Expanding the Standard to Include Non-Standard Products

As former chair of the LBI Standards Committee (during the last revision process), co-editor of the 1986 LBI Standard, co-author of the Guide to the LBI Standard, and President of the Library Binding Institute, I think I can safely criticize a document that is generally regarded as meeting the industry's needs. The purpose of this article is to focus the need for constant change (a theme that runs through all of my articles) on the LBI Standard.

By definition, an industry standard must be reviewed on a regular basis, usually every five years. That review must include the companies that comprise the industry, the vendors that provide materials or services to the industry, the customers of the industry, and other interested parties. The 1986 edition of the LBI Standard complied with all of those requirements. Nevertheless, the current standard is not a true national standard because it was written under the auspices of an interested group--the LBI. A true national standard must go through a formal review that takes some measure of control away from the library binders and the LBI but that gives the resulting document much greater stature. A true national standard is referred to as a NISO Standard. "NISO, National Information Standards Organization, is a 52-year-old non-profit organization accredited by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) to develop voluntary technical standards used in libraries, information services, and publishing. Fifty NISO standards are now in print and ten standards are scheduled for publication in 1991-92."

The LBI Standard is currently on track to begin a review by a NISO committee that will ultimately lead to the publication of a joint LBI/NISO Standard--the ninth edition or perhaps it will be referred to as the first edition. This process should be viewed as healthy for the industry and positive for all concerned.

One of the dangers of a trade association trying to promulgate its own "Standard" is running afoul of strict federal anti-trust laws. Restraint of trade is not the purpose of Standard writing. It is one of the most carefully avoided elements of any document that a trade association might promote. While the industry may want to specify and thereby make possible a high plateau of quality products, it must beware of those who will object because their product is discriminated against.

One of the primary benefits of a joint LBI/NISO Standard for Library Binding is that it will be free of any possible hint of serving the self-interest of a particular group of businesses. By definition, a NISO Standard must include input, participation, and approval from all parties who might be affected by the document. This does not mean to imply that the 1986 LBI Standard does not meet that test. It means that an LBI/NISO Standard would be beyond reproach. Furthermore, it would formalize the very healthy process of keeping the LBI Standard in tune with the needs of the marketplace.

The LBI Standard is a sacred document to most library binders, most vendors of bookbinding materials and supplies, and most consumers of library binding. The Standard sets the rules by which we all must live. It specifies what materials and processes must be included in products that are referred to as Library Binding. In theory it prevents binders from cheating on the baseline quality that customers have come to expect. Workmanship, service, and price may vary from company to company but consumers should be able to compare apples with apples in terms of the basic product so long as Certified Standard Library Binding has been specified.

A customer need not believe the promises of a self-motivated sales representative. The experience of many years, many knowledgeable professionals, and many millions of time-tested quality bindings take the risk out of purchasing library binding--if you choose Certified Standard Library Binding.

While other binding products may be of high quality and may meet a particular library's needs, there is no measure of comparison against which the average librarian can judge the merits of these "other products".

The assurance that Certified Standard Library Binding is quality library binding, explains why bindery and library professionals pay so much attention to the Library Binding Institute Standard for Library Binding. Volumes that have been bound according to the specifications in the LBI Standard will meet the short-term and long-term preservation needs of actively used collections that deserve the best.

What about volumes that do not deserve or need the best? Government documents, poor paper-quality paperbacks, and other volumes that are not expected to become part of the permanent collection of a library, may not need such a high-quality binding. Such volumes may only see limited circulation or may be discarded after a short period of time. A librarian may not want to invest scarce resources by selecting the "best possible" binding for every volume that must be bound. For this reason, binding options that are less expensive to manufacture and cheaper to buy have been developed.

In an ideal world, managers should not have to compromise on quality. As we all know, this is not an ideal world. To spread limited preservation budgets across unlimited preservation challenges, librarians need binding options. Binders have responded with an array of alternative products that have seen increasing customer acceptance. By paring down the number of operations included in a binding product, eliminating reinforcing materials, substituting less expensive/less durable materials, or eliminating volume specific "special instructions", binders have created less expensive alternative products that are commonly available. Unfortunately the specifications for these products are not well defined, are not generally agreed upon, and are not included in the Library Binding Institute Standard for Library Binding. In my opinion, this is a major weakness of the LBI Standard. While the Guide to the Library Binding Institute Standard for Library Binding does describe these non-standard products, it does not allow the consumer to buy them with confidence.

Before you can discuss binding options, you must understand that there are three major categories of library binding. Periodical binding--the binding of loose issues of serial publications whose spine stamping patterns must match. Book binding--the binding or rebinding of hard cover books and reference volumes. Paperback binding--the binding of paper cover books into hard cover library bindings. Most library binders offer at least one style of non-standard (economy) binding for each of these three categories. These binding styles often do not meet the specifications of the LBI Standard. They do not meet any specifications that are widely accepted and they do not have generic names that are uniformly applied. Most library binders explain the differences between their LBI Standard products and their non-standard bindings to their customers, and most consumers of library binding accept this situation.

The 1986 Library Binding Institute Standard for Library Binding is rich with options for the sophisticated binding consumer to tailor a binding program to their particular needs. Volumes can be custom collated or be bound as received (standard collation). Leaves can be attached by any of five different methods of leaf attachment. Text blocks can be trimmed or left untrimmed. Spines can be rounded and backed or left flat backed. These choices and the many others that are incorporated in the LBI Standard add to the cost of library binding but allow better bindings that meet the individual needs of particular volumes.

Librarians often do not have the luxury of purchasing the best quality for all of their binding needs. Furthermore, they may not want to be responsible for making so many technical binding decisions for each volume. Library binder's alternative products simplify binding decisions because they incorporate a sensible array of binding techniques appropriate for certain kinds of volumes (e.g., paperbacks or economy periodicals). This saves both time and money for the library.

The time has come for the library binding industry to accept the fact that their customers do not always want or need, or simply cannot always afford the best quality library binding. This is not to say that anyone should abandon Certified Standard Library Binding. On the contrary, it is still the best product available. It simply is appropriate that the LBI Standard be expanded to include formerly non-standard products that have achieved widespread acceptance in the marketplace. In order for the LBI Standard to remain the bible for librarians and binders, it must include specifications for most (if possible--all) of the library binding products available.

Nature and business alike abhor a vacuum. If only one broadly defined product specification exists, entrepreneurs will refine specialized versions to meet market needs. Purists say that you should not contaminate the parent by recognizing the children. In a dynamic industry, change is unavoidable. Changing market forces pressure librarians to seek different solutions to new challenges. Binders and the LBI must respond. The last edition of the LBI Standard formally recognized that page by page collation would no longer be routine, but would become an option (i.e.,Custom Collation). It also recognized that one primary method of leaf attachment--oversewing--was not meeting the preservation and use needs of modern collections. In keeping with that progression of logical evolution, the time has come to recognize that no one formula (specification) for binding can be a universal solution to varied binding needs. Cost is also a factor that must be considered. The LBI must consider what is affordable and necessary along with what is the "best quality".

By recognizing the variety that exists in the product array of library binders and attempting to standardize it, the LBI can provide an enormous service to all of its members. It will provide baseline specifications that will enable fair cost/quality comparisons between different products. Apples to apples comparisons will again have meaning. It will eliminate confusion in the marketplace as to what Certified Library Binding is and is not. Is it everything that a certified library binder manufactures or just those products that meet the specifications of the LBI Standard? It will enable the leaders in the industry to move ahead with product innovation with confidence that new variations of products can eventually gain acceptance under the umbrella of the industry standard. At the same time it will prevent those same experiments from being labeled as improvements.

The final seal of approval for all library binding must and should come from the composite group of varied interests that are designated as parties to the LBI/NISO Standard writing process. Library binding is not such a rapidly evolving technology that a five year cycle of review is intolerable. Library administrators are not caretakers of materials that can be dealt with lightly. Our market and our industry look to the LBI for leadership in these matters. It is our obligation to respond.

The danger in this line of reasoning is that quality will be destroyed or watered down by too many options. Customers may become confused. Costs may actually increase if binders are forced to manufacture smaller, less efficient batches of many different products. Recognizing and thereby legitimizing non-standard binding products may be akin to opening Pandora's Box. After working so hard to establish stringent quality specifications, why should the LBI endorse lesser products? Doing so may be our Waterloo.

The primary strength of the 1986 LBI Standard for Library Binding is that it codified the leading edge of library binding technology to address the library community's binding needs. It went beyond expectations. It was bold and broke new ground. In order for the LBI Standard to remain relevant in the marketplace it must continue to push forward onto new territory that has proven to be solid. Change is exciting, it is dangerous, but most important of all it is unavoidable. In these times of rapidly evolving information technology, library binders cannot afford to complacently look back to a happier past. If library binders do not allow our products (and our industry Standard) to evolve in tandem with the needs of our market, then we will cease to exist.

The LBI Standard must be viewed as a moving target or more aptly--an ever higher plateau to which we must aspire. If the LBI Standard becomes a more complex document with multiple products defined and specified, our businesses will become more complex organizations to manage and make profitable. Progress means that races will be run ever faster. Old limits and cherished boundaries fall away. These are the challenges that make the LBI a vital organization as we try to focus this change in a positive fashion. Enabling binders and suppliers to provide an array of quality products that will meet specific needs but remain protected by the seal of Certified Library Binding.

Paul Parisi, President
Acme Bookbinding

This article first appeared in:
The New Library Scene
Vol. 10, No. 5, Oct. 1991