Managing OPACs: approaches to the process of OPAC change and development in ECU

Lisa BillinghamInnopac Systems Librarian

ECU

Summary

Frequency of reviews Timing during the year Procedure followed Results (what went well, what we

learnt)

Frequency of reviews

Annual Minor changes between reviews

agreed with Senior Librarians Corrections added immediately we

become aware of a problem

Timing (of 2005 review) 1st meeting – February 2005 - before

upgrade to Silver / 2005LE 2nd meeting – March 2005 – post-

upgrade Meetings held monthly until July 1st site revision – late April 2005 2nd site revision – late May 2005 3rd site revision – late June 2005 Launch end of Semester 2, 2005

Procedure followed

committee structure responsibilities topics included research communication plan testing procedures feedback gathering procedures

Committee structure

Facilitator / Project Manager Representative from each section:-

Library Collections and Access Reference Loans Faculty

Responsibilities All

Research of other sites / webOPACs Testing Promotion of project

Facilitator Web redesign Project management

Other team members Liaison with relevant staff

Topics included Review layout of web pages Review content of web pages Consider 2005LE standard webpage

design, and features in new release Consider activation of optional features

(e.g. My Millennium) Consider relevant new products (e.g.

WebBridge, Metafind, AirPAC, Advanced Searching) and recommend any purchases.

Consider accessibility factors

Research New features in next Millennium release Functions in current release not yet

activated New products available from III Other Innovative library webOPACs (

http://www.libdex.com/vendor/Innovative_Interfaces,_Inc.html)

Other library catalogues

Communication plan Group members communicate with their

respective groups of staff before and after each group meeting

Project Manager sends out e-mails to all library staff prior to project start, at beginning of project, when each version of webOPAC is available on staging port, and at conclusion of project

Notices placed on webOPAC main page immediately prior to, and after change

Testing procedures Testing conducted on staging port

HTML changes Activation of new functions Activation of new products

Tested by Project Manager and also by project team members, then all staff invited to test and comment

Test plans used (adapted from those used after upgrades)

Feedback gathering

Gathered from staff via their representatives – fed back at team meetings or between meetings if urgent

Also sent direct to Project Manager

Results – what worked well Research of various design options Testing Web redesign Some proposals led to other

projects Promotion of overall project and

major stages

Results – what we would do differently Liaison with relevant staff Separate Reference Group Issues

How to deal with no response How to deal with no consensus