Hunting in the shadows for savings: reevaluating standing orders

Abstract

Purpose

Standing orders are remnants of an early period of library acquisition, and while they can provide a useful service in limited cases most have outlived that usefulness and should be cancelled. In a period of restricted funding and increased digital reliance the need for standing orders has diminished; indeed often the standing orders received are no longer relevant to an institution's mission. However, identifying standing orders is complicated by the nature of their classification as a serial rather than a book or monograph. This paper aims to describe the various types of standing orders and how to identify them.

Design/methodology/approach

The paper distinguishes between the yearbook or annual standing order and the non‐sequential and often irregularly published books charged to the serial fund code. The latter type, in the author's experience, makes up the majority of standing orders, and this work argues that on the basis of collection development principles and budgetary realities the majority of standing orders should be cancelled.

Findings

The paper finds that it is necessary to create a stand‐alone database to ensure all standing orders are represented. The review of standing orders cuts materials expenditures, clarifies actual holdings, and eliminates unexpected delivery of materials.

Practical implications

Collection development principles require accountability for resource delivery. Standing orders falsely offer ease at the expense of this responsibility.

Originality/value

Very little is written on evaluating standing orders as a separate entity among library holdings. This paper addresses the dual nature of standing orders that allows them to maintain their shadowy existence on serials' accounts as neither book nor journal.

Citation

Cross, R.L. (2010), "Hunting in the shadows for savings: reevaluating standing orders", The Bottom Line, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 90-96. https://doi.org/10.1108/08880451011087658