: New Role for Absolute

An area that was completely foreign to Absolute was thereproduction of hard-to-find material. One colleagueprovides traditional reprints for select titles and anotherassociate scans print back volumes to create digital PDFsfor their online products, yet we were charting newterritories by reproducing print copies from digitalscans. We concluded that we had a template for howit could be done, thanks to our associates at EBSCOPublishing. EBSCO assisted us by recommending spe-cific equipment for our application and then offeredtraining on the postproduction work necessary to cleanup the scanned images. We added a high-end colorprinter and found sources for acid free paper of varioustypes.

Before placing an order to acquire the equipmentlisted above, we had to answer the obvious question. Isit legal to digitally reproduce an entire volume of hard tofind journals? Since CSU’s Legal counsel stipulated thatcopyright clearance was the responsibility of Absolute,we consulted legal counsel. After examining key criteriapoints of the Provisions of the 1976 Copyright Act, thelawyer concluded that our actions were within theboundaries of the law but we also contacted thepublishers of the volumes to be digitized to secureapproval. All that remained was sourcing from libraries,convincing the lending library this was legal, receivingthe volume, carefully scanning, printing, and returningthe rare volumes in a timely manner. We then could bindand process according to contract specifications.

Vendor Conclusions

In hindsight, Absolute would do three things differentlyto offer more efficient service to CSU: provide betterquality control in processing the earliest shipments,establish a more flexible price structure for outsourcedbinding, and source additional blending partnersQ fordigitization earlier in the project. Despite these imper-

Patricia Smith et al. Serials Review

fections, Absolute enjoyed many positive experiences,developed new approaches to our services, and gainedgreater appreciation for the entire serials process withina library. Our new skill sets should prove valuable toour company and to our client.

General Conclusion

Overall, CSU’s journal-replacement project and imple-mentation partnership with Absolute was highlysuccessful. Much of the success can be attributed tothree key elements: communication, cooperation, andcommitment. First, it was essential for the Library tohave clear and detailed expectation for the project,particularly in the Request for Proposal. Ongoingcommunication and cooperation–between the Libraryand the University; between the Library, the Univer-sity, and the insurance company; between the Library,the University, and Absolute–prevented major gaps inunderstanding and allowed all parties to correctmisunderstandings and problems immediately. Com-mitment to the project by all parties insured success,especially Absolute’s willingness to learn libraryprocedures and adjust as necessary. Creating a specialunit at the library to handle the project providedcommitted oversight of the project while Absolute’sdedication of staff and work space along with its

34

willingness to develop special procedures for theproject helped keep the quality of the collaborativeresults high.To be sure, libraries in our current world may have

more options to replace back volumes electronicallythan we did only a few years ago. In particular, completeruns for many serials titles are now available inelectronic form, and insurance representatives might bemore flexible in allowing digital replacement, especiallyif cost is equal to or less than print replacement. On theother hand, ongoing maintenance fees for electronicservices might complicate what otherwise would besimple cost equations.Charting new territory with vendor services in the

collaboration between CSU Libraries and Absolutewas challenging and rewarding for both participantsand demonstrates conclusively that outsourcing canwork successfully in recovery from major disasters.Our hope is that this experience may assist andreassure others facing similar disasters and encouragethem to consider innovative, new ways of engagingtheir vendors and other partners in developing newservices.

Note

1. Camila Alire, ed. Library Disaster Planning and Recovery Hand-book, (New York: Neal-Schuman Publishers, Inc., 2000).