Article Series (10): Too many ILL requests, is the analysis complete? Hmm . . .

Kappus, Theresa.  “Interlibrary Loan Tsunami: Investigating the Rising Tide of Borrowing Requests at a Small Private University.”  Journal of Interlibrary Loan, Document Delivery & Electronic Reserve.  19 (2009): 205-217.  Print.

Hmm . . . I guess I’m unsure what I expected from this article.  Maybe more general suggestions on how small libraries can handle increases in requests.  Unfortunately, it was a very specific analysis of one library’s situation.  In general, the article did not appeal to me.  Some sections lacked a significant amount of elaboration.  Also, some of the assumptions made regarding the featured library’s reasons for increased requests directly contradicted some of the survey results they received from multiple libraries with absolutely no effort to analyze why there was such a contradiction or any attempt to flesh out what the most logical reason was.  Very frustrating.  Much more analysis would have been helpful in this article.

The first set of assumptions that could have used much more elaboration was in the second paragraph: “The library attributed the increase to the usual suspects: increased enrollment, the addition of new databases, and the promotion of interlibrary loan (ILL) services in library instruction classes . .  . Convenient access to ILLiad from within the databases was also believed to be a factor” (206).

Okay . . . so enrollment went up.  How about more information as to why?  Who was involved in this decision?  When did the library know enrollment was going up?  When did the library (if ever) start discussing the impact of increased enrollment?  How about some comments/input from the library director or the folks in admissions about the increase in enrollment?  I could go on, but I have more questions elsewhere.  The addition of new databases . . . how many were added?  What were they?  What subjects were they in?  (i.e. Which departments benefitted the most?)  Who was involved in the overall decision to add the ILLiad link to the databases?  What were the reasons for adding the direct to link to ILLiad in the databases?  Also, in terms of promotion of ILL in classes, who was involved in the promotion efforts?  What was the plan for promotion?  Was the impact of such promotion discussed?  Were concerns and ideas expressed?  I don’t know . .  . there is a lot of explanation left out of this article and if left me frustrated with the little information given.

Also, on page 206 is this paragraph: ”In 2007/2008, the number of patron borrowing requests submitted to the Foley Center Library reached an all-time high of 22,601, while the average for other libraries in the affinity group was 5,400.  This raised the question of how best to manage this obviously popular service.  Was there a way to reduce the number of incoming borrowing requests and thereby cultivate a more manageable workload for the interlibrary loan staff” (206).

I get the feeling that they were not really getting at the real issue here.  This paragraph gave a sense they were dancing around a bigger, and more specific issue.  Near the end of the article I think they come closer to it.  Instead, the ILL staff spends loads of time analysing statistics, fussing with survey data and looking for ways to discourage patrons from submitting requests.  On top of all this, there is nothing about the history of Foley’s ILL department and staff.  How many people were working in that department?  Who was the supervisor?  Did the staff have other duties and responsibilities elsewhere in the library?  How long had they been using ILLiad?  Did ILLiad have any impact on how ILL services were provided?  With the adoption of ILLiad, did the number of requests go up?  Of the ILL staff, who was responsible for borrowing?  Who was responsible for lending?  Could either borrowing or lending staff help each other out?  Again, I could go on here, but let be get back to the article.

So, Foley Library analyzed websites of other similar sized libraries to compare their ILL policies and sent out a survey to many of these.  I found the description and explanations of these exercises lacking.  Many more questions popped up for me.  Here is an example of a clear contradiction with no effort to find a reason why there was such a disparity.  I don’t know, I think this section fell flat:  “The literature review revealed that libraries report either increased or decreased ILL borrowing requests with the addition or expansion of online journals and databases.  The diverse influence of online full-text access was evident in the survey responses as well.  The addition of more online databases was considered the primary reason for additional  ILL borrowing by 64% of the libraries experiencing increased requests.  At Gonzaga, the statistics provide evidence that ILL borrowing activity has risen along with the acquisition of electronic journals . . . All surveyed libraries reporting decreased borrowing requests considered the addition of online databases to be a primary reason for the decrease, suggesting that there really is no definitive cause and effect when it comes to online databases influence on interlibrary loan activity” (210-11).

What?!?  That’s it?  Oh well, no cause and effect?  At the very least, no effort is made here to discover more of what is behind the conclusions that databases increase or decrease the ILL requests.  Instead, the reader just gets a flip ‘there is no connection’ type of dismissal to the issue.  I get the feeling the author didn’t want to dig deeply into these issues.  Why not?

Then, on page 212 I found something curious.  But I guess I just have to chalk this up to the fact that different libraries do different things:  “When asked how their users place the majority of their ILL requests, 57% indicated users usually filled out an online form to place a request.  If users must fill in the blanks themselves, could that be a possible deterrent to placing numerous requests?  The answer to this question would require a patron survey and at this point is mere speculation.  Nevertheless, the number of surveyed libraries using the online form is significant compared to those libraries where patrons either submit ILL requests directly from the databases (33%) or via the link resolver software (10%) at their institution” (212).

What I found strange is the distinction between an online form, requesting through the databases and using a link resolver.  We don’t do just one of these things, we do them all at our library.  Either, one can submit a request through the online form or access ILLiad through the databases using our link resolver.  Again, different practices for different libraries.

Then, under the ‘Outcomes and Decisions’ section I found this sentence: “In other words, Foley Center Library wasn’t doing anything wrong and neither were their interlibrary loan users” (213).

But . . . how can you include such a statement in this article when in the ‘Further Research’ section the author states: “A significant number of Gonzaga’s requests are cancelled because the items are in our collection or available online, indicating users may need more instruction on using the library’s resources” (215).

Clearly, there is something amiss with how ILL is promoted/marketed, and how users are instructed to use it at Foley if so many requests are getting submitted and cancelled because the items are readily available in their collection.  What efforts are the instruction librarians making to guide their users through the proper use of their tools?  There may be a simple explanation and description that the author could have provided here.  But for some reason, she did not.

The one section I did find constructive was in ‘Procedure Modifications.’  The author describes the adjustments the library made in 2008 to stem the tide of requests:

“1.  The ILLiad link in the databases was replaced by a ‘Full Text Options’ link connected to Serials Solutions.  The ILLiad link now appears after the library holdings.

2.  Search results in the databases are listed by relevance rather than by date, providing researchers with more full-text articles at the top of the list.  This change alone may account for the 23% reduction in article requests received June  through December 2008 compared to the previous year.

3.  Key email notices in ILLiad include information about the costs of ILL.  This resulted in a few calls from ILL users, worried that they might be threatening the financial solvency of the library.

4.  The ILLiad log-in page has this prominent message: ‘Wait!  Books may take 2 weeks to arrive!  Journal articles usually arrive within a few days, but they can take longer.  Do you have time to wait?’  The intent is to again create awareness of the ILL process.  Will this help reduce the number of books that are not picked up?  Will there be fewer phone calls asking why an article didn’t arrive immediately?  It remains to be seen” (214).

Ok, so yes, the modifications are clear, as well as the expected results.  But, whoa!  The last part of #4 implies there were other issues beyond just an increase in the number of requests.  Why weren’t these issues addressed at the beginning of the article?  It is surprising that the author brings up a lack of patron awareness on ILL processes near the end, as well as a noticable number of books never getting picked up.  Suprising and strange to the point that I really have to wonder why these issues were not addressed on page 206 in the reasons given for why requests increased.  Again, I think the author spent the whole article skirting around some of the fundamental reasons why ILL staff were getting slammed with so many requests:

1.  Users were not getting good instructions on how to do research using the library’s research tools with ILL.  If so, they would be checking the library’s databases and OPAC before submitting ILL requests for already owned materials.

2.  Promotion of the ILL service was successful, but a clear explanation of when the service should be used, and how it works, was not conveyed to users.

I don’t know, I’m sure this article was useful to others, unfortunately most of it just left me with more questions than anything else.

Article Series (7): Designing Marketing Messages, some practical advice from Brian Mathews

Ok, so no one is going to point out that I totally dropped the ball on my article posts as soon as Thanksgiving came around?  Come on folks, you can call me out on this.  I said I would do a post a week.  Well, here is the one I should have posted the holiday week:

So, I have been reading the book Marketing Today’s Academic Library : A Bold New Approach to Communicating with Students by Brian Mathews.  It was published by ALA in 2009.  Brian spoke at the ACRL/NY Symposium this past December 4th and I thought it would be interesting to read his book prior to the symposium.  However, I only finished the last two chapters yesterday . . .

The chapter that stood out the most was “Chapter 9: Designing Messages,” 117-131.  This chapter is full of awesome advice.  And, you can try to apply it all to your library, or pick out the parts that you feel would work best.  But this chapter did not resonate with me just for all the advice on designing marketing messages.  One of the first observations that stood out for me came on the second page and had to do with what we teach in instruction sessions, as opposed to what we should be teaching.  Now, this debate/conversation is not new in any way, but the way Brian phrased it cause me to think about the issue a bit more. 

“Libraries often depicted the process of conducting research as a struggle, with students stressed out by trying to find appropriate resources.  In the sample of promotional materials, librarians were  regularly presented as heroes, guiding users through this difficult ordeal, and subscription databases were represented as super tools enabling students to locate appropriate information.

Personally, I feel this message is off the mark.  While locating and obtaining resources can indeed be a challenge, students shared with me that it is synthesizing the information that is most difficult: putting the pieces together, presenting the evidence, forming the argument, and writing the paper–not necessarily the act of searching or citing articles.  The tone of our advertisements illustrates a fundamental problem in the way that academic libraries communicate with undergraduates: we talk down to them.  While this arrogance may be unintentional, focus group testing of these types of messages reveals a negative response from students.  Many users have indicated that they find this language to be condescending, irrelevant, humorless, and even deterring.”  (117-8)

So, who really teaches students how to ”synthesize” the information that they find?  Most of us cover the mechanical steps involved in navigating the databases and don’t get much beyond that .  But, as Brian points out, this is not really what students need.  Ok, I’m sure some of you are saying, ‘Whoa! Hold on!  That isn’t our job, teaching students how to write.  That is the job of the faculty and the campus writing center.”  I beg to differ and am going to be bold and say Brian would agree with me.  What he is talking about here comes before and during the writing process.  And I think it is our job to help them disseminate the information they are pulling together.  Disseminating information is part of the writing process but it also very much part of the research process.  It starts when we begin introducing them to our databases, or any other resource they are looking for, and teaching them the ways they should be thinking about the information they are finding in relation to their project, their final product, their thesis statement, etc.  Another reason this passage stood out for me was that at one of my two instruction sessions this semester (I teach a lot less than some of the other librarians because of my interlibrary loan responsibilities) the professor asked that I spend time focusing on finding good and relevant stuff.  The professor found that in previous semesters the students were finding materials just fine, but they were completely irrelevant to their assignment topics.  So, I shifted gears a bit to focus on the elements in their searches that need to focus on to determine if the materials were useful to their topics.  It turned out to be a really good session.  Despite the fact that some were still not engaged, I received some very good questions and many of the students seemed a lot more thoughtful about the way they should approach their assignments.  (So far from the professor he says their presentations were good, we shall have to wait and see how their papers turn out.)  But seriously, how do we teach students how to synthesize information/data/rhetorical arguments/criticism/etc?  What fundamental questions should students/researchers always ask themselves as they are deep into their research about a topic?  Granted, some of the questions will vary depending on the subject, but I do think that we could pull together a framework of questions that could be useful to our students every time they have a research project.  Anyone interested helping to come up with these questions?  Or maybe it has already been done, maybe in a particular subject area by non-librarians.  Well, if you have heard of anything like this, please share.

Ok, now back to the rest of the chapter, which really focuses on designing messages.  When crafting your message(s), Brian suggests we focus on “emotional appeal” to attract the attention of students.  Of course my response is, “Yes, I get it, but how does one actually do that?”  Well, maybe this passage will be a bit more helpful to you, I’m still scratching my head on this one, but I do think it is a good idea.

“Consider an emotional appeal when designing messages.  Focus on the psychological  benefits and motivational triggers, as opposed to a purely factual statement.  Quiet study is about escapism.  Group study is about social learning.  Librarians are troubleshooters.  Instead of dumbing down the library, we can elevate our message by associating ourselves with academic, cultural, social, technological, and other accomplishments.” (119)

On the same page, Brian goes on to give examples of how to appeal to users.  He suggests focusing on “the lifestyle of the user,” “connections,” or “the library is more than you imagine.” (119)  I don’t know, I think I need to spend a bit more time on this one.  Maybe because I am starting to feel like I am more out of touch with my users than I thought.

Beyond emotional appeal, Brian explains the need to have an objective when crafting your message.  He outlines and describes four broad objectives that most will find applicable to their situation. 

“Objective 1: Attracting new users . . . The objective of this type of campaign is to introduce nonusers, infrequent users, or new students to the library.  Objective 2: Attendance . . . The objective of this type of campaign is to bring people in, whether for a onetime event or as part of a series . . . Objective 3: Use of products . . . The goal with this type of campaign is to pique the user’s interest, resulting in a trial of the product.  Objective 4: Perception of the library . . . This form of advertising aims to make a connection with the user; it is driven by symbolism, attitude, and spirit.  The goal isn’t necessarily to promote a particular service or resource, but rather to be entertaining, thought-provoking, or amusing.  The objective is to change or enhance the perceptions of students, giving the library a richer identity and personality.”  (120-1)

This is a great framework to start from as you begin to synthesize your message.  It will help you to include and rule out specific elements within your overall design.  Brian then goes on to the issue of location.  He is clear that it is necessary to be strategic about how you distribute your message.  Just printing fliers and plastering the campus with them is not the answer for every message.  “Instead, we want to focus on appropriate placements that ensure relevant and repeated viewings.” (121)  Some of the message distribution methods he mentions are fliers, chalking (yes, on sidewalks/walkways), table tents, the library website, the campus CMS (course management system), and social websites.  This advice is interesting:

“As you plan your campaign, take advantage of the expressive characteristics fo these various locations.  Instead of simply printing hundreds of fliers and plastering them around campus, customize the material for different places: colorful posters in the library, funky fliers distributed in the dorms, a humorous video for the Web, a surprising ad in the school newspaper, or a tutorial uploaded onto Blackboard.  Just as commercial content varies on TV, radio, and print, you should adapt your message accordingly.  Items designed for the dorm should have a different tone than material created for use in the library or the classroom.  Consider the mindset of the student at the time and place that they encounter your message.” (122-3)

Now, in addition to emotional appeal, objectives, and locations, there is also timing to consider.  Brian breaks down the semester into very specific “stages” that have very distinct moods.  Stage 1 is “The Orientation Period (Weeks 1-4) . . . this period is marked by positive emotion . . . This is the ideal time for welcoming or social events . . . this phase should focus on the broad perception of the library . . . draw attention to the library brand . . . “  (123)  Brian follows this with suggested content themes for individuals, group work, technology and collections.  (124)  Stage 2 is “The Productivity Period (Weeks 5-11) . . . is our opportunity  to highlight specific products and tools that students can use . . . The central theme here is getting things done . . . The library . . . is a place to go to be productive . . . [but] Amid this academic focus are small pockets of downtime and relaxation.”  (124)  Again, Brian gives suggested content themes for individuals, group work, technology and collections.  Stage 3 is “The Closing Period (Weeks 12-16) [is when] Your promotional message during this period should continue the theme of productivity . . . Position the library as a support system . . . ” (126)  And, of course, the requisite content themes follow.

Brian closes out this chapter by talking about marketing in terms of telling a story:

“Advertising is like telling a good story.  You need a hook to draw people in.  Once they are invested, a compelling plot will keep them interested, and the end should be a satisfying conclusion.  That is the basic framework that I use when developing a promotional campaign . . . Along with telling a story, there are numerous characteristics that you can use to present content.  In every campaign I try to use aspects that are surprising, relatable, tangible, experiential, sharable and measurable.”  (127)

He elaborates on all these elements in the following pages, and in the rest of the book for that matter.  Later, in chapter 11, Brian even gives some detailed examples of campaigns that include all these elements.  The final sentence of this chapter is a no-brainer, but I think it is an important point to make.  “Marketing is something we learn only through continued experiences.” (131)  In other words, get your marketing mojo on and keep it on.  You aren’t going to get good at it without a lot of practice.

Seriously folks, pick-up and read Brian’s book.  It is a quick read and well worth every word.  And, I will add that chapter 10 on assessment is equally as useful.

And now, I will return the grossly overdue copy I was reading to the library that was gracious enough to lend it to me.  Many thanks to City College of New York Library.

Now, back to catching up on the article series.  Hmm, what to read next . . .

Article Series (2): Searching for answers in libraries via 1968

Taylor, Robert S.  “Question-Negotiation and Information Seeking in Libraries.”  College & Research Libraries.  29.3(1968):178-194.

Well, like my last article, I cannot say why I originally picked this one up.  It was on the same pile as my previous article, the next one in line really.  However, I’m sure it was recommended in a blog post I read in the past six months or so.  I certainly would give the recommender credit if I could recall who it was.  Now, before you question my choice of articles, let me defend myself.  I know this one is from 1968 (about six years before I was born), but having read it I will argue it is as timely and relevant today as it was in 1968.  The author broaches some of the most fundamental questions of librarianship and information management that we still struggle with today.  And, he also looks to the future.  Some of his ideas are today’s reality, others are still a dream.  This is an article I would definitely recommend all MLS students read, in fact, all librarians should read this one every year.  There is a lot in here that I can draw on to, hopefully, improve my skills at answering reference questions.

So, to the article itself.  Taylor brings this up himself, on a very basic level, some may argue that this article is an exercise in the obvious.  Many of the issues raised or described are not new to current information professionals.  Today, these issues are age old concerns that have been discussed, pondered, argued, and worked over for decades.  So, why bother with such an article?  The deeper I got into it, I found Taylor breaks down the information search into detailed steps.  The result is a scientific analysis of the information inquiry that sheds more light onto the challenges associated with reference questions and provides some fascinating strategies on how to approach such inquiries from the perspective of the librarian.  In the abstract it is stated that, “The author contends that research is needed into the techniques of conducting this negotiation between the user and the reference librarian” (178).  I would argue that Taylor began some of this research in this very article himself.

Now, for the sake of not boring you with an incredibly long post summarizing this article I will try to outline it enough to entice you to read it.  Or, I will succeed in truly boring you.  Following Taylor’s introduction, he launches into a section titled “Question Negotiation by Librarians,” which was borne out of a series of interviews of librarians.

A.  Question Negotiation by Librarians (Taylor analyses the approach the inquirer uses to get information.  He even includes a very interesting flow chart near the beginning.)

            1.  Once arriving at the information desk there are 4 possible levels of information need and questions:

                      a.  “the conscious or even unconscious need for information”

                      b.  “a conscious mental description of an ill-defined area of indecision”

                      c.  “an inquirer can form a qualified and rational statement of his question”

                      d.  “the question is recast in anticipation of what the files can deliver” (182)

             2.  Taylor defines these needs as follows:

                      Q1-the visceral need

                      Q2-the conscious need

                      Q3-the formalized need

                      Q4-the compromised need (182)

              3.  Each question posed at the reference desk goes through five general filters that allows the librarian to assist the inquirer.  Taylor delves into a great description of the obstacles associated with each of these filters:

                        a.  determination of subject

                        b.  objective and motivation

                        c.  personal characteristics of inquirer

                        d.  relationship of inquiry description to file organization

                        e.  anticipated or acceptable answers (183-188) 

B.  The next section of the article is titled “The Information Seeking Strategies of Users,” where Taylor describes an analytic study done of a group of users.  The study involved the users describing the steps they went through in their search for answers to a self-chosen question.  We have all read, or come across, similar studies of this kind that have been published since 1968, but if you are interested in such studies you might want to give this one a quick read too.

C.  Taylor’s final section, “Summary and Conclusions,” pulls together the issues he wrote of earlier through two sections titled “Negotiation” and “Self-Help.”  The final heading in this section is “Possible Systems and Devices,” and attempts to tie it to the information seeking challenges he is addressing in the bulk of the paper.  He writes of current (1968) innovations.  One such innovation we recognize as one of the precursors to the database.  The name is great: “Recordak Lodestar Microfilm Reader-Printer with an Image Control Keyboard.” (193). Seriously, if you read nothing else of this article, read about the Recordak system.  It is fascinating to read today, knowing what we know about databases. 

This article is very rich with a lot of great information and a great read for historical interest.  I could load up this post with tons of quotes, but I will finish with just one that I think will leave you all nodding in agreement and give you something to think about.  It is as timely today as it was then.

             “If libraries, at any level of service, are going to grow and evolve (and indeed exist) as integral parts of our urban techno-scientific     

               culture, then they must know themselves.  They must know themselves both as local and rather special institutions and as parts of very

               large, very dynamic, and very complex information and communications networks, which operate on both a formal and

               informal level” (194).

The publication of our chapter is coming out this month

I am happy to announce that two colleagues and I have a chapter in a book that is coming out at the end of this month from IGI Global.  The title of the book is the Handbook of Research on Practices and Outcomes in E-Learning: Issues and Trends and comes in at a hefty 626 pages.  Our chapter is in Section IV: Professional and Disciplinary Implications and is titled “Librarian as Collaborator: Bringing E-Learning 2.0 into the Classroom by Way of the Library” (Chapter XVI or 16).

This book’s focus is on higher education, but does not cut it so fine as to only be about libraries.  We thought it would be nice to submit to a non-library specific, but academic, publication.  Happily, our proposal and eventual chapter was accepted.  I want to thank both my colleagues for allowing me to be a part of this project.  It was a great, although tough, experience that I  can now build on in the future.

An interesting emerging techology

My sweetie sent me this video on the new OLED (organic LED) screen.  This is going to change so much in terms of just television and computer screens.

Do the kgb commericals bother you too?

Meredith posted some of her thoughts on the kgb service being advertised on the television recently.  I’m glad I’m not the only one that is concerned by this service.  The most recent commercial is one where a classroom is full of students having ‘brain farts’ after a professor asked a question.  And two kgb agents step into the room in what looks like hazmat suits and ’save the day’ by giving them the answer.  And then, of course, everything is ok.  Yikes!  It made the professor look like a blithering idiot and implied that you don’t even need to do your readings or homework to ‘get by’ in a lecture.  And what does it say about libraries?  Well, you connect the dots, they weren’t even in the commercial.

Orientation Guide Gives Wrong Information

I just heard one of our campus tour guides tell a tour group in the library that interlibrary loan books come in in one to three days.  What?!?!?  Oh dear, that is never a statement that I could ever guarantee.  Then again . . . how much to those tour groups remember about their campus tours?

Interesting Post from In the Library with the Lead Pipe

I read this article this morning.  In my former job I managed a serials collection so really nothing in the article is a surprise to me.  Some of you may find this final section, ’A Few Lasting Implications’ eyebrow raising, but it is what will eventually will have to happen.  Enjoy!

Users? Patrons? Students? Customers? Pick your poison.

I may have given my opinion on this before, but I cannot seem to find the post where I possibly shared my thoughts.  So much for trying to create clever and descriptive titles for my posts.  But you can see my other post on this book here.   (Guess I need more practice.)  Anyway, I thought I would share a paragraph from Jeannette Woodward’s book Creating the Customer-Driven Academic Library.  This from Chapter 10, ‘Evaluating Our Progress,’ page 178: {this is a word for word quotation}

One of the many reasons why it is helpful to use the term customers to refer to the academic community is to remind us of this new emphasis on running higher education as a business enterprise.  Many of us find this idea repugnant.  However, to survive and prosper in the twenty-first century, librarians will probably have to put aside any affection they may feel for the ivory tower library of the past.  We know that customers make demands, but we rarely think of patrons demanding anything.  Instead, the term brings to mind individuals who give rather than receive.  You might think of patrons of the arts, for example.  Their role is to support the arts, not make demands of them.  Customers, on the other hand, demand high-quality facilities, resources, and services.  They want a library that is focused on their needs, and they have no intention of going out of their way to meet the library’s needs or expectations. 

I know plenty of folks would disagree with Jeannette, and me for that matter.  I think she makes a good point.  Believe what you want, call them what you want.  But they do make demands, don’t they?  They have expectations, right?  And for those that are howling about the idea of ‘running higher education as a business enterprise,’ we can fool ourselves all we want that academia is different.  However, regardless of how many times we say it to ourselves, higher education is a business and it takes money to make it happen.  Fine!  Be upset, angry, indignant, pissed off about these things.  You have every right to disagree, but it takes money and business savvy to keep the lights on at colleges and unversities on a daily basis.  And if the students come in and find cheap fluorescent light bulbs that are broken, dim, or flicker on and off, they will complain about it and eventually go elsewhere if given a million reasons why they are like that or they don’t get fixed.  If it takes a million (Yes! I’m exaggerating.) clicks to get to that electronic resource they thought they wanted, they most likely will give up before they get there and find something else.  This reminds me of those Ally Bank commercials running right now, see them here, with the kids that are given toys to play with and then suddenly are faced with a raw deal because of restrictions, hidden information, or fine print.  Their expressions remind me of the faces of some of our customers when we start giving them these long explanations why they cannot do something, or why they have to pay for something, or the hoops they have to jump through to get access to something.  And it is not just in the libraries that this is happening.  We are finding problems pop up in the library because of services that have been set up by other campus departments and are accessible in the library, like copy machines that don’t take coins, only money off of students’ id cards.  How is this helpful??  We are a public institution and our library is open to the public.  You should see their faces when we start to explain they cannot put coins into the copy machines and why.  Regardless what we call people who come in and use our library, and our academic institutions for that matter,  and all its services, it is high time we came up with a better service model.

User Experience Symposium in NYC

I went to an awesome UX symposium last Friday.  Here is the report I will be sharing with the rest of my colleagues today:

USER EXPERIENCE (UX) SYMPOSIUM: April 24, 2009

From Transaction to Interaction: Transforming the User Experience

On Friday, April 24, 2009, I attended an excellent user experience symposium at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in NYC.  The speaker was Dr. William Gribbons from Bentley University in Waltham, Massachusetts.  The symposium was attended by representatives from the design industry, museums, accounting, pharmaceutical companies, and all types of libraries (public, academic, special, medical).  This symposium came about because Prof. Gribbons spoke to the Rutgers University Libraries about a year ago and the director at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Library, Donna Gibson, thought it would be a good idea to have him speak in the city after hearing the praises of Valeda Goodman at Rutgers. 

Dr. Gribbons spoke on the user experience (or call it what you want: customer experience, patient experience, retail experience, citizen experience . . .) in how it relates the information profession.  He gave many examples of how successful companies have taken the user experience into account (such as Staples, Apple and Cadillac).  User experience design focuses on the people we serve and services that are tailored to them.  There is so much competing for our user’s attention and we need to be cognizant of that.  Dr. Gribbons emphasized that we need to think about how to make our user’s experiences as simple as possible.  It is about identifying “pain points” (i.e. difficulties users experience when using our services) and eliminating them one step at a time.

Prof. Gribbons also pointed out that in non-profits, such as libraries and academic campuses, our users do not draw lines and boundaries with their expectations.  Our users have the same expectations of our services as they do of services and products in the corporate/public/consumer environments.  If we don’t meet their expectations, they will go elsewhere to have their needs met.  He stated that we cannot say we are immune to this fact, if we do not respond to it we will become irrelevant to the next generation.  We have shifted to an experience/economy society that is hyper-competitive and using the user experience model gives us the greatest opportunity to differentiate our services.  He warned this can be a difficult model to use but the results are always excellent.  Dr. Gribbons advised that we examine how seamless our services are.  At what service points (all service points-face to face, online, over the phone) do we lose users/patrons/customers?  How can we change that?

Professor Gribbons defined the user experience as follows:

“The user experience is the careful alignment of human behaviors, needs, and abilities with the core value delivered through a product or service.  Depending on the context, this experience may have psychological, cultural, physiological and emotional components-or a combination of the four.”

Delivering value is important; it is what people are looking for.  And, the emotional factor is very important, as it is tied directly to trust.  He spoke of training and how we are doing it now, bringing people in and showing them how to use databases.  He feels training is a waste of time and instead we need to provide search that people can use.  Video games are learned through the experience of playing them, why can’t our databases be the same way?  Yes, we will still need some kinds of training but it is going to change to focus on things like tutorials.  Dr. Gribbons encouraged us not to be complacent and accept that things (such as databases) are difficult to use, we need to expect more of our products and services.  So, he suggests we ask ourselves some questions.  Where are we today?  Think of opportunities of where we want to be tomorrow.  Who do we want to serve?  How do we want to serve them? Some of his reflections on Libraries and Information Services are as follows.  Here are some of things we should be thinking about:

·         Define and redefine core value(s) (such as: Bricks and Mortar- the actual design and use of your spaces, Web and electronic collections [our search engines], Educational/Support services)

·         What are the elements of the experience that map naturally and productively to these values?

·         Segmentation (graduates, undergrads, professionals, international students, remoter users, age)

·         Consider all touch points (Circulation, Reference, support, and new possibilities that involve new collaborations-research services, writing centers, ESL, TLTC, etc.)

Dr. Gribbons presentation included more value information than I can convey in this report, but I think his closing comments were relevant to all.  Using the user experience model:

·         Determine the appropriateness of this strategy for your company or organization.

·         Determine the appropriate experience and how it productively maps to your core service mission.

·         Constantly assess the relevance of the experience moving forward.

·         Where do you have to be to be competitive, relevant, meaningful & valuable in people’s lives?

We can start using the user experience model by conducting focus groups with population segments, ethnographic studies, and even usability studies of technology & services.  In the afternoon, attendees spent twenty minutes discussing the following questions: How do you contribute to a total customer experience?  What ideas do you have to improve your user’s experience?  The result was some lively discussion and reporting out prior to the conclusion of the symposium.  The library staff at Rutgers were so inspired by Dr. Gribbons that they changed their approach to the website redesign by adopting an ethnographic methodology and hired an anthropologist to assist in the process, which they are still working on. 

I have to say, the user experience model is a very interesting one which we might want to take into account and consider in the future.  I think he has a lot of information that would be useful.  And, as he works in an academic environment himself, he is in touch with the needs and challenges other campuses face. 

I have PDF copies of the flier, biography and bibliography they provided, but I’m still trying to figure out how to add them to a post . . . grrrrrrr . . .