Proposal for a Special Project in The Field of Information and Library Science In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For

a Master of Library Science Degree

Southern Connecticut State University Department of Library and Information Science Spring 2012

Marissa Antosh antoshm1@owls.southernct.edu Anticipated Date of Graduation: Summer 2012

Special Project Director: Dr. Yan Quan Liu

Proposal Review/Action Approved Revisions Needed Date

Antosh 1 Tentative Project Title Best Practices for Training and Support of Library Staff During Implementation of an Integrated Library System 2 Introduction and Overview Library automation is standard practice. While some institutions still have card catalogs, most have an integrated library system (ILS) that manages circulation, acquisitions, and cataloging in addition to providing an online public access catalog (OPAC). As technology improves, ILS vendors are adding new features such as interlibrary loan integration, automated telephone calls regarding materials on hold,

OPAC access through mobile devices, and database management for e-journals and other electronic resources (Felstead, 2004). Since 2004, ILS vendors have also added social media features such as posting a reading list to Twitter, recommending materials to a Facebook friend, writing a review, and adding topical or genre tags to a bibliographic entry. Other features in newer ILSes may include cover images, virtual shelf browsing, and auto-completion, spell check, and suggestions of search terms (Weare, Toms, & Breeding, 2011). These features improve access for library patrons and streamline library workflows. However, library staff must be able to operate the new ILS effectively and confidently. I propose to research how migrating to a new ILS affects a librarys staff. In this case, I will use staff experiences from a recent, consortium-wide migration to an open-source product in Connecticut. I intend to answer the question What impact does new ILS implementation have on library staffers and what is the best way to train and support them during migration to a new ILS?

Antosh A librarys ILS is the backbone of the main library functions affecting every aspect of its service and every member of its staff; therefore staff members need to be considered when a library wishes to implement a new ILS. The process is more than migrating data. Reference and circulation staffs serve patrons directly. Technical

services, cataloging, and acquisitions staffs may not interact with library patrons face-toface, but their actions behind the scenes affect the librarys collection. Therefore, library staff members need to be trained and supported before, during, and after a library or library system implements a new ILS in order to feel confident and capable to operate it. Within the last year, the Connecticut-based company Bibliomation, Inc. switched its eighty-two member libraries from a legacy system to a new ILS called BibliOak based on the open-source Evergreen platform. In order to find out about staff experiences, I will email the directors at Bibliomations member libraries. I will mail a cover letter to the few whom I cannot email directly. The email and the letter contain a link to a survey for any staff of the library to complete. This survey will gauge staff experiences with the new ILS implementation and that data along with a review of the literature will formulate the best practices for training and supporting staff through an ILS migration. Bibliomations migration to BibliOak is the research tool in this particular study; however, the conclusions that I will draw will be applicable to any library system looking to migrate to a new ILS. 2.1 Host Agency Not applicable.

Antosh 2.2 Significance and Relevance Supporting staff is a managerial necessity. Libraries wishing to implement a new ILS in the future can use the data collected in this study to make sure their staff is well supported before, during, and after the ILS migration, thus ensuring their migration will go smoothly. Library staffs are the front line, and their buy in and willingness to learn is vital to a successful migration. If they are not confident and well-trained, they may project a negative demeanor that may be off-putting to library patrons. 3 Review of Literature My study focuses on the human element of integrated library system (ILS)

implementationthe library staff. The studies I have uncovered mostly focus on why and how a library switched to a new ILS, but very little is written on the effect upon the staff. Dennison and Lewis (2011) wrote that when the Paine College Collins-Callaway Library initially implemented an ILS in 1999, library and college technology staff had extensive training. Over time, staff members left the librarys employ and in 2007 only a cataloging assistant who had the initial training was left (Dennison & Lewis, 2011). When the college began exploring open-source ILSes for the library, the staff had anxiety about the difficulty of learning a new system and the short time period allotted for the ILS migration (Dennison & Lewis, 2011). Despite this apprehension, the library moved forward and ended up migrating to the open-source ILS Koha in three months. A demonstration system with full staff privileges was set up, which was an advantage. Dennison and Lewis (2011) wrote The Library staff was rightly concerned about the fast implementation schedule, so they were motivated to use the demonstration system. It appears the administration moved quickly without much staff input in regards to the

Antosh timeline. The library ran training modules, and after the implementation, The Library staff is able to handle all the administrative functions of the module on their own, and they may also contact the hosting company for assistance (Dennison & Lewis, 2011). The Paine College experience ended up working out, but the library staff did not have much say in the timeline of implementation. They selected which training modules to attend and worked on the demonstration system, which was a benefit, but it does not appear they were consulted on much else. Similarly, the National Library of Wales (NLW) migrated to a new ILS in 2007. In their study, Evans and Thomas (2007) detailed the extensive collections housed at the NLW, including audio-visual and digital content. The current legacy-based system they

used was no longer going to be supported in the future, and migrating to a new ILS would provide better access in that users would not need to search several catalogs to find what they were looking for (Evans & Thomas, 2007). A new ILS would also streamline library working practices that had developed over the years, making the staffs of all departments work more consistently, efficiently, and without duplication (Evans & Thomas, 2007). In 2003, the NLW formed a Project Board from the department heads of acquisitions, systems, reader services, the National Screen and Sound Archive of Wales, and computers. Two external board members were also chosen. Together, they reviewed the legacy system and laid the groundwork for procuring a new ILS (Evans & Thomas, 2007). It is unclear whether the two external board members were non-administrative library staff. Evans and Thomas (2007) indicated some early staff involvement: Each supplier visited the library separately in order to hold internal discussions with staff, and to give

Antosh

presentations of their systems, which were open to both staff and members of the public. This allowed them to voice any comments and concerns. In addition, staff members were involved in systems evaluation. Finally, the NLW provided a weekly email to staff to keep them updated on new developments. Despite this, Evans and Thomas (2007) acknowledged that the staff involvement could have been better: In addition to the weekly brief perhaps more open sessions could have been held to give staff the opportunity to raise any issues or questions in a face-to-face environment. From the study, it appears that staff were consulted and involved in the ILS implementation at NLW, but the library could have invited more staff participation. Nigerias Bowen University faced the challenge of automating for the first time in 2007. Otunla and Akanmu-Adeyemo (2010) acknowledged that the library staff input must be adequate in order for the library to implement the correct ILS for their unique situation. Like Paine College, Bowen University decided to install the open-source ILS Koha based upon a number of factors, two of them being user-friendliness and training availability after implementation (Otunla & Akanmu-Adeyemo, 2010). Since this was a first time automation, the staff needed to be able to easily use the software and be properly trained. Otunla and Akanmu-Adeyemo (2010) detailed the features of Koha that made it the right fit for Bowen University and then described the automation process that included briefing university staff, training library staff, and converting the card catalog into digital records. From the study, it appears that staff was not consulted in the implementation process, but they were eager to learn the new ILS once it was installed. According to the study, two requirements of a successful library automation project

Antosh include well-informed, dedicated staff and staff that is computer literate (Otunla & Akanmu-Adeyemo, 2010). At Bowen University, both of these requirements were in place at the start of the automation process. Post-automation, a satisfaction survey of the staff that used Koha daily was

completed. Questions included rating the various Koha modules (acquisitions, cataloging, circulation, et cetera), interface with the Internet, software reliability, productivity, and user-friendliness (Otunla & Akanmu-Adeyemo, 2010). The staff returned positive answers. In post-automation interviews, one library staff member from each unit of the library was interviewed and those interviews elicited responses of increased productivity, less original cataloging, easier fine payments, and less traffic at the circulation desk and the catalog (Otunla & Akanmu-Adeyemo, 2010). The survey indicated that the library wanted to know staff opinions about how the new system worked, but there were no questions about the implementation process itself. Each study acknowledged the importance of staff in the implementation process, but none appear to have asked staff directly how they would like the implementation to be run. Indeed, only the study at Bowen University surveyed the staff at all. Brannon (2010) outlined the following steps to help in implementation of new library technologies: let the staff know ahead of time, explain why it fits with the librarys mission, get them involved, provide excellent training, and let them practice with the new technology. I intend to examine in my study whether staff at Bibliomations member libraries felt these steps were completed. Staff participation is important, and their views about implementation would have been well utilized in Georgia, Wales, and Nigeria.

Antosh 4 Research Method My special project employs a web-based survey measuring participants

satisfaction with implementation of a new integrated library system. I developed a survey and sent it to directors of the eighty-two member libraries of Bibliomation, Inc. It contains eight multiple-choice questions. Of the eight questions, six ask about aspects of migration to BibliOak, Bibliomations open-source integrated library system. The final two multiple-choice questions concern demographicslength of time at current job and primary area of work in the library. I am interested to see how long my participants have been in their current job and get an idea as to who my primary respondents aredirectors, technical services, circulation, etc. The ninth question on my survey asks for additional comments or information related to the BibliOak ILS implementation. While these answers may not be quantifiable, I would like to know anything additional that participants would like to share regarding their libraries ILS migration. The questions for this survey were created from information about the BibliOak implementation from a series of emails with Melissa Lefebvre, Open Source Project Manager at Bibliomation. I asked her specific questions about the migrationwhat was the timeline for the project, how were the individual library staffs trained, what was the level of communication and outreach to the libraries like, etc. I then turned that information around into questions like Blog posts, weekly emails, and Facebook updates were used as outreach during implementation. How did you feel about this level of communication? The survey was created with the free version of Polldaddy.com. The

Antosh free version allows up to two hundred responses a month. Ideally, I would like one hundred respondents, so that limit works with the scope of responses available. In order to distribute my survey, I emailed the link to the survey with a cover letter to the library directors with an invitation to participate and share the survey with their staff. I was able to find email addresses for the majority of Bibliomation member library directors through Bibliomations website of member libraries and learned of recently added member libraries through Melissa Lefebvre, Open Source Project Manager. I collected names and email addresses for the library directors by visiting the website of each member library. Those without an email address will receive a letter through the mail that is the same as the cover letter and link in the survey email. In addition to email, I will post a copy of my cover letter with the survey link on the Facebook page of the Connecticut Library Association with an indication that Im

seeking staff members from Bibliomation libraries to complete the survey. Between these three methods of communication, I hope to get at least one hundred responses. If I have fewer than fifty responses after two weeks, I may send a follow up email to library directors and repost my survey on Facebook. I may contact some library directors directly if responses are slow and ask for their assistance in encouraging other Bibliomation member library staff to complete my survey. I will also explore the possibility of posting my survey to an email group for Bibliomation libraries. I believe these multiple methods of distributing the survey will garner enough participation to adequately analyze the data and draw conclusions from it.

Antosh 4.1 Ethics Governing the Project This research is committed to protecting the rights and welfare of human

10

participants involved in research that is conducted on the campus or in cooperation with other research agencies, regardless of whether the project is funded externally, internally or receives no funding support. This research subscribes to the basic ethical principles for the protection of human subjects of research that underlie The Nuremberg Codes, The Helsinki Declaration, and The Belmont Report, as presented in the Southern Connecticut State University Human Research Participant Protection System, Policies, Procedures and Guidelines Manual. 4.2 Authors Qualifications The author is enrolled as a matriculated graduate student in the Master of Library Science (MLS) program at Southern Connecticut State University. The author has completed 33 out of the required 36 credits for the MLS and has been working full-time at a public library since February 2008. The authors employer recently migrated to a new integrated library system, giving her a unique perspective on her chosen topic. The author is enrolled in ILS 580 Research in Information and Library Science, the special project proposal course for the MLS program, under the direction of Dr. Yan Liu, Professor and Graduate Faculty. On January 22, 2012, the author successfully completed the National Institutes of Health web-based training course Protecting Human Research Participants. Certification Number 832738, available at http://phrp.nihtraining.com/users/cert.php?c=831738.

Antosh 4.3 Human Research Participants (IRB) Protection The Institutional Review Board (IRB) at Southern Connecticut State University received an application to use human participants in this research study and approved it on March 26, 2012 with the protocol number 12-054. It is included as Appendix A.

11

Antosh

12

References

Brannon, S. (2010). Say no to speed bumps! Computers in Libraries, 30 (6), 79-80. Dennison, L.H., and Lewis, A. (2011). Small and open source: Decisions and implementation of an open source integrated library system in a small private college. Georgia Library Quarterly, 48 (2), 6-8. Evans, M.F., & Thomas, S. (2007). Implementation of an integrated information management system at the National Library of Wales: a case study. Program: electronic library and information systems, 41 (4), 325-337. doi:10.1108/00330330710831558 Felstead, A. (2004). The library systems market: a digest of current literature. Program: electronic library and information systems, 38 (2), 88-96. doi:10.1108/00330330410532805 Otunla, A.O., and Akanmu-Adeyemo, E.A. (2010). Library automation in Nigeria: the Bowen University experience. African Journal of Library, Archives and Information Science, 20 (2), 93-102. Weare, W.H., Jr., Toms, S., and Breeding, M. (2011). Moving forward: the next-gen catalog and the new discovery tools. Library Media Connection, 30 (3), 54-57.

Antosh 6 Appendices Appendix A Approval Letter from Southern Connecticut State Universitys Institutional Review Board

13

Antosh Appendix B Cover Letter to be Emailed to Library Directors Dear Library Director,*

14

I am a Library Science graduate student at Southern Connecticut State University and Im requesting your assistance in conducting a research project titled Best Practices for Training and Support of Library Staff During Implementation of an Integrated Library System. I am seeking staff members of Bibliomation member libraries to complete a brief survey about the recent migration to BibliOak, the open-source integrated library system (ILS). The information gathered from this survey will be used to complete a research project aimed at compiling a set of best practices for training and supporting library staff through an ILS migration or first-time implementation. These best practices may be used in the future by other libraries wishing to migrate a new ILS with the goal of supporting their staff in order to make the transition as smooth as possible. If you and/or any of your staff members would like to help me in this project, I would greatly appreciate your assistance. To complete this brief survey, please visit the following link: [INSERT LINK TO SURVEY].** This voluntary survey does not require any names and all responses are anonymous. I will retain the data electronically for three years after which it will be purged. If you have any questions or need copies of any of my IRB documentation, please do not hesitate to contact me at antoshm1@owls.southernct.edu. When the project is completed, I am happy to provide you with a copy if you wish. Thank you for your time. Regards, Marissa J. Antosh Candidate for Masters of Library and Information Science Southern Connecticut State University antoshm1@owls.southernct.edu *I intend to personalize the letter as much as I can; this is inserted as a placeholder in the sample letter. **The survey is created through Polldaddy.com but is not viewable without taking the survey itself. It is inserted as Appendix D.

Antosh Appendix C Posting on Connecticut Library Associations Facebook Page Dear Colleagues at Bibliomation Member Libraries,

15

I am a Library Science graduate student at Southern Connecticut State University and Im requesting your assistance in conducting a research project titled Best Practices for Training and Support of Library Staff During Implementation of an Integrated Library System. I am seeking staff members of Bibliomation member libraries to complete a brief survey about the recent migration to BibliOak, the open-source integrated library system (ILS). The information gathered from this survey will be used to complete a research project aimed at compiling a set of best practices for training and supporting library staff through an ILS migration or first-time implementation. These best practices may be used in the future by other libraries wishing to migrate a new ILS with the goal of supporting their staff in order to make the transition as smooth as possible. If you and/or any of your staff members would like to help me in this project, I would greatly appreciate your assistance. To complete this brief survey, please visit the following link: [INSERT LINK TO SURVEY].** This voluntary survey does not require any names and all responses are anonymous. I will retain the data electronically for three years after which it will be purged. If you have any questions or need copies of any of my IRB documentation, please do not hesitate to contact me at antoshm1@owls.southernct.edu. When the project is completed, I am happy to provide you with a copy if you wish. Thank you for your time. Regards, Marissa J. Antosh Candidate for Masters of Library and Information Science Southern Connecticut State University antoshm1@owls.southernct.edu **The survey is created through Polldaddy.com but is not viewable without taking the survey itself. It is inserted as Appendix D.

Antosh Appendix D SURVEY: Experiences in New ILS Implementation 1. I am aware of the reasons for migrating to BibliOak. [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] I'm not sure

16

2. Do you think BibliOak is an improvement over your previous integrated library system? [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] There is no difference 3. Migrating to BibliOak was... [ ] Good for my library and its patrons overall [ ] Made no difference [ ] Bad for my library and its patrons overall [ ] Other (please specify): Were you satisfied with the time it took to implement BibliOak at your library? [ ] Yes, I think it was enough time to migrate our data and train staff [ ] No, I do not think it was enough time to migrate our data and train staff [ ] No, I think it there was too much time to migrate our data and train staff [ ] Other (please specify): Two library staff members were selected to be trainers at your library after they were trained on BibliOak. Would you have preferred... [ ] More trainers from my library staff-- at least three [ ] Fewer trainers from my library staff-- one would have sufficed [ ] The number of trainers relative to the number of library staff (larger staff=more trainers) [ ] Other (please specify): Blog posts, weekly emails, and Facebook updates were used as outreach during implementation. How did you feel about this level of communication? [ ] I found it useful [ ] I did not find it useful [ ] I didn't know about it [ ] Other (please specify):

4.

5.

6.

Antosh 7. I have been working at my current library for... [ ] less than 1 year [ ] 1-3 years [ ] 4-6 years [ ] 7-9 years [ ] 10-12 years [ ] more than 12 years My primary area of work at my library is... [ ] Director or assistant director [ ] Reference [ ] Youth services (children and/or teens) [ ] Circulation [ ] Technical services and/or cataloging [ ] Media/audiovisual [ ] Information technology [ ] Shelver/page [ ] Other (please specify): Do you have any comments or additional information you would like to share?

17

8.

9.