Proposal for a

Special Project in The Field of

Information and Library Science

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

For a Master of Library Science Degree

Southern Connecticut State University

Department of Library and Information Science

Spring 2012

Marissa Antosh

antoshm1@owls.southernct.edu

Anticipated Date of Graduation: Summer 2012

Special Project Director: Dr. Yan Quan Liu

Proposal Review/Action

Approved Revisions Needed Date

Antosh 2

1 Tentative Project Title Best Practices for Training and Support of Library Staff During Implementation

of an Integrated Library System

2 Introduction and Overview

Library automation is standard practice. While some institutions still have card

catalogs, most have an integrated library system (ILS) that manages circulation,

acquisitions, and cataloging in addition to providing an online public access catalog

(OPAC). As technology improves, ILS vendors are adding new features such as

interlibrary loan integration, automated telephone calls regarding materials on hold,

OPAC access through mobile devices, and database management for e-journals and other

electronic resources (Felstead, 2004). Since 2004, ILS vendors have also added social

media features such as posting a reading list to Twitter, recommending materials to a

Facebook friend, writing a review, and adding topical or genre tags to a bibliographic

entry. Other features in newer ILSes may include cover images, virtual shelf browsing,

and auto-completion, spell check, and suggestions of search terms (Weare, Toms, &

Breeding, 2011). These features improve access for library patrons and streamline library

workflows. However, library staff must be able to operate the new ILS effectively and

confidently. I propose to research how migrating to a new ILS affects a library’s staff. In

this case, I will use staff experiences from a recent, consortium-wide migration to an

open-source product in Connecticut. I intend to answer the question “What impact does

new ILS implementation have on library staffers and what is the best way to train and

support them during migration to a new ILS?”

Antosh 3

A library’s ILS is the backbone of the main library functions affecting every

aspect of its service and every member of its staff; therefore staff members need to be

considered when a library wishes to implement a new ILS. The process is more than

migrating data. Reference and circulation staffs serve patrons directly. Technical

services, cataloging, and acquisitions staffs may not interact with library patrons face-to-

face, but their actions behind the scenes affect the library’s collection. Therefore, library

staff members need to be trained and supported before, during, and after a library or

library system implements a new ILS in order to feel confident and capable to operate it.

Within the last year, the Connecticut-based company Bibliomation, Inc. switched

its eighty-two member libraries from a legacy system to a new ILS called BibliOak based

on the open-source Evergreen platform. In order to find out about staff experiences, I will

email the directors at Bibliomation’s member libraries. I will mail a cover letter to the

few whom I cannot email directly. The email and the letter contain a link to a survey for

any staff of the library to complete. This survey will gauge staff experiences with the new

ILS implementation and that data along with a review of the literature will formulate the

best practices for training and supporting staff through an ILS migration. Bibliomation’s

migration to BibliOak is the research tool in this particular study; however, the

conclusions that I will draw will be applicable to any library system looking to migrate to

a new ILS.

2.1 Host Agency Not applicable.

Antosh 4

2.2 Significance and Relevance

Supporting staff is a managerial necessity. Libraries wishing to implement a new

ILS in the future can use the data collected in this study to make sure their staff is well

supported before, during, and after the ILS migration, thus ensuring their migration will

go smoothly. Library staffs are the front line, and their buy in and willingness to learn is

vital to a successful migration. If they are not confident and well-trained, they may

project a negative demeanor that may be off-putting to library patrons.

3 Review of Literature My study focuses on the human element of integrated library system (ILS)

implementation—the library staff. The studies I have uncovered mostly focus on why and

how a library switched to a new ILS, but very little is written on the effect upon the staff.

Dennison and Lewis (2011) wrote that when the Paine College Collins-Callaway

Library initially implemented an ILS in 1999, library and college technology staff had

extensive training. Over time, staff members left the library’s employ and in 2007 only a

cataloging assistant who had the initial training was left (Dennison & Lewis, 2011).

When the college began exploring open-source ILSes for the library, the staff had

anxiety about the difficulty of learning a new system and the short time period allotted

for the ILS migration (Dennison & Lewis, 2011). Despite this apprehension, the library

moved forward and ended up migrating to the open-source ILS Koha in three months. A

demonstration system with full staff privileges was set up, which was an advantage.

Dennison and Lewis (2011) wrote “The Library staff was rightly concerned about the fast

implementation schedule, so they were motivated to use the demonstration system.” It

appears the administration moved quickly without much staff input in regards to the

Antosh 5

timeline. The library ran training modules, and after the implementation, “The Library

staff is able to handle all the administrative functions of the module on their own, and

they may also contact the hosting company for assistance” (Dennison & Lewis, 2011).

The Paine College experience ended up working out, but the library staff did not have

much say in the timeline of implementation. They selected which training modules to

attend and worked on the demonstration system, which was a benefit, but it does not

appear they were consulted on much else.

Similarly, the National Library of Wales (NLW) migrated to a new ILS in 2007.

In their study, Evans and Thomas (2007) detailed the extensive collections housed at the

NLW, including audio-visual and digital content. The current legacy-based system they

used was no longer going to be supported in the future, and migrating to a new ILS would

provide better access in that users would not need to search several catalogs to find what

they were looking for (Evans & Thomas, 2007). A new ILS would also streamline library

working practices that had developed over the years, making the staffs of all departments

work more consistently, efficiently, and without duplication (Evans & Thomas, 2007).

In 2003, the NLW formed a Project Board from the department heads of

acquisitions, systems, reader services, the National Screen and Sound Archive of Wales,

and computers. Two external board members were also chosen. Together, they reviewed

the legacy system and laid the groundwork for procuring a new ILS (Evans & Thomas,

2007). It is unclear whether the two external board members were non-administrative

library staff.

Evans and Thomas (2007) indicated some early staff involvement: “Each supplier

visited the library separately in order to hold internal discussions with staff, and to give

Antosh 6

presentations of their systems, which were open to both staff and members of the public.”

This allowed them to voice any comments and concerns. In addition, staff members were

involved in systems evaluation. Finally, the NLW provided a weekly email to staff to

keep them updated on new developments. Despite this, Evans and Thomas (2007)

acknowledged that the staff involvement could have been better: “In addition to the

weekly brief perhaps more open sessions could have been held to give staff the

opportunity to raise any issues or questions in a face-to-face environment.” From the

study, it appears that staff were consulted and involved in the ILS implementation at

NLW, but the library could have invited more staff participation.

Nigeria’s Bowen University faced the challenge of automating for the first time in

2007. Otunla and Akanmu-Adeyemo (2010) acknowledged that the library staff input

must be adequate in order for the library to implement the correct ILS for their unique

situation. Like Paine College, Bowen University decided to install the open-source ILS

Koha based upon a number of factors, two of them being user-friendliness and training

availability after implementation (Otunla & Akanmu-Adeyemo, 2010). Since this was a

first time automation, the staff needed to be able to easily use the software and be

properly trained.

Otunla and Akanmu-Adeyemo (2010) detailed the features of Koha that made it

the right fit for Bowen University and then described the automation process that

included briefing university staff, training library staff, and converting the card catalog

into digital records. From the study, it appears that staff was not consulted in the

implementation process, but they were eager to learn the new ILS once it was installed.

According to the study, two requirements of a successful library automation project

Antosh 7

include well-informed, dedicated staff and staff that is computer literate (Otunla &

Akanmu-Adeyemo, 2010). At Bowen University, both of these requirements were in

place at the start of the automation process.

Post-automation, a satisfaction survey of the staff that used Koha daily was

completed. Questions included rating the various Koha modules (acquisitions, cataloging,

circulation, et cetera), interface with the Internet, software reliability, productivity, and

user-friendliness (Otunla & Akanmu-Adeyemo, 2010). The staff returned positive

answers. In post-automation interviews, one library staff member from each unit of the

library was interviewed and those interviews elicited responses of increased productivity,

less original cataloging, easier fine payments, and less traffic at the circulation desk and

the catalog (Otunla & Akanmu-Adeyemo, 2010). The survey indicated that the library

wanted to know staff opinions about how the new system worked, but there were no

questions about the implementation process itself.

Each study acknowledged the importance of staff in the implementation process,

but none appear to have asked staff directly how they would like the implementation to

be run. Indeed, only the study at Bowen University surveyed the staff at all. Brannon

(2010) outlined the following steps to help in implementation of new library

technologies: let the staff know ahead of time, explain why it fits with the library’s

mission, get them involved, provide excellent training, and let them practice with the new

technology. I intend to examine in my study whether staff at Bibliomation’s member

libraries felt these steps were completed. Staff participation is important, and their views

about implementation would have been well utilized in Georgia, Wales, and Nigeria.

Antosh 8

4 Research Method

My special project employs a web-based survey measuring participants’

satisfaction with implementation of a new integrated library system. I developed a survey

and sent it to directors of the eighty-two member libraries of Bibliomation, Inc. It

contains eight multiple-choice questions. Of the eight questions, six ask about aspects of

migration to BibliOak, Bibliomation’s open-source integrated library system.

The final two multiple-choice questions concern demographics—length of time at

current job and primary area of work in the library. I am interested to see how long my

participants have been in their current job and get an idea as to who my primary

respondents are—directors, technical services, circulation, etc.

The ninth question on my survey asks for additional comments or information

related to the BibliOak ILS implementation. While these answers may not be

quantifiable, I would like to know anything additional that participants would like to

share regarding their libraries’ ILS migration.

The questions for this survey were created from information about the BibliOak

implementation from a series of emails with Melissa Lefebvre, Open Source Project

Manager at Bibliomation. I asked her specific questions about the migration—what was

the timeline for the project, how were the individual library staffs trained, what was the

level of communication and outreach to the libraries like, etc. I then turned that

information around into questions like “Blog posts, weekly emails, and Facebook updates

were used as outreach during implementation. How did you feel about this level of

communication?” The survey was created with the free version of Polldaddy.com. The

Antosh 9

free version allows up to two hundred responses a month. Ideally, I would like one

hundred respondents, so that limit works with the scope of responses available.

In order to distribute my survey, I emailed the link to the survey with a cover

letter to the library directors with an invitation to participate and share the survey with

their staff. I was able to find email addresses for the majority of Bibliomation member

library directors through Bibliomation’s website of member libraries and learned of

recently added member libraries through Melissa Lefebvre, Open Source Project

Manager. I collected names and email addresses for the library directors by visiting the

website of each member library. Those without an email address will receive a letter

through the mail that is the same as the cover letter and link in the survey email.

In addition to email, I will post a copy of my cover letter with the survey link on

the Facebook page of the Connecticut Library Association with an indication that I’m

seeking staff members from Bibliomation libraries to complete the survey. Between these

three methods of communication, I hope to get at least one hundred responses. If I have

fewer than fifty responses after two weeks, I may send a follow up email to library

directors and repost my survey on Facebook. I may contact some library directors directly

if responses are slow and ask for their assistance in encouraging other Bibliomation

member library staff to complete my survey. I will also explore the possibility of posting

my survey to an email group for Bibliomation libraries.

I believe these multiple methods of distributing the survey will garner enough

participation to adequately analyze the data and draw conclusions from it.

Antosh 10

4.1 Ethics Governing the Project

This research is committed to protecting the rights and welfare of human

participants involved in research that is conducted on the campus or in cooperation with

other research agencies, regardless of whether the project is funded externally, internally

or receives no funding support. This research subscribes to the basic ethical principles for

the protection of human subjects of research that underlie The Nuremberg Codes, The

Helsinki Declaration, and The Belmont Report, as presented in the Southern Connecticut

State University Human Research Participant Protection System, Policies, Procedures

and Guidelines Manual.

4.2 Author’s Qualifications The author is enrolled as a matriculated graduate student in the Master of Library

Science (MLS) program at Southern Connecticut State University. The author has

completed 33 out of the required 36 credits for the MLS and has been working full-time

at a public library since February 2008. The author’s employer recently migrated to a

new integrated library system, giving her a unique perspective on her chosen topic.

The author is enrolled in ILS 580 Research in Information and Library Science,

the special project proposal course for the MLS program, under the direction of Dr. Yan

Liu, Professor and Graduate Faculty. On January 22, 2012, the author successfully

completed the National Institutes of Health web-based training course “Protecting Human

Research Participants.” Certification Number 832738, available at

http://phrp.nihtraining.com/users/cert.php?c=831738.

Antosh 11

4.3 Human Research Participants (IRB) Protection The Institutional Review Board (IRB) at Southern Connecticut State University

received an application to use human participants in this research study and approved it

on March 26, 2012 with the protocol number 12-054. It is included as Appendix A.

Antosh 12

5 References Brannon, S. (2010). Say no to speed bumps! Computers in Libraries, 30 (6), 79-80.

Dennison, L.H., and Lewis, A. (2011). Small and open source: Decisions and

implementation of an open source integrated library system in a small

private college. Georgia Library Quarterly, 48 (2), 6-8.

Evans, M.F., & Thomas, S. (2007). Implementation of an integrated information

management system at the National Library of Wales: a case study. Program:

electronic library and information systems, 41 (4), 325-337.

doi:10.1108/00330330710831558

Felstead, A. (2004). The library systems market: a digest of current literature.

Program: electronic library and information systems, 38 (2), 88-96.

doi:10.1108/00330330410532805

Otunla, A.O., and Akanmu-Adeyemo, E.A. (2010). Library automation in Nigeria: the

Bowen University experience. African Journal of Library, Archives and

Information Science, 20 (2), 93-102.

Weare, W.H., Jr., Toms, S., and Breeding, M. (2011). Moving forward: the next-gen

catalog and the new discovery tools. Library Media Connection, 30 (3), 54-57.

Antosh 13

6 Appendices Appendix A

Approval Letter from Southern Connecticut State University’s Institutional Review

Board

Antosh 14

Appendix B

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

Antosh 15

Appendix C

Posting on Connecticut Library Association’s Facebook Page

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

Antosh 16

Appendix D

SURVEY: Experiences in New ILS Implementation 1. I am aware of the reasons for migrating to BibliOak. [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] I'm not sure 2. Do you think BibliOak is an improvement over your previous integrated library system? [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] There is no difference 3. Migrating to BibliOak was... [ ] Good for my library and its patrons overall [ ] Made no difference [ ] Bad for my library and its patrons overall [ ] Other (please specify): 4. Were you satisfied with the time it took to implement BibliOak at your library? [ ] Yes, I think it was enough time to migrate our data and train staff [ ] No, I do not think it was enough time to migrate our data and train staff [ ] No, I think it there was too much time to migrate our data and train staff [ ] Other (please specify): 5. Two library staff members were selected to be trainers at your library after they

were trained on BibliOak. Would you have preferred... [ ] More trainers from my library staff-- at least three [ ] Fewer trainers from my library staff-- one would have sufficed [ ] The number of trainers relative to the number of library staff (larger staff=more trainers) [ ] Other (please specify): 6. Blog posts, weekly emails, and Facebook updates were used as outreach during implementation. How did you feel about this level of communication? [ ] I found it useful [ ] I did not find it useful [ ] I didn't know about it [ ] Other (please specify):

Antosh 17

7. I have been working at my current library for... [ ] less than 1 year [ ] 1-3 years [ ] 4-6 years [ ] 7-9 years [ ] 10-12 years [ ] more than 12 years 8. My primary area of work at my library is... [ ] Director or assistant director [ ] Reference [ ] Youth services (children and/or teens) [ ] Circulation [ ] Technical services and/or cataloging [ ] Media/audiovisual [ ] Information technology [ ] Shelver/page [ ] Other (please specify): 9. Do you have any comments or additional information you would like to share?