Presentation delivered to The Irish Universities Information Services Colloquium (IUISC), 4th-6th March 2009, Galway, Ireland. 2009-03-05.

1. Using a consultancy to assist in developing
the UCD vision for the future online library
environment
What we found out and was it worth it?
Ros Pan and
Caleb Derven
UCD Library
Leabharlann UCD
UCD Library
An Coláiste Ollscoile, Baile
University College Dublin, Átha Cliath,
Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland Belfield, Baile Átha Cliath 4,
Eire

2. Presentation format summary
• Background - the basic facts about why we
involved a consultant and what was done
• The report and recommendations
• Two points of view on the process and the
findings
• Pros and Cons of the consultancy and
suggestions for anyone thinking about
following this approach

3. Section One
Background - the basic facts, why we did it and
what was done

4. What was the need?
• We had been considering the need to re-think our
Website for some time – sprawling size, statistical
snapshots, informal user feedback
• We were acutely aware that the Library website was
just one of the main online environments UCD
provides for its users, others being the VLE, UCD
Connect portal and School websites, catalogue
• As we mused about all this, all the Web 2.0 options
began to materialize as well and we started to
experiment with blogs, Facebook, 2Life, chat
• It seemed clear that rather than just a website re-
think we need to move up to a much higher level of
thinking about the entire online Library platform
choices and think strategically – currently we are
involved in all these environments somewhat
piecemeal

5. Why use a consultant and how to get one
• To help Library staff think outside the box with
help of a fresh pair of eyes
• To resource time-consuming activities
• To bring in some expertise that we lacked
• Being a fairly small scale project we produced a
specification of what we wanted and issued ITT
via Irish mailing lists and lis-link
• Responses were not numerous and no Irish firms
tendered
• 2 shortlisted companies came and did
presentations for us and on the basis of that
senior management chose a UK-based company

6. What took place
• A project team was formed up in the Library:Ros
Pan (Chair); Julia Barrett; Caleb Derven; Valerie
Kendlin; Hugh Murphy; Aoife O'Brien; Kathryn
Smith; Anne Vernet – Deputy Heads, Sub-
Librarians and E-service team members
• A Wiki was set up as project team support tool
• A blog was set up to keep library staff in general
informed on progress
• Main activities of the consultancy were: kick off
meeting; 1-1 phone interviews; various
workshops with library staff and user groups;
survey of library staff (74 responses); survey of
users (1689 responses = about 7%)
• Main deliverable was report and a final workshop

7. What took place – the timing
• Kick off meeting held Sept 18
• Signed off detailed terms of project Oct 16
• Workshop with library staff held Oct 22
• Workshops with academic staff (2) held Oct 23
• Workshops with students (2), held Oct 28
• 1-1 stakeholder interviews, Oct 13 - Nov 24
• Survey of all library staff November
• User Survey, November 6 - 24
• Final workshop with policy making library staff, Jan 20
2009 and report delivered end of January including 37
recommendations
• Our internal follow up actions and decisions are to follow
starting with a management workshop in early April

8. Section Two
Report and Recommendations

9. Recommendations
• The future role for the Library Website and
UCD Connect content
• Meeting the needs of different audiences
• Link with Blackboard
• Promoting services
• The Library brand

10. Recommendations, continued
• Communication strategy and channels
• The use of Web 2.0 and management of
innovation
• The balance between the traditional physical
Library and the online Library
• Other opportunities

11. Section Three
One view on the
process and findings –
Ros Pan, Head of
Electronic Strategy &
Innovation

12. Overall view of it
• I have a more positive view of the project than most of my project
team colleagues
• We certainly did not get the overall roadmap that we were hoping
for – but I am not sure how viable that ambition was given the lack
of clarity on where the University as a whole is going with website,
intranet, portal, CMS, VLE and so on
• I feel strongly that the final report was based too much on the user
survey and the workshops and stakeholder interview that cost us a
lot do not figure enough – not balanced
• I am critical of the 37 recommendations because they vary from
top level strategic concepts to highly specific things in a mix that
shows signs of hasty production, not careful insightful thought
• Not enough desk research was done to enable more insightful
recommendations to be made
• Nevertheless, I think the deliverables useful in various ways –
there is more there than meets the eye
• It is UP TO US TO TAKE THINGS FORWARD and the findings are
useful AT VARIOUS QUITE DIFFERENT LEVELS

13. Level 1 – the specific user survey findings to
feed into specific operational planning
Examples of individual findings to act upon
• Users overwhelmingly want an online room booking system
• Users are very happy with university e-mail as the main way for the
Library to communicate with them, with no great demand for
texting overall – we need to get better access to large mailing lists
• Users are not at all interested at this point in the social Web 2.0
initiatives of the Library – we need to control our resource going
into this
• Users really want staffed help points to be maintained to assist in
use of the online Library, that mix provides the library value
proposition – we should look into when, who, where and consider
change

14. Which of the following new services would be of interest if they were
available: (Tick all that apply)
Response Percent
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0%
Online booking of library study rooms
Datasets &amp statistics support – expert help in using datasets
and expanded cataloguing and training in this area
GIS support service – expanded and specialised expert help
w ith GIS and mapping
Video streaming support to enable video and DVD to be hosted
and view ed on the w eb
Delivery of Library resources and services to your mobile

15. How would you like to be updated or notified of events in your
Library account e.g. overdue books? (Tick all that apply)
Response Percent
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%
UCD email
Other email account
SMS message
Instant message (IM)

16. Level 2 – to support projects
Metalib/SFX implementation as an example
• Importance of the online library to our users
• Desire for simplification of discovery and access
• Desire for single google style search box
• Lack of awareness of some of our tools
• Recommendation to have 6-12 month cycle of
user promotion and publicity not just 1-off
announcements influencing us
• Recommendation to have a full library staff
awareness and training cycle influencing us
• Clear warning that with this investment we have
to do better in terms of library staff and user
awareness and expertise

19. Level 3 - the stakeholder interview comments,
and individual free text comments users
• Not much used by the consultants who went for
the mass user response as the key trigger
• They were done on the basis of anonymity so this
limits their use
• Still a single comment from a senior member of
the university can act as a useful trigger for
discussion and thought – very different to the
critical masses seen in the user survey
• There were 1000s of free text comments offered
• Some examples follow…

20. A single comment can be a useful trigger
“I use Google a huge amount - it’s just the best. I teach
them to use Google scholar rather than the citation
index.”
“They need a clearer articulation of the services they
provide to the existing user base.”
“Group coursework - in a group of 5 you will have 2 who
are atrocious online. That makes it unfair on the
others.”
“The library people are highly accomplished, recurrent
problem is that they're not strategies that connect well
with other parts of the University. So what comes out
really needs to join up with other parts of the Uni or at
least have potential..”

21. Level 4: the high level themes
Some high-level themes emerged from the
research:
• The Library needs more structure around
how it communicates
• There should be much more focus on raising
user awareness of what is available
• There are some pronounced gaps between
views of users and expectations of Library
staff

22. The Big themes 1- the communication context
The key outcome of the consultancy is not what I expected
it to be – but it is useful for management
We did not get the “follow this roadmap” solution that we
wanted
The most significant overall findings however seem to me
to be that the CONTEXT in which we develop our online
library service is more important than the specifics of the
platform/platforms themselves
Our communication, branding, training and
awareness strategy and activities emerged as a
most critical area that we need to address
If we do not address those contextual issues then no
matter what digital initiatives we introduce, we will not
progress within the university beyond where we are now

23. Question 25 - Which of the following Library tools do you use when seeking information for
study or research?
Use
O
c
c
a
s
i
o
n
Aware of Not a
Use but don’t aware of Response l
Answer Options regularly use it Count l
Library catalogue 1025 324 92 27 1468 y
Library A-Z e-journal
660 348 210 173 1391
portal
Library Citation Linker tool 85 175 306 683 1249
Library Cross
98 177 285 700 1260
Search@UCD
Abstracts & indexes
e.g. Web of Knowledge, 194 182 244 646 1266
ERIC, CINAHL
Online journal collections
e.g. Science Direct, 747 309 157 180 1393
PubMed, JSTOR
Search engines e.g.
975 310 80 44 1409
Google
Find it@UCD button 331 278 267 427 1303
Library subject portals 301 369 344 280 1294
Other
(please 21
specify)

24. The Big themes 2- the library/user perception
gap, how can we be both innovative and user-
focused?
• Users have a conservative view of the Library
• How then can the Library be user-focused and yet at
the same time innovate and try to move our user
view of the Library service on?
• All comes to a head round the social Web 2.0 area
• UCD has done a lot of experimenting in this area
• 85% of our users are not interested in our social
Web 2.0 activities
• Recommendation to keep resourcing going into this
area under tight control and also adopt a robust
phase-gate go/no go project approach to Web 2.0

25. • Only 40% of users wanted to be updated
through the website or UCD Connect, yet 85%
of Library staff felt this route was effective.
• There was very little user interest in the use of
Web 2.0 tools for updates – only 8.4% wanted
the Library to use Blogs or RSS feeds in this
way, whereas Library staff generally seemed
to over-state their utility, with 47% believing
them to be effective.

26. Level 5 – arguing against ideas forces you to
organize your thoughts and strategy to
repudiate the suggestions being made
• the recommendations that you do not agree
with are useful in themselves IF you put in
the time to think about them
• These are useful because you have to sort
out your thinking around why you do not
agree – and develop an alternative strategic
vision

27. Difficulties with the overall vision 3-5 years
1. There will be a single main entry point to
Library services for all users.
2. The entry-point will be a set of pages within a
UCD-wide intranet (which will also be the
entry point for University services, Blackboard
etc.)…..

28. Some issues with the vision – is it too simplistic,
and one-dimensional?
• If we integrate our offering but then hide it as a tab in a
university portal we lose branding, we lose control, we
become invisible – users may find it good, not good for
us though?
• Does not take into account large % of links into our
website that come in via referrals - deep links and search
engines – they ignore the need for a more strategic
approach to inbound links
• Similarly the whole idea of breaking up key content and
making it into packages that people can embed where
they wish or we can embed in other online platforms is
not considered
• my colleagues feel that this vision is one-dimensional and
outdated, more fitted to an enterprise behind a firewall
• That it lacks real insight into the UCD context

29. Lacks insight and a deep understanding
“We cannot expect the user to come to the library any
more; in fact, we cannot expect the user even to
come to the library Web site any more.” Lorcan
Dempsey, ARIADNE, Issue 48 July 2006
“The position of the library as a functionally integrated,
discrete presence, whether on the Web or as a
physical place, becomes diffused through various
manifestations (a physical place to meet, a toolbar, a
set of services in the course management system, a
FaceBook application, a set of RSS feeds, office hours
in a school or department, and so on)
Lorcan Dempsey, First Monday, Volume 14, Number 1
- 5 January 2009

30. Section Three
A second view on the process and findings –
Caleb Derven, Systems Librarian

31. Overall View of Consultancy
• Useful in pointing towards cultural themes in the
Library, less useful in delineating and clarifying
where we should be going with our online
platforms
• Some of the tensions the report uncovered
(traditional vs. online environments, single-
search vs. library presence in heterogeneous
environments, differing staff and reader views on
Library services) could prove useful for future
business decisions
• Too much reliance on survey as a data collection
instrument, report outcomes too much
conditioned by bias of consultant

32. Experiences with other consultancies
• Private sector, public sector, and consortial
• Myopia vs. hyperopia
– Consultant may have too specific knowledge of the
domain or no background in the area
• Timing and deliverables
– Main metric of consultancies is value for money

33. Context of Current Information
Environment
• 2005 OCLC report, Perceptions of Libraries and
Information Resources: “It has become
increasingly difficult to characterize and describe
the purpose of using libraries […] The
relationships among the information professional,
the user and the content have changed and
continue to change.”
• Dissonances most obvious in self-service,
satisfaction, and seamlessness
• Role of information in a networked environment
(Yochai Benkler)

34. Context of Current Information
Environment, continued
• Ubiquity of open source solutions
– Apache, PHP (general context)
– Koha, PINES, Open Library Environment Project
(library-specific)
• Proliferation of discovery interfaces
– Primo, Encore, VuFind, etc.
– Not just a new face to the library catalogue
• Modularization of services
– Disconnect database end from front end
– Exposing library resources through a variety of web
services

35. Highlights of the Report
• With regard to the UCD Library online
environment, users overwhelmingly support
refinements to our resource discovery tools
– Users’ top three wishes
– Catalogue / electronic resources are still main
access points
– Current LMS is end-of-life regarding functionality
and delivering additional refinements to users
• There is an apparent tension between the
catalogue as the main discovery tool and the
prevalence of Google.

36. Most Commonly Used Library Tools
Which of the following Library tools do you use when
seeking information for study or research?
Response Count
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Library catalogue
Library A-Z e-journal portal
Library Citation Linker tool
Library Cross Search@UCD
Abstracts & indexes e.g. Web of Knowledge, ERIC, CINAHL
Online journal collections e.g. Science Direct, PubMed, JSTOR
Search engines e.g. Google
Find it@UCD button
Library subject portals
Use regularly Use Occasionally Aware of but don’t use Not aware of it

37. Library access points and usability
How do you typically access the Library catalogue? How easy is it to search the catalogue efficiently?
Response Percent
2%
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0%
1%
Link to catalogue on UCD connect
Link to catalogue on the Library w ebsite 12% 20% Very easy
Quite easy
Link to catalogue on a subject portal Quite difficult
Very difficult
Personal Bookmark Don’t know
65%
Type in the URL in a brow ser
Catalogue terminal provided in a Library building

38. Reader Top 3 wishes
• Online resources – 16% for maintenance or
increases in availability of online resources
• Enhanced publicity, training, and support for
the Library – 11% enhanced support,
training, and awareness in how to use the
online library
• Resource discovery tools – 9% for simpler,
easier resource discovery
• What do these tell us?

39. Staff Top Three Wishes for the Catalogue
• Functionality (relevancy ranking, spelling, etc.)
• Facets (subject, year, etc.)
• Better integration with the physical collection
(help on locating resources in the library)

40. Consultancy Wish List
• More quantitative data analysis
– Server and LMS log files are a rich source
of data about who uses what in the online
environment
– Might provide a corrective view to that of
the survey
– Would provide solid metrics of what is
used and how
• Usability study
– How do readers actually get from point A
to Point B?
– Heuristic evaluation of platforms

41. Consultancy Wish List, continued
• How is the Library affected by the networked
environment
– Modularity
– Context-dependent re-use
• Multiple access points for heterogeneous
users
– Intranet or single-search access point
would only accommodate the needs of a
small group of readers

42. Suggestions for Future Consultancies
• A useful consultancy fully exploits existing
data
– Server logs, LMS search logs
– Metrics collected by other units
– Correlate interview findings to overall
findings
• Partner with units in institution
– Information Technology
– Usability studies

43. Section Four
Pros and Cons of the consultancy and
suggestions
6 out of 10?

44. Suggestions
• Original Scoping of Project/ Invitation to Tender
• Selection of Company
• Agreeing to Consultancy’s Terms of Reference
• Project Management
• Methodology

45. A slight difference of viewpoint existed
The objectives of the consultancy - extract
• We want to get a consensus on how the
website should work over a period of perhaps
2-3 years from being re-built before we start
• That involves developing in addition a
concerted view about the Library role in the
other available online environments and
moving beyond viewing these as optional
extras in our work

46. Would we do it again?
• No
• It yielded data of tremendous value - but was
not in itself value for money in our view
• We have a high expectation of what you
should get for a high consultant fee and we
don’t think we got it
• “we could have done it ourselves” – maybe,
but would we have done it?
• A better approach for such a broad-ranging
objective may perhaps be to have a contract
post for 3-6 months to focus intensively on
the same issues, working with the permanent
library staff

47. Thank you
Any questions ??