impact of the evergreen library automation system on public library users

Cloud Computing, Open Source Library Systems, Public Libraries and Users

Barbara AlbeeHsin-liang (Oliver) ChenSLIS, Indiana University

Key issues:

• Community clouds• Open source library systems• Public libraries• User studies and technology

implementation

Community cloud

“The cloud infrastructure is shared by several organizations and supports a specific community that has shared concerns (e.g., mission, security requirements, policy, and compliance considerations),” (Di Maio, 2009).

Three cloud computing delivery models

Cloud Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS)

Cloud Platform as a Service (PaaS)

Cloud Software as a Service (SaaS)

Community clouds, the delivery models, and Indiana Evergreen project

Cloud Infrastructure Library consortium

Cloud Platform Shared Web-based library catalogs and ILL

Cloud Software Evergreen open source library system

Studying Indiana Evergreen library users

Purpose:To examine the implementation of an open source library automation system, Evergreen, in Indiana public libraries and its impact on library users.

Background of Evergreen:Evergreen Indiana was implemented in 2008. The purpose of the Evergreen Indiana project is to provide public library users with effective and equitable library collections via a multi-library shared integrated library system (ILS).

Literature Review

1. Open source library automation systems

“it is flexible and has the ability to build a complex system at less cost,” Tennant (2007)

“the open source trend is strong and in order to survive it must compete with proprietary library systems,” Breeding (2008)

2. Collaboration and library consortia

“one of the main benefits of open source software is the commitment of the community to develop something that is interoperable and respects open standards,” Moffatto (2006)

3. OPACs and library users in the Web platform era

“Delivery is equally important if not more so than discovery for the users” OCLC Report (2009)

According to the report, the top essential data elements recommended by library users are:

• List of libraries that own the item, • Ability to see what is immediately available, • More item details, • Links to online content/full text

http://www.oclc.org/reports/onlinecatalogs/default.htm

http://evergreen.lib.in.us/opac/en-US/skin/craftsman/xml/index.xml

1. Are users at 9 Indiana public libraries using the open source library automation system since its implementation?

2. How do they use the system?

3. Do they change the way they utilize library services and resources after the implementation of an open source library automation system?

4. If so, what are their changes?

5. What are their expectations about the system since its implementation?

Evergreen Project research questions

Methodology

1. Nine public libraries in Indiana

2. Quarterly meetings with librarians and library users

3. Questionnaires and focus group meetings

4. System data collection

PRELIMINARY RESULTSParticipants

18-24 25-59 Over 60 Gender Female Male0

50

100

150

200

250

1st Q2nd Q3rd QTotal

Age1st Q 2nd Q 3rd Q Total

18-24 2 8 14 24

25-59 29 17 121 167

Over 60 17 20 29 66

Gender

Female 35 29 128 192

Male 13 16 36 65

RQ #1: Are users at the nine Indiana public libraries using the open source library automation system since its implementation?

Usage1st Q 2nd Q

3rd Q Total

Very frequently 20 15 31 66

Frequently 14 10 47 71

Occasionally 6 7 39 52

Rarely 3 3 12 18

Very rarely 0 4 11 15

Never 5 6 24 35

N= 48 45 164 257Ver

y fre

quen

tly

Frequ

ently

Occas

iona

ly

Rarel

y

Very r

arel

y

Never

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1st Q2nd Q3rd Q

RQ#2: How do they use the system? The research team uses the usage of inter library loan as an indicator which is a favored feature by most surveyed library users.

Awareness of ILL

1st Q 2nd Q

3rd Q Total

No 15 17 67 99

Yes 33 28 97 158

Total 48 45 164 257Use of ILL

1-5 items 21 19 51 91

6~10 4 1 12 17

11~15 1 2 5 8

16~20 0 0 3 3

Over 20 5 4 2 11

N= 31 26 73 130No Yes Total Use of

ILL1-5

items6~10 11~15 16~20 Over

20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

1st Q2nd Q3rd Q

RQ #3:Do they change the way they utilize library services and resources after the implementation of an open source library automation system?

1st Q2nd Q 3rd Q Total

Yes 32 23 63 118

No 16 22 101 139

N= 48 45 164 257

1st Q 2nd Q 3rd Q0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

No Yes

RQ #4: Will they increase the use of the system?

Very f

requ

ently

Frequ

ently

Occas

iona

ly

Rarel

y

Very r

arel

y

Never

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1st Q2nd Q3rd Q

Increase of usage

1st Q 2nd Q3rd Q Total

Very frequently 20 8 38 66

Frequently 15 14 55 84Occasionally 10 9 35 54

Rarely 1 4 8 13

Very rarely 0 6 14 20

Never 2 4 14 20

N= 48 45 164 257

Preliminary correlation-coefficient significance:

1. Participants’ use of Evergreen system’s functions are related to • Age• Frequency of visits to local library in last 12-months • Level of use of the previous library system and the

Evergreen system.

2. Participants’ experience with previous library systems affects their usage of Evergreen system and related services.

3. Participants’ use of the Evergreen system has potential to change the way they use library services and collections.

Before After

Less sharingLess

standardizationSome libraries not

automatedNo web presence

Sharing collections - intra-library loan

Union CatalogAdherence to

standards

Libraries before and after Evergreen

Advantages Disadvantages

SharingMore collections to

selectAutomationCheck resources

from home

Libraries have to agree on policies and procedures

Sharing, libraries that own the item takes precedence for borrowing privileges

Migrations from fuller developed systems

Advantages and disadvantages of Evergreen

User studies and technology implementation

• User studies are essential to the success of technology implementation (e.g., Indiana cut IBM loose, saying the company failed to deliver on a multi-year welfare modernization effort.)

• User studies as a research area at SLIS-Indy

• Potential for collaboration

Thank you!

Acknowledgements

This project is supported by

OCLC/ALISE LIS Research Grant and

IMLS LSTA Grant (through the Indiana State Library)

Discussion

Barbara Albee Balbee@iupui.eduHsin-liang (Oliver) Chen chenhsin@iupui.edu