Introduction and Overview
It is an exciting time for libraries in terms
of developing technology and its influence on traditional library roles and
procedures. One such technology that
could potentially change the way libraries operate is print-on-demand (POD)
publishing, a technology aided by the rise in popularity of digitization of
physical material. POD refers to the
technology and business model in which physical books are printed in small
quantities, in some cases even a single copy (Dougherty, 2009). Both small and large presses can use this
technology to quickly print material (Dougherty, 2009). The traditional library practice has been to
acquire large amounts of physical material, which is mostly selected by
librarians in the hopes that they will be used by patrons. This is sometimes referred to as a
“just-in-case” model (Anderson, 2010, p.40).
POD allows libraries to acquire the material they need, the amount they
need and at the time a patron requests it; this is referred to as the “just-in-time”
model (Anderson, 2010, p. 40). Many
libraries are also using POD in order to print copies of material from their
special collections, student theses and material to supplement textbooks. This paper will offer a look at the
literature on POD in libraries as well as current usage in libraries today,
potential future uses and the challenges and issues that still require
resolution.
Literature Review
Much of the literature surrounding
POD focuses on its implementation in the academic library setting, which is not
to say the public libraries are not also making use of this technology. David
Lewis (2013) includes POD with other trends such as digitization and open
access publishing that he claims are about to dramatically shift the way
academic libraries collect material. He
also claims that the “ultimate expression of print-on-demand (POD) may be the
Espresso Book Machine (EBM),” which can instantly “print and bind books for a
penny a page” (p.164). Barbara Blummer (2005) lists several universities that
have either partnered with POD presses or used their own presses to adopt the
POD model with successful programs. For
example, The University of Pittsburgh’s Digital Research Library partnered with
Brookhaven Press to produce printed copies of material from its historic collections
(Blummer, 2005).
There are also the lucky libraries
that have been able to acquire the above mentioned EBM and have published their
experiences with the machines. Rick
Anderson (2010) explains how the University of Utah’s Marriott Library was able
to acquire the machine and the many uses and setbacks they found along the
way. Likewise, Terri Geitgey (2011)
published an article about the University of Michigan’s experiences with one of
the earliest EBM models. Both will be
discussed later.
Print-on-Demand in Libraries
POD has been around since the 1990s,
but some stumbling blocks kept it from being a particularly attractive concept
to libraries (Blummer, 2005). Today,
libraries are taking advantage of the improved technology to develop their
collections. For example, libraries can
take advantage of the small quantities that presses are able to put for
“replacing damaged or lost books from a collection” (Dougherty, 2009, p.184). Ingram (2014) offers libraries a wide catalog
of content through Lightning Source, which “seamlessly links Print on Demand to
the industry’s largest distribution network” (Print On Demand Distribution,
para. 1). While many libraries have long
since been digitizing their rare and historical collections, they can now offer
this material to patrons who have a preference for a printed monograph by using
their own presses or partnering with commercial print on demand services, or is
some cases, both. Before purchasing
their EBM, the University of Michigan utilized their Scholarly Publishing
Office to offer POD for items that had been digitized for preservation
(Blummer, 2005).
The few libraries that have
purchased their own EBMs are also finding creative ways to offer POD services. The EBM is produced by On Demand Books (2013)
and through its EspressNet offers “seven million in-copyright and public-domain
titles” (EBM Overview, para. 1). The
Marriott Library of the University of Utah purchased their EBM in 2009 in order
to move towards a “just-in-time” modal of acquiring books and to offer access
to their rare materials (Anderson, 2010).
They also print blank books to demonstrate the machine and offer gifts
to visitors and have had success printing and selling calendars with pictures
of pieces from their Special Collections (Anderson, 2010). The University of Michigan hosted the first
EBM in a university setting, though had a well-developed POD system in place
(Geitgey, 2011). They offer printings of
books from their own digitized collection as well as those from their
partnership with Google Books (Geitgey, 2011).
Potential for Print-On-Demand
Clearly, a huge potential for POD
usage is collection development.
Libraries that can utilize the just-in-time model for acquisitions can
also move towards a “patron-driven over librarian driven-acquisition” in which
patrons can “truly have access to any book they need” (Anderson, 2010, p.
40). In addition to adding to the
library’s collection, the POD model (especially with an EBM) can be used to
print supplementary course material and library reports (Geitgey, 2011). The University of Sydney would also like to
develop on demand services for other media as well “such as video, audio…and
scholarly commentary incorporated into a streaming or DVD product” (Blummer,
2005, p.45).
Others have suggested that POD can
replace interlibrary loan programs since the cost of lending material is
increasing, while the cost of POD is decreasing (Wilson-Higgins, 2011). Making this idea seem more plausible is the
access a library would have to the network of digital material that presses
could print (Wilson-Higgins, 2011).
Wilson-Higgins (2011) concludes that a network of libraries with access
to material would be necessary, but the potential cost means this is likely not
an exact substitution for interlibrary loan.
Challenges/Issues
While POD might drive the costs of some material down with
publishers no longer having to accept returned material and pay to store large
quantities of stock, the investment for organizations to conduct their own POD
can be considerable (Wilson-Higgins, 2011).
This is especially true for libraries investing in an EBM, which can
cost upwards of $100,000 (Wilson-Higgins, 2011). The technology is also still developing and
Anderson (2010) admitted that the machine did sometimes have to work out
glitches. There are also the added costs
of hiring and/or training staff members who can operate and maintain the
equipment. Wilson-Higgins (2011) also
points out that in order to take advantage a great network material, the
technological infrastructure must be in place to store and maintain the POD
files, which are much larger than traditional print files. Finally, there is
the concern of copyright. Libraries must
produce works that are in the public domain, or those to which they have the
copyrights (Blummer, 2005).
Conclusion
Though the idea of POD has been
around for a while, the technology will continue to improve offering libraries
a range of options when developing their collections and offering access to
their rare material. There are some
barriers to the technology, such as copyright and cost, I believe that
libraries should try to find ways to take advantage of this improving technology. A service that could quickly place material
in the hands of patrons when they desire it could be a huge advantage to
libraries.
References
Anderson,
R. (2010). The Espresso Book Machine: The Marriott Library experience. Serials,
23(1), 39-42.
Blummer,
B. (2005). Opportunities for libraries with print-on-demand publishing. Journal
of Access Services, 3(2), 41-54. doi:10.1300/J204v03n02-04
Dougherty,
W. C. (2009). Managing Technology: Print on demand: What librarians should know.
Journal Of Academic Librarianship, 35(2), 184-186.
Geitgey,
T. T. (2011). The University of Michigan Library Espresso Book Machine
experience. Library Hi Tech, 29(1), 51-61.
doi:10.1108/07378831111116895
Ingram
Content Group. (2014). Print on demand
distribution. Retrieved from http://www.ingramcontent.com/Pages/Print-on-Demand.aspx
Lewis,
D. (2013). From stacks to the web: The transformation of academic library collecting.
College & Research Libraries, 74(2), 159-176.
On
Demand Books. (2013). The EBM technology.
Retrieved from http://ondemandbooks.com/ebm_overview.php
Wilson-Higgins,
S. S. (2011). Could print on-demand actually be the “new interlibrary loan”?. Interlending
& Document Supply, 39(1), 5-8. doi:10.1108/02641611111112093
No comments:
Post a Comment