[OPLINLIST] OPLIN Focus Groups 2007: Results and Recommendations
Laura Watkins
watkinla at oplin.org
Tue Dec 18 14:29:21 EST 2007
Greetings,
As you may or may not know, in the fall of 2007, OPLIN invited select
library staff from across the state of Ohio to participate in focus
groups to help OPLIN set its future priorities. We now invite you to
review the collective results of this initiative. The findings are
accessible below as well as via the OPLIN website
(http://oplin.org/page.php?Id=62-4-438&msg=).
If you have any questions or comments about the focus groups conducted
by OPLIN, please feel free to contact myself (watkinla at oplin.org) or
Stephen Hedges (hedgesst at oplin.org).
Thank you, and season's greetings from OPLIN!
*OPLIN Focus Groups 2007: Report*
1. Introduction
<http://oplin.org/page.php?Id=62-4-438&msg=#Introduction>
2. Methodology
<http://oplin.org/page.php?Id=62-4-438&msg=#Methodology>
3. Session Flow General Outline
<http://oplin.org/page.php?Id=62-4-438&msg=#Session>
4. Discoveries by Category
<http://oplin.org/page.php?Id=62-4-438&msg=#Discoveries>
1. Databases
<http://oplin.org/page.php?Id=62-4-438&msg=#Databases>
2. Connections
<http://oplin.org/page.php?Id=62-4-438&msg=#Connections>
3. Keeping Up With Technology
<http://oplin.org/page.php?Id=62-4-438&msg=#Keeping>
4. Communications/Marketing
<http://oplin.org/page.php?Id=62-4-438&msg=#Communications>
5. Executive Director's Discussion and Recommendations
<http://oplin.org/page.php?Id=62-4-438&msg=#Executive>
1. Introduction
In the fall of 2007, OPLIN invited select library staff from
across the state of Ohio to participate in focus groups to help
OPLIN set its future priorities. The OPLIN board asked Wayne Piper
of OLC to conduct these focus groups.
The collective findings from the focus groups conducted by OPLIN
staff proved to be fairly consistent statewide. Bandwidth and
databases were the two main areas of interest for most of the
attending library staff. There was also a recurrent request for
the public library community to be made aware of both new and
existing OPLIN services and undertakings. There seemed to be a
genuine interest in understanding OPLIN's role and in providing
feedback that may help shape its future. The focus group settings
tied into this interest wonderfully as it allowed OPLIN staff to
discuss the role of OPLIN in the context of public libraries.
Furthermore, library staff seemed pleased that OPLIN was
soliciting their input and were eager and willing to contribute
their ideas and suggestions.
2. Methodology
Library staff members were, in general, selected by the directors
of their corresponding regional location. It was suggested that
they choose individuals who direct or manage small libraries,
branches or departments and imperative that they be both candid
and verbal.
The focus groups were held at the following locations, with
representatives from the following libraries:
o Central: Delaware County District Library, September 12, 2007
+ Columbus Metropolitan Library (2)
+ Newark Public Library
+ Westerville Public Library
+ Community Library (Sunbury)
+ Delaware County District Library
+ Worthington Libraries
+ Grandview Heights Public Library
o Northwest: NORWELD, September 19, 2007
+ Ada Public Library
+ Wood County District Public Library
+ Tiffin-Seneca Public Library
+ Ida Rupp Public Library (Port Clinton)
+ Norwalk Public Library
+ Willard Memorial Library
+ Logan County District Library
+ Auglaize County Public District Library
+ Kaubisch Memorial Public Library (Fostoria)
+ Liberty Center Public Library
o Northeast: NEO-RLS, October 3, 2007
+ East Palestine Memorial Public Library
+ Willoughby-Eastlake Public Library
+ Hudson Library and Historical Society
+ Warren-Trumbull County Public Library
+ McKinley Memorial Library (Niles)
+ Perry Public Library
+ Hubbard Public Library
+ Avon Lake Public Library
+ Mansfield-Richland County Public Library
+ Shaker Heights Public Library
o Southeast: SERLS, October 31, 2007
+ Wellston Public Library
+ Herbert Wescoat Memorial Library (McArthur)
+ Portsmouth Public Library
+ Nelsonville Public Library
+ Pickaway County District Public Library
+ Chillicothe and Ross County Public Library
+ Washington County Public Library
+ Garnet A Wilson Public Library of Pike County
+ Briggs Lawrence County Public Library
o Southwest: SWON, November 6, 2007
+ Clermont County Public Library
+ Adams County Public Library
+ Highland County District Library
+ Blanchester Public Library
+ Middletown Public Library
+ Public Library of Cincinnati and Hamilton County (2)
3. Session Flow General Outline
Introductions
Everyone is introduced
Why we're here
-You're here to help OPLIN staff better understand the role
OPLIN plays in your daily work and the technology challenges
you face serving customers in your library.
-Stephen and Laura are here to listen, observe, and record
their impressions of your remarks, to answer questions about
OPLIN, and to summarize our work at day's end.
-Wayne is here to facilitate this discussion in an objective
way, to engage each of you in the conversation, and to keep
our conversation on task.
Impressions of OPLIN
-Describe the role OPLIN plays in your daily work. You might
also want to offer insights into how colleagues and customers
use OPLIN or how your library has integrated OPLIN into its
website. Be candid.
Your technology challenges
-What technology challenges do you face in your library on a
regular basis?
-What do you wish technology could do for your library? (The
"vision" thing.)
-An example might be...
-Stephen and Laura can "scribe" the conversations.
What will happen next
-Stephen wraps up the day with general remarks on how OPLIN
might use the information gathered to continue to move the
organization forward in service to Ohio's public libraries.
4. Discoveries by Category
4.1 Databases
o Google vs. OPLIN
+ Library users want instant gratification with their
search.
+ OPLIN search should look "more like Google."
+ Staff wants relevancy-ranked results.
o Presentation
+ Customers don't realize that they can access the
databases remotely.
+ Customers don't care where the databases come from.
+ Customers aren't aware that the resources are paid for.
+ Users want to be able to search catalog and databases
at the same time.
+ The word "database" is confusing to customers.
+ Library staff often associate OPLIN with databases,
but aren't sure which databases are provided via OPLIN
due to a "seamless integration."
+ Users want information immediately, not after a
lengthy, cumbersome, non-intuitive search.
+ Databases are generally confusing to library customers.
+ Libraries link to OPLIN databases from their homepages.
+ Staff prefers the subject listing over the
alphabetical listing.
o Most useful/requested databases
+ NoveList (use frequently)
+ NewsBank (use frequently)
+ EBSCO, specifically: MasterFILE Premier, Student
Resource Center (use frequently)
+ Health Databases (use frequently)
+ eLibrary (use frequently)
+ Heritage Quest (requested)
+ Legal Forms Database (requested)
+ Gale Contemporary Authors (requested)
+ Literary Criticism is a "hole" in the collection
(requested)
o Future of reference databases
+ The more users can search multiple sources at one
time, the better.
+ Users want fast, relevant results.
+ The ease of use is key to database interfaces.
+ Staff would like for the federated search to include
locally purchased databases in addition to the
statewide resources.
+ Some staff feel that the future of databases is uncertain.
o Training
+ Both library staff and customers are unaware of what
databases are and how to access them.
+ Library staff often use the e-trainings provided by
Jay Burton at SLO.
+ Some feel that staff wouldn't want to take the time to
be trained on databases.
+ One library director talked about how they provide
staff with one hour per week for training purposed.
+ Teachers and professors are not teaching students how
to use reference databases.
+ Some libraries are allowing staff time to "play" with
the databases to increase familiarity.
+ Some feel that promoting the databases begins with
staff training.
+ Explaining the databases takes instruction from
reference staff.
+ Some would like to see internal database training:
"staff teaching staff."
+ Some staff would prefer interactive online tutorials.
4.2 Connections
o More bandwidth, please
+ Almost everyone who attended the focus groups talked
about bandwidth issues.
+ Staff would like to utilize software that moderates
bandwidth and prioritizes traffic.
+ Many libraries block Myspace.
+ Bandwidth slows after school.
+ Some staff would like to have the public and staff
usage separated (with staff use receiving the higher
priority).
o OPLIN as a utility
+ OPLIN is viewed as an "invisible" utility.
+ Some libraries buy additional circuits.
+ All of the focus groups were extremely pleased with
the OPLIN Support Center and the self-service function.
+ Libraries would like OPLIN to be more up-to-date (i.e.
no more T1 lines).
+ Libraries are interested in OPLIN web hosting and web
templates.
+ Libraries want wireless connectivity.
o Spam
+ There were many complaints about spam. Some staff even
stopped using their OPLIN email address because of all
the spam.
4.3 Keeping Up With Technology
o Public computers
+ Libraries need more space for computers, more
computers, and the funds to purchase them.
+ It was suggested that OPLIN offer technology training
for the general public.
+ Libraries want technology replacement plans.
+ Libraries are using or would like to use time and/or
print management software.
+ Some libraries are experimenting with open source
solutions.
+ Customers want scanning and fax capabilities.
+ Many libraries use OPLIN as a homepage for the public
computers.
+ Library staff are wanting to upgrade their machines to
run Vista and/or Office 2007.
+ More people on computers means that more staff is needed.
+ Customers want more computers and more computer time.
o Staff training
+ There was a general consensus that library staff needs
more/better technology/computer training.
+ Libraries find it difficult to ensure that all staff
are up to date on technology changes and advancements.
+ Libraries feel that any tech support at all is hard to
come by.
+ Smaller libraries have a harder time keeping up with
technology demands.
+ Libraries have staff that are "techno-phobic."
+ Library staff would like to increase their library's
web presence.
4.4 Communications/Marketing
o Databases
+ Library staff would like to see the databases promoted
more.
+ Libraries want to place their own branding with the
databases.
+ Staff feel that teachers need to be educated about
online resources (databases included).
+ Staff feel that the brochures used to educate
customers about databases are outdated and visually
unappealing and would like to see brochures by subject
listing.
o OPLIN Services
+ When library staff thinks of OPLIN, they think of
connectivity and databases.
+ However, most library staff and customers don't know
what OPLIN is, or what services they provide.
+ Library staff think that library professionals should
be aware of OPLIN, but not necessarily the general public.
+ Because funding is sometimes based on awareness, there
is a need to promote OPLIN more.
+ Staff feels that the name "OPLIN" is vague and
non-descript.
+ Libraries feel that OPLIN is failing to promote itself
to them.
+ Staff would like more communication when it comes to
resources being added or taken away as well as more
say in decision-making processes (i.e. the OPLIN
Content Advisory Committee, communicating what OPLIN
is "exploring").
+ Staff would like to see continued use of the OPLIN
listservs.
+ Library staff admit that OPLIN branding gets lost in
library marketing efforts.
o Support
+ Library staff would like to have an OPLIN newsletter
(in several formats) available to them to keep them
up-to-date.
5. Executive Director's Discussion and Recommendations
Let me begin by stating that the reason for doing the focus groups
was to help the OPLIN Board decide on future spending priorities.
In particular, the Board looked ahead at the April 2007 meeting to
the possibility that OPLIN might have some excess E-Rate funds,
but we were not sure how to plan for spending those funds.
Accordingly, the Board agreed to ask Wayne Piper and OLC to
facilitate five small focus groups around the state to find out
what librarians think they need. We intentionally avoided inviting
"major players" in the state to these groups, since Board members
and the OPLIN staff often have contact with these library leaders
in various other meetings around the state and thus have many
opportunities to collect their opinions. Instead, we wanted to
hear from the librarians who use OPLIN in their daily work and
face daily technology challenges in the library, but may not get
many opportunities to voice their concerns.
All groups started by discussing the databases, the first thing
they thought of when asked how they use OPLIN in their daily work.
Much of the discussion was not surprising, revolving around the
difficulties in getting the public to use the databases. There was
very little sentiment for purchasing more databases; almost all
the discussion concerned improving access and usability of the
databases we already buy, with many mentions of Google as a
competitor.
At some point the groups would remember that they also get their
Internet connectivity from OPLIN. This sometimes was expressed as
a plea for more bandwidth, but often as a simple "thank you" to
OPLIN for something they take for granted. When they turn on their
computers in the morning, they trust that the Internet will be
there. The OPLIN connection is a dependable "utility" serving
their library. In the rare cases when they had a problem, they
were effusive in their praise of the Support Center.
When asked about their daily technology challenges, it became
clear that public computing is becoming a burden on libraries.
Members of the group with purchasing authority were concerned
about finding space for more computers and finding funds to
purchase and replace computers, especially in light of the demands
of the new Vista operating system. Members of the group who spent
a significant amount of their time in direct contact with patrons
lamented their inability to answer many of the questions they get
from public computer users, and expressed a desire for more
computer training.
After listening to all five groups and then discussing with Wayne
and Laura what we had heard, my first impression was that OPLIN's
current spending addresses many of the major technology needs of
libraries. We are spending money to develop an interface to the
databases that will probably not "beat" Google (can anyone do
that?), but may at least let us compete in the same arena. Once
that interface is developed, we plan to spend money on marketing
and promotion of the databases. We are spending money to upgrade
our Internet connections, though we perhaps could be more
aggressive in that spending. We were able to address some of the
groups' concerns, such as placing stricter limits on e-mail spam,
fairly quickly without any major expenditure of funds. And even
though computer training is not something we have identified as an
OPLIN service, we do have Jay Burton from the State Library doing
database training for us. My first reaction was that OPLIN is
doing a pretty good job.
On further reflection, however, I believe we can do more:
o I recommend that OPLIN continue to spend money on web site
development and usability testing for the Ohio Web Library
site, but I also recommend that we spend money to upgrade
public libraries' web sites. These sites should be able to
take full advantage of the Ohio Web Library and provide an
attractive "home" for links to OWL. While we may not have
enough resources to do this ourselves, I recommend we
reconsider combining our resources with other groups,
particularly recommending that we reconsider membership in
the Plinkit Collaborative (www.plinkit.org).
o I recommend that OPLIN become more aggressive in upgrading
the Internet connections to libraries. In particular, I
recommend that we upgrade the connection of every library
that is consistently using over 80% of current circuit
capacity during peak afternoon hours. Where Ethernet is
available, that should be our upgrade path.
o I recommend that OPLIN purchase a block of online technology
courses from WebJunction, to be added to the block of
general courses (800 hours) being purchased by the State
Library. We had considered this action before, but were
unhappy with the WebJunction course selection. That
selection has now improved and looks like it would address
many of the computer training needs of libraries.
o I recommend that OPLIN plan to spend significant funds on
media promotion of the Ohio Web Library once a satisfactory
user interface has been developed.
o I recommend that OPLIN repeat these focus groups in two
years, with new participants. Our experience this time has
shown us that holding these focus groups is a very strong
public relations tool.
Finally, I recommend that the funds needed to accomplish the above
recommendations come from E-Rate reserves.
--
Laura Watkins
Library Services Manager
Ohio Public Library Information Network (OPLIN)
watkinla at oplin.org
P: 614.728.5251 | F: 614.728.5256
2323 W. 5th Avenue | Suite 130
Columbus, Ohio 43204
www.oplin.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.oplin.org/mailman/private/oplinlist/attachments/20071218/c11c90f7/attachment-0001.html
More information about the OPLINLIST
mailing list