Library Technology for a User-Centered Future in Academic Libraries

Lee, Amy

Citation:

Evans, G., & Schonfeld, R. C. (2020, January 23). It’s not what libraries hold; it’s who libraries serve: Seeking a user-centered future for academic libraries. Ithaka S + R. https://doi.org/10.18665/sr.312608
 

Summary:

The OhioLINK consortium’s Transforming the Integrated Library Systems (ILS) working group engaged the nonprofit consulting agency Ithaka S + R to help with research and development of their vision for the ILS of the future- a library management system that is truly user-centered (instead of print-collections centered) and empowers academic libraries to align services with their academic institution’s strategic direction to “support student success, research excellence, and broad community engagement”. This report first covers the shortcomings of the ILS products prevalent in the market today, which were created for the management of largely print collections and have not been adequately updated to meet the shifts to management of larger, digital, shared, and distributed collections and system connections. The highlight of this report presents the OhioLINK working group’s detailed vision of an ILS system of the future that allows academic libraries to continue fulfilling their core business function (the management of print and library collections) while also being strategically updated in four key areas to serve their users and their academic communities optimally based on recent trends in academic research, learning, and teaching: user-focused systems, facilitated collections, institutional integration, and integrated business intelligence. 

Evaluation:

This report is helpful for systems librarians evaluating ILS products used for their academic library as well as for strategic planning for library systems, services, and management as we embrace the increasingly digital and user-focused library collection. It offers insights into the shortcomings of present ILS systems, trends in academic library collection management and e-resource usage, and potential solutions for creating an ILS product that offers enhancement of library services. This class has studied how libraries are updating collection and connection development strategies to remain relevant and useful in the Digital Age, and it was interesting to see that library systems/technological products used to manage these collections have not only failed to keep up with recent shifts to the increased usage of digital resources, but may actively inhibit libraries from realizing their full service potential. 

This study contained many interesting findings about current academic library user behaviors and needs, technological capabilities required by academic library staff to manage their print and digital collections, and the technological features that are missing and necessary in ILS products that could address these user and staff needs. One finding I found particularly interesting was that academic library users (primarily students and faculty of an academic institution) do not start their resource discovery and access journey at the library as a physical or virtual starting point, but are often funneled into an academic library’s ILS system from elsewhere like Google or Google Scholar searches. Given these findings, the study's recommendation for providing seamless access to library resources based on a user’s entitlements across a variety of groups, including public library, alma mater, current institution, and other institutional affiliations, is an ILS feature that would be especially beneficial for users that does not currently have a straightforward implementation. 

Performing these research and visioning exercises is a great way to assess the current performance of library technologies, evaluate library collection and service goals in both idealized (without having to worry about technical limitations) and realistic forms,  and actively identify next steps to ensure a library is making progress in both technology development and strategic planning that aligns with their overarching vision for collection and connection development.

Reordering Ranganathan: Shifting User Behaviors, Shifting Priorities

Megan Pinheiro da Silva

Connaway, Lynn Silipigni, and Ixchel M. Faniel. 2014. Reordering Ranganathan: Shifting User Behaviors, Shifting Priorities. Dublin, OH: OCLC Research.  http://www.oclc.org/content/dam/research/publications/library/2014/oclcresearch-reordering-ranganathan-2014.pdf

Summary

Connaway and Faniel’s OCLC Research Report is written for academic librarians who face unique challenges and opportunities in working with university researchers—faculty and students—who need different kinds of library services, particularly in the area of data collection and management. The authors devote a chapter to each of S. R. Ranganathan’s 5 Laws of Library Science. The introduction, “Same Laws, New Lens.” gives the historical context of the laws and posit that the laws are still very much relevant today. Each proceeding chapter focuses on one law giving its background context, their interpretation of the law, and its application in today’s information services. Connaway and Faniel place the 4^th law—save the time of the reader—1^st as they argue that time is the most precious commodity for the user today. Connaway and Faniel interpret save time of the reader to mean, “embed library systems and services into users’ existing workflows” (p. 105). The reason given for this interpretation is that users have relocated their information activity to the Internet. Convenience is included in saving time. The 2^nd law--every person his or her book the authors reinterpret as to be “know your community and its needs”. The 2^nd law is about accessing the content; if you cannot find what you need, saving time is useless. The 3^rd and 4^th laws-–books are for use and every book its reader—are about developing the infrastructure to deliver the materials and increasing the discoverability/use of those resources within the users’ workflow. The 5^th law—a library is a growing organism—is the only law that is not reinterpreted, as it remains true in a literal and figurative sense. The ultimate goal of this resource is to help libraries and librarians “as they think about making changes in practice and developing an agenda for future research” (p. 105).

Evaluation

This report is well worth the time it takes to read it. It has helped me to understand collection/connection development in the context of the current shift in user behavior to Web-based information services. It also confirms my belief that librarians who acknowledge users’ information preferences, reach out to patrons to better understand their needs and frustrations, and who are willing to bring resources to where it is most convenient for the user, are needed more than ever. Librarianship is growing more and more complex and time continues to become scarcer and scarcer it seems. Connaway and Faniel address complexities in the field that I had never imagined—such as library systems that are complicated even for researchers to use—with an authority and compassion that comes from understanding library systems, research, and user needs. But the icing on the cake is their reinterpretation of Ranganathan’s 5 Laws of Library Science (1931) which bring all the complexity back to the basics: all our services, systems, collections, should facilitate the access and use of information for our patrons.