Minutes of June 3, 2010 Meeting

Grace Agnew, Katie Anderson, K.N. Au, Stephanie Bartz, Jeanne Boyle, Vib Bowman Cvetkovic, Melissa De Fino, Mary Fetzer, Judy Gardner, Rebecca Gardner, Melissa Gasparotto, Tom Glynn, Sara Harrington, Elizabeth Leister, John Maxymuk, Sam McDonald, Françoise Puniello, Tibor Purger, Chris Sterback
Natalie Borisovets, Marty Kesselman, Eileen Stec, Ryan Womack

1. The agenda was approved as submitted.

2. The minutes of the May 6, 2010 USC meeting were circulated to USC members via the Sakai site. Revisions are to be sent to Sara Harrington by June 9, 2010.

3. Discussion of Counting Opinions Data (Jeanne Boyle)

J. Boyle began by stating that one key to understanding the data from the Counting Opinions survey is to be familiar with the survey instrument itself, and what we asked respondents about. The survey opened in October of 2009, and we have received approximately 1,000 responses to date. There are a series of demographic questions in the survey in order to determine the respondents years at RU, their major and minor, etc. There are questions related to services, facilities, equipment, and staff. Two interesting elements based on survey data relate to level of satisfaction and level of importance. The Likert scale used by the survey is from 1-7, with 7 being the highest. There are also two surveys within Counting Opinions, a brief survey, and a more in-depth survey. J. Boyle noted that the results of the survey are not statistically valid. However, in discussions with Institutional Research it was stated the information gleaned from the survey is nonetheless useful, and there is a sense that the survey respondents reflect our overall user community. J. Boyle indicated that she would post a report about overall numbers as related to the survey in Sakai.

In terms of process, the system automatically codes respondent comments. In addition, J. Boyle’s office also codes comments 'by hand'. The system has a very rich backend in the way that it can mine and present reports. For example, we can prepare reports that compare ourselves to other library systems, prepare reports for individual libraries, etc. It is even possible to drill down to individual survey responses. It is worth noting that individuals can take the survey multiple times. This is considered a benefit, since it will be theoretically possible to compare responses in a discrete time frame, or before and after a major change is instituted in one or more libraries. RUL is just at the beginning of the examination of the survey data.

J. Boyle asked USC what it wishes to know from the survey data. J. Boyle stated that by looking at the feedback summary one can see all the categories in which the survey responses are coded. In addition, a significant amount of documentation drawn from the survey has been placed on the USC Sakai site, in the "June 3, 2010" folder in the "Resources" section of the site. J. Boyle suggested that USC's role may include the setting up of rubrics, for example, to ensure that items ranked (as an example) six or higher are receiving specific action, what that action is, to whom it is assigned, what the timeframe for completion might be, and if the action was completed. Looking at what was deemed unimportant by our users (ranked 4 or lower) may help us to determine what could be eliminated during this difficult budgetary period.

J. Boyle noted that simply 'running off' a large number of reports is not helpful. Rather, RUL must understand the implications of the results we do have. J. Boyle emphasized that the emphasis should be on trends in the data. Therefore, J. Boyle volunteered to sit down with individuals for a more in-depth discussion about the survey results, as a way to develop goals for different groups for the coming year. G. Agnew and M. Fetzer volunteered to meet with J. Boyle, and S. Harrington suggested that the incoming chair(s) of USC should attend this meeting as well.

J. Boyle asked USC to consider increasing the chance of receiving the "zipper" which offers the survey on the website from 1 in 100 to 1 in 75 or 50. S. McDonald suggested that this could be considered on a page per page basis, and USC agreed that this should be tried on selected pages. The Marketing/PR Group is considering some other attempts to gather additional responses to the survey during the fall semester. Counting Opinions also has another tool which may be of use. It is called "Inform Us" and acts as an online suggestion box.

As an aside, G. Agnew noted that TAS answers questions related to etds, RUCore, and other issues, and does not currently keep statistics on the number of questions responded to. It is up to USC to tell TAS if and how these responses should be counted.

4. Final Report of the Ethnographic Research Project (J. Boyle)

J. Boyle noted that she, S. McDonald and K.N. Au spoke on this subject at the State of the Libraries. 6,000 responses were gathered. The project team coded the comments and engaged in a 'sense-making" exercise—this is a major part of what the project team does. As the final report notes, users want to do, rather than learn to do when using the website. There is great interest in full-text resources, and less interest in citation-based resources. Users need help identifying databases, RUL should surface high demand resources and embrace 2.0 functionalities. Users also requested personalization, and point of need help. The left- hand sidebar on the website is too crowded. The primary idea is that the website is tool for research, and RUL needs to look at the site differently.

G. Agnew noted that users do not recognize resources separated from their task context (the task that they are trying to accomplish). So we need to figure out what the core tasks are, and take a task approach to our website and services. This is what users may mean by personalization: the task that the user is completing at the time. We assume that our users will put resources together themselves, but they may not. We need to move from "how to find an article," to something more like, "how to write a paper." The website needs to revolve around users and their workflow.

J. Boyle stated that IRB has granted an extension for the Core Group to continue to mine the data gathered, and that the Core Group still exists. USC needs to appoint a new liaison to the Core Group.

5. Website redesign process and the role of USC (J. Gardner)

The website redesign will be led by J. Gardner and T. Purger.

T. Purger distributed a document that demonstrated the emergence of a new group, called the "Web Board," drawn from WAC, web services, IPAC, DIG, and other relevant bodies. The first step is the identification of areas and groups from which the Web Board needs to be drawn. T. Purger's recommended that WAC be absorbed into the Web Board, and noted that it is crucial that membership in Web Board be carefully considered, so that widespread consultation in ensured. The document also included a sample RACI matrix (Responsible/Accountable/Consulted/Informed) in order to demonstrate the sample workflow for the Web Board, and the ultimate accountability of USC.

An important question for USC is what role it plays in the redesign process. USC should be represented on the Web Board, and the Web Board will report to USC. USC will be the body that oversees the process, the Web Board will report to and be accountable to USC. USC will take releases to the Planning and Coordinating Committee and to Cabinet. The Web Board will put together the specifications for each release. Specifications for future releases will be decided in advance, and these specifications will be used to ensure accountability and success. The specifications will also function as a communication tool, to advertise releases. This is a powerful, integrated approach that takes the users' point of view as we move toward open source systems. A close and active working relationship between USC and Web Board must exist, and significant commitment on part of USC is necessary. The two releases per year will become major components of USC annual goals. The current project is Release 1; the timeline for each release is six to seven months.

T. Purger emphasized that the redesign process must be continuous. He lauded the principles codified in the Final Report of the Ethnographic Research Project, and noted that while some principles will be more difficult than others to put into place, the priorities will show us a way. The strategies listed in the report will help to establish the guidance and governance for the project. T. Purger outlined the release process; functionalities will be released in waves. The overall goal is to make the RUL website one that users want to use. Part of this relates to design, which makes the website easier to use. But part of the changes that will take place relate to the underlying architecture, in particular, the concept of "search." People want to find, rather than struggle while searching. We need expertise and tools to both build and present search results.

Immediate next steps are that J. Gardner, T. Purger, G. Agnew, in consultation with the incoming chair of USC, will propose the membership of the Web Board, create a RACI matrix listing the groups and individuals that will be consulted, and write a charge for the Web Board. The Planning and Coordinating Committee will be consulted, as will Cabinet. The USC Sakai site will be used to review the charge and other documentation before the Web Board moves to its own Sakai site.

6. Discussion of Norms for Reference (M. Fetzer, T. Glynn, Sara Harrington)

M. Fetzer stated that it was perhaps more accurate to label this agenda item "a discussion of peer expectations." There are many forms of reference currently being performed in RUL, including electronic forms of reference and more traditional forms. There is a need for greater participation rate in some reference activities, this need is driven by the 5.1% budget reduction. It is likely that RUL will not have part-time librarians, RAs, or work study assistance extending into the fall. T. Glynn offered his perspective as chair of NBISG. We need to look at how we provide services, and how to reconsider reference responsibilities. M. Fetzer suggested the possibility of a matrix, or menu, of reference services, from which librarians might select from a range of reference options. The matrix would include "units of work" as an attempt to balance reference responsibilities.

M. Fetzer, T. Glynn, and S. Harrington will, under the auspices of USC, suggest a group and develop a charge to examine this potential matrix approach to reference services. The goal of the group is not 'bean counting' but rather a straightforward way to ensure faculty buy-in and equitable balance across the multiple forms of reference service that currently exist in RUL, particularly as these services expand and transform.

7. Creation of Call Number Maps for IRIS (Sara Harrington)

After a brief discussion on the desire for and existence of call number maps for IRIS, it was decided that this issue falls under the purview of the future Web Board, which will determine whether call number maps for IRIS will be included in future specifications.

8. 260 (Publication) Field in IRIS Records (Stephanie Bartz, Elizabeth Leister)

IRIS records with multiple 260s are loading into IRIS from providers such as Serials Solutions. The original publisher is recorded in the first publishing statement. Subsequent publishers are recorded in sequential 260 fields with the current publisher in the final field. IPAC, with the agreement of Central Technical Services, proposed that the "Publication info" field be made more meaningful by displaying the information associated with indicators 2 and 3 for that field. For records with multiple 260s, the relevant date range for each publisher (or for monographs, volume numbers) will become visible in the default IRIS record display.

After some discussion, it was decided to completely remove the 260 field from the default display for serials. There was consensus that the multiple publishers with dates would be too confusing for our users, and that simplifying the default records was preferable. The 260s (with indicators) should display only in the "complete" record display.

9. Updates/ information sharing from AULs Serving on Council

F. Puniello had no report.

M. Fetzer stated that H. Glazer has announced a "discovery day" for students and is looking for volunteers to meet with students in the lobby of Alexander Library on 6/24, 7/7, and 7/15. The event will last from 10 a.m. until noon. M. Fetzer also noted that G. Springs has emailed subject selectors about LibGuides accounts. Others who are interested in accounts will be emailed in the coming weeks.

G. Agnew stated that Central Technical Services (CTS) is reorganizing. Units are being shaped around strategic areas. Managers will be instrumental in redesigning workflow in their areas. A presentation will be made on the CTS reorganization at Cabinet and will be an agenda item on an upcoming USC meeting agenda.

10. Information Sharing: Transition to 2010-2011 Council (Sara Harrington)

The new membership of the Council will take effect on July 1, 2010. S. Harrington is working on transitioning the Sakai site to the new membership and leadership, to bringing to a conclusion some of the work of this year, and to transitioning some projects and issues to the next iteration of the Council.

11. The meeting was adjourned shortly before noon. Thanks to all!

Respectfully submitted,
Sara Harrington

URL: http://www.libraries.rutgers.edu/rul/staff/groups/usr/minutes/usrmin_10_06_03.shtml
Website Feedback  |  Privacy Policy
© Copyright 1997-, Rutgers University Libraries