How materials are labeled can be one of the most contentious debates during design of a routing management system, especially when materials are shipped outside a system managed in-house. Each library group within a delivery net- work has particular processes and ILS- or ILL-generated slips that it wants to use for delivery labeling to streamline its processing of materials. The bottom line is that a labeling system must work for the delivery provider to ensure speed and accuracy according to its internal routing and sorting structure.
It is important that libraries sending materials adhere to standardized label- ing and codes as developed cooperatively between the libraries and the delivery ser vice. All information that is asked to be provided on an approved label must be included on the routing slip to facilitate its proper and timely delivery. Because materials may be shipped along multiple hubs when in transit through a delivery system, all hub locations must be indicated on a routing slip along with the final delivery destination.
Other information that is helpful and important to successful material rout- ing is the shipping date and sending location, which are used to track routing problems. If an item is not labeled as it should be, knowing who sent it allows the delivery system to follow up with the sender to correct how the orga nization labels in the future. Having the shipping date allows participants of a delivery network to know the transit times for items coming from different locations.
Should a library see that items take longer to arrive from a particular location than is expected, it can ask the delivery ser vice to work on improving the transit time.
Labels can either be handwritten or generated by the ILS/ILL system.
Handwritten labels often lead to routing errors because of improper coding, not enough information, or poor handwriting. Handwritten labels also add a step to the process of preparing materials for delivery. The preference is that routing slips be electronically generated and printed. Printed labels are faster to create and tend to be more accurate and easier to read.
In most ILL transactions, paperwork must be included with the item as it travels between a lender and a borrower for the item to be processed properly.
With system-printed slips, it is possible to include the delivery routing infor- mation on this same slip. With a handwritten slip, the additional steps involved include having to refer to a delivery network listing to determine exactly how the routing slip should be filled out and then actually filling out the slip as neatly as possible. One pitfall on handwritten slips is that many communities can have several different libraries all using the community name. For example, in a city called Jefferson there could be a public library, a college, and a school district all receiving delivery. It is easy for a sender to just write Jefferson, which results in confused sorters handling the item in transit.
In a closed-loop delivery system, where the libraries receiving delivery are a part of the same system and have delivery ser vice from one provider, it is possible to simplify labeling. In these systems labeling is generally needed only to ship hold or reserve material. Any items that are being returned to an owning loca- tion can be sorted according to item ownership labeling. To facilitate speed, it is best that any ownership tags on an item be placed on the front outside cover and conform to the coding system used by the delivery ser vice.
How routing slips are labeled or coded is an important part of a successful material routing system. There are three main ways to do this: having the names of receiving locations and hubs fully written out, using alpha codes that corre- spond to these names, and using a numeric coding system.
Fully writing out the receiving location names and hubs is self-explanatory.
The benefit of spelled-out names over alpha coding is that shortened alpha codes can result in misreading. The disadvantages of full names, mainly with handwrit- ten labels, is the additional time consumed to prepare items for delivery and the possibility of important information being left off the routing slip.
The best alpha codes are created in relation to the receiving location’s name.
For example, a city named Monroe could be MON. Alpha codes with no rela- tion to the receiving locations names increase the difficulty of sorting and slow down sorting. An example is the OCLC codes, which for sorters are difficult to memorize and often require use of code guide sheets. Alpha coding is easier to
memorize than numeric coding but can lead to misreading when codes are simi- lar, like MCF and MFC or FIT and PIT.
Delivery managers constantly strive to decrease missorting and miscoding problems, for both are expensive in terms of staff time and shipping costs. A missort doubles the number of times an item is shipped. Standardizing a shorter, more memorable code can reduce costly mistakes. Both Massachusetts and Colorado report that shifting to a numeric code from a longer alpha coding sys- tem has reduced internal mistakes in both systems. Another significant advantage to moving to a short numeric code system is that it makes the automation of management functions through a courier management system easier (see chapter 10 for details of courier management systems). Another key reason to recode a library system is to improve sorting. Anything that improves efficiency in systems sorting millions of items a year has a direct cost advantage.
The process of converting from any library addressing system to another is politically charged. Many library employees have memorized the codes of fre- quent exchange partners or have preprinted labels and other addressing informa- tion. Resistance to change is a common experience for most library managers, and any change process must be managed with care.
Experience from those who have changed their coding system suggests that one of the most important considerations is giving participants plenty of lead time to prepare for the change. One system announced its upcoming change six months in advance of the cutover date. Frequent announcements were made at library meetings and through paper and electronic communication. After the cutover day, the system continued to honor old codes for another six months. On the last day six months after the cutover, any item using the old code was shipped back to the sending library for relabeling, forcing a final conversion to the new system.
Reports from those who have switched to numeric codes suggest that initial criticism is louder and than post-implementation complaints. For instance, Colorado did face some harsh criticisms when presenting the pro- posed change to participating libraries, but there we no complaints reported about the new coding system in several follow-up surveys. In fact, the loudest complainers had become the best supporters of the coding change. Overall, once the code change was completed, both Colorado and Massachusetts reported that their systems were working better and with fewer complaints and mistaken deliveries.