Over the years, I’ve been involved with a number of different user groups. Those in the library field are certainly modeled after, and share many similarities with those found in other software industry segments. Yet, I continue to feel that the library software user groups are missing something very important, especially given the make-up of librarians at large. What's missing is end-users.
Admittedly, a tremendous amount of the work done in libraries using software is backroom, internal operations. Yet this is all theoretically in support of providing access to end-users. User groups have created elaborate democratic enhancement processes; frequently work with companies through focus groups and other mechanisms in order to provide detailed input to those developing their software in order to make sure the most important needs for the largest contingent are met. User groups elect boards from among their ranks and these folks set policy and guidelines and propose the mechanisms by which the group is run and financed and handles enhancements. However, the results, really through no fault of the people involved, have proven questionable with regard to addressing end-user needs. Why does this happen?
Perhaps it is the following:
1. When a software product is new, it by default, gathers much interest and if it offers truly a ground breaking capabilities, it draws interest from the highest level of the library organization – the Library Director or CEO’s office. They initially become involved with the user group and because these tend to be the same people defining the overall vision of the library, the conversations involving them tend to lean towards that visionary level. The results are that initially, this benefits the products immensely as large leaps of functionality are required to fulfill that vision.
As the product matures, the Director moves on to new arenas of development and cedes the user group participation to the leader of the systems office or the systems manager. These people, as defined by their job descriptions, are focused on supporting their immediate peers, those running the library operations. Consequently, the developments and functional needs they express are more internally focused. Product enhancements, as a result, follow suit.
2. Librarians are (with clear exceptions) quiet, introspective people. They don’t market their skills sets aggressively within their constituencies or across their campuses and most have moderate to minimal interaction with end-users. They know library operations with tremendous precision, but, for example, have problems understanding why end-users are not excited by multiple search interfaces that allow them to extract information with tremendous precision from multiple databases. Clearly there is tremendous room for disconnect between the wants and needs of the librarians versus the wants and needs of the end-user.
So how can “user groups” ameliorate these outcomes? I’d like to suggest that user groups should expand their membership to take in at least a panel of end-users. They could then involve them in the user group activities in a couple of ways:
1. For example, at the next user group meeting, they could invite two or three end-users, representing for instance, faculty, staff and students, to talk about what libraries could do to better serve them; to help them deal with the massive amount of information they’re searching/using? Then use these talks to serve as a framework for at least a track of the user group meeting that is focused on end-user needs and how to address those needs. They could ensure at least a portion of the pool of available enhancement resources is used to address those end-user needs.
2. Users groups could also work to educate their membership to address product procurement processes. Procurement of an end-user facing product should include evaluation by actual end-users as part of the process. Depending on the product involved this evaluation should be appropriately weighted in the final decision to ensure that end-user needs are met. This should not be an option. It should be a requirement in these procurement processes.
I’ll admit that I quickly tire of library software vendors being blamed for products that don’t meet end-user needs when I see such a dearth of end-users involved in the decision making processes concerning functionality and enhancements desired by libraries. This is a trend that can be altered and for the benefit of all. One step in doing that would be for user groups to include end-users.
Posts
8 comments:
Carl,
As librarians discussing library technology we tend to think of ourselves as the end user. In the public library spectrum the end user is usually represented by a board of trustees that are appointed from the community. Library boards tend to go in one of four ways:
1) As active participants of the process of expressing community desires and guiding the library towards meeting those goals.
2) Policy boards that act solely as a governance requirement.
3) Activist boards that insert themselves into the process of the day to day operations of the library.
4) A board that does not know what role to serve.
Ideally you want a blend of one and two. A board that balances representation of the funding bodies that appoint them and the community they represent. Unfortunately this leaves a public service organization with fewer voices and opinions than the community deserves. We do occasionally conduct strategic planning and adjust our missions based on surveyed input and general opinion. While that does produce good results it is not done nearly enough nor frequently enough.
Years ago a very bright colleague of mine expressed views similar to what you have discussed. She was very cognizant of the fact that those who use the library that we solicit opinions from were not necessarily the representatives of the community we needed input from. Drawing from the old 80/20 rule that 80% of your circulation comes from 20% of your items she extrapolated that the same was true concerning patrons. I did some statistics and determined that was generally correct in that most active patrons are very active.
Based on that she rejected the view that we needed to solicit input from library users exclusively. Since there was a much greater chance on soliciting opinions from active library users she felt it would sway the results of any survey towards the users your already serving. She also thought our survey tools were asking questions that presupposed the results we wanted.
She posited that the way to get true community input was to construct a survey based not on perceived librarian/board "needs" but to base the survey on the concept of what the community "wants". This survey would be collected not on the library website or the library, but at areas through out the community that received high traffic volume at a time when the library was experiencing high traffic volume. If the library is busy in the afternoon conduct the survey at locations outside the library that are busy which attract a large cross section of the community. Places such as the mall, grocery store, WalMart, and fast food places were her suggested targets as survey locations.
I've always wanted to put those thoughts to a test and see what the result would be.
-Erik
Most libraries work very close to their users. We see them use our services and your products. We train them and help them when they need help. In order to understand our users we do demographic studies,focus group interviews, usability studies and surveys. We look at logs and statistical reports that describe how they use our services to help us improve them. Using our experience, expertise, quantitative and qualitative methods for evaluation of our services and the products that we use.
I agree that it is important to include end-users in library operations and I think (hope) most libraries are. I know we are. It is easy to interpret your blogpost as a attack or a rejection of the work that libraries are doing in terms of user influence.
It can be hard and tiresome to find local users who wants to participate in longer studies of our services. I think it would be even harder to find local users who could find the time to engage in the user group community of a software provider for library services. Even if we could compensate them.
I do hope you trust your customers hard work with understanding their users and the usability of our services and the products that we licence. Even if you don't see actual end-users at the user group meetings their experiences are well known to the people who go their, people who try to communicate what changes that need to go into development in a sometimes very frustrating voting procedure.
The representation of End-Users are at the user group meetings. You should trust and listen to them.
With that said, I do think a track or a panel discussion with end-users at a user group meeting could be useful. Even if most of the conclusions should be known to the audience it might provide an entry to discussions and exchange of experiences between libraries.
However, I don't think end-users need to be a part of the user-groups in any other way then they already are.
Cheers from Sweden,
Daniel Forsman
Jonkoping University Library
Erik:
Yes, I've encountered all those types of library boards. I also totally agree with your colleague that said don't just talk to existing library users. (Think I've even said that elsewhere in my blog.) Surveys are a perfectly valid way to get input, but as noted, survey construction is critical to getting valid results and survey construction is a real skill (there are companies that specialize in making sure a valid survey instrument is developed). I've seen a lot of library surveys that skip this step and as a result, the results are, as you suggest, questionable.
The hope I make in my suggestion is not to just select end-users from existing users, but to get a true sample of all types of end-users and to use them as a reminder of what is important in making decisions about the future of library software. A point, that I believe your comment is supporting.
Daniel:
I agree that it truly sounds your library is doing many, many things right. I applaud that.
Where I will disagree is that "most libraries" are doing what you're doing. My post is critical of the profession in this regard (although I don't believe it was an attack, more an observation). I'll note that I'm hardly the first to say that there is a clear disconnect going on between end-users and many libraries. OCLC's last Environmental Scan pointed out:
> "Libraries are behind the curve—services have not been built to support user interests."
> Libraries "confuse building-based services with services in general."
> "Most libraries were designed for materials management."
> "If libraries were better utilized they’d probably get more funding."
All of which says to me, that we need to make sure we're understanding user needs on a wide basis (although not exclusively). Many librarians may think they understand end-user needs, but as evidenced by many reports those same end-users are turning to other information providers because they feel they better meet their information needs. So somewhere in the process of hearing end-user needs, something is getting garbled, lost or misinterpreted.
As vendors we do listen to our direct users and incorporate their suggestions. We do so with the assumption they understand end-user needs. Yet we see, just as many libraries are, an erosion of usage and support of libraries is happening.
So while my suggestion might or might not be the best way to be sure end-user needs are being understood, my thought was that sometimes removing layers of interpretation does result in a clearer transmission of ideas.
That's all I was suggesting.
You implicitly say that user groups determine the development of library systems, not the vendors. I wish! My personal experience with enhancement procedures regarding Ex Libris products is that they only have a very limited effect on the new releases of products. The number of times that the vendor rejected enhancement requests ("not on the roadmap", "technically not feasible", etc.) has been very high.
Moreover, enhancement procedures and focus groups are joint efforts of user groups and vendors. I may add that I quickly tire of library software vendors blaming user groups for products that don’t meet end-user needs.
You use the term "end-user" in a very specific way: library customers. But there are two types of end-users of library systems: we also have library cataloging, acquisition, circulation staff. But let's focus on end-users as library patrons here.
Your explanations:
People involved in user groups are of a very mixed kind. I resent your suggestion that library system staff are only focused on library staff needs. I only need to point you to for instance Daniel Forsman's work at Jönköping University Library and all the addons to Ex Libris products available through the Ex Libris developers platform to prove otherwise.
I don't know if librarians are quiet, I don't think so. They are people like anybody else. Not sure what you mean with the term "librarian", might be a language/culture issue (I'm Dutch). But yes, library staff may have different needs than patrons regarding the systems they work with. But this also applies to the different library staff types. But in the end they all want to serve their customers the best they can.
But are "librarians" involved in user groups and enhancement procedures, or system staff, as you say? In practice it is a mix, as I said. User groups and library systems users have to deal with enhancements on three levels: end-user, staff user and system management functionality. Enhancement procedures have to focus on all three and need to find the correct balance in close cooperation between user groups and vendors.
Finally, your solutions to the problem you describe yourself: "library systems end-user functionality is not good enough."
Inviting end-users to user group meetings to talk about better library service. In my view this is completely beside the point. User groups are dealing with the interests of libraries that are customers of the vendors of the products they use to fulfill the needs of their end-users. On that level we are dealing with improving out-of-the-box products. User group meetings are a platform for library-vendor and library-library exchange.
Improvement of library service, and library-patron communication are about actual implementation of out-of-the-box systems in such a way that the needs of end-users of individual libraries or consortia-like environments are met. It is on this level that libraries talk to their patrons.
We all know that the majority of time and work of implementation of a library system is taken up by configuring, adjusting and extending the out-of-the-box product to fit the local needs.
As Daniel clearly explained, libraries are indeed putting a lot of effort in finding out how to best fulfill their end-users needs. But I can tell you, that even then it is not always possible to configure a system exactly the way it is needed, because the system just does not allow it, despite enhancement requests made by user groups.
Involving end-users' evaluation in the selection of end-user facing products is also not really possible. If we would have asked our end-users about end-user functionality (OPAC, requests, delivery, returns) of existing out-of-the-box ILS's, I can safely say that we wouldn't have implemented anything (we selected Ex Libris ALEPH by the way). The only tools we have in this area is asking patrons how they judge our existing systems, and what could be improved. This is exactly what we do.
Lukas:
I think there are couple of misconceptions going on here. First, let me be clear, that I'm not talking about Ex Libris customers, I'm talking about librarianship as a profession. The problem I see is much, much larger than any one vendor's customer base.
Secondly, the issue of customer requested enhancements has always been a subject of much debate, no matter what vendor/user group I've worked with and the issue is largely the same in all cases. Vendors in this market are very limited in what they can charge for maintenance and the percentage rate is much lower than that seen in other software segments. So, this leaves software vendors to libraries walking a tightrope of trying to balance the provision of around-the-clock maintenance, development of functionality, development of new products, supporting the profession through sponsorships AND user requested enhancements. Obviously a lot of ground to cover. Which obviously means tough choices must be made by all concerned. Again, I'll say, with wide experience, that I think Ex Libris has done a very admirable job of working with the user groups to balance this. Is it perfect? No, of course not. But that's one reason that we've done things, such as you note, to provide the Open Platform initiative which is a clear recognition that we, as a vendor, can't do everything and thus by allowing the platforms to be extended and developed by customers, the systems can be extended to further meet the needs of both staff and end-users via another means.
But yes, I'll certainly admit that every user request made can't be fulfilled. If we had the resources to do it, libraries couldn't afford what it would cost. So you end up in the chicken-and-egg discussion about which comes first to resolve the problem. No simple answers there. So the intent of my post intent was to say, that I think we have cause for concern. That measured by the end result of what is happening to libraries today and their support, are they sure they're adequately understanding and addressing the needs of the end-user? If not, I was suggesting one possible method of clarifying their intent. It's certainly not the only way. And if you are in fact sure your library is doing this, then great, again I applaud your organization. However, that is clearly not the case for all libraries and as such, perhaps all of us (as librarians) can think about other and discuss other ways of achieving that goal (which I think is what we're doing in this very dialog).
It would be hard to deny, as an aggregate, that libraries (at least in North America) are having a pretty challenging time. We've seen some campus libraries closed down altogether over the last year. We've seen many combined. Others are facing such drastic reductions that they might as well be shut down. Yes, it's been a tough year for everyone, but one has to wonder how libraries will recover and what it will take -- and how can that be accomplished? Again, there is no one, no simple answer.
I've seen libraries involve end-users in procurement processes and when it happens, the input received is interesting and influencing not only for those making the procurement decision, but for us as vendors. So I know it is possible, it's just not widely done. Again, is it the only way? No, obviously not.
I believe you and I believe are in agreement about the end goal. Clearly you feel your organization (and others you know of) are doing this. We might disagree about the ways of getting there and why the problem exists, but I'm encouraged to hear that there are those addressing this problem and I'll be glad to point to your organization as an example of another way of meeting that end goal.
Thanks for your comments, much appreciated.
Carl
Dear Carl,
I agree with Daniel and Lukas and don’t want to repeat their arguments. To blame the user groups for the library software not meeting the end-user needs is a strange idea from a library software vendor ;-) It is the task of software vendors to make sure that the software is easy to manage in order to reduce the TCO and at the same time flexible enough to support efficiently the necessary back office functions and to allow the users of the software to accommodate the needs of their end-users at the front end.
The main task of the user groups is to push the vendor in this direction (in spite of his possibly contradictory product or marketing strategies). The role of the user groups is not only but to a large extent a kind of corrective to the software development done by the vendors – either ex ante via focus groups (to push the development into the right direction before it is done) or ex post via enhancements processes (to correct development decisions done by the vendor already).
As stated by the colleagues already, many of us are close to the needs of our end-users and try therefore to adapt the software we are using by own developments to be able to meet their needs. Incorporating such developments or development suggestions done in to the product standard by the vendor would be more to the benefit of the end-users than inviting two or three of them to the user meetings.
Regards Jirka
Dear Jirka:
As I said in a previous reply, I am not blaming user groups. I am blaming the profession at large and I return to the point I made earlier; If so many librarians are in fact fully and accurately understanding user needs, then why are libraries in such crisis today (at least in North America)? Why are their doors being closed? Why is their funding being so deeply and radically cut? Why does the "extinction timeline" on the web say libraries will no longer be relevant after 2019?! Surely it isn't just because of the software they're using?
No, the issue is simply larger than library automation software. While it is an important part of most library operations, it's clearly only one variable in a much more complex equation. While my suggestion dealt with one idea for trying to improve communications within the software facet of library operations, it is neither being suggested as a cure all or the only way to achieve the goal. It was merely a possible way of making sure needs are being understood in that one area of library operations.
I'll maintain that I believe Ex Libris does well in providing solid sophisticated solutions to address user and end-user needs and ways to move beyond what we can provide through our initiatives like Open Platform. Many libraries would seem to agree that we offer a good match for their needs since in the end, libraries vote with their dollars and many buy our products and services from a broad offering of competitive products (and for which I extend my deepest thanks!).
Still, despite our disagreement on this way of trying to make sure end-user needs are understood, we all have to agree, libraries are facing challenging times, if not globally, certainly here in U.S. And, if not globally, it makes for an even more interesting conversation to contemplate why other libraries in other countries are receiving stronger public support and usage, especially when, as is the case with Ex Libris libraries, they're using the same software? That would seem to somewhat negate the software as a key problem? But then one must ask what are the key differences and how do we help U.S. libraries understand those so they can emulate them here?
Bottom line -- I'm not married to my idea at all. If it isn't the right way, then fine. But let's keep the conversation going as to what is the right way, because I maintain, it's a critically important conversation for this profession to have. Furthermore let me say that I appreciate the interesting commentary from which I've learned a lot. For that, I thank you all of you.
Post a Comment