In-house or Vendors
Many libraries and archives use vendors to meet their preservation needs, and in some circumstances, this may be the most sensible way to proceed. Vendor services include the binding of periodicals and monographs, microfilming, and digitization. These are the services that lend themselves most easily to routine contract pricing and uniform handling. In many cases, the more routine and uniform the work, the more likely that vendors can perform it more cheaply and efficiently than the library.
Preservation functions typically performed in house by library and archive staff include standard care of collections, minor paper repair, replacement photocopy, binding preparation, simple pamphlet casing and paperback processing, microfilm preparation, and book repair. These functions are considered inappropriate for vendors for several reasons. Some sensible criteria can be applied to help you determine whether to use vendors.
Competence and standards
One of the most important considerations in making the “in or out” decision is a vendor’s level of competence. For example, although a commercial binder may produce bindings quickly at low cost, if the bindings are poorly executed, commercial binding is not a bargain. If a microfilm vendor produces microfilm at low cost but is unwilling to conduct tests to ensure proper chemical processing, and does not meet recognized standards for the production of quality film, then clearly this is not a good avenue to pursue.
The preservation professional must establish performance criteria based on national or international standards and/or the specific performance needs of the library. In examining periodical binding requirements, for example, the binding design must evaluated by the preservation professional based on patterns of use, shelving, storage configurations, and longevity needs. These should be incorporated into a pre-contract document or request for proposal (RFP). The RFP is presented to the prospective vendor, and if the vendor agrees to execute the work in accordance with the RFP, then a contract for services is written up. If there are no vendors in the region capable of or willing to respond to the RFP, an in-house operation should be established.
The issue of competence applies also to in-house operations. If an in-house unit cannot be staffed by trained staff or there is a lack of appropriate equipment and materials, steps must be taken to upgrade these. One of the main advantages of the in-house option is the ability to control the operation and provide needed training.
Decision-making and service
Sometimes the service costs of working with a vendor are not fully taken into account. For example, to prepare a paperback monograph for <a href="/glossary#Commercial_Binding" title=“Binding by a commercial vendor, sometimes referred to as “library binding”. At most libraries, materials bound by the commercial binder include: periodicals, theses/dissertations, and the rebinding of damaged books.
" class=“lexicon-term”>commercial binding requires that a decision be made on the form of binding; the decision be documented on an instruction slip for the binder; the library’s circulation record be changed to reflect the location of the book; and on return from the bindery the work be inspected and the circulation and binding records be changed. The time taken to perform these functions should be accounted for.
If paperbacks are instead to be stiffened in house, the work is performed with minimal preparation. In this case, decisions are made purely on a format basis with no instruction slips, and all paperbacks are stiffened. The work can be turned around in under 48 hours, so no adjustments to the circulation record are needed. Paperbacks can be bound in house at less than it costs simply to prepare them for commercial binding. Paperback stiffening does require some capital equipment investment (a power paper cutter and a gluing machine), but the equipment is easy to maintain, the technology stable, and the process simple enough that staff can be quickly trained.
In contrast, periodicals may be much more suitable for commercial binding because of the need for sophisticated machinery to fasten the loose leaves together. In many industrialized countries, much mass binding equipment is automated, and it is not always possible for libraries to purchase and maintain it because of problems of scale and the fast rate of obsolescence. Moreover, vendors favor working with a large volume of uniform items, since processing is more predictable and staff training and wages minimal. As a result, the number of processing options offered by vendors is few.
Vendors are rarely able to offer major remedial conservation treatment. For such treatment, staff have to be professionally trained and experienced. The work itself covers an extremely wide range of treatment options, which are not amenable to mass production. Moreover, libraries and archives are extremely reluctant to move rare and unique research materials off the premises, beyond direct control.