Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Final report on m-library activity via project survey (responses collected July-August 2012).
Citation preview
M-‐Library Community Support Project
Report on current m-‐library activity
December 2012
Jo Alcock
Pete Dalton
Eugenie Golubova
Yvonne Graves
Evidence Base
Library and Learning Resources
Birmingham City University
www.ebase.ac.uk
Acknowledgements The authors would like to thanks Owen Stephens (Owen Stephens Consulting) and Ben Showers (JISC) for their input into survey development and distribution. In addition, we would like to thank everyone who providing responses to the survey and to those who helped publicise it.
Contents
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................................................. 2 Contents ................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................................... 4 1. Background .................................................................................................................................................................. 5 2. Approach ....................................................................................................................................................................... 5 3. Respondent demographics .................................................................................................................................... 6 4. Current m-‐library initiatives ................................................................................................................................ 7 5. Current projects or new initiatives .................................................................................................................... 9 6. Future m-‐library initiatives ................................................................................................................................ 12 7. Barriers to utilising mobile technologies ..................................................................................................... 15 8. Overcoming barriers ............................................................................................................................................. 17 9. Information to assist decision making .......................................................................................................... 20 10. Confidence in implementing mobile technologies ................................................................................ 20 11. Supporting current/future m-‐library initiatives .................................................................................... 23 12. Usefulness of project updates ......................................................................................................................... 25 13. Summary .................................................................................................................................................................. 26
Executive Summary This survey is a follow-‐up of a fact finding survey administered at the beginning of the JISC-‐funded mobile library community support project. The survey aimed to examine the m-‐library landscape to see how things had changed over the course of the project. The survey was live from July 2012 until August 2012 and open to all. It was promoted on numerous library listservs, blogs and on Twitter.
There were 138 responses to the survey, primarily from the academic library sector (68%). The majority of respondents were from the UK (65%), with other respondents from the USA (28.9%), Canada (2%), Australia, Belgium and Turkey.
The majority of the respondents’ libraries either already have m-‐library initiatives (92%), or are currently working on m-‐library projects or services (61%). Common uses at present included (in order of frequency):
• QR codes (72.2% of respondents) • Mobile catalogue (49.2% of respondents) • Mobile website (36.5% of respondents) • Guides to support the use of mobile services/apps (33.3% of respondents) • Mobile app for the institution (33.3% of respondents) • Using mobile devices to support roving reference (30.2% of respondents) • Loaning mobile devices (26.2% of respondents) • Mobile app for the library (19% of respondents) • SMS communication about borrower record (15.9% of respondents)
82% of respondents plan to implement additional m-‐library initiatives in future, though many did not have concrete plans in place and would follow developments to see which would be most relevant for their library. For those who did have plans, many included initiatives already mentioned. More innovative ideas included a mobile enquiry service, augmented reality, NFC/RFID, and supporting bring your own device (BYOD).
Barriers to development of m-‐library initiatives were experienced by a large proportion of respondents (95% gave at least one barrier). When asked to indicate the primary barrier, the main issues were resource constraints (46%) and infrastructure constraints (17%). A number of suggestions were made with regards to overcoming barriers, including quick wins/low costs solutions, a strong business case, staffing changes, and internal or external partnerships.
Though there are still some who do not feel at all confident implementing mobile technologies at their library, 72% felt confident or very confident. Confidence correlated with having infrastructure in place, support from management, and the resources to work on development.
All respondents planned to inform developments in a number of different ways, planning to keep up-‐to-‐date with mobile technologies, use case studies, attend or follow events, read or follow existing research, sharing and reading social media, library/librarian blogs, social media discussion, how-‐to guides, and mailing lists.
The results of the survey highlight progress which has been made since the last survey, though also raises the importance of tackling barriers if things are to continue progressing.
1. Background In November 2011, JISC funded Evidence Base at Birmingham City University in collaboration with Owen Stephens Consulting to undertake the M-‐Library Community Support project. The project is part of JISC’s Mobile Infrastructure for Libraries programme which runs from November 2011 until September 2012.
The aim of the m-‐library community support project is to:
Provide a mobile library community support project to help support and engage the emerging m-‐library community by reviewing and synthesising existing research and evidence-‐based guidance.
An initial activity to inform the project was to find out more about current and planned activity in the area of m-‐libraries (covering use of any mobile technologies in libraries across all sectors). To enable this, a survey was designed and distributed in November-‐December 2011. You can view full details of the report at http://mlibraries.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2012/02/13/report-‐on-‐current-‐m-‐library-‐activity/.
In order to identify any changes or progress during the course of the project, the survey was repeated (with a few minor changes) towards the end of the project. The survey was live in July and August 2012 and the data analysed in September 2012.
2. Approach An online survey was designed and distributed using SurveyMonkey. It was largely based on the initial survey, and covered the following broad areas:
• Current m-‐library activity • Future m-‐library activity • Barriers to m-‐library activities (and how to overcome them) • Areas where further information is needed to assist in decision making for m-‐library
activities • Confidence level in implementing mobile technologies
The survey was distributed through a variety of channels including mailing lists, the project blog site and email list and personal contacts. As the survey was designed to understand the situation in general (rather than a specific geographical region or sector), it was decided to make the survey available to anyone to complete. The survey was made live on 8th August 2012 and data collected for analysis on 5th September 2012.
A total of 138 responses were received. The following sections of the report present the key findings. It should be noted that the survey questions were not compulsory so the total number of responses to individual questions varies. The number of responses to individual questions is shown in the findings below.
3. Respondent demographics Respondents were asked about which sector they worked in. There were 127 responses. The most represented sector was the academic sector, which accounted for 68% of the responses. The ‘other’ responses included health or hospital libraries, government libraries and law libraries. Figure 1 and Table 1 illustrate the responses.
Figure 1 Which sector do you work in?
Sector % n
Academic Library 74 94
School Library 1.6 2
Public Library 15 19
Special Library 9.4 12
Other 14
Total 127
Table 1 Respondents by Sector
Respondents were asked to indicate which country they worked in. There were 138 responses as illustrated in Figure 2 and Table 2.
68% 1%
14%
9%
8% Academic library (Higher or Further Education) School library
Public library
Special library
Other
Figure 2 Which country do you work in?
Country % n
UK 65.2 90
Other 34.8 48
Total 138
Table 2 Respondents by Country
The majority of respondents were from the UK (65%), with other respondents from the USA (28.9%), Canada (2%), Australia, Belgium and Turkey.
4. Current m-‐library initiatives Respondents were asked to indicate whether their library/ information services currently offered any m-‐library services, and were provided with a list of options (based on responses to the initial survey). 126 responses were received. The most frequently chosen responses were QR codes, mobile catalogue, mobile website, guides to support the use of mobile services/apps, and mobile apps for the wider institution (rather than a mobile app for the library which didn’t receive as many responses). Figure 3 and Table 3 illustrate the responses.
65%
35%
UK Other (please specify)
Figure 3 Current m-‐library services offered
Services % n
QR Codes 72.2 91
Mobile Catalogue 49.2 62
Mobile Website 36.5 46
Guides to Support Use of Mobile Services/apps
33.3 42
Mobile App for Wider Institution 33.3 42
Using Mobile Devices to Support Roving Reference
30.2 38
Loaning Mobile Devices 26.2 33
Mobile App for Library 19.0 24
SMS Communication About Borrower Record
15.9 20
Other 22.2 28
49.2%
36.5%
72.2%
33.3%
19.0%
33.3% 30.2% 26.2% 15.9%
22.2%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Mobile catalogue
Mobile website
QR codes
Guides to support use
of mobile services/
apps (e.g. publisher
Mobile app for library
Mobile app for w
ider
institution
Using mobile devices
to support roving
reference enquiries
Loaning mobile
devices
SMS communication
about borrower
record (e.g. overdues,
Other (please specify)
Total 126
Table 3 Services currently being offered by library/information services (most popular first)
Those who selected other included additional explanation on the categories selected as well as the following areas:
• Social media (Twitter, Facebook, Foursquare) • Location of free PCs in library • Status of printers in library • Mobile discovery tool • SMS reference service • Access to mobile content (e.g. ebooks, audiobooks, music) • Mobile e-‐learning website or VLE (Virtual Learning Environment) • Mobile chat (enquiry service) • Newswire from news agencies • Teaching/instruction on mobile devices • SMS to send bibliographic data from website to phone • Mobile LibGuides
5. Current projects or new initiatives Respondents were asked to indicate whether their library/ information service are currently involved in any projects or new initiatives utilising mobile technologies. 135 responses were provided. Figure 4 and Table 4 illustrate the responses.
Figure 4 Is your library/information service currently involved in any projects or new initiatives utilising mobile technologies?
39%
61% No Yes
Response % n
Yes 60.7 82
No 39.3 53
Total 135
Table 4 Current library initiatives
The majority of respondents (60.7%) indicated that they were currently involved in an m-‐library development.
In order of popularity, these included:
• Mobile access to resources • Mobile apps • Mobile website • Mobile catalogue • Using mobile devices to support roving reference • QR codes • SMS • Loaning mobile devices • Augmented reality • Social media
The following gives additional information of items to notes from some of these categories.
Mobile access to resources
Responses in this category included libraries using existing mobile apps from suppliers, using mobile discovery services, and providing guidance on accessing content:
Ensuring all online services are mobile-‐friendly
Running projects to investigate supplier apps for lib resources
Investigation & review of resources with mobile apps for support of student population.
Developing a web page which details mobile versions of information resources.
We're just finishing a project to address the challenges involved in providing mobile access to eresources through a discovery tool
I have asked our systems team to promote the implementation of a mobile version of our discovery service for the coming academic year
Mobile apps
The responses in this category were largely working on mobile apps specifically for the library, though some were wider institutional mobile apps.
Not all specified whether or not these were proprietary apps or developed in house, though there were examples of both:
Funded Ombiel CampusM implementation project, led by Library & Information Services.
We are developing an app to store library card on mobile device as a scannable barcode. There are universal apps for this, but we're developing a proprietary one since the universals aren't ubiquitous.
Most responses did not specify the purpose of the app, though one did:
Our library is in the process of seeking a grant to fund a collective effort with another university to create a mobile tour of architecture landmarks in our state. Photos from archives will be used in a geolocation app.
Mobile website
Many just said they were working on a mobile website, whilst two respondents mentioned the use of responsive web design:
Rebuilding our websites using responsive design
Currently implementing a new website using the Drupal's Omega theme that uses responsive design principles and CSS3 media queries.
Using mobile devices to support roving reference
Almost all respondents to this (all but two who didn’t specify) specifically mentioned using iPads. Some mentioned reference enquiries in particular, whilst others were more general (i.e. to support teaching also):
Just purchased iPads to support roving help
Public services staff are being given iPads to use in teaching and reference work.
Information Specialists are about to get iPads for: teaching, enquiry answering
QR codes
Most who mentioned QR codes planned to use them within the physical library collection to link to electronic resources:
We place QR codes on physical books linking to the E-‐book where we have them.
Using QR codes to promote e-‐book collection
One was planning to use them to help users navigate the library:
In development of QR code for way finding in the library
SMS
Initiatives involving SMS included text marketing software, SMS reference, general communication. Two commercial options were mentioned; Trumpia (SMS marketing) and ConnectText (SMS communication).
Loaning mobile devices
Those who were planning to start loan devices were primarily planning to loan Kindles preloaded with content, with one planning to loan iPads.
Other
Other current projects included developing a mobile strategy, planning Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) training, establishing a ‘petting zoo’ to test mobile devices, and setting up working groups to investigate options for mobile technologies.
6. Future m-‐library initiatives Respondents were asked to indicate whether their library/ information service was considering using mobile technologies to support any aspect of their service or resource provision in the future. 132 responses were provided. Figure 5 and Table 5.
Figure 5 Is your library/information service considering using mobile technologies to support any aspect of the service or resource provision in future?
Response % n
Yes 81.8 108
18%
82%
No Yes (please give brief details)
No 18.2 24
Total 132
Table 5 Future m-‐Library Initiatives
81.8% of the respondents were considering using mobile technologies in future, though many were not yet sure which they would be considering. The open text responses were categorised, and included (in order of popularity):
• Roving support (using tablets for reference enquiries, demonstrations and supporting teaching)
• Mobile catalogue • Mobile app • Mobile website • Mobile access to resources • SMS • Loaning mobile devices • Social media • QR codes • Mobile web chat/enquiry service • Augmented reality • Strategy development • NFC/RFID • Supporting Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) • Bibliographic management
The following gives additional information of items to notes from some of these categories. Many just listed the topic (e.g. mobile catalogue) without additional context.
Roving support (using tablets for reference enquiries, demonstrations and supporting teaching)
Most respondents again discussed use of tablets such as iPads for supporting roving within libraries. Some also mentioned how they could be used to provide support on using apps, and used by staff without a desktop computer:
using mobile devices to answer queries -‐ roving, providing support on using apps for databases
May extend use of iPads for roving to use by overnight staff (who don't currently have a PC)
Mobile app
Ideas for future apps included current awareness and access to bibliographic databases, as well as common functionality such as reserving and renewing library items and accessing the catalogue.
Mobile website
Though most did not give details, two mentioned that they hoped to use responsive web design to ensure the website can be viewed on a variety of different screen sizes:
We're looking at redeveloping our library website presence using responsive web design principles.
We are redeveloping our website, which will scale to the device it's viewed on
Mobile access to resources
A number of respondents are hoping to implement a mobile discovery service to enable users to search for resources via mobile devices, as well as providing access to a wider variety of resources on mobiles:
ensure all services are mobile compliant
Am very interested in Adobe Content Server for serving ebooks flexibly to mobile readers
Discovery service. Downloadable ebooks.
might buy mobile version of databases separately licensed from their web versions if budget permits
considering the use of mobile applications for access to library materials
SMS
Most of the responses mentioning SMS were focused on SMS alerts or notifications, though some also hoped to investigate an SMS reference service.
Loaning mobile devices
These responses included libraries who were considering loaning mobile devices such as tablets to specific types of users:
We are considering adding tablet computers to the collection that would circulate to students with disabilities.
We are looking at the best model for lending out tablets to support students on our campus, as well as healthcare professionals in our associated Trust.
Mobile web chat/enquiry service
This included both adding mobile functionality to existing enquiry services, and developing new mobile enquiry services:
We are planning to provide mobile access to our web chat service.
development of mobile enquiry service
Augmented reality
One response gave further information about plans to investigate using augmented reality to aid library orientation, especially during inductions.
7. Barriers to utilising mobile technologies Respondents were asked to indicate whether they faced any barriers or challenges to utilising mobile technologies in their library/information service. 131 responses were provided. A pre-‐determined list of categories was provided as well as the option to provide any additional reasons. Respondents were able to give more than one reason. Table 6 and Figure 6 illustrate the responses.
Figure 6 Barriers to utilising mobile technologies
Barriers % n
Resource constraints 78.6 103
Infrastructure/policy constraints 47.3 62
Lack of technical support 33.6 44
Lack of skills needed 31.3 41
Not an organisation priority 24.4 32
Don’t know enough about how to utilise mobile technologies
16.0 21
Not sure if users would want to use mobile
14.5 19
16%
34%
15% 12% 24%
15%
31%
79%
47%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Don't know enough about how
to utilise mobile technologies
Lack of technical support
Not sure if users would want to
use mobile technologies
Licensing concerns
Not an organisation priority
Not a library/information
service priority
Lack of skills needed
Resource constraints
Infrastructure/policy
constraints
Not a library/information service priority
14.5 19
Licensing concerns 11.5 15
Other 18.3 24
Total 131
Table 6 Barriers to utilising mobile technologies
Many of the open responses provided additional explanation of the barriers they had selected (e.g. lack of time, staff and budget under resource constraints; poor mobile or wifi signal under infrastructure/policy constraints). Additional barriers not already covered include:
• Traditional mindset of library staff/management resulting in risk averse culture and a steep learning curve if staff were to get involved
• Vendors investing in separate apps rather than supporting access via library websites • Lack of third party support for mobile resources (e.g. catalogue, e-‐journals and
databases)
Primary barrier to adopting m-‐library initiatives Respondents were asked to indicate which was the primary barrier that prevented them from adopting m-‐library initiatives in their library. 134 responses were provided. Figure 7 and Table 7 illustrate the responses.
Figure 7 Primary barrier to utilising mobile technologies
2%
8% 1%
2%
7%
4%
5%
46%
17%
8%
Don't know enough about how to utilise mobile technologies Lack of technical support
Not sure if users would want to use mobile technologies Licensing concerns
Not an organisation priority
Not a library/information service priority Lack of skills needed
Resource constraints (i.e. cost/capacity/time) Infrastructure/policy constraints (i.e. web framework, institutional structure) Other (please specify)
Barriers % n
Resource constraints 45.5 61
Infrastructure/policy Constraints 17.2 23
Lack of technical support 8.2 11
Not an organisation priority 6.7 9
Not a library/information service Priority
4.5 6
Don’t know enough about how to utilise mobile technologies
2.2 3
Licensing concerns 2.2 3
Lack of skills needed 4.5 3
Not sure if users would want to use mobile
0.7 1
Other 8.2 11
Total 134
Table 7 Barriers in Adopting Mobile Responsive Technologies
It is very clear that resource constraints and infrastructure constraints are the two major barriers. Areas under ‘other’ were similar to the previous question (i.e. staff mind-‐set, vendor priorities, third party support).
8. Overcoming barriers Respondents were asked to indicate how they proposed to overcome barriers that they face. 103 responses were received. Some of the responses referred to a sustained effort to overcome barriers (e.g. broken record technique!). Other practical approaches to overcoming barriers included the following areas.
Quick wins/low cost solutions
A number of responses felt there were quick wins and low cost solutions that would enable them to implement mobile technologies in some way without a large investment in terms of time or money:
initially go for quick wins, using apps/services that are free or low cost, whilst beginning to embed mobile considerations into university processes and projects
Explore Free\open-‐source options; do it and show management positive results later.
by introducing small projects to show that these barriers can be overcome
Find one very useful function of mobile technology that we can implement as a foot in the door
We are doing other more cost effective projects such as the QR code creation which is effectively just time rich.
by proving to administration that our trial of QR codes is successful & we need to develop more mobile apps
Business case
Many responses referred to the importance of a clear business case for utilising mobile technologies, aligned with strategic aims such as the student experience:
We hope that clearly demonstrating the potential benefits for the student experience may result in funding being made available for mobile app development.
A number commented on the need for examining mobile initiatives in the context of other services to prioritise areas which need additional resource:
It will be prioritised along with other objectives within library action plans and when then a project plan will be written to ensure that staff resource is made available.
By making the case for this development as a priority
Making it a priority over some traditional services that are no longer meeting users needs.
Others commented that the level of demand from users would be the main factor that would support a business case for investing resources into mobile initiatives:
If the users start demanding more of this, the resourcing is diverted from other things
Hoping users will start complaining! Only way to raise up agenda.
Staff changes (additional staffing or re-‐assign staff duties)
Some responses referred to additional staffing with skills to drive forward mobile initiatives:
We recently created a new position for a Digital Branch Manager, which helps shape our vision for all digital services, mobile included, and added 1 FTE to our IT staff.
A new E-‐systems manager who is familiar with mobile technology use in libraries was recently appointed. The goal is that eventually he'll be able to allocate the time to focus on developing this exciting area for the library.
We hope to shortly have a new programmer on staff and have the resources to move forward.
Others suggested re-‐assigning or prioritising staff duties and adjusting time spent on other activities to free up time for developing new ways of working:
Reduce time spent on other tasks -‐ redeploy staff.
Re-‐assign staff duties
Re-‐prioritizing staff time
Moving away from traditional desk reference, freeing up librarians to work in other ways, with mobile tech.
Other suggestions included ensuring new recruits have skills in the area (e.g. by including it in the job specification), making it a small part of many staff member’s roles with one person co-‐ordinating, and tying it into marketing and communication initatives.
Partnerships (internal and external)
A number of people were hoping to overcome barriers by partnering up with internal or external partners. Many mentioned utilising expertise from IT departments:
Utilising expertise from other departments (e.g. IT department) and other institutions
Further negotiation with our IT department
Work with our Corporate IT colleagues to get them to better understand our requirements
initiate a discussion with IT regarding the barriers to library development.
Others hoped to work in partnership with external partners to assist both with funding and also to help them understand the barriers to implementation:
We are actively seeking partnerships with other businesses in the form of affiliate partnerships, donations, and advertising revenue.
Our Content and Licencing team are in conversation with publishers to try to help them realise the benefits of mobile delivery and negotiate appropriate licence agreements.
Staff training
Some people felt the best way to overcome barriers was to support staff training, either at a local level or by sending one person to training courses and encouraging them to report back to share the learning.
One person also suggested the library staff should act as innovators in this area by receiving training and then feeding this learning into the wider institution:
training library staff to be able to implement new technologies, then report back to college to show how can be done
Good practice
With the number of other libraries who have been utilising mobile technologies, some felt the best way to overcome barriers was to take good practice from these to apply to their own context:
by learning from those who know
Keep trying to acquire good practice from others to save on development costs
For augmented reality we hope the JISC-‐funded project will deliver enough technical information for us to create our own content.
Outsourcing
A small number felt outsourcing would be a more desirable option to overcome barriers:
Outsource as much as possible
We would look to outsource to private company
9. Information to assist decision making Respondents were asked to indicate whether there was any further information that would be of assistance in making decisions regarding utilising mobile technologies. 35 responses were received. Suggestions included the following sources of information:
• Forum to exchange experiences, difficulties and solutions • Evidence base on mobile technologies in libraries (e.g. case studies, best practice,
cost/benefit analysis, evidence of value, skills needed, examples of innovation) • Statistics on usage of mobile technologies • Names and contacts details for external trainers and experts in the field • Mobile technology licenses • Tools (or applications) to assist in coding/development of new service technologies • Training opportunities for librarians • Directory of recommended external suppliers who are familiar with the use of mobile
technology in libraries • Links to companies developing use of mobile technologies • Guidance on recommended apps
One response felt there was more needed in terms of infrastructure:
I would like to see orgs like this JISC implementing changes in their services to support mobile, rather than information
10. Confidence in implementing mobile technologies Respondents were asked to indicate on a scale ranging from not at all confident to very confident. 135 responses were provided. Figure 8 and Table 8 illustrate the responses.
Figure 8: Bar chart to show level of confidence in implementing mobile technologies
Barriers % n
Not at all confident 2.2 3
Not confident 25.9 35
Confident 60.0 81
Very confident 11.9 16
Total 135
Table 8 Confidence in implementing mobile technologies
The comments explain the reasons behind their level of confidence (comments were optional, not all respondents left comments).
Not at all confident
Two of the three who were not at all confident answered this way due to infrastructure constraints. The other had no experience setting up mobile technologies, though was a user themselves.
Not confident
25.9% of respondents did not feel confident that their library could utilise mobile technologies. Reasons for those who were not confident were commonly at institutions just starting to experiment with mobile technologies or who had perhaps focused on one specific area and would now like to expand the offering:
We've done the basics (mobile site and just started with a mobile catalog-‐ outsourced to LibraryThing) but don't have the time, staff, expertise to do much more than that.
At early stage but developing knowledge
It also included some individuals who feel confident in their own abilities using mobile technologies, but who have colleagues who are not confident, and vice versa:
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Conkidence in implementing mobile technologies
Not at all conkident
Not conkident
Conkident
Very conkident
I don't have a smart phone, few staff do, and those that do are not skilled at sharing their knowledge and skills
I am not an expert in mobile technologies, however, we have access to staff resource with the appropriate skills.
Need lib staff to be comfortable using mobile devices and App
I can use an ipad and my phone but am not tech-‐savvy per se and my colleagues are even less so.
There were also those who do not have the infrastructure or senior management buy-‐in to support mobile technologies:
Lack of support at senior manager level as well as IT refusing to support mobile technologies
We have no support from university administration
My library is reluctant to do anything unless success is guaranteed. This means it is reluctant to invest in developing technical skills among its people, to allow time to work on mobile projects, to market a project, and to give it a chance. Many ideas have failed due to lack of library administrative support.
Not a library priority....
Confident
The majority of respondents (60%) felt confident that their library could utilise mobile technologies. Comments from this group of respondents demonstrated the libraries have support from senior management, have the skills and knowledge needed, and show enthusiasm for planned initiatives. However, many comment that it will take time or they still need to address one or two barriers before getting to implementation:
We know how it works, we just need to do it.
We have the know how but also many competing demands on the time of our technical team
I am confident our University web team can deliver this when they have the capacity.
We can do it, it will just take time.
We have the knowledge & skills available, it's just a case of implementation when we have time.
I am sure we can do it, it is just we need to think clearly who it is for, how it will help and then how much we can put in via time and expense
We are confident in our ability to offer these services once we have the technology and time to do so, but we're not so confident that we will be able to find the time to implement these initiatives
Very confident
11.9% of respondents felt very confident that their library would be able to utilise mobile technologies. These respondents were largely those that have worked on mobile initiatives already, and plan to continue doing so. The responses from this category demonstrate that they have skills and knowledge necessary, as well as demand from users and support from senior management:
We have been offering mobile web services since 2007 so we have staff with the necessary skills and knowledge.
flexible strategy in place with full senior management backing and growing expertise among Library staff
I'm very confident that if it were implemented it would be well used, we could support it, and it would provide useful benefits to students
I have a clear understanding of the concepts involved, am a big believer in the benefits of elearning and have the backing of the management team to promote facilitation of mobile learning.
11. Supporting current/future m-‐library initiatives Respondents were asked to indicate from a pre-‐determined list the methods that they would use to support current and future m-‐library initiatives in their library/information service. 135 responses were provided. Table 9 illustrates the responses in order of frequency.
Methods % n
Keeping up-‐to-‐date with mobile technology
85.2 115
Case studies 78.5 106
Attending and following events 74.1 100
Reading/following existing research
66.7 90
Sharing and reading information via social media
60.0 81
Library/librarian blogs 54.1 73
Social media discussions 53.3 72
How-‐to guides 53.3 72
Mailing lists 51.9 70
Conducting own research 45.2 61
Project blogs 40.7 55
Other 5.9 8
Table 9 Methods to Support Current/Future Initiatives
The ‘other’ responses included collaborative projects (with other organisations or others within the organisation who may be more knowledgeable), discussion with/learning from colleagues, in house training/awareness sessions, creating your own m-‐library initiative, video demonstrations, and support from suppliers.
Respondents were asked to provide any further comments about the support they may need to help with m-‐library initiatives. 16 responses were given. Some of these simply commented that any help is useful, whilst others expanded on topics above:
Practical demos and sessions are always the most fulfilling so you can see the technology in action. This is what people remember.
Good case studies in relevant types of libraries (in our case engineering and industrial) might help.
Some commented that support was most needed to help with infrastructure/technical issues:
Hospital libraries in particular might require additional support in relation to negotiating with unsupportive IT departments
From our experience, infrastructure issues present the biggest barrier to innovation
Locking in to single technology platforms is the most problematic aspect. Libraries must encourage publishers to provide resources that are platform agnostic (most usually mobile web based)
Other areas in need of support were around providing evidence of the value of mobile initiatives and the value of having a developer within the library:
Proof of ROI that we could show to our administration.
Libraries need developers to take full advantage of APIs etc. that can be used to make services mobile-‐friendly/enhance existing areas/create new webpages/apps etc. Not enough libraries have their own developer; how can we convince directors of their value for money?
One person suggested a consortium:
A consortium for higher Ed in mobile tech
One thanked the project for its support and hoped the community would continue:
Please keep up the good work, and I hope the community will continue after the JISC funding has ended in September 2012.
12. Usefulness of project updates As part of our project evaluation, respondents were asked to indicate the usefulness of the information shared via the project blog (http://www.m-‐libraries.info) and the community website, on a rating from not at all useful to very useful. 130 responses were provided. Table 10 illustrates the responses.
Figure 9 Usefulness of project updates
Updates % n
Not at all useful 1.5 2
Not useful 2.3 3
Useful 34.6 45
Very useful 13.1 17
Not used 48.5 63
Total 130
Table 10 Usefulness of Updates
Many of the survey respondents (48.5%) were previously unaware of the resources from the project, and pleasingly many of these said they would now take a look and imagine they will use the resource in future.
3.8% of respondents said the updates were not at all useful or not useful. Three of these chose to leave comments; one of whom didn’t know about the resources and one of whom couldn’t get access due to the host organisation blocking access to all social media including blogs. The other responder felt there wasn’t anything of use from the blog to follow up.
47.7% of survey respondents felt the project resources were useful or very useful.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Usefulness of project updates
Not at all useful
Not useful
Useful
Very useful
Not used
The case studies have helped to either identify a problem and potential work arounds which we would have otherwise spent a long time trying to resolve
It's been a great source of examples of good practice from other institutions, and has given us some good ideas!
It is worth knowing how all of these libraries have gone about setting up the projects so that we can learn from these and have evidence that we're not trying to break the mould.
always useful to be able to show examples and case studies to senior management.
the blog and website are very useful, not only to keep us up-‐to-‐date but to point colleagues at when they ask what other institutions are doing.
There's quite a lot of useful aggregation of information and there's been some good interaction arising from the project
Some commented that they are not be able to utilise the information yet, but hope to do so in future:
Its good to see what others are doing and to know where to refer to when we are to progress more quickly
I store them; Since I cannot actually apply them, I have not read most of them
Others felt they would have been more useful if there were examples from institutions similar to their own:
case studies and best practices are inspirations for our own project, but do not always apply to our case (mostly about academic or public libraries; mostly on Internet)
Interesting although usually University based so much larger organisations
13. Summary Current m-‐library initiatives and projects
The majority of the respondents’ libraries either already have m-‐library initiatives (92%), or are currently working on m-‐library projects or services (61%). QR codes, mobile catalogue, mobile website, guides to support the use of mobile services/apps, and a mobile app for the institution were each being used (or planned) by a third of respondents or more.
The full list of uses at present included (in order of frequency):
• QR codes • Mobile catalogue • Mobile website • Guides to support the use of mobile services/apps • Using mobile devices to support roving reference • Loaning mobile devices • Mobile app for the library
• SMS communication about borrower record • Social media (Twitter, Facebook, Foursquare) • Location of free PCs in library • Status of printers in library • Mobile discovery tool • SMS reference service • Access to mobile content (e.g. ebooks, audiobooks, music) • Mobile e-‐learning website or VLE (Virtual Learning Environment) • Mobile chat (enquiry service) • Newswire from news agencies • Teaching/instruction on mobile devices • SMS to send bibliographic data from website to phone • Mobile LibGuides
Further information in the comments some of the projects in this area and ways the technologies are being implemented at a local level to fit the organisational context.
Future m-‐library initiatives
82% of respondents plan to implement additional m-‐library initiatives in future, though many did not have concrete plans in place and would follow developments to see which would be most relevant for their library.
For those who did have plans, many included initiatives already mentioned in the survey, with additional details of how they planned to implement them. This demonstrates the different stages libraries are at – some have implemented a number of different services whilst others are still at very early stages of implementation or experimentation.
Additional ideas for future initiatives included a mobile enquiry service, augmented reality, NFC/RFID, and supporting bring your own device (BYOD).
Barriers to utilising mobile technologies
Barriers to development of m-‐library initiatives were experienced by a large proportion of respondents (95% gave at least one barrier). The following barriers were each mentioned by respondents (listed in order of frequency):
• Resource constraints (i.e. cost, capacity, time) • Infrastructure/policy constraints (i.e. web framework, institutional structure) • Lack of technical support • Lack of skills needed • Not an organisation priority • Don’t know enough about how to utilise mobile technologies • Not sure if users would want to use mobile • Not a library/information service priority • Licensing concerns • Traditional mindset of library staff/management
• Vendors investing in separate mobile apps • Lack of third party support for mobile resources
When asked to indicate the primary barrier, the main issues were resource constraints (46%) and infrastructure/policy constraints (17%).
A number of suggestions were made with regards to overcoming barriers, including quick wins/low costs solutions, a strong business case, staffing changes (additional staffing or re-‐assign staff duties), internal or external partnerships, staff training, learning from good practice, and outsourcing.
Information to assist decision making
Some respondents gave suggestions of further information that would be of assistance in making decision regarding utilising mobile technologies. These included (amongst others) a forum to exchange experiences, difficulties and solutions, an evidence base on mobile technologies in libraries, statistics on usage of mobile technologies, and details of external trainers and experts in the field.
Confidence in implementing mobile technologies
Though there are still some who do not feel at all confident implementing mobile technologies at their library, 72% felt confident or very confident. Factors affecting confidence were common across responses (i.e. those that felt confident had these in place, those who didn’t feel confident did not). These factors included infrastructure, knowledge and skills, support from management, and the resources (primarily time and money) to work on development.
Supporting current/future m-‐library initiatives
All respondents planned to inform developments in a number of different ways. The following lists the different avenues in order of frequency:
• Keeping up-‐to-‐date with mobile technology • Case studies • Attending and following events • Reading/following existing research • Sharing and reading information via social media • Library/librarian blogs • Social media discussions • How-‐to guides • Mailing lists • Conducting own research • Project blogs • Collaborative projects • Learning from colleagues • In-‐house training/awareness sessions • Creating own m-‐library initiative • Video demonstrations • Support from suppliers.
The list shows the variety of different sources available and the importance of sharing resources for others to find. We hope the resources developed through the m-‐library support project will help facilitate this.
Usefulness of project updates
A relatively high proportion of survey respondents (48.5%) were unaware of the resources made available from the JISC-‐funded mobile library community support project. Of those who have used them, 92.5% found the resources useful or very useful. Areas which were mentioned as particularly useful included case studies and examples of best practice, as well as general updates. Some haven’t yet been in a position to use the resources, but plan to do so in future.
These findings highlight the need for additional promotion to ensure those who may be interested in mobile technologies in libraries are aware of the resources from the project.
