The purpose of this research was to assess how US academic libraries manage shelf-ready materials and to provide the library community with recent data on how the implementation of shelf-ready models may affect technical services departments. The study was guided by the following questions:

1. Why did academic libraries implement shelf-ready services and did they manage shelf-ready materials differently?
2. What is the quality of bibliographic records for shelf-ready materials?
3. Do shelf-ready materials affect local procedures and cataloging practices?
4. What is the level of satisfaction with shelf-ready services and what do academic librarians think of their future expansion in academic libraries?

The authors designed the survey with the intent to gather this information from academic institutions with varying collection sizes. The questions in the survey were based on the research questions mentioned above.

The authors used the following conceptual definitions:

• The definition of “technical services department” was based on the description of technical services provided by the ODLIS: Online Dictionary of Library and Information Science: “library operations concerned with the acquisitions, organization (bibliographic control), physical processing, and maintenance of library collections.”³³ Conversely, for the purpose of this paper, “technical services department” was defined as a department where shelf-ready books were received or processed or both; it could be within acquisitions, cataloging, bindery/shelf preparation, or a combination of the above. Small libraries without technical services departments were referred to as “Library.”
• “Shelf-ready materials” were defined as materials received from a vendor with full bibliographic records and some form of physical processing (e.g., barcodes, property stamps, spine labels, security devices, etc.).

One of the main goals of the study was to investigate the differences in the management of shelf-ready materials by libraries of varying collection sizes. The selection of the study population presented a practical challenge because there was no readily available sample frame. There was not a single source of information listing all libraries with shelf-ready services from which the sample could be drawn. Therefore compiling the sample frame for the survey was a two-step process. First, the nonprobability purposive sample of four-year colleges was chosen from the Carnegie Foundation of Institutions of Higher Education (http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org). The authors excluded two-year colleges from the study on the basis of data collected by Burke and Shorten.³⁴ Their study specified that among institutions of varying sizes, 88 percent of two-year colleges were doing almost all cataloging in-house. Additionally, the authors wanted to concentrate on a group of libraries that was close in characteristics to their own institutions. Columbia University is a large research academic institution while B. Davis Schwartz Memorial Library at Long Island University Post Campus (LIU Post) is a medium-size academic library.

A stratified sample of thirty institutions was randomly chosen from all nine subgroups representing institutions of various sizes in the four-year colleges group. The authors used a random sample generator, Research Randomizer (www.randomizer.org), to select the sample. This strategy allowed the researchers to avoid self-selection of the survey respondents and to reach out to a diverse number of libraries of different collection sizes. The final sample frame consisted of a stratified random sample of 270 US academic libraries.

Each library’s website was accessed to collect email addresses for the individuals who were likely to be responsible for the management of shelf-ready materials. Each identified person received an email with an invitation to participate in the survey, an explanation of the research goal, and a link to an online survey form created via SurveyMonkey (www.surveymonkey.com), a web-based survey tool. The survey study population consisted of the heads of technical services departments, and technical services librarians including catalogers, acquisitions librarians, and other library practitioners directly involved in the management of shelf-ready materials. The email also asked recipients to forward the survey invitation to the appropriate personnel in their library if needed. A follow-up email with a reminder to participate in the survey was sent one week before the survey’s closing date. The survey instrument comprised thirty-one questions (see appendix A) that addressed the demographic characteristics of the respondents and their libraries, the library’s experience with shelf-ready materials management, quality of the bibliographic records, and evaluation of shelf-ready services. The survey questions were reviewed by three library administrators with cataloging or shelf-ready materials management experience from the authors’ home institutions. The questions were multiple choice and in a closed-end format. Some of the multiple-choice questions provided an option for a free-text response. Several questions used skip logic that allowed the respondents to bypass questions depending on their answers. The participants did not have to answer all the questions, no incentives to complete the survey were offered, and no information that could identify the respondents was collected. The survey instrument was vetted through the LIU Post and Columbia University Institutional Review Boards and was exempt from review by both reviewing bodies.

The survey was open from January 24-February 24, 2013. A total of forty-five replies were received. While the survey recruitment email aimed to convey the idea that the survey was geared toward libraries that had already implemented shelf-ready services, the data analysis revealed that among forty-five respondents, only twenty-seven libraries represented the targeted population (i.e., libraries that have implemented shelf-ready procedures) and fully completed the survey. The remaining eighteen respondents were from libraries that had only partially completed the survey and did not have shelf-ready procedures in place. They were eliminated from the poll of respondents. Not all respondents answered every question and the answers to some questions were not mutually exclusive. Consequently, the total number of responses may be less or greater than the total number of valid survey responses. The authors analyzed the free text replies submitted under the “other, please specify” option and collapsed the replies under existing categories when appropriate. The collected data were analyzed using the SPSS version 21 statistical software package. Although the use of stratified random sampling in this study carries great statistical validity by reducing sampling bias, the low response rate (10 percent) makes this study exploratory in nature. The resulting data should be discussed only regarding the type of library chosen.

A total of twenty-seven valid responses were analyzed. The survey participants represented libraries of all sizes, with the majority working in either medium (ten or 37 percent) or small (eleven or 40.7 percent) size institutions. Large libraries were in the minority with six (22.2 percent) of respondents. Although the authors did not form a hypothesis regarding acceptance of shelf-ready services by a particular library size group, the latter finding may be indicative of the dissemination of shelf-ready services among institutions of different sizes. The survey reached its target audience with the majority of responses provided by either technical services librarians in management positions or other library administrators. The department heads made up the largest group (seventeen or 63.3 percent) of the respondents. In addition, two (7.4 percent) respondents had the job title “library director,” and five (18.5 percent) were professional librarians or catalogers. The job titles of the remaining three survey participants included one bibliographic manager, one head of cataloging, and one cataloging unit head.

Regarding the number of the professional librarians, the majority (thirteen or 48 percent) of the responding institutions had four to seven professional librarians on staff. This group was composed of three large libraries, seven medium libraries and three small libraries. Only one large library had more than eleven professional librarians and a group of eight small libraries had fewer than three professionals working in technical services.

In relation to support staff, the majority of the respondents (ten of all libraries surveyed) reported employing between one to four paraprofessional staff. However, this group largely comprised the small libraries (nine or 81.8 percent). Large libraries predictably reported the biggest number of support staff with the majority (four or 66.7 percent) employing more than twenty support staff. The distribution of support staff in the medium-size libraries group varied widely. Half of the responding medium-size libraries (five or 50 percent) reported employing eleven to twenty support staff and the remaining half (five or 50 percent) reported employing five to ten support staff. Summary data on the survey demographics are presented in appendix B.

The first research question of the study related to the reasons for implementing shelf-ready services and the differences in the management of shelf-ready services at libraries of various sizes. The survey analysis revealed that the two main reasons for implementing shelf-ready services for libraries of all sizes were (1) the need to reduce materials turnaround time (twenty-three or 85.2 percent of all libraries) and (2) the desire to redeploy staff for other projects or emerging areas of need (nineteen or 70.4 percent of all libraries). Therefore shelf-ready services were viewed by libraries as an efficiency rather than a cost-cutting measure. Table 1 summarizes the reasons for the shelf-ready services implementation among libraries with varying collection sizes. Although the need to reduce cost by downsizing technical services departments was reported as a reason for shelf-ready implementation by almost one-third of the respondents (eight or 29.6 percent), the findings of this study support the focus on user satisfaction reported in previous research as the main driving force behind shelf-ready implementation.³⁵ One small library specified that shelf-ready was implemented to ensure better preservation of library materials.

As to initial objections to shelf-ready implementation, survey respondents were divided roughly evenly between those who encountered objections (thirteen or 48.1 percent) and those who did not (fourteen or 51.9 percent). The two most common objections cited by all libraries were cost (seven or 25.9 percent of libraries) and quality of bibliographic records supplied (eight or 30 percent of libraries). Concern regarding the cost of shelf-ready services was somewhat surprising because, based on reasons for implementation described in the previous paragraph, cost should not have been one of the prevailing factors. However, the survey revealed that the predominant nature of objections varied along with the libraries’ size. While medium (four or 40 percent) and small (two or 18.2 percent) academic libraries were mostly concerned with the cost and quality of vendor-supplied supplied bibliographic records, the main objection of the large libraries group (three or 50 percent) was on collection development control over shelf-ready materials. This was manifested in the subject specialists’ desire to make book-by-book retention decisions. One might also argue that the subject specialists’ time may be freed by employing shelf-ready services, thereby allowing them to pursue more challenging areas of collection development.

Only one library indicated the possible loss of staff positions as an objection to the shelf-ready implementation. In sum, the group of small libraries had the least number of objections compared to medium and large libraries. This could be explained by the fact that small libraries have fewer resources to invest in the in-house cataloging and processing of materials, making this group of libraries more open to the shelf-ready implementation. Table 2 summarizes data on initial objection to shelf-ready implementation.

The majority of responding institutions (eleven or 40.7 percent) had two to five years of experience using shelf-ready services. Libraries that had received shelf-ready materials for less than one year were in the minority (three or 11.1 percent). The survey data also indicated that the length of the individual libraries’ experience with shelf-ready seemed dependent on library size. The majority of large libraries had received shelf-ready materials for more than ten years (three or 50 percent). In the medium libraries category, the majority had received shelf-ready for six to nine years (four or 40 percent). Most small libraries (six or 54.5 percent) received shelf-ready materials for two to five years. Large and medium libraries gradually integrated shelf-ready processes into their operations over the course of the last decade. In contrast, small libraries had more recent implementations of shelf-ready services.

Regarding budget, it was common for the majority of libraries (fifteen or 68.2 percent) to use fewer than 5 percent of their acquisitions budget for shelf-ready services, with some medium and large libraries spending between 5 and 10 percent. It would be difficult to find an exact correlation between the percentage of the acquisitions budget used and the volume of shelf-ready materials received for large and medium institutions. The majority of large libraries (four or 66.7 percent) received 10,000–20,000 shelf-ready items annually. Among medium libraries, the two groups receiving 20,000+ (three or 33.3 percent) and 5,000–10,000 (three or 33.3 percent) were most prevalent. An overwhelming majority (ten or 90.9 percent) of small libraries received fewer than 5,000 shelf-ready items annually. The surprising finding regarding shelf-ready budgets was that some medium-size libraries received the largest amount (more than 20,000 items) of shelf-ready materials while the percentage of the acquisitions budget for shelf-ready services in medium and large libraries was similar. This may be explained by a decrease in cataloging and processing resources in some medium libraries and the resulting acquisitions of larger amounts of shelf-ready materials. Consequently, medium libraries may be able to negotiate better prices with shelf-ready vendors on the basis of the amount of the materials received.

Overall, ten libraries (38.5 percent) reported a decrease in cataloging staff compared to sixteen libraries (61.5 percent) where cataloging staffing levels remained the same. Among those who reported a decrease, the majority (six or 66.7 percent) reported a 10–29 percent decline in cataloging staff. Furthermore, shelf-ready services did not seem to significantly affect technical services staffing in large and small libraries. More than a half of medium libraries (six or 60 percent), however, reported a decrease in technical services personnel ranging from ten to fifty percent. Table 3 shows staff level changes as a result of shelf-ready implementation.

All twenty-seven libraries (100 percent) that responded to the survey reported that they receive shelf-ready print domestic monographs. Furthermore, seven (25.9 percent) received monographs from foreign vendors. Print monographs were also the largest category across all library sizes with only two libraries (7.4 percent) receiving shelf-ready serials. In contrast, nonprint materials (i.e., CDs and DVDs) were received by only one medium and one small library (7.4 percent of respondents). Although nonprint media are usually considered more difficult to catalog and process in-house, the small number of libraries that chose to outsource this type of cataloging and physical processing may indicate the problems with bibliographic records quality as indicated in previous research.³⁶ Across all library sizes, the categories excluded most commonly from shelf-ready services were rush materials (seventeen or 63 percent of all libraries) and added volumes (twelve or 44.4 percent of all libraries). The exclusion of the added volume category by most libraries may indicate problems with record loads and a need to monitor multivolume records and related processing more closely. To properly add an additional volume to an existing bibliographic record, libraries must develop procedures to correctly merge bibliographic records for initial and consecutive volumes because each volume of shelf-ready multivolume work is typically received with its own bibliographic record.

The survey revealed that shelf-ready outsourcing constitutes a good example of a patron-oriented service model. Most libraries implemented shelf-ready services with the intent to enhance access to library resources to better serve users, and to free up staff to tackle new challenges. This form of outsourcing does not necessarily entail the reduction of technical services staff. Shelf-ready services involve mostly print monographs and serials and the type of materials excluded from this category is similar regardless of the library’s size (see “Types of Shelf Ready Materials Received” table in appendix B). Likewise, libraries use similar financial approaches to budgeting for shelf-ready services. In sum, the collected data suggests that libraries of all sizes exercise a similar approach to their shelf-ready processing and the differences in management are insignificant. A summary of the shelf-ready services duration, cost, volume as well as type of materials received and excluded is included in appendix B.

The second research question pertained to the quality of bibliographic records received with shelf-ready services. Quality control applied to received materials was important for an overwhelming majority (95.8 percent) of libraries. Virtually all institutions performed some form of bibliographic and physical processing review. Large and medium libraries mostly relied on support staff (66 and 90 percent respectively) to perform quality control with some input from professional librarians, whereas small libraries equally involved both professionals and support staff (45.5 and 54.5 percent respectively). Thus the survey results suggest that shelf-ready processing is a good redeployment of support staff within the technical services departments of academic libraries.

The majority of responding libraries (fifteen or 68.2 percent) performed quality control of shelf-ready materials as an ongoing activity. This was true across all library categories with 100 percent of large, 66.7 percent of medium, and 55.6 percent of small libraries adhering to this practice. It is interesting to note that while large and medium libraries mostly performed quality control as an ongoing activity, small libraries demonstrated a wide range of practices (from the first year only to an ongoing activity). Perhaps this may be explained by the fact that small libraries implemented shelf-ready services relatively recently compared to the rest of the group and continue to investigate different models of quality control procedures. Table 4 reveals data on individual libraries’ approaches to the percentage of shelf-ready material that is subject to quality control. There was no consistency between survey respondents regarding the percentage of the materials examined: the numbers varied between inspecting 100 percent of shelf-ready materials received to fewer than 5 percent.

Table 5 reports on physical processing errors encountered by the survey participants. The majority of physical processing errors were related to spine label mistakes (twelve or 44.4 percent of all libraries) followed by errors related to barcode placement, security tag, or property stamp errors (nine or 33.3 percent of all libraries). Two libraries (7.4 percent) reported an absence of physical processing mistakes. Table 6 reports on cataloging errors. The major cataloging error noted by libraries of all sizes was the absence of a call number in the bibliographic record (seventeen or 63 percent of all libraries). Access point errors constituted the smallest group, as reported by 14.8 percent of all libraries, and were noticed only by medium-size libraries. The percentage of other types of cataloging errors was significantly smaller, and the types of errors were fairly equally distributed across libraries of various collection sizes.

The reported error rate for combined cataloging and physical processing mistakes was insignificant. The majority of libraries (fifteen or 55.6 percent) estimated a 0–3 percent cataloging and physical processing error rate in their shelf-ready workflow. This was true for libraries of all sizes. Table 7 reports error rate and areas of concern. Although the percentages of examined materials varied, libraries of all sizes were predominantly concerned with bibliographic errors and mistakes in record loads (twelve or 57.2 percent of all libraries). Shipments, invoices, and profiles generated the least amount of errors (two or 9.5 percent of libraries). Another category (two or 9.5 percent of libraries) included “defects in books not being caught by a vendor” and “OCLC unable to supply record.” As previously mentioned, most libraries reported less than 3 percent error rate, and this number is consistent with the error rate recorded by Sanchez in her 2011 shelf-ready study.³⁷ The survey data also confirms previous findings reported in Lam’s and Schroeder and Howland’s case studies regarding a very low rate of bibliographic record errors in shelf-ready materials.³⁸ Although the quality of bibliographic records presented a major objection to implementing shelf-ready services in libraries of all sizes, the findings of this study prove that once shelf-ready services were implemented, record quality concerns were alleviated. Detailed data on staff involvement, years of experience, percentage of materials undergoing quality control as part of the shelf-ready services are provided in appendix B.

The third research question addressed the effect of shelf-ready services on local procedures and cataloging practices. More than half the libraries (fourteen or 60.9 percent) reported that their in-house cataloging practices were affected by shelf-ready services. Among the libraries of various collection sizes, the medium-size libraries group (eight or 88.9 percent) was the most likely to modify or abandon some of their cataloging workflows. Perhaps these findings are related to the fact that medium libraries proved to be the largest consumer of shelf-ready records and therefore statistically experienced the greatest effect on their local workflows. The number of respondents who indicated that cataloging practices were affected was relatively close to the number of libraries which did not experience any changes in cataloging practices (nine or 39.1 percent). This may be explained by the fact that libraries take a different approach when it comes to database maintenance practices and have different amounts of available shelf space. As a result, some institutions are ready to allow for greater deviations in shelf listing and are more willing to accept records that do not conform precisely to their local practices. Yet others prefer to exercise stricter control and therefore need to modify local practices to accommodate shelf-ready materials. The majority of libraries modified, rather than abandoned, their local cataloging practices because of shelf-ready services.

The survey results demonstrated that shelf-ready services did not affect the way authority control was performed in the majority (95.5 percent) of libraries. The authors assumed that most libraries perform authority control in-house or use authority control vendors post-cataloging. All twenty-three libraries that answered the question about the possible effect of RDA on technical specifications for shelf-ready services responded that the increased number of RDA records would not affect shelf-ready specifications. Perhaps it is safe to speculate that many libraries have already adjusted bibliographic load tables in their integrated library systems in anticipation of RDA implementation. As the adoption of RDA expands, libraries receiving shelf-ready bibliographic records might need to work with vendors on technical specifications related to the specific RDA elements such as content, media, and carrier.

The intent of the fourth research question was to assess the level of satisfaction with shelf-ready services and the future of this outsourcing model in academic libraries. The survey data confirmed that most categories of libraries were satisfied with the shelf-ready services they receive. Half (eleven or 50 percent) of respondents chose “very satisfied” as the answer, and a little less than one-third (six or 27.3 percent) indicated that they were satisfied with the services. Libraries that were moderately or not satisfied were in the minority (11.1 and 9.1 percent, respectively). The majority of libraries from the latter category were either small or medium institutions. The medium group could have experienced the most problems with shelf-ready implementation because they were the largest group participating in the survey.

The positive feedback on the quality of the shelf-ready services was received mostly from technical services personnel (seventeen or 63 percent of respondents). Public services librarians provided feedback from nine (33.3 percent) of the surveyed institutions, and user feedback was cited by seven (25.9 percent) libraries. Predictably, the majority of the feedback was provided by technical services staff. Perhaps, with the support of library administration, the assessment of the shelf-ready services efficiencies may further involve public services staff and patrons. Although the majority of libraries expressed satisfaction with shelf-ready services, the survey participants were less positive regarding the possible expansion of this service at their institutions. A little less than half of the libraries strongly agreed (six or 27.3 percent) or agreed (four or 18.2 percent) with the statement that future expansion of shelf-ready services in their institutions would possibly include new vendors and new categories of materials. However, more libraries disagreed (four or 18.2 percent), strongly disagreed (one or 4.5 percent), or had no definitive response (seven or 31.8 percent) to this statement. Therefore the survey failed to predict the future expansion of shelf-ready services in academic libraries. Perhaps further development of shelf-ready services by vendors might change this uncertain outlook.