April 2000
Current and Planned Facilities at CIC Member Universities
The U. of Chicago does not have off-site storage. Sem Sutter adds that next week Chicago begins moving vast quantities of books into our new compact open stack shelving on the sub-sub-basement level. It is what has enabled us to escape the remote storage option for now, but as our growth space fills up we'll watch what others of you are doing now as we contemplate what we need to do next.
The U. of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) has off site storage. No cooperation with anyone else, yet.
The U. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign is making plans for a remote storage site. Karen Schmidt is leading the group charged with making recommendations on what to place in the facility.
Indiana University is in the initial planning stages for a proposed off-site facility.
Final approval from the IU Trustees is hoped for by early May. We have been
querying the libstorage listserv for information about budgets and operations. Ours would be IU--Bloomington only. IU is going live tomorrow with our Selection Guidelines for ALF (Auxiliary Library Facility). See: http://www.indiana.edu/~libweb/alf/guidelines.html
The U. of Iowa does not have off-site storage. Approximately ten years ago there was some discussion about a shared remote storage facility, but nothing came of it.
Michigan has a remote shelving facility (only about 8-10 blocks from central campus, though, and very close to the football stadium for all those multi-tasking scholars). The facility has been in existence since about 1981 and we send about 70,000 volumes to storage annually. The stacks are closed access, shelved by size. The facility design and early phases of collection selection criteria used for the Graduate Library (the largest sender of stuff to storage) are described in a couple of articles:
"Collection Management for Storage: Remote Shelving Comes of
Age." Collection Management 16:2 (1992):93-108.
"A Remote Shelving Facility Retrofit: The University of Michigan
Experience," in The Great Divide: Challenges in Remote Storage,
edited by James R. Kennedy and Gloria Stockton. Chicago: American
Library Association, 1991.
Additional info on the facility and services available at: http://www.lib.umich.edu/libhome/services/buhr.html
Michigan State has had a remote storage facility since 1981. It is not state of the art by any means but has been a necessity for a long time. We began by taking "'dead" serial runs but have eventually moved to housing monographs there as well. Even with this facility and as much compact shelving as our Main Library can accommodate we are still very near capacity.
Minnesota’s storage facility was funded at the legislative level to provide a storage facility for state-wide academic libraries (public and private) and public libraries. The facility is not remote for us at the U of MN/Twin Cities but will be for everyone else. We have drafts of a number of documents (criteria for bibliographic records, guidelines for materials going into the facility, etc.). The U of MN-TC relied primarily on the work Harvard did in planning their facility. You might want to contact Princeton's access services folks, because they are planning a joint facility (with Yale and Columbia).
Peggy Johnson from the U of MN suggests that anyone beginning to consider storage facilities should consider coming to the Minnesota/MINITEX collection development symposium May 22. From 5:00-7:00 on May 21, we're having a reception and tours in our newly opened and award-winning Andersen Library in which is located our high density storage facility (items sorted by size and shelved in trays). The storage facility is called the Minnesota Library Access Center and will be processing materials from all over the state. It has a state-of-the-art mechanical system to transport volumes from delivery to the processing area. The program on Monday is going to be excellent -- the theme is the changing academy and the library's role in serving it. Our own Mr. Sandler is one of the featured speakers. You can find all the information at: http://www.lib.umn.edu/about/events/CollDev2000.html
Ohio State has a remote storage facility where we are the sole occupant. We have not done a cost study. However, we do know that our operating costs are lower than those of the other four depositories in the state, even though we maintain the longest hours of operation of all the state's depositories.
Penn State has two facilities--one on campus and one just off—but they are not consortial facilities.
Purdue currently has on-campus storage only - compact shelving in the basement of the Undergraduate Library.
Wisconsin is just beginning to discuss remote storage needs. Lou Pitschmann is chairing a committee that will recommend to Ken Frazier "selection criteria for remote storage." You can find our work and links to other sites regarding remote storage at http://www.library.wisc.edu/libraries/Memorial/selpage.htm#remote
Cost Studies and Sources of Additional Information:
Association of Research Libraries, Office of Management Studies. Remote Storage: Facilities, Materials Selection and User Services. SPEC Kit no. 164. Washington, DC: ARL, 1990.
Results of a 1990 survey of ARL libraries regarding remote storage are included. The services provided by nearly fifty libraries with remote storage programs are concisely outlined in a chart that describes how users submit requests for stored materials, retrieval turnaround time, whether or not the facility is open to the public, and on-site services provided at the storage facilities. The University of California at Berkeley and the University of Michigan contribute detailed statements of operating principles. Four libraries contribute reports in the section headed "Budget and Planning." These include actual cost figures for shelving, retrieval, staffing, and administration.
Cooper, Michael D. "The Sensitivity of Book Storage Strategy Decisions to Alternative Cost Assumptions." Library Quarterly 61:4 (1991): 414-428.
In a follow-up to his 1989 study of the costs of four library storage alternatives, Cooper takes a closer look at how changes in circulation costs and construction costs affect the choices about alternative storage options. This study omits the data pertaining to user circulation costs and user delay costs that his 1989 includes. Examining only the "base data"--construction costs, processing costs, and circulation costs to the library--Cooper reaffirms that the least expensive storage alternative is for a library to put compact open-stack shelving in existing ground-level space on campus. Cooper concludes that circulation costs should dominate the decision of what kind of book storage alternative to build, and that the decision about where a particular item is shelved should be strongly influenced by the potential circulation of that item. Cooper considers a situation in this study that he did not include in his previous study: that of the item that never circulates. The least expensive place to store that item is in the remote, regional, closed-stack facility.
Cooper, Michael D. "A Cost Comparison of Alternative Book Storage Strategies." Library Quarterly 59:3 (1989): 239-260.
Cooper examines the costs of four storage alternatives: open-stack facilities, compact open stack facilities, local storage, and regional storage facilities. In addition to construction costs, the author considers selection costs, processing costs at the local library, transportation costs, processing costs at the storage facility, and circulation costs. Not surprisingly, construction costs for an open stack facility are the highest--$15.84 per volume compared to $2.78 per volume for closed stack storage construction costs. The author is concerned, however, that administrators too often look only at this construction cost figure and not at other costs. He proves that all other costs are highest for a regional storage facility, where one circulation can cost almost $10 for staff time and transportation. Many intriguing tables and charts are included for quick and easy comparisons. The author concludes that a compact open stack facility located on-campus is the most cost-effective storage facility. Processing costs are least expensive, and circulation costs are the same as for a standard library facility. When one factors in the delays that patrons must face when they ask for materials from off-campus facilities, the on-campus alternative looks even more appealing. Cooper clearly proves that administrators should study more than just construction costs when considering storage alternatives, and he suggests that librarians employ a hierarchy of storage facilities whenever possible, putting only the most infrequently used materials in storage off-campus.
Ellsworth, Ralph E. Economics of Book Storage in College and University Libraries. Metuchen, NJ: Association of Research Libraries, 1969.
This classic work should be reviewed from cover to cover by remote storage facility planners because it discusses all of the major issues connected with the cost of book storage. Ellsworth's study attempts to answer two questions: Is it economical to relegate low-use materials to storage? Is cost the only factor a university should consider in adopting a storage program?
Fussler, Herman H. "The Economics of Book Housing." In Patterns in the Use of Books in Large Research Libraries, 133-140. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969.
In his now-classic study, Fussler bases his recommendations on the assumption that the cost of housing a large book collection will be lower if some of that collection is placed in compact storage. Fussler studies the problem of cost variations with time, of scheduling transfers of materials to and from storage, of costs of paging and messenger services, and of circulation from storage. Most of his conclusions are based on statistical analyses, the results of which are summarized in a variety of tables. While the cost figures are outdated, Fussler's formulas are still much used by planners, and his philosophy of book storage is the basis of today's thought in that area. The book includes a detailed index.
Gorman, Michael. "Moveable Compact Shelving: The Current Answer." Library Hi Tech 5:4, consecutive issue no. 20 (Winter 1987): 23-26.
The author concludes that in-house storage, with compact, moveable shelving, is the only feasible answer to the space problems that today's libraries are facing. In reaching this conclusion, he dismisses regional storage facilities as a viable option. Gorman says that the difficulties of remote storage increase as the distance from the main library building increases, creating difficulties in communication and transportation. He says that the hidden costs of maintenance and inconvenience a remote facility commands outweigh the more inexpensive start-up costs of such a facility. Pointing out that most libraries fall back on a hit-or-miss method of determining what materials are sent to storage, he says that the items sent to remote storage will be demanded and this demand will make remote facilities economically impractical. He points out that all mechanisms of retrieval are complicated, expensive, time-consuming, and unreliable. He concludes that any reasonable person will avoid the "hazard" of remote storage facilities. His article should be of interest to regional facility planners who will have to answer patrons with objections similar to Gorman's.
Kountz, John. "Industrial Storage Technology Applied to Library Requirements." Library Hi Tech 5:4, consecutive issue no. 20 (Winter 1987): 13-22.
This article closely examines an Automated Storage/Retrieval System (AS/RS) that solves the problem of handling materials in the remote storage facility and, according to the author, improves library services. A couple of simple tables make clear cost comparisons per square foot and per book stored between open stack, moving aisle shelving and industrial shelving. The charts show that industrial shelving is by far the least expensive space-saving method. But the problem with industrial storage is that it often makes retrieval cumbersome and inefficient, and ineffective retrieval methods are expensive in terms of labor and public relations. The author recommends a miniload AS/RS for libraries after reviewing the background of several library shelving methods. A practical chart showing different formats of library materials and how many of each format can fit into storage bins of various sizes is provided.
Martin, Harry S. (Terry). "In Defense of Remote Storage." Email message posted to the lawlibdir-l@lawlib.wuacc.edu Internet discussion list on Jan. 19, 2000.
The full text of the message can be found at http://www.library.wisc.edu/libraries/Memorial/harvard.txt
Metcalf, Keyes D. "The Alternatives to a New Library Building." In Planning Academic and Research Library Buildings, 22-36. Chicago: American Library Association, 1986.
After summarizing the traditional problems associated with decentralized library collections and cautioning library administrators to look at all alternatives to remote storage, Metcalf moves to a discussion of cooperative storage facilities. He stresses planning for future growth of collections housed in remote facilities, suggesting that within the next decade larger university libraries will have 50 percent of their collection stored in a "secondary-access facility." He urges libraries to develop storage facilities jointly when possible, pointing out the administrative advantages of joint management, to include sharing the cost of transportation to and from the facility and eliminating duplication among the items placed in storage. Included in this chapter is a floor plan of Princeton University's storage warehouse. Of particular interest is the fact that the floor plan includes the exact measurements and placement of Princeton's shelving and the fact that nearly half of that shelving is 24" deep in order to accommodate oversized materials.
O'Connor, Phyllis. "Remote storage facilities: An annotated bibliography." Serials Review, Summer 94, Vol. 20 Issue 2, p17, 11p. Available on the Web at http://www.library.wisc.edu/libraries/Memorial/oconnor.htm
Most of the citations here have been pulled from this annotated bibliography.
Peterson, Kenneth G. "New Storage Facility at Southern Illinois University." College & Research Libraries News 51 (January 1990): 39-43.
This is an account of the planning and opening of a library storage building at Southern Illinois University (SIU), where pressure from students and faculty persuaded the university administration to abandon its plans for renovating an off-campus building in favor of constructing an on-campus building for library storage. Peterson includes detailed construction cost figures, calculating that the per-volume stack-shelving and storage costs amounted to $2.84 for each of the 500,000 volumes that the facility would eventually house. It is interesting that SIU planned to move 100,000 volumes to the new storage building during the first year, but actually filled more than sixty percent of the space during that first year, moving 300,000 volumes. The article includes operational details about delivery procedures (twice a day, Monday through Friday), staffing (one full-time library technical assistant plus student hours), and operations budgets (aside from student wages, operating costs having been absorbed).