Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
This is a presentation covering the use of shared systems in libraries and shared catalogs.
Citation preview
Cloud Computing, Open Source Library Systems, Public Libraries and Users
Barbara AlbeeHsin-liang (Oliver) ChenSLIS, Indiana University
Key issues:
• Community clouds• Open source library systems• Public libraries• User studies and technology
implementation
Community cloud
“The cloud infrastructure is shared by several organizations and supports a specific community that has shared concerns (e.g., mission, security requirements, policy, and compliance considerations),” (Di Maio, 2009).
Three cloud computing delivery models
Cloud Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS)
Cloud Platform as a Service (PaaS)
Cloud Software as a Service (SaaS)
Community clouds, the delivery models, and Indiana Evergreen project
Cloud Infrastructure Library consortium
Cloud Platform Shared Web-based library catalogs and ILL
Cloud Software Evergreen open source library system
Studying Indiana Evergreen library users
Purpose:To examine the implementation of an open source library automation system, Evergreen, in Indiana public libraries and its impact on library users.
Background of Evergreen:Evergreen Indiana was implemented in 2008. The purpose of the Evergreen Indiana project is to provide public library users with effective and equitable library collections via a multi-library shared integrated library system (ILS).
Literature Review
1. Open source library automation systems
“it is flexible and has the ability to build a complex system at less cost,” Tennant (2007)
“the open source trend is strong and in order to survive it must compete with proprietary library systems,” Breeding (2008)
2. Collaboration and library consortia
“one of the main benefits of open source software is the commitment of the community to develop something that is interoperable and respects open standards,” Moffatto (2006)
3. OPACs and library users in the Web platform era
“Delivery is equally important if not more so than discovery for the users” OCLC Report (2009)
According to the report, the top essential data elements recommended by library users are:
• List of libraries that own the item, • Ability to see what is immediately available, • More item details, • Links to online content/full text
http://www.oclc.org/reports/onlinecatalogs/default.htm
http://evergreen.lib.in.us/opac/en-US/skin/craftsman/xml/index.xml
1. Are users at 9 Indiana public libraries using the open source library automation system since its implementation?
2. How do they use the system?
3. Do they change the way they utilize library services and resources after the implementation of an open source library automation system?
4. If so, what are their changes?
5. What are their expectations about the system since its implementation?
Evergreen Project research questions
Methodology
1. Nine public libraries in Indiana
2. Quarterly meetings with librarians and library users
3. Questionnaires and focus group meetings
4. System data collection
PRELIMINARY RESULTSParticipants
18-24 25-59 Over 60 Gender Female Male0
50
100
150
200
250
1st Q2nd Q3rd QTotal
Age1st Q 2nd Q 3rd Q Total
18-24 2 8 14 24
25-59 29 17 121 167
Over 60 17 20 29 66
Gender
Female 35 29 128 192
Male 13 16 36 65
RQ #1: Are users at the nine Indiana public libraries using the open source library automation system since its implementation?
Usage1st Q 2nd Q
3rd Q Total
Very frequently 20 15 31 66
Frequently 14 10 47 71
Occasionally 6 7 39 52
Rarely 3 3 12 18
Very rarely 0 4 11 15
Never 5 6 24 35
N= 48 45 164 257Ver
y fre
quen
tly
Frequ
ently
Occas
iona
ly
Rarel
y
Very r
arel
y
Never
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
1st Q2nd Q3rd Q
RQ#2: How do they use the system? The research team uses the usage of inter library loan as an indicator which is a favored feature by most surveyed library users.
Awareness of ILL
1st Q
2nd Q
3rd Q Total
No 15 17 67 99
Yes 33 28 97 158
Total 48 45 164 257Use of ILL1-5 items 21 19 51 91
6~10 4 1 12 17
11~15 1 2 5 8
16~20 0 0 3 3
Over 20 5 4 2 11
N= 31 26 73 130
No Yes Total Use of ILL
1-5 items
6~10 11~15 16~20 Over 20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
1st Q2nd Q3rd Q
RQ #3:Do they change the way they utilize library services and resources after the implementation of an open source library automation system?
1st Q2nd Q 3rd Q Total
Yes 32 23 63 118
No 16 22 101 139
N= 48 45 164 257
1st Q 2nd Q 3rd Q0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
No Yes
RQ #4: Will they increase the use of the system?
Very f
requ
ently
Frequ
ently
Occas
iona
ly
Rarel
y
Very r
arel
y
Never
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1st Q2nd Q3rd Q
Increase of usage
1st Q 2nd Q3rd Q Total
Very frequently 20 8 38 66
Frequently 15 14 55 84Occasionally 10 9 35 54
Rarely 1 4 8 13
Very rarely 0 6 14 20
Never 2 4 14 20
N= 48 45 164 257
Preliminary correlation-coefficient significance:
1. Participants’ use of Evergreen system’s functions are related to • Age• Frequency of visits to local library in last 12-months • Level of use of the previous library system and the
Evergreen system.
2. Participants’ experience with previous library systems affects their usage of Evergreen system and related services.
3. Participants’ use of the Evergreen system has potential to change the way they use library services and collections.
Before After
Less sharingLess
standardizationSome libraries not
automatedNo web presence
Sharing collections - intra-library loan
Union CatalogAdherence to
standards
Libraries before and after Evergreen
Advantages Disadvantages
SharingMore collections to
selectAutomationCheck resources
from home
Libraries have to agree on policies and procedures
Sharing, libraries that own the item takes precedence for borrowing privileges
Migrations from fuller developed systems
Advantages and disadvantages of Evergreen
User studies and technology implementation
• User studies are essential to the success of technology implementation (e.g., Indiana cut IBM loose, saying the company failed to deliver on a multi-year welfare modernization effort.)
• User studies as a research area at SLIS-Indy
• Potential for collaboration
Thank you!
Acknowledgements
This project is supported by
OCLC/ALISE LIS Research Grant and
IMLS LSTA Grant (through the Indiana State Library)
