Transitions - Florida Library Association

advertisement
Darla Asher
Online Resources Librarian
Dr. Doris Van Kampen-Breit
Faculty Development Librarian
Elizabeth C. Henry
Technical Services Librarian
Saint Leo University
Saint Leo University
• Oldest Catholic university in Florida
• One of the largest Catholic universities in the US
• University Campus - traditional setting
• 19 geographically diverse Centers
• Students located in:
• All 50 states
• 5 US territories
• 71 countries
• Nationally recognized leader in online education
• Military friendly
From Facts and Figures, 2012-2013, Saint Leo University
DA
Saint Leo University demographics
 University Campus (Saint Leo, FL) – 2,167 students
 Centers in California, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi,




South Carolina, Texas, Virginia – 7,129 students
Center for Online Learning – 2,950 students
Graduate Programs – 3,258 students
 13,337 Non-University Campus students
Full-time faculty – 235
Adjunct faculty – 720
 From Facts and Figures, 2012-2013, Saint Leo University
Motivating change: Budget / Services
 Budgets are flat and costs are increasing
(“Academic libraries have
faced similar budget reductions, and those matters are complicated
by the rising cost of resources.” ALA)
 Prior subscriptions:
 ILS (Increasingly out-of-date)
 Graphical User Interface - Aquabrowser
 A-Z link resolver
 “Silo” effect
 Databases not integrated into ILS search interface
 Wanted a more integrated discovery service
 Needed a cost effective cloud-based ILS
More Motivation
 Maintained and managed our own server(s)
 Support contracts continued to escalate in price over time
 UTS assisted with maintenance, but also restricted access
Harder to get assistance when needed
 University going to more cloud-based services
Former ILS has developed a new cloud based version
with many desirable features, but not cost–effective for our
budget
Goal: One-Stop Shop
Needed a discovery service
• Increasingly significant use of and purchase
of e-books and e-journals – especially
important for students not located on Main
Campus
• Wanted federated search results
• Investigated another well-known discovery
service
• Needed a cost-effective solution
Goal: Increase Access to Resources
 We have approximately 100,000 print books and
293,000 ebooks
 We have approximately 400 print journals and 150,000
ejournals
 Terms at centers and online are 8 weeks
 Logistics of getting print resources to center
students in a timely manner was one factor in
purchasing more online resources
The Saint Leo Change Team
 Saint Leo University Migration team:
 Technical Services Librarian
 Catalog Librarian (since retired)
 Faculty Development Librarian (formerly Systems
librarian –had implemented previous ILS)
 Online Resources Librarian
 Technology Specialist (staff member who had assumed
some systems duties)
 Library Director
 Circulation staff / Public Services Librarians / University
Technology Services staff as needed
BH
The Process
 Part of Cohort Group of six libraries – we were the
largest university and have the largest collection of
e-Resources of the Cohort
 Implementation / Migration / Training offered online
 Virtual weekly meetings with implementation and
migration managers (October 2012 through May
2013)
 Went live Summer 2013
How many cooks in the kitchen?
Project managers changed mid-stream - Difficult to
determine to whom we should address questions at
times
Some questions still not answered
Ticket numbered answers –tracking the ticket numbers
has led to a creation of a database for them, as OCLC
refers to ticket numbers, not topic.
Incorrect answers
What changed for our users
Discovery service changes user searching patterns
“Discovery services, by sluicing content together,
could deluge users with less appropriate sources.”
 (Parry, Marc. "As Researchers Turn to Google, Libraries
Navigate the Messy World of Discovery Tools ."Chronicle of
Higher Education 21 Apr. 2014. Web. April, 2014.
<http://chronicle.com/article/As-Researchers-Turn-toGoogle/146081/>)
Users get a lot more results, from many more
sources
Federated Searching Caveats
“It’s a logical impossibility to create a querying tool that
doesn’t have any form of bias” (Ibid.)
You have to rank (weight) the resources
Users need to use more sophisticated and more
targeted search language / terms
• More accessible to the user (if they know how to
search efficiently)
• Easier to request ILL for materials not owned
What Changed for Tech and Public Services
 From local system (ILS with Aquabrowser overlay) to shared
WorldShare Management Services (WorldCat)
 From locally owned and maintained servers to cloud
environment
 Shared technical services
(Acquisitions, Cataloging,
Circulation, and Serials went from private database to public
shared use database)
 Acquisitions/cataloging more efficient / Shift in Staff duties
 Acquisitions Assistant became Technical Services
Assistant (Orders, receives, processes, AND [copy]
catalogs)
Positives
 Training is recorded and available 24/7
Cohort/collaborative style training available
long after transition – valuable for new hires
and cross-training and retraining
 One home screen/login for ALL OCLC modules
Previously, the ILS was configured so that a staff
member would login and still had to open
additional module(s) as needed
Negatives
 Lack of authority control changes user searching
requirements
Searcher has to get it exactly right – not “google”
Author search results are dependent on how user
inputs the name (e.g. APA format may not work)
 Can’t create a purely local bibliographic record unique to
your institutional needs
Cameras, laptops, ephemera need to circulate
 When first launched, AU, TI, SU and SO were
searchable. Recently, Call # field search added. Other
fields not yet searchable at this time. (TOC, etc.)
More Changes
• Adding insult to injury: From AACR2 to RDA / FRBR (We
were avoiding it with older ILS)
• Must click on “editions and formats” in search results
to determine holdings and format (one more layer of
clicks)
• Results look different (at least to librarians). No
General Material Designation (GMD) in title field.
In the future we plan to:
• Knowledge Base
• Review and re-rank resources based on users search patterns and
LibAnswers queries (this will be an on-going process)
• We cannot remove all bias, but we can manage how the bias affects the
search
• Attempt to minimize the swamping effect by offering more in-depth
“navigational” instruction sessions
• Remind users that they can search individual resources for more
targeted results
• They quite frequently need discipline-specific resources, such as
psychology, social work, theology or law.
• Circulation
• Add E-reserves module
• Send ALL notices electronically – must have good emails in system
(updates needed to emails)
• Previously contacts were completed by phone and printed mailings
Doris
Future Integration?
• University-wide Management Systems
• It is possible to integrate with the University’s database of student
records, purchasing, etc.
• Still to be determined if these will be implemented
• Importation of records directly into system may be possible
• PubGet
• Automated process for loading data into the WorldCat knowledge
base
• Retrieves up-to-date holdings information directly from content
provider sites
Some thoughts on Lessons learned
 Change can be tough  Uncertainty causes anxiety
 New roles and duties caused concern prior to implementation
 More participation from UTS, circulation and reference staff as part
of migration planning
 Some faculty and students reacted negatively to the new interface and
were frustrated by the search results (lessening over time)
 Less intuitive than expected
 Additional instruction and support required
 Classes & tutorials had to be modified to reflect new system
 Tech Services staff had the most direct benefit
 Students have probably benefitted from the Discovery Service
Lessons Learned / Recommendations
 Not enough support/expertise during migration phase
 OCLC
 Saint Leo
 Not enough testing during migration
 A list of things to test/look for would have helped
 A list of common problems encountered would have helped
 Building the Knowledge Base (AtoZ) not intuitive
 Still struggling with PubGet (holdings management system)
 Vendor service to streamline linking e-collections
 Better documentation/support would have helped
Reflection on where we are now
Positives:
 New A-Z list more robust – includes tabs for articles, ebooks, and
ejournals
 Can search other catalogs at the same time
 Especially important for our diverse and geographically
scattered populations
 Discovery service
 Cost savings
 OCLC has responsive support; problems are addressed
 Search interface does have suggestions, but not spellcheck
Finally:
 Product not as mature as some other products
More of a work in progress
But we expect it to get better!
We believe that early adoption may have added a few
more bumps, but we think OCLC is the next
generation of ILS, and we are happy to be part of it
Finally, cont’d:
 We’d do it again, just better!
 We would physically visit some sites already up and
running, and conduct more searches, talk to their staff
about the transition and issues encountered
 We would ask for better documentation and support
 Internally and at OCLC
 We need further investigation into user
experiences/satisfaction at this time
Questions????
 Darla.Asher@saintleo.edu
 Online Resources Librarian
 Doris.vankampen@saintleo.edu
 Faculty Development Librarian
 Elizabeth.henry@saintleo.edu
 Technical Services Librarian
Download