Final Project

Nancy Van Wert

Erin Kirkbride

MLIS 7505

June 13, 2010

LIBRARY 2.0: A COMPARISON OF ANN ARBOR DISTRICT LIBRARY AND GWINNETT COUNTY LIBRARY SYSTEM


Library 2.0 was first defined by Michael Casey in his blog Library Crunch in 2005 (Casey, 2010). Based on the concept of Web 2.0 and using its tools, Casey asserts it is "a model for service that encourages constant and purposeful change, inviting user participation in the creation of both the physical and virtual services they want, supported by consistently evaluating services. It also attempts to reach new users and better serve current ones through improved customer-driven offerings." (Casey, 2010)

For the purpose of this report, the authors will compare the successes of two exemplary libraries that use Library 2.0, the Ann Arbor District Library in Ann Arbor, Michigan and the Gwinnett County Libraries in Gwinnett County, Georgia. Library 2.0 focuses on how to build a virtual community that supports the library as a physical place and upholds the mission and vision of the library.

In 2007, Ryan Deschamps posted on his blog, The Other Librarian, ten things a library can do to satisfy the qualifications for being called Library 2.0. Through simple steps, a library can build a community of user involvement, reaching out into the online community there by fostering the library as a source of quality information to navigate the problems of life, encourage learning, citizen engagement and seeking opportunities to serve the public in new and innovative ways. Deschamps’ steps are:

1. Use Mozilla Firefox on all your public computers—Firefox is an open-source browser.

2. Add Deli.cio.us to your browser—Deli.cio.us allows patrons to save and access social bookmarking from anywhere.

3. Use RSS feeds for library news—RSS feeds deliver news directly to the user.

4. Develop blogging guidelines—Blogging encourages staff to get involved and become “evangelists for the library cause”; it also shows community awareness.

5. Provide a content management system (e.g. a wiki) for staff to share information; this can be internal and also used externally.

6. Have a public blog to encourage user engagement; this can be used to answers questions, and user input elevates the perception that the community is involved in the running of the library.

7. Use collaborative platforms as Google Docs or Zoho.

8. Keep a Flickr page with photos of the library; visual images are worth a thousand words.

9. Access to Instant Messaging, Gaming, and YouTube are not required but strongly recommended as they are hot buttons for many.

10. Engage teens in technology. (Deschamps, 2010)



Ann Arbor District Library

An overview of the Ann Arbor District Library in Ann Arbor, Michigan shows that as of 2008 the library system serves a population of approximately 115,000. The operating budget for 2010 is $12.3 million. The library system holds over 500,000 materials.

The AADL is committed to sustaining the value of public library services for the greater Ann Arbor community through the use of traditional and innovative technologies. AADL values include: excellence in customer service; providing, supporting, and advocating access for all; acting with initiative, creativity, and flexibility; working together, with enthusiasm and optimism, to reach goals; and responsible stewardship of resources.


Gwinnett County Public Library

Gwinnett County Public Library (GCPL) serves a total population of over 769,000 residents, and had 340,055 registered borrowers as of 2009. The system consists of 15 branches, houses over 1,000,000 print and media items, and maintains subscriptions to over 150 databases. In 2009 the GCPL counted over 4.1 million visitors to branches, and over 4.2 million website visits; over 7.5 million items were circulated, and over 139,000 community members attended library sponsored programs. The mission of GCPL is as follows: Supporting your informational, educational, and recreational interests with convenient, creative, customer-friendly access to materials and services.

Interview Responses

Two email interviews were conducted on Tuesday, June 8th, 2010; one was with Eli Neiburger, Associate Director for IT and Production, Ann Arbor District Library, and the other was with Michael Casey, Information Technology Director for Gwinnett County Public Library (responses in italics).

What were your technology adaption processes, including motivations, decision-making criteria and staff's responses?

Neiburger: AADL apparently is not big on process or criteria. Engaging Library 2.0 did not happen overnight, but now the IT and Productions Department is responsible for the technology. They work closely with the rest of the staff and even have some IT staff who do desk shifts so that they know what's going on and what's needed. Most of our new technologies are either initiated by the Development or Productions teams, or are a request from another department. If it makes sense, has a payoff, and is a sustainable use of resources, they find a way to make it happen.


Casey: Well, I’d say there are three main sources of new technology ideas: staff, teams, and vendors. Staff bring us some ideas, especially when they read professional journals or attend conferences. Teams, like the Emerging Tech team, will often find and/or investigate new technologies for adoption by the library. And finally, vendors often bring new tech to our attention – a good example of this being the coin and bill accepting self-check at the Hamilton Mill Branch.


Technology then gets adopted in one of two ways: either someone in admin champions the new technology and sees that it gets implemented or the new technology is written into the strategic and/or technology plan so that it gets implemented on a schedule.


What decisions are involved? I’d like to say that the sole decision is always customer service impact (both internal and external customers, in this case). But of course there is a return on investment (ROI) to consider (although many organizations, ours included, sometimes fail to really take a good look at the expected and then actual ROI). Sometimes new technology gets adopted because someone in admin really likes it – that’s just reality.

Measuring staff response and technology ROI is very difficult. I’d say that we typically use a combination of statistics (throughput, such as check-in or check-out, books processed, customers served, etc.) and feedback through formal (surveys) and informal (word-of-mouth) channels.


What functional and service areas are these technologies used in?

Neiburger: Libraries are technology businesses. They always have been. Books were such a powerful transformative technology they kept the world changing for almost 500 hundred years. Now that we're in the early stages of the information revolution, there is no part of any organization that is not touched by internet technology. So, the answer to the question is: they are used in all functional and service areas.

Casey: I believe we use these new techs in all areas.


What kind of Web 2.0/Library 2.0 technologies are used? (For example: cloud computing, RFIDs, automated check-out, personalized catalog views, blogging, social networking, etc.)

Neiburger: The cloud is a bit dangerous for libraries. It is a critical part of a library's value to their communities in this century to be in complete control of the data they keep on their patrons, and that cannot be done in the cloud. RFIDs and self check-out are not what I would consider 2.0 technology. Some libraries in the 80s were using self checkout. Web 2.0 is merely recognizing that the library exists for the patrons, and not the staff. While that seems obvious, many, many libraries still make decisions based on what the staff wants, and that simply isn't sustainable. Our entire web presence is powered by Drupal, which allows for extensive commenting, tagging, user-customized views, sharing, etc. AADL does not develop new products without considering how our users will add to them. This is the essence of the 2.0 mindset.


Casey: Over the past three years we (the IT department and the library) have made a concerted effort to integrate second-generation technologies into our system. Several examples are: LibraryThing for Libraries (cloud based ILS enhancement which allows reviews), Rackspace Cloud (cloud based server hosting for next gen website due this fall), BigWebApps (cloud based help desk ticketing), enhanced RFID self-check hardware (new equipment reads cards without need for moving parts, changed in 2007/8), enhanced self-check software (now server based and far more customizable), creation of social networking presence on Flickr, FaceBook, and Twitter, several internal blogs, including the ILS blog, Survey Monkey (used several times on very large scale for system changes such as facilities, hours, customer feedback, etc. – many responses exceeded 2000+), formalized Technology Team reviews of the tech plan (building in regular review processes which includes staff and customer feedback, etc.

This July we hope to launch LibraryAnywhere, a mobile phone compatible library catalog.

Going forward, we will be utilizing open source software for our website which will launch this fall, which will result in a significant money savings. In addition, we will be transitioning our IM reference service to SMS/text and website widget chat – this should be done in spring 2011. Also in spring 2011 we hope to launch a website knowledge base based upon a product called LibraryAnswers (a cloud based service).


Do you follow a best practices model?

Neiburger: AADL does not follow a best practices model. Best practices are just shorthand for a lack of vision. Every community is different; best practices in one community can easily be the worst idea in another community. That said, we're always listening for cool ideas that other libraries are trying.

Casey: Yes. Individual projects, such as the website, are constantly measured against various best practices models. In addition, the technology plan is being measured against some very new best practices which require regular review and re-evaluation.


How does the library follow trends in library technologies?

Neiburger: Twitter.

Casey: I’m not sure we’re following other libraries so much as we’re trying to stay abreast of the technologies that our customers and other industries are using. Internally, this means we’re always looking for more efficient systems so that we can do more with reduced budgets. Other libraries are looking at these things, too, as are other service organizations. Externally, this means we are trying to adopt more 2.0 tools and services, including customer feedback and communications. The library has a presence on the major social networking sites, and the next generation website is being built on an open platform that will easily permit two-way communications (Drupal).


How are the usage statistics for your blogs?

Neiburger: Well, our entire site is blog-style, so it's difficult to attribute traffic to blogs. We did serve over 10 million page views just in March of 2010, and an average of 34 page views per visit, which is very high for the web. This indicates that people who come to aadl.org are staying a long time, reading many different posts and searches, and coming back frequently.

Casey: We measure use in several ways. The website uses Google Analytics (a powerful and free website stats manager). FaceBook and Flickr have their own rather good built-in stats. Our internal blogs are measured primarily through use, and the ILS blog is definitely the most heavily used internal blog.


How do you justify allocation of resources for virtual presence (Second Life, FaceBook, virtual reference services, etc.) if you have any?

Neiburger: Second Life is a joke and any resources a library invested there would be a very poor use of public funds. FaceBook is just a part of one of our marketing clerks' job and takes just minutes per week. We once used a subscription virtual reference service, but we discontinued it due to lack of demand. We just do reference by email when it comes up. Part of the advantage of modern web technologies is that the good ones are freely available. For AADL, we made an early investment in technology expertise (there are 10 full-time employees in our IT Department and it pays off every day by our being able to do new things with no new costs).

Casey: Our only virtual presence is on FaceBook, Twitter and Flickr. We do have IM reference but that is going to transition to SMS/IM/Chat in the next year or so.


Has the library been able to evaluate the response of patrons to Web 2.0/Library 2.0? If so how?

Neiburger: The proof is in the pudding: AADL has over 80,000 registered users and almost 80,000 tags; 2,000 reviews and 8,000 ratings. There have been 17,000 comments on blogs, all since 2005. For a small town, AADL is very pleased with the response. In addition, we hear from the public constantly about how much they love and use aadl.org. It's not very common for libraries to get praise about their websites from their patrons. The fact that they take the time to tell us that they love it and how it could be better is all the response we could wish for.

Casey: So far as feedback and evaluation go, at this point we are simply looking very closely at usage stats on the website and through the various services. We have not yet done any real public surveying regarding any two-dot-zero services.


Is there any other information or insight that you can share regarding your experiences with Library 2.0 and/or Web 2.0 technologies?

Casey: I will simply say that getting local political support (admin and board) is crucial. Any success in these areas is contingent upon support and a belief in the services. Everyone must buy-in, or at least be willing to try.

Analysis

Looking back at Ryan Deschamps’ ten steps to Library 2.0, Ann Arbor District Library meets all but two of the requirements, the use of Delicious and /Flick. Along with Drupal, the staff uses a wiki and Google applications to communicate amongst themselves. Firefox is used as the computer browser. The success of this library is driven by their blogging website, the users shape AADL by their comments and the library listens. The community of Ann Arbor is the driving force in directing the vision of the library, "open and equal access" to all.

Gwinnett County Public Library has implemented several of Deschamps’ ten suggestions for becoming Library 2.0. GCPL uses Mozilla Firefox, has blogging guidelines and maintains blogs, provides an internal content management system and uses collaborative platforms, keeps a Flickr page and a FaceBook page, and engages teens in technology. They are also taking definitive steps toward becoming more Library 2.0 in the near futures.

The two library systems share viewpoints on some topics, but have very differing points of view in regards to others (particularly in regards to best practices and cloud computing). It seems clear that Library 2.0 means different things to different people, and that the culture and administration of an organization can have a drastic effect on the direction that a library takes in terms of technology and progress.

WORKS CITED

Casey, Micheal (2010). Library Crunch. Retrieved from http://www.librarycrunch.com

Deschamps, Ryan (2010). The Other Librarian. Retrieved from http://www.otherlibrarian.wordpress.com/2007/01/19/my-top-ten-library-20-no-brainers-for-public-libraries

Ann Arbor District Library (2010). Retrieved from http://www.aadl.org

Gwinnett County Public Library (2010). Retrieved from http://www.gwinnettpl.org

U.S. Census Bureau (2010). Ann Arbor city, Michigan. Retrieved from http://www.factfinder.census.gov

U.S. Census Bureau (2010). Gwinnett County, Georgia. Retrieved from http://www.factfinder.census.gov