This past June at ALA, I was amazed at the number of sessions geared toward Library 2.0. I attended one aimed at it's use in Technical services, basically as collaboration tools (blogged in a previous post). In my previous job, I could/can see uses for such things as a blog and a wiki, however, management was a little wary as nothing like that had been done or considered before. Since there was no share drive or intranet, the more I learn the more I believe these tools could have been used for not only meeting the needs of users, but also for internal collaboration (as was done by the presenters of said ALA session).
In my current place of work, we have share drives, which weren't at previous place of work, making the use of such collaboration tools not as necessary. After all, if a process is in place and working, it shouldn't be changed simply to use a new technology. Unless, that technology could improve the process and/or collaboration. I admit the drive could be better organized, but it's still there and accessible by everyone. However, a share drive doesn't quite encourage collaboration the way a wiki could/would.
The more I think about it though, the more I realize I was using collaborative tools in my previous life and pre web point anything. In my previous life, I held several positions with a software company. One was in their Customer Care department, which when created involved more than working with a phone script. We had to know several different products, their supported platforms, 3rd party products that worked with the software, billing/invoicing processes and procedures, what was coming in future releases, and a host of other things. If we didn't know the answer, we had to know where to go for that answer.
The company used Lotus Notes, which also provided a way to create databases. My main page contained links to the databases I used most frequently. Each product line and almost every department had a database we could go to to find the information we needed or to at least find a contact person. As our group grew, we realized the need for a database for our issues/resolutions and created it - one that could be searched by the entire company and edited by everyone in our group. I should also add that our "team" was spread from coast to coast. We had people in MD, IL, MI, Canada, MA, PA, TX, and CA. The database allowed for collaboration and everyone contributed. Today it would probably be created using a wiki. We dealt with the majority of our customers via phone or e-mail.
Because we were so scattered, we used chat for quick communications. That was actually my first introduction to web chat - I used it for work first and then expanded it to personal friends. So, coming to the library profession and seeing the "innovations" of e-mail and chat reference are really not so new to me - I was doing that six years ago.
I look at all the "innovations" and uses of technology in libraries today and realize that there have always been tools for collaboration. What appears to be innovative probably has been done before -- what's old is new.
August 29, 2007
August 08, 2007
Usage statistics
When databases come up for renewal, one of the first things we do is look at usage statistics. Well, I have a tax database due for renewal -- the vendor does not provide usage statistics and has no intention of doing so. When I asked, the reply was that the cost was the same regardless of usage and if we wanted to know, they recommend that their corporate customers send out an e-mail to gauge usage. Well, we're a library, so that's not really an option for us. So, do you just blow off usage statistics?
The first professional conference I ever attended was the Charleston Conference. I had been in my first full time job less than six months when I went, but I'm still learning from one of the sessions I attended. It was a session on Counter compliant statistics. They didn't teach that in library school, so it was all new to me. One of the presenters stated that they finally implemented a policy to not subscribe to a database/resource if the usage statistics were not Counter compliant. I didn't quite understand it until I spent a week gathering usage statistics for my library's annual report. Then, I got it.
Now, I'm wondering if I shouldn't have such a policy for databases that provide no usage statistics. The above mentioned database will cost us thousands of dollars and I have no way of gauging if it's being used. My business librarians tell me one facutly member in the business department uses it for one of her classes. We do have a MS in Taxation which adds a little wrinkle to it. However, ProQuest now has an Accounting and Tax database that offers most of what this database does in addition to accounting journals. Their interface is familiar to most and usage stats (Counter compliant ones no less) would be available.
I have no desire to take away a resource that is being used. I also have no desire to pay thousands of dollars for a resource for one class, especially if the information could be provided by another resource that would have broader applicability.
Which begs another question. Is any type of usage statistic better than none?
The first professional conference I ever attended was the Charleston Conference. I had been in my first full time job less than six months when I went, but I'm still learning from one of the sessions I attended. It was a session on Counter compliant statistics. They didn't teach that in library school, so it was all new to me. One of the presenters stated that they finally implemented a policy to not subscribe to a database/resource if the usage statistics were not Counter compliant. I didn't quite understand it until I spent a week gathering usage statistics for my library's annual report. Then, I got it.
Now, I'm wondering if I shouldn't have such a policy for databases that provide no usage statistics. The above mentioned database will cost us thousands of dollars and I have no way of gauging if it's being used. My business librarians tell me one facutly member in the business department uses it for one of her classes. We do have a MS in Taxation which adds a little wrinkle to it. However, ProQuest now has an Accounting and Tax database that offers most of what this database does in addition to accounting journals. Their interface is familiar to most and usage stats (Counter compliant ones no less) would be available.
I have no desire to take away a resource that is being used. I also have no desire to pay thousands of dollars for a resource for one class, especially if the information could be provided by another resource that would have broader applicability.
Which begs another question. Is any type of usage statistic better than none?
July 26, 2007
Plinkit? What is that??
Flippantly, it's the project I walked in the door as the Project Coordinator (with no clue) that was expected to do a state-wide roll-out of 100+ libraries by the end of the year. So, within 2 weeks of being at my new job, I was off for a week attending Plone administrator bootcamp.
(Really, Plinkit (Public Library Interface Kit) is a Content Management System offered to empower small rural libraries in creating intuitive, dynamic websites with little effort and no technical expertise.)
Some much simplified background --
Oregon created a product that allowed libraries to choose from a variety of templates placed on top of PLONE - an open source CMS. Oregon, Colorado, Texas, and Illinois have come together in a collaborative to distribute the product to public libraries throughout those states.
In our state, we have the State Library which grant funds the Library Regional Systems. So, the first order of business was to train all of the technical contacts at the Systems offices, which was conducted in late April. Those technical contacts have been in charge of getting the libraries in their region up on Plinkit. To date, we have 7 or 8 live sites.
July 20, 2007
Journal review
It's nearing our fiscal year end. Add to this the fact that several publishers have drastically increased subscription prices and, you guessed it, we're reviewing journal subscriptions. About the lists: one list is for a move to print only; one list is standing orders for titles that are not available electronically, so we are reviewing to see if we should keep the subscription.
Naturally, usage and cost come into play for both. For those available full-text, the consideration is merely is the usage there. At MPOW, we're definitely moving toward electronic, so print only isn't really an option, even if it is less expensive. In most cases yes, the usage is there. In a couple of cases, no it isn't. For those titles with low usage, I considered where else it was held and given the current usage, is ILL an option. Well, one title had four uses. In addition, I looked at the title's value to the field. So, even though a journal may have low usage, it might not get marked for cancellation if it is considered a top journal in the field.
The second set of journal reviews is the one that was more interesting. Up until now, I'd never really considered stats for journal titles from an indexing and abstracting database, just overall database usage. However, when reviewing journal usage for print subscriptions, it helps to know if it's being used. My OPAC shows "historical browses" for titles, but there is some debate as to how accurate it is. So, I pulled usage stats by title. I was surprised by the results. Titles that seemed obscure in name and had very few browses in the OPAC had heavy usage in the database. Since the stats were returning abstract requests, it doesn't tell if the user actually went to the print journal, but it does tell me that the title is appearing in searches run in these databases. And, most were fairly high, even the "obscure" title.
I've also got one or two titles that don't appear to be indexed in any database we subscribe to, but that have fairly high browses in the OPAC. I'd prefer that my print titles be indexed somewhere, but the OPAC stats tell me that there are people looking for this title. I'm not ready to stop the subscription, but I can't really say I should look at purchasing a database for one title.
Overall, the exercise has been a good one. I think a couple of titles can be cancelled and I have a better feel for the usage on other titles.
Naturally, usage and cost come into play for both. For those available full-text, the consideration is merely is the usage there. At MPOW, we're definitely moving toward electronic, so print only isn't really an option, even if it is less expensive. In most cases yes, the usage is there. In a couple of cases, no it isn't. For those titles with low usage, I considered where else it was held and given the current usage, is ILL an option. Well, one title had four uses. In addition, I looked at the title's value to the field. So, even though a journal may have low usage, it might not get marked for cancellation if it is considered a top journal in the field.
The second set of journal reviews is the one that was more interesting. Up until now, I'd never really considered stats for journal titles from an indexing and abstracting database, just overall database usage. However, when reviewing journal usage for print subscriptions, it helps to know if it's being used. My OPAC shows "historical browses" for titles, but there is some debate as to how accurate it is. So, I pulled usage stats by title. I was surprised by the results. Titles that seemed obscure in name and had very few browses in the OPAC had heavy usage in the database. Since the stats were returning abstract requests, it doesn't tell if the user actually went to the print journal, but it does tell me that the title is appearing in searches run in these databases. And, most were fairly high, even the "obscure" title.
I've also got one or two titles that don't appear to be indexed in any database we subscribe to, but that have fairly high browses in the OPAC. I'd prefer that my print titles be indexed somewhere, but the OPAC stats tell me that there are people looking for this title. I'm not ready to stop the subscription, but I can't really say I should look at purchasing a database for one title.
Overall, the exercise has been a good one. I think a couple of titles can be cancelled and I have a better feel for the usage on other titles.
July 16, 2007
ALA... a few good sessions
Well, I'm a little behind on my posts for ALA, but I've been trying to catch up after conference and then the 4th of July. While I'm all into the Web 2.0 applications, I don't really have the opportunity to do much of anything with it. So, while a lot of folks had a lot to choose from, honestly, I struggled to find a couple of sessions that apply to what I do... electronic resources and collection development, heavy on the collection development.
I did find two really good sessions, though. The first session I attended was "We have the data, now what? Putting your collection assessment to work." It was a panel disscussion sponsored by RUSA. Since I had just finished evaluating the effectiveness of our collection development efforts for the previous fiscal year, I was interested to see what this session would offer up. The first speaker was Shirley Baker, Director of Washington University (St. Louis) Library. The really interesting thing I took from her session was the use of what is being digitized by the Google Nine (it was Five when she did it) to help weed your collection, either for permanent removal or removal to off-site storage. Like everyone else, I keep hearing about who's joined the Google digitization effort, but here's a library actually putting that product to their use. These are public domain titles prior to 1923. With the increase in copyright to 75 years, it will be harder and harder to do this, but pre-1923 can be a pretty big chunk for a lot of libraries. Naturally, they used WorldCat Collection Analysis for their comparisons. Now, I don't really care for WCCA (see previous postings), but his was a pretty cool use of a pre-defined group in WCCA.
The second presenter was Karen Neurohr, Assessment Librarian at Oklahoma State University. She did a measurement space study, then actively used what was available electronically in JSTOR to determine what journals could be moved off-site. The third presenter was Betty Gailbraith of Washington State University. They are using journal statistics to make collection development decisions. It sounds basic, but they are incorporating using statistics not generally used - titles cited by faculty and titles that faculty publish in, how did faculty use the title (online or in the library), and is it a core title. Having something in numerical format also helps faculty understand decisions.
Now, in retrospect, the second and third presenters didn't really come up with anything new, but in my previous position, it wasn't something I thought of when determining a game plan for our weeding project. Admittedly, I was working with monographs, but now I wonder what criteria was being used for journals. We moved a set of journals off-site thinking they would never be used only to find out that the Theatre Arts department used the ads in back issues to help with costumes. We wound up bring them back to the library.
The second session I attended was Technical Services 2.0 (guess I did get a 2.0 session in). It was presented by the ALCTS Technology Committee and was also a panel presentation. Matt Barnes pretty much gave an general overview of Web 2.0. Beth P. Camden spoke about Penn Taggs, which is a social bookmarking system for University of Pennsylvania library resources. In addition to uses for the students, library staff have used it to train new staff members. I'm completely fascinated by the use of social bookmarking in the academic setting, so I particularly enjoyed seeing a model in action. Elizabeth Winters spoke about Georgia Tech's use of Web 2.0 technology within the department. They use Wikis's for sharing processes and managing serials, Google applications (spreadsheets) for sharing documents, and instant messaging (IM) for internal communication. In my previous job, we had no share drive. After hearing about their use of Google apps, I had a "duh" moment and wondered why I didn't think about it. I'm a total believer that IM is not only good for reference but for internal communication as well - cut down on some of those e-mails. I first learned to use IM not for personal reason, but in a job setting. I worked for a software company doing in-depth customer support as part of a larger team. None of us where in the same office; in fact we ranged from East to West Coast, literally. We used IM to communicate with other members of the team; we all had "specializations" and it was generally more efficient to pop off a quick IM than to talk on the phone. Later the company purchased an IM system and went company wide with it.
All in all, I enjoyed both sessions and came away with something new.
I was a little disappointed in the vendor fair. It didn't seem to be as alive as it was in New Orleans. Some of the vendors evened seemed like they would rather have been somewhere else. Having said that, I did speak with those I wanted to and got to do a little exploring.
I did find two really good sessions, though. The first session I attended was "We have the data, now what? Putting your collection assessment to work." It was a panel disscussion sponsored by RUSA. Since I had just finished evaluating the effectiveness of our collection development efforts for the previous fiscal year, I was interested to see what this session would offer up. The first speaker was Shirley Baker, Director of Washington University (St. Louis) Library. The really interesting thing I took from her session was the use of what is being digitized by the Google Nine (it was Five when she did it) to help weed your collection, either for permanent removal or removal to off-site storage. Like everyone else, I keep hearing about who's joined the Google digitization effort, but here's a library actually putting that product to their use. These are public domain titles prior to 1923. With the increase in copyright to 75 years, it will be harder and harder to do this, but pre-1923 can be a pretty big chunk for a lot of libraries. Naturally, they used WorldCat Collection Analysis for their comparisons. Now, I don't really care for WCCA (see previous postings), but his was a pretty cool use of a pre-defined group in WCCA.
The second presenter was Karen Neurohr, Assessment Librarian at Oklahoma State University. She did a measurement space study, then actively used what was available electronically in JSTOR to determine what journals could be moved off-site. The third presenter was Betty Gailbraith of Washington State University. They are using journal statistics to make collection development decisions. It sounds basic, but they are incorporating using statistics not generally used - titles cited by faculty and titles that faculty publish in, how did faculty use the title (online or in the library), and is it a core title. Having something in numerical format also helps faculty understand decisions.
Now, in retrospect, the second and third presenters didn't really come up with anything new, but in my previous position, it wasn't something I thought of when determining a game plan for our weeding project. Admittedly, I was working with monographs, but now I wonder what criteria was being used for journals. We moved a set of journals off-site thinking they would never be used only to find out that the Theatre Arts department used the ads in back issues to help with costumes. We wound up bring them back to the library.
The second session I attended was Technical Services 2.0 (guess I did get a 2.0 session in). It was presented by the ALCTS Technology Committee and was also a panel presentation. Matt Barnes pretty much gave an general overview of Web 2.0. Beth P. Camden spoke about Penn Taggs, which is a social bookmarking system for University of Pennsylvania library resources. In addition to uses for the students, library staff have used it to train new staff members. I'm completely fascinated by the use of social bookmarking in the academic setting, so I particularly enjoyed seeing a model in action. Elizabeth Winters spoke about Georgia Tech's use of Web 2.0 technology within the department. They use Wikis's for sharing processes and managing serials, Google applications (spreadsheets) for sharing documents, and instant messaging (IM) for internal communication. In my previous job, we had no share drive. After hearing about their use of Google apps, I had a "duh" moment and wondered why I didn't think about it. I'm a total believer that IM is not only good for reference but for internal communication as well - cut down on some of those e-mails. I first learned to use IM not for personal reason, but in a job setting. I worked for a software company doing in-depth customer support as part of a larger team. None of us where in the same office; in fact we ranged from East to West Coast, literally. We used IM to communicate with other members of the team; we all had "specializations" and it was generally more efficient to pop off a quick IM than to talk on the phone. Later the company purchased an IM system and went company wide with it.
All in all, I enjoyed both sessions and came away with something new.
I was a little disappointed in the vendor fair. It didn't seem to be as alive as it was in New Orleans. Some of the vendors evened seemed like they would rather have been somewhere else. Having said that, I did speak with those I wanted to and got to do a little exploring.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)