F. William Chickering , Dean Of University Libraries

Decision-Making about Discovery Tools for Library Administrators: What You Should Know and Do

Library Management Institute Summer Conference July 10, 2012

Arcadia University

F. William Chickering, Dean Of University Libraries Sharon Q. Yang, Associate Professor-Librarian

Rider University

The Library is Now Leaving the 20th Century

Library Catalogs Stagnate

“Library catalogs have represented stagnant technology for close to twenty years.” Better technology is needed “to leverage the rich metadata trapped in the MARC record to enhance collection browsing.” “ The promise of online catalogs has never been realized. For more than a decade, the profession either turned a blind eye to problems with the catalog or accepted that it is powerless to fix them.” (Antelman, 2006)

Evolution of Web Browsers

• Cello June 8, 1993 first web browser working on Windows 3.1, NT3.5, and OS/2

• Mosaic September 1993• Netscape Navigator Oct, 1994. By 1996 86% of

Browser Market• Yahoo! Fall 1994 celebrated 1millionth hit and

100k unique visitors. March 1995 incorporated• Dogpile (Metasearch engine) November 1996• Google 1998

Rider University Libraries Objectives

• To provide information seekers with an easy search option for academically valid information materials

• To provide information seekers with an effective search option for academically valid information materials

• To provide information seekers with a reliable search option for academically valid information materials across platforms

• To recapture student search interest from Google• To attempt revitalizing use of monographic collections• To provide an effective mechanism to support offerings of “e-

books”• To build a firm platform for appropriate library support of distance

learning coursework

Strategic Planning Foundations

Strategic Planning at Rider University Libraries took on the assessment of IT changes that were needed in 2003-4. Key operation objectives identified in the process included:

• Facilitating access to other library collections as appropriateThe Libraries provide and facilitate intellectual and physical

access to scholarly and artistic collections and information sources through:

• An up-to-date website• On and off-site access to a wide variety of electronic

resources

Web Redesign

Achieving these objectives required a complete redesign of the Libraries’ obsolete website. Authentication protocols for electronic resources were revisited, resulting in enhanced off-site access. A functional design was created that allowed the Libraries to provide access to databases, the Voyager

catalog, a journal finder, and online subject guides.

Catalog Dissatisfactions

Dissatisfaction with catalog search tools led to a review of the VuFind “Discovery Tool”. While it had some useful features, (spelling, did you mean) it still suffered from inadequacies in full text search and cumbersome nature of searcher designated Boolean searching. It did not work well in searching printed music collections, and of course, only served as a catalog “front end”.

Interest in Open Source ILS

Dissatisfaction with ILS innovations and costs led Rider and many other institutions to look at Open Source solutions, such as Evergreen and Koha. Again these were catalog interface solutions, and in the end were not attractive enough to adopt to offset the effort involved.

Lipstick on a Pig (Jones, 2011)

Observation of Students

Observing the evolution of student wants, needs, abilities, and perceptions it was clear:

• that they needed “do you mean?”• they wanted quick simple searches yielding

short, ranked packets of information.

Other Observations

• Granularity of information (more like a dictionary entry and less like a book), “brief, informative, and quick” is growing in appeal to students.

• Authoritative nature of information is not as important a criterion for selection as is immediacy of availability in too many cases.

Hofmann and Yang investigated “Next Generation Catalogs”

This study really turned out to be a look at the state of adoption of cross platform discovery tools, presented on October 27, 2011.

(http://www.slideshare.net/ENUG/yang-hofmannnext-generationcatalogforenug )

What is Next Generation Catalog? (Breeding, 2007)

1. Single point of entry for all library resources/one stop searching (Federated search vs. unified index)

2. State-of-the-art web interface3. Enriched content4. Faceted navigation5. Simple keyword search box with a link to advanced search 6. Simple keyword search box on every page7. Relevancy incorporating circulation statistics8. Did you mean…? 9. Recommendations/related materials10. User contribution11. RSS feeds12. Integration with social networking sites13. Persistent links14. Search adjacent libraries15. Keyword echoing16. Mobile compatible

Academic OPACs in July 2010 (Yang & Hofmann, 2011)

16% (41) of Academic Libraries Had a Discovery Tool July 2010 (Yang & Hofmann, 2011)

2%

67%

15%

14%

2%

Institutions in the Sample, 2009-2010

"Classic" Catalogs Only (non-faceted) (173)

Missing (40)

Discovery tools + classic catalogs (35)

Discovery tools only (6)

Faceted ILS OPACs (6)

29% (75) of Academic Libraries Had a Discovery tool November 2011 (Hofmann & Yang, 2012)

4%

51%

16%

28%

1%

Insitutions in the Sample, Oct./Nov. 2011

Discovery tools only (3)

Discovery tools + classic catalogs (72)

Missing (43)

"Classic" Catalogs Only (non-faceted) (131)

Faceted ILS OPACs (11)

n=260

Implementation of Discovery Tools in 2011 (Hofmann & Yang, 2012)

Evaluation of Discovery Tools

1. Obtained a list of major discovery tools from Library technology Guide: Discovery Layer interfaces by Marshall Breeding (Breeding, 2011)

2. Found five real life examples for each discovery tool (Xcatalog has only two)

3. Checked each of the five examples for presence or absence of the NGC features (did not check mobile compatibility yet)

4. Compile and analyze the data5. The results are a combination of native functionalities of a

discovery tool and user choices

Discovery Tools Are Stand-alone OPACs

1. AquaBrowser 2. AXIELL ARENA 3. BIBLIO COMMONS 4. BLACKLIGHT 5. EBSCO Discover

Service 6. Encore 7. ENDECA

8. Exlibris Primo 9. VISUALIZER 10. SCRIBLIO 11. SOPAC 12. SUMMON 13. VUFIND 14. WorldCat Local 15. eXtensible Catalog

(XC)

Discovery tool Features

WorldCat Local 12EBSCO 9

SUMMON 9Encore 8

BIBLIO COMMONS 8ENDECA 8

eXtensible Catalog7

AquaBrowser 7Exlibris Primo 7

VUFIND 6SOPAC 5

SCRIBLIO 4AXIELL ARENA 3

VISUALIZER 2BLACKLIGHT 2

Ranked List Based on the Number of NGC Features

AquaBrowser

AXIELL A

RENA

BIBLIO COMMONS

BLACKLIG

HT

EBSC

O Discover

Servi

ceEn

core

ENDEC

A

Exlibris

Primo

eXten

sible C

atalog

SCRIBLIO

SOPAC

SUMMON

VISUALIZ

ER

VUFIND

WorldCat

Local

7

3

8

2

9

8 8

7 7

4

5

9

2

6

12

Two Missing Features in All

• Relevancy ranking in result display incorporating circulation statistics– Popularity– frequently borrowed items

• Recommendations-”Customer who bought this item also bought those items”– Similar items– Similar/related subjects– Other titles– Best bet– Suggested new searches– More like this– Other titles

One Stop Search

• Federated search vs. unified index• A challenge• Each vendor has different % coverage• More study is needed to compare content

coverage• Political/economic issue, not technical

What Features are missing?

• Worldcat Local – RSS feed

• Ebsco Discovery Service– Did you mean…? – User contributions– Integration with social network sites

• Summon– Search box on every page– User contributions– Integration with social network sites

Observations from Demos• Worldcat Local

– User interface not pretty– More useful functions than others– Less expensive than others– Semantic Web component

• Ebsco Discovery Service– Not friendly for guest users (so you

have to login first)– Slightly fewer functions than

Worldcat Local– Interface is better than Worldcat

Local– Price in medium range

• Summon– Best user interface– Good performance– Too expensive

• eXtensive Catalog (Free open source)– Semantic Web component– Free– Neat user interface– Search across all resources?

• Amazon

Feature Yes1. Unified Index 40%

2. State of the art interface 60%

3. Enriched contents 80%

4. Faceted navigation 80%

5. Simple search box with a link to advanced Search at the starting page 100%

6. Simple keyword search box on every page 67%

7. Relevancy with circ statistics 0%

8. Recommendations 0%

9. Did you mean? 33%

10. User contributions 40%

11. RSS feed 53%

12. Integration with social networking 27%

13. Permanent links 20%

14. Search echoing 40%

15. Search adjacent libraries as a group 7%

Percentage of Each NGC Feature

Vendor Reviews

In 2011, the Rider University Libraries began inviting vendors of the four tools that looked, from a preliminary sort, to be most attractive to make presentations of their products. These were:

• WorldCat local• Primo• Summon• EBSCO Discovery Service

Features

• faceting and narrowing of searches• linking of resources between institutions• enriched content• centralized indexing• the handling of different metadata sets• the management of determining and

weighting relevance in returns• other “bells and whistles” (images, newsfeeds)

Trial and Observation

As of January 2012, the Rider University Libraries sought to implement a six month trial of the EBSCO Discovery Service. If the product is adopted, after a year of operation, we will be able to determine indicators of effectiveness in stimulating monographs circulation.

Trial and ErrorThese are some of the milestones we discovered we needed to pass:

• December 13 Service Package Quote reviewed• December 21 Several team members working on questionnaires from EDS ( Custom Catalog; Upload

MARC data, Content Questionnaire; Customization and Branding• February 2 Content and Branding applied to test account, but the implementation of the Catalog was in

process; local customizations are now possible• February 17 Catalog close to implementation and URL provided for mounting on the Libraries’ website• February 23 Catalog added!• March 6th A new simple search box code was provided by EDS was passed along to the University’s web team• March 7 The search box is up on the website! Undesirable default limiters not yet removed.• March 26 Somehow the EDS tech team did not understand from the account representative that we

would be testing the product with their A-Z list. Journal holdings began to be uploaded today.• April 17 Somehow the EDS tech team did not think we needed a link resolver• April 27 Waiting to set it up in your account until we had uploaded your library holdings into A-to-Z,

because the link resolver won’t be working at its best until that time. Will start now.• IP address weeding and sorting necessary• May 9 Link resolver now working properly• May 21 ABI journals not appearing in A-Z list

The Proof is in the Pudding: The Real Test

• Right after graduation EDS was fully configured!

• Summer groups will provide light testing• Fall term will provide feedback through RIP

sessions and Focus Groups

What Has Been Learned So Far

• Be very specific in requirements for testing• Accept large results sets. That is what

discovery tools do. Like using Google, the first 200 or so are the most “relevant” ones.

• Review search results carefully, and use the power of NOT to further delimit

Collection Direction Goals

• With data for comparison, and a platform to support it, a reasoned adoption of e-book collections will be implemented.

• E-book use will be assessed and compared with any change in trends of hardcopy monograph use.

• These observations will support collection shaping plans.

Where We Fit

Of the just under 5,000 Colleges and Universities in the US about 1/3 currently employ fully functional discovery tools. This means we benefit from the experience of early adopters, and do not lag behind the bulk of the population in adoption.

Credits1. Antelman, Kristin, Emily Lynema, and Andrew K. Pace (2006) “Toward a Twenty-First Century

Library Catalog,” Information Technology and Libraries , Vol.25 No. 3, pp. 128-39.2. Breeding, M. (2007), “Introduction,” Library Technology Reports, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 5-14.3. Breeding, M. (2011), Technological Guides: Discovery Layer Interfaces, available at:

http://www.librarytechnology.org/discovery.pl (accessed 25 January 2012)4. Jones, J. (2011), “Lipstick on the Pig”, available at:

http://landlinemedia.blogspot.com/2011/11/lipstick-on-pig.html (access 25 January 2012)5. Hofmann, M., & Yang, S. Q. (2012, May). "Discovering" what's changed: A revisit of the OPACS

of 260 academic libraries. Library Hi Tech, 30(2), 253-274. doi:10.1108/07378831211239942 6. Tennant, R. (2005), “Lipstick on a pig”, Library Journal, Vol. 130 No. 7, pp. 34.7. Yang, Q. S. and Hofmann, M. A. (2011), “Next generation or current generation? A study of

the OPACs of 260 academic libraries in the USA and Canada”, Library Hi Tech, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 266-300.