ILL-Fated Books

"Neither a borrower or a lender be." William Shakespeare

Question: Those of us in public library or multi-type networks where circulation is high have added a whole new level of materials handling to our responsibilities. This is the transfer of books from one agency to another. I have seen my delivery load rise from 10,000 books a few years ago to well over 100,000 this year. A coleague working in a suburban county system tells me that fully one-third of their annual circulation of 8,000,000 is transported from one agency to another.

All of this transportation is putting tremendous stress on our books. Do you have any thoughts about containers? The humble canvas bag is still the weapon of choice although we are moving to rigid plastic tubs in some cases. Our network has developed recommended containers for AV materials which handle individual items fairly well.

From: Anne Reynolds, Director, Wellesley Free Library, Wellesley, MA.

Answer: This question is interesting on several levels. First, it comes from a public library. Ms. Reynolds' concern for preservation is attested to by the article she coauthored recently in Library Journal. (Reynolds, A., Schrock, N., Walsh, J. "Preservation: the Public Library Response" Library Journal February 15, 1989 pp.128-32) It is an encouraging sign that public librarians see the preservation aspect of this problem. Second, the size of the problem is remarkable. Research libraries are used to thinking that large scale preservation problems are their exclusive province. A preservation problem which effects 2.5 million books a year in just one suburban library system is obviously a large scale challenge. Statistics on interlibrary loan (ILL) are hard to find but to emphasize the size and spread of the problem, OCLC alone showed an increase of .5 million ILL requests from 1988 to 1989 from 3.7 to 4.2 million and they are presently processing requests at an average rate of 1 million every 80 days. It must be pointed out that this is only a part of activity that national and local networks have created. Third, this is a problem we have created. Improving and increasing interlibrary cooperation has been a major priority for most libraries and librarians for the past two decades. Once more two steps forward in one direction is one step back in another. Fourth, and lastly, the question is intriguing in itself and, like most intriguing questions, not easy to answer.

A sizable issue

I'm glad Ms. Reynolds asked for my "thoughts" and not a solution for there doesn't seem to be one ready to hand. Considering the number of items being shipped each year it is obvious that providing an adequate and inexpensive shipping container would be lucrative endeavor for some vendor. Some research and product development on this topic has already been done but before we discuss them we should analyze the question further. To do this we will have to make some assumptions. We will assume for the moment that AV material is a separate question and one which has been partially solved. This is because AV material is produced in a set number of formats and each of these formats have a standard size. All 33 1/3 rpm records are the same size as are CD's, and audio and video cassettes. Books, coming in many different sizes are a much greater shipping problem.

The question does not specify whether items are shipped individually or in bulk. It seems likely that for intra-system transportation, items are collected in bulk, sorted and delivered in bulk using some sort of container such as the canvas bag mentioned by Ms. Reynolds. For intersystem circulation it would be more common for individual items to be shipped separately. Since the requirements for individual and bulk shipping are so different it is unlikely that we will find a single solution. We will probably need several options that could be employed as needed. Another factor which the question does not specify is the carrier that is used. This, again, may vary from a library system's own trucks delivering between branches to a common carrier such as the Postal Service or UPS for inter-system shipping. The type of shipping has a bearing on the kinds of handling that may be expected and the kinds of packaging that may be required.

Another factor which any solution must accomodate is the need for a high volume of use. This has several repercussions. It means that the cost per shipment must be low; that the packaging must be easy and quick to do; that supplies must be very cheap or reusable and in either case easy to store in quantity.

Boxed in

These requirements have to be weighed against the preservation considerations. Those considerations can be summarized as follows:

The material should be protected from environmental damage, primarily water;
It should be protected against damage from handling, e.g. shock from impact, abrasion from friction, distortion from pressure;
The packaging should provide a means of labeling for address or shipping instructions.

To accomplish these goals the packaging must immobilize the material relative to itself (so that it does not distort), and relative to its container (so that it does not bang around inside). It must also cover or contain the material.

Over and above these requirements is the fact that the material being shipped can, in this case, be presumed to be neither rare nor irreplaceable. This does not mean worthless. (Indeed the very fact of their loan indicates that they have some significant value and that they are not universally available.) It does, however, mean that when we strike a compromise between cost, space and time on the one hand and the preservation needs of the material on the other that we can strike it at a point that is different from the one for material that might be rare, valuable or irreplaceable.

The Research Libraries Group (RLG) in its Preservation Manual has a set of "Interlibrary Loan Wrapping and Packaging Guidelines" (pp.14-15). Understandably these guidelines presuppose a research library environment of relatively valuable material. The working assumption of these guidelines is that they are for single item loans, that they will be sent by common carrier and that they are concerned only with books and microfilm. For all these reasons the RLG Guidelines are of limited help in the present discussion.

The bulk of the problem

Ms Reynolds is very much on the mark when she describes this as a materials handling problem. Materials handling, an endeavor more usually the province of shipping departments and warehouses than libraries, is a well developed and sophisticated activity. There are manufacturers and distributors which specialize in this type of supplies, machinery and equipment. It is from among these that we may expect to find sort of supplies that might be needed. I believe that we must assume that most, perhaps 90%, of the interagency shipping that goes on is done in bulk (i.e. more than one item per container) between branches within a system using system-owned transport. Therefore bulk shipping containers are of prime importance.

Before I begin let me explain that the prices given below are not exact. They are based on experience, advice and catalog price lists. A good shopper might find a marginally better price. I hope to compare the various options by clearly identifying the cost factors and applying them consistently. I assume that the average number of items shipped per trip is 10.

At the low tech end of the scale in shipping containers is the venerable corrugated cardboard box. On the up side they are relatively cheap when purchased in large quantities--on the order of $1.00 for a 12"x12"x18" box; they are somewhat reusable--with care they should be able to last through three or four round trips; they are easy to store if broken down and stacked flat. On the down side, they take time and some skill to pack properly. If they are not properly filled with packing material and taped shut the contents will be knocked around inside and the box itself will be susceptible to collapse under stress or weight. Unless properly packed, cartons are not significantly better than canvas bags. The cost in materials per round trip, assuming four round trips per carton, comes to $.38 (assuming $1.00 per carton, $.04 per one-way trip for tape, $.05 per round trip for packing material). Handling time on a range of high, medium and low would rate high. To calculate the cost of sending and getting back one item we divide this by 10 and we come up with a cost of 3.8 cents per circulation. If the Wellseley Free Library uses this method for their 90,000 circulations (90% of 100,000), shipping materials would cost them $3240 per year. To this would have to be added staff time for packing and unpacking. Some care must be taken to reuse the cartons to achieve this price. (For the sake of this discussion I will happily avoid ennumerating all the other costs associated with ILL that range from vehicle maintenance to reference service but which are not effected by the choice of container.)

There are no custom made containers for shipping books either in bulk or singly, available on the market today.

A newer option for containers is the plastic tote with lid. They are not designed for use with a common carrier but are quite suitable for intrasystem use. They come in a more than ample array of sizes, shapes, materials and designs. The lids can be loose, hinged or capable of being tied down. Most are made with slanted sides so that they can be stacked when the lids are on and nested when they are off. Their advantages are that they are very strong and so protect the contents well; they stay rigid when not fully packed; and they have handles for carrying. The disadvantages are that they a high initial cost and they take up more room in storage than cartons. The costs vary with the options but we will say that a tote of a size comparable to the above carton with a lid would cost $20.00. Though considerably more expensive than corrugated it is also more durable. If we assume 200 round trips per tote before they wear out (and presuming they are not stolen first) and assuming the same rate for packing material but no cost for tape (which would not be used since the container will stay rigid without it) The cost per round trip becomes $.15 and the cost of a circulation would be one and a half cents. This option would cost Wellsley $1350 per year. Since this container does not require taping I would rate the time needed for using it at medium. If plastic totes are used in an environment where there is some confidence that they will not be tossed around, dropped or similarly mishandled the use of packing material can be minimized, reducing the material cost and handling time significantly.

Toting up the costs

The following chart may help clarify the comparison between the three kinds of bulk shipping containers.

**Bulk Shipping, Material and Handling Cost Estimates**
Type of Container	Cost of Container Materials	Lifetime in circs	$/round trip	$/1000 circs	Handling
Corrugated cardboard carton	$1.52	4	$ .38	$380	High
Platic tote w/packing	$30.00	200	$ .15	$150	Medium
Plastic tote no packing	$20.00	200	$ .10	$100	Low

The shipment of individual items by a common carrier has different requirements. Though the urgency of this question is recent the problem itself is not.

ALA patented case

As long ago as 1962 the American Library Association (ALA) Library Technology Project (LTP) commissioned Container Laboratories, Corp. to "develop, test and evaluate a package or packages, for single book volumes...which will adequately protect contents in Parcel Post and Railway Express shipments." (Container Laboratories, Corp., Report on the development and evaluation of improved packaging for shipping single volume inter-library loan books. p. 3) This investigation led to the creation of a shipping container patent assigned to ALA (Patent No. 3,211,283, Oct. 12, 1965). The mailing case (as it is referred to in the report) consists of a rigid shell that looks very much like the two part container used in shipping reels of movie film. Inside are two wide straps, which the patent refers to a slings, secured to the bottom at right angles to one another. The slings have Velcro on them and can be wrapped around the volume and fastened to hold it tightly in place. There are straps with buckles on the outside that hold the container closed and together in shipping. This ingenious design worked quite well and was, for a while, carried as regular supply by Demco. By about 1971 they were no longer available. When, in 1976, RLG was investigating shipping containers for interlibrary loan they had to find a supplier to make a test run of 100 in four different sizes. The RLG test found the containers to be "successful in protecting materials and have been used actively by RLG members." (Memo from Jim Skipper to RLG Coordinators, October 31,1978) From there the records I have access to are not clear but whether or not RLG ordered more of the containers they do not seem to be in use any longer.

There is no doubt in my mind that this mailing case is an excellent container for single item shipping, particularly for use with a common carrier. Properly modified it would be usable for almost any kind of library material, book or AV. It is so specialized that it is an unlikely candidate for theft which increases the chances of the container being used for its full lifetime. It has the added virtue of being very quick, easy and inexpensive to use. The cost to make 100 in 1976 averaged around $15.00. Inflation would raise that price and mass production would lower it. For argument's sake let's assume that the cost now would average $20.00. I think that it is safe to assume an average lifetime of approximately 100 round trips. This would come to an average cost of $.20 per round trip for materials. As we will see, this compares favorably with other single item shipping methods. Though these containers are not available commercially I thought it important to discuss their development at some length for three reasons: first, good work should be recognized for its own sake; second, so that the work is not forgotten and unintentionally repeated; and third, because a concrete example will be very useful if we are to approach manufacturers who can help us meet this need for specially designed book shipping containers.

In a jiffy

Cardboard cartons may also be used for single item shipping. Indeed, RLG's Preservation Manual says that the "preferred packaging consists of wrapping the volume in bubble wrap and placing it in a sturdy cardboard carton for shipping." There are also "jiffy" bags and bubble bags. The former are envelopes padded with pulverized paper. The latter are envelopes padded with bubble wrap. (Bubble wrap consists of two sheets of polyethylene which have been bonded together. One of the layers has been stretched into regular and evenly spaced bubbles in which are is trapped. This forms a flexible, cushiony substance.) Both of these are designed for a single use though they are often reused at least once.

A carton for a single book measuring approximately 11"x8 1/2"x4" costs about $.75. Bubble wrap for one volume should cost about $.15. The carton could be used several times, we will estimate 8 times. (Because they are smaller these cartons will last much longer than the larger ones discussed above.) The bubble wrap would have to be discarded after each round trip at best. Adding packing material to fill out the box and tape to seal it we get a total material cost of $1.27 for 8 round trips or 16 cents per circulation. I have some reservations about this estimate partly because I am unsure that the cartons will necessarily be returned for reuse and partly because it takes a great degree of care to get 8 uses out of them.

Jiffy and bubble bags provide less protection, but are much easier to use than cartons. As part of their study Container Laboratories tested jiffy bags (bubble bags and bubble wrap had not been invented at the time). They found that they were "definitely inadequate" (p. 12). Bags, envelopes and other non-rigid containers are intrinsically less protective than rigid ones. Their use, however, is encouraged by the Postal Service because they can be handled with automated machinery. This sounds like a good reason for not using them but envelopes will always be popular because they are so easy to use. They are not inexpensive. Both jiffy and bubble envelopes cost between $.30 and $.40 each and, even if reused (which is neither recommended or convenient) they cost as much or more in materials than do cardboard cartons.

**Single Item Shipping, Material and Handling Cost Estimates**
Type of Container	Cost of Container Materials	Lifetime in circs	$/round trip	$/1000 circs	Handling
ALA patented case	$20.00	100	$.20	$200	Low
Corrugated cardboard carton	$1.27	8	$.16	$160	High
Jiffy & Bubble envelopes	$.30	1	$.30	$300	Low

To summarize, there are no custom made containers for shipping books either in bulk or singly, available on the market today. What is available are general use containers such as corrugated cardboard cartons and jiffy and bubble bags. The former are labor intensive and the latter are inadequate and expensive. The size of the potential market is large enough to make this an attractive challenge for an entrepreneur.