Walt Crawford chided me — rightly so — for yesterday’s Is the Writing on the Wall for the Integrated Library System? post. My choice of language was, admittedly, sloppy. I was fired up last night…distracted, if you will, by what was happening at a really good conference. Please allow me the chance to redeem my argument.
In academic libraries, in my experience, there has been a decline in the use of library catalogs. This experience could be verified in the ARL supplementary statistics for at least that population of libraries (I think those numbers are password-protected, so it might be a challenge to try to use them). When I get back on the ground and have some time, I will either offer confirmation of that supposition or retract it.
I will dismiss the notion of asking reference librarians how they see users using the catalog because they are too close to the issue. I believe, to use a phrase from Clayton Christensen’s Innovator’s Dilemma, that the library community is facing disruptive innovation — the first it has had to deal with in quite some time. And, according to Christensen’s model, one of the traps encountered when faced with disruptive innovation is listening too closely to customers (implying here that reference librarians are one of the key customers of the catalog). Listening to customers tends to drive a product into “performance oversupply” with lots of features and tweaks that most customers don’t really want yet still pay for because there is not yet an alternative. The suppliers are acting rationally, too — after all, what supplier wouldn’t want to meet all of the desires of its squeakiest wheels?
I ask you — does that sound at all like your most favorite (or least favorite, as the case might be) OPAC supplier? Therein lies the trap — not only for libraries but also for the library software vendors.
Listening to ourselves (librarians in general) is what is getting us into this situation in the first place. We keep focusing on increasingly small improvements with a relatively low return on investment while users of a whole new modality of communication (call it “Web 2.0″, if you will) look over their shoulder (if we’re lucky) and wonder why we’re not keeping up.
You stated: “I frankly find it unbelievable that OPACs aren’t being used. Of course they are.” Agreed. They are being used. OPACs are very effective at figuring out whether your library has a known item as well as what titles your library holds by a known author.
You asked: “Are they being used as often or in the ways librarians might like them to be?” Well, I don’t know about the profession in general but I’m guessing not because instructional sessions surrounding the use of the catalog continue (again, primarily in the academic library space) and even librarians will admit to using Amazon or BN.com or the like to find an item they are looking for.
[Since you are not running an OPAC, Walt, I suspect these three questions will have to be in the abstract for you (should you choose to comment).] I’ll ask: “Are they being used as effectively as they could be?” And related: “Does their current use justify their on-going expense?” And lastly: “When is the last time someone thanked you for a new feature you worked hard to get into your system?” If it has been too long, what should we do about it?
4 Comments
Thanks for the clarification and narrowing of the discussion. I don’t doubt that online catalog use within (many) (academic) libraries is declining, just as circulation in (some) (academic) libraries seems to be declining.
I certainly don’t argue that catalogs work as well as they should. Does it continue to make sense for academic libraries to have online catalogs as such? That’s a tougher question…one that I think needs some fairly subtle discussion, involving a lot of issues/tradeoffs.
As to the three questions: I’d say “absolutely not” for the first, “requires loads of discussion” for the second, and “it’s happened more often than you might expect,” but of course Eureka serves/served several hundred libraries.
You say I don’t run an OPAC. That’s true, but I have been lead designer for a search system that includes the second largest bibliographic database in the world, and I probably know more about use of that system than anyone else. Back in the day (not that many years ago), we used log analysis, statistical returns, and focus groups to redesign the sequence of defaults and options, based on the clear finding that if there’s a default search option, that will be used far more than any other search option, even if it’s the “wrong” search option. (And, given the rest of the Eureka interface, it seemed needlessly user-hostile *not* to have a default option: We thought it should be feasible for at least 40-50% of searchers to do no more than key in a term and hit Enter.) So title browse is the default for bibliographic databases, because it’s the fastest way to find known items; author browse is second, subject browse third, keyword is fourth. (If we had a properly-working full-record phrase-sensitive keyword index, I’d argue that keyword should be third and subject should only be on advanced search). Sure enough, 51% of RLG Union Catalog searches via Eureka are title, and those are overwhelmingly successful, 88% yielding 1 to 10 records. (As you might guess, author searches are second most frequent–but, because Eureka for the RLG Union Catalog tends to be used heavily by reference folks, I think, Boolean searches are third.)
On the other hand, for articles, “title as the default” would be, well, dumb. Since we do have full-record keyword for all other databases, and since we know what’s likely to work best (or “least badly”), keyword is the default, followed by author (browse), title *word* (not a browse), subject *word*, and journal (browse). And, guess what, keyword is significantly more than half of all searches in most of those databases…
That’s probably more of a comment than you were looking for. I don’t think there’s anything new about the “default gets used most” finding. I won’t comment on systems that don’t have defaults; I choose my battles…
Thanks for the detailed and informed reply, Walt. I’m not sure what I was looking for in a comment but your writing was certainly more than I had hoped.
As you might guess, I think this discussion is absolutely key. The “Integrated” part of the ILS used to be a real asset — there was only one system you needed for buying, describing, discovering and lending items. Today, though, I offer than ‘integrated’ is manifested as ’silo’ and as such we are locked into 30-year-old ways of doing things with 30-year-old architectures. Of course, if something is time tested and works for you, one wouldn’t change it.
My argument would be that the ILS-as-we-know-it is no longer working for us now. Some examples:
We debate whether biblographic records should mix formats or not (while working libraries wait for FRBR to catch on and vendors wait for working libraries to ask-for/demand FRBR).
We try to smoosh the electronic resources acquisitions process into existing systems and processes. Is an Britannica Online an electronic resource or a serial or a monographic set or an electronic book? It is, of course, a little bit of all three, but in many technical services departments it seems like the answer to that question would drive the purchase into a particular workflow that, because of the other facets of Britannica Online, are ill-suited for the material type.
Users want to find, not search (the classic distinction between librarians and our constituency) and they are getting used to interfaces out on the wild wild web that return decent results from a single search box. As demonstrated by the likes of Amazon and others, we can build enough intelligence and usability into systems to enable the single search box to find known or nearly-known items.
If we can agree on that much — ILS performance over-supply plus models/workflows that no longer exist (#1 and #2 above) plus underserved users (#3) — let’s get started on the “loads of discussion” because we have a long way to go.
From a avid user of libraries for research and pleasure, I now find the online catalogs a pain. I used to be able to look something up and find related books in one-fourth the time it now takes on computers, using the old fashioned card catalogs.
To my dismay my libraries are getting rid of these paper records. Why have the libraries done this? Now there is no going back, and no backup if all their systems crash and burn. Could happen, what if a solar flare burns up all our electrical systems?
There is ONE good use for these really slow computer catalogs, if you’re online! and not IN the library.
When I want to find something now, after a few minutes on the computer catalog and finding the sections my topic is in, I just go to the stacks and look at the books shelved together. Course you don’t always find all the related books you want that way. But it is sometimes faster than using the computer. And that may be a major cause of declining use of the digital catalogs. They are not effective or quick.
If you can’t find what you want in the library, guess what? You go back to the internet cause you can find it faster there! Another reason for the decline in use of the library itelf may be that they are getting rid of too many books!
I found you on favorite.me and am going to fave you.
But this is intriguing as I never would have found you otherwise and I am ready to give user input to librarians about this issue. So what if kids don’t have a clue? Teach them. They learn fast if they want to. If you don’t surrender to the fads yourselves.
What do you have to say to users like me who are totally unhappy with the new digital catalogs? And the new library policies?
Bill Gates was totally wrong about “Business at the Speed of Thought.” It ain’t.
Do check out my attempts at scholarliness and some fun from all the research that went into my novel about King Tut:
at http://blog.talesofkingtut.com
What is this option/plugin to get real-time preview of your comment as you write it? I want it!
Rene
Rene –
Out of curiosity, do you use Amazon.com or BarnesAndNoble.com to look for books? Does that user interface work better for you than the typical library catalog? There is a growing contingent in the library profession that are seeking to apply the techniques and technologies in those book store catalogs to our library catalogs. (For example, the Ann Arbor (MI) District Library, the North Carolina State University Library, and the Georgia PINES service.)
I don’t think the economics of printing, shipping, filing, unfiling, and shifting physical cards are viable anymore. Last year, OCLC produced 2.6 million physical cards ((OCLC 2006 Annual Report, page 8)) down from 25.1 million cards a year in 1996 ((OCLC 1995-1996 annual report)) and 2.2 million catalog cards each week in 1980 ((Headline of May 1980 OCLC Newsletter No. 129)). Library automation started with back-room functions — the printing of cards along with acquisitions, serials control, and circulation; the public interface to the electronic holdings of the library was historically one of the last modules to be developed.
I have no doubt that you find the existing catalog interfaces cumbersome and awkward. Usability testing tells us that they fail. It could be argued that it is easier to perform the kinds of serendipitous discovery you were describing using the online catalog; there are more access points with which to browse now — all of the subject headings (not just the first one or two or three), all of the additional authors and alternate titles, and even a “shelf browse” based on call number order.
Proper computer system maintenance is a concern, and the professionals running the library catalog should be following best practices for off-site storage of backup tapes and regularly testing the backup media. (I don’t share your concern for solar flares — if we have solar flares big enough to wipe out library computer systems then we’re going to have much bigger problems on our hands.)
Libraries serve at the pleasure of their patrons. If the computer system at your local library is too slow and/or its collection policies mean that it is getting rid of too many books, I’d encourage your to voice your opinion to the leadership of your library. Just please be aware that the economics of asking for more books (which take up more space) and the physical card catalog (which also takes up a great deal of space) may be diametrically opposed.
As for myself, I can only speak first hand about two libraries. First is my employer — where we engage daily with our consortium members (academic libraries) and suppliers (publishers) to maximize the utility of money spent for raw content and the delivery systems used by our patrons. Second is my public library where I and my family (especially the five-year-old) are quite happy with the level of service on most accounts. (”most” because their catalog interface needs quite a bit of work, too.)
Thanks for the conversation starter. Feel free to continue. The Wordpress plug-in generating the comment preview is Live Comment Preview. I wish I could ‘favorite.me‘ you as well, but unfortunately I don’t have my authentication cookie in my browser anymore. Hopefully the author of that site will fix this problem soon.
4 Trackbacks
[...] a somewhat related note, I wanted to tie up a loose end from this summer: ¶ In academic libraries, in my experience, there has been a decline in the use of library catalogs.This experience could be verified in the ARL supplementary statistics for at least that population of libraries (I think those numbers are password-protected, so it might be a challenge to try to use them). When I get back on the ground and have some time, I will either offer confirmation of that supposition or retract it. DLTJ “Is the Writing On The Wall?” — Take 2, Wednesday, June 14th, 2006 ¶ [...]
Post a Comment