Re: preservation and processing dept.

["Robert J. Milevski" <milevski@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with Lorraine's ideas.  

Having worked in several libraries with decentralized preservation programs,
I prefer this arrangement.  I have no ambition to become a preservation czar
in my library, but to share this responsibility widely with my (highly
competent and reliable) professional and support staff and other program
managers throughout the library system.  (This makes one's working life much
much easier!!!)  

At Princeton the typical elements of a preservation program have ebbed
together and flowed away from each other over the years.  Currently,
commercial binding and shelf preparation are part of technical services.  In
the past they were part of the preservation unit. 

Brittle books processing/bibliographic searching has migrated to our
reference and collection development department, primarily because the
clients of the work of the unit are bibliographers.  (Bibliographic
searching for preservation decisionmaking is innocuous and doesn't have to
be under direct preservation control.)  Placing brittle books there
simplifies access to the bibliographers and the decisions which they need to
make regarding books within their specialties, although initial preservation
decisions by the bibliographers are made in preservation, at the very
beginning of the process, when brittle books are identified from all those
migrating to us from circulation and other venues.  

Bibliographer decisions concern, fundamentally, whether or not the book
needs to be searched--which I think is a horribly ineffective and
inefficient waste of staff resources.  We have decided here that searching
is only done when necessary, usually on only a minority of the materials
reaching us.  The usual decisions by the bibliographers are to photocopy,
box and return to shelf, put into offsite storage (usually in a box), or
withdraw.  These decisions can be made in lieu of any (unnecessary)
searching if the bibliographer is worth her/his salt.  Searching is called
for, for the most part, when the bibliographer doesn't know about the item
in hand and needs to know more about it or when it is known that new
editions (in whatever format)  exist which can replace the brittle item.

In effect we have a two-tiered system for brittle books.  The bibliographers
make initial decisions on newly identified materials based on their
knowledge of the collections and the past, present, and future teaching on
the subject area of the book at the University.  Those items not requiring
searching are expedited by preservation staff.  The remaining items
requiring searching are routed to the brittle books staff elsewhere in the
library. 

This has been quite an efficient process. We have gone from a backlog of
more than 600 items to less than a dozen.  The bibliogra[hers come by and
check what's "on the shelf" here once a month. 

Finally, I work as necessary with the supervisors of these other
"preservation" units.  

Robert

 At 08:55 AM 2/11/98 -0500, you wrote:
>We've gone full circle at Indiana University Libraries.  When the
>Preservation Dept. was formed in 1984, it combined end processing from the
>acquisitions dept., and bindery prep from the serials dept., with a book
>repair unit.  Last year end processing and bindery prep were removed from
>Preservation as part of a reorganization in which those two units were
>defined as tech service operations, while preservation was defined as a
>collection development/management operation. Each returned to its dept. of
>origin.
>
>It seems to me that preservation concerns in end processing are fairly
>straightforward, and that certain measures (e.g., proper training in care
>and handling, oversight of supplies) can substitute for the work actually
>being done under the supervision of the preservation department.  However,
>losing bindery preparation means that I no longer have control over
>binding practices, the budget, or the contract.  Fortunately I have a good
>working relationship with the serials department head, so for now that is
>not a major problem.  I will be working in the future toward getting
>control of the contract again, at the least, since the specifications it
>contains have a major impact on the quality of binding. 
>
>%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
>Lorraine Olley				olley@xxxxxxxxxxx
>Head, Preservation Department		812/855-6281
>Main Library E050			812/855-2576 (fax)
>Indiana University			http://www.indiana.edu/~libpres
>Bloomington IN 47405
>
>On Tue, 10 Feb 1998, Gretchen Fulforth Stroh wrote:
>
>> I am interested in finding out whether many librarys
>> combine their processing and preservation dept., or
>> whether they are separate entities.  Univ. of MD
>> has a preservation dept.(under Tech Serv.) which includes
>> processing within it.  This seems to be a logical
>> coordination, how do you handle it?  Please free to
>> email me personally, if you don't think this is of
>> group interest.
>> 
>> Thank You,
>> 
>> Gretchen Stroh
>> 
>> 
>> Gretchen Fulforth Stroh
>> Materials Processing Specialist
>> McCabe Library, Swarthmore College
>> 500 College Ave, Swarthmore PA 19081
>> gstroh1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> 
>> 
>
>
>
>
************************************************
Robert J. Milevski
Preservation Librarian
Princeton University Library
One Washington Road
Princeton, NJ 08540
609-258-5591; fax: 609-258-4105
email: milevski@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
*************************************************