Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The Librarian is IM:Instant Messaging Softwarevs. Virtual Reference Software… The Great Debate
Presented by:Elena Prigoda, Gerstein Science Information Centre, University of TorontoJenn Horwath, Library @ Mohawk, Mohawk CollegeOLA Super Conference, 2007
Agenda
Overview of Virtual Reference and IM at the Library @ MohawkComparison of services
Overview of IM at Gerstein Science Information Centre Implementation, Challenges, Results of
pilotFuture directions for IM servicesIM Acronym Quiz!
Agenda: Virtual Reference and IM at the Library @ Mohawk
Background1) Mohawk2) Virtual reference services
Comparisons between servicessatisfaction, usage, administration,
featuresNext steps
Mohawk CollegeOverview
Located in Hamilton, Ontario10,000 students, 42,000 continuing
ed. students4 campuses with libraries at eachPartnership with McMaster University
for collaborative nursing programLargest apprenticeship program in
the province
Mohawk College Library Overview
40 staff (6 Librarians, 1 Director)76,000 items in collectionCirculations: over 56,000Gate count: over 700,000 4 campus libraries plus 1 e-Library
Background: Virtual Reference Services
1999: Email reference ([email protected]) changed to BRAINtogo in 2005.
Feb. 2003: Virtual Reference Software (VAL Consortium) AskTheBRAIN
Feb. 2005: IM Chat - screen name: librarymohawk
changed to BRAINtogo in Summer, 2005.
Background: Virtual Reference Services
Consortium with Algonquin , GBC, Seneca, St. Clair.
Use Tutor.com software (formerly LSSI) Platform changed in Summer, 2006. Hours: 10am – 9pm M-F, 8:30am – 5pm S&S Hours are shared across all colleges. Marketing: student newspaper,, Library
homepage, icons throughout web site, class visits Staffed by reference desk person at non-busy desk
(at Mohawk)
Usage Stats for Virtual Reference: Consortium-Wide
Number of Questions Answered
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Semesters
No
. o
f Q
uest
ion
s
No. of Questions Answered
Usage Stats for Virtual Reference: Mohawk Only
Number of Transactions from Mohawk Students: Fall Semesters
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Sept. - Dec. 2004 Sept. - Dec. 2005 Sept. - Dec. 2006
Dates
No. of
Tra
nsacti
ons
Number
Background: Instant Messaging
Trillian is used to monitor AIM, MSN and Yahoo!
Monitored 8:30am – 9pm M-F, 8:30am – 5pm S&S.
Staffed by reference desk person at non-busy desk (in evenings both web-based and IM are monitored)
Marketing: student newspaper, homepage, signage (lots!), class visits
IM: BRAINtogo
BRAINtogo marketed as a bundled service: phone, email and chat
Usage Statistics for IM
Number of transactions
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Feb.- May2005
Sept. 2005 -Dec. 2005
Jan. - May2006
Sept. 2006 -Dec. 2006
Dates
No
. o
f T
ran
sact
ion
s
Number of transactions
Email Reference Service
[email protected] – link on homepage went to an online form or users could email the above email address.
BRAINtogo – users can email:[email protected]
Users are directed to these emails when IM is not open.
Statistics for BRAINtogo (email)
Number of Emails Answered (BRAINtogo )
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Date
No
. o
f E
s A
nsw
ere
d
Number of Emails Answered
Web presence for all services
Web presence for all services
IM acronym quiz break!
AAK means: Asleep at the keyboard!
Comparison: Staff Satisfaction
Fall 2006, Staff were asked to rank IM and virtual reference software transactions using the following scale:
1: poor – a frustrating experience, could not provide assistance due to software problems.
2: fair/adequate - provided assistance but encountered some problems with the software.
3: good – was able to provide assistance with little or no problem.
Comparison: Staff Satisfaction
Softwarestaff ranked Fall 2006 virtual
reference software transactions…
…and IM transactions:
Poor: 22 %
Fair: 31%
Good: 47%
Good: 100%
Problems cited
Lack of co-browsing (a problem in 19% of sessions)
No response from patron (6% of sessions) Lost connection (19% of sessions)
Conclusions
SatisfactionStaff are more satisfied using IM
chat software…Mainly because of problems with new
version of web-based software.Fewer questions through IM software
to gauge satisfaction.Student satisfaction?
Yet to be studied.
Comparison: Usage
Comparison Across Services: Sept. - Dec. 2006
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
IM email Virtual Ref.(Consortium)
Virtual Ref. -Mohawk only
Date/ Type of Service
No. of
Tra
nsacti
ons
Number
* Types of questions asked in IM vs. VR service: no difference.
Comparison: Usage Usage: Virtual Reference receives more
transactions than Instant Messenger.
IM versus Virtual Reference: Fall Semesters
0
50
100
150
200
250
Vref - M IM
Service Type
No. of
Tra
nsacti
ons
Sept. - Dec. 2005
Sept. - Dec. 2006
Comparison - Usage Other Libraries?Musselman Library, Gettysburg College:
2002-2003: 4 questions 2003-2004: 3 questions 2005: 110 questions*
Duke University Libraries: Sept. 04-05: highest monthly usage: 140
questions (lowest: 49)UNC Libraries:
March 05-Oct.05: highest monthly usage: 200 (lowest: 48)**
*Ciocco, Ronalee and Alice Huff. IM Working with Trillian. VRD Conference Proceedings, 2005.
*Ferguson, Jean and Pam Sessoms. R u there? Adding Instant Messaging to an Established Virtual Reference Service. VRD Conference Proceedings, 2005.
Conclusions
Usage Virtual reference software achieves
higher usage than IM chat - Why? Students associate IM with recreation not
work and don’t want to use it? Lack of awareness? More marketing needed? Confusion regarding services – competing
brands? (AskTheBRAIN versus BRAINtogo) Older service - students are more aware of
AskTheBRAIN?
Conclusions
IM versus Virtual Reference: Fall Semesters
0
50
100
150
200
250
Vref - M IM
Service Type
No
. o
f T
ran
sact
ion
s
Sept. - Dec. 2005
Sept. - Dec. 2006
But…virtual reference software usage is dropping…while IM is increasing…
Conclusions
Glitches with new virtual reference software (repeat customers dissatisfied?)
Students becoming more independent researchers?
Browser incompatability using virtual reference software? (Only works with IE – Firefox usage is gaining*)
W3Schools. Browser Statistics. Jan. 2007: http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp
IM acronym quiz break!
IMNSHO means: In My Not So Humble Opinion
IMHO means: In My Humble Opinion
Comparison: Administration
Cost Virtual Reference: $7,200US per year for the
software. New price: $40,000US/year forConsortium.
Trillian: free download.
Comparison: Administration
Training Virtual Reference Software: 2-3 hours/per
week in summer. Feature-rich so many features to test More complicated interface than chat
IM: ½ hour per staff member (can be done in large group). Many staff use already so minimal training
Conclusions
Administration of services IM is much cheaper IM takes less time to train staff (all
Library staff must be able to cover IM service and only 7 staff are trained on virtual reference software at Mohawk)
Conclusions
Administration of services Virtual reference software allows for
better consortial arrangements Consortial arrangements allow for
greater coverage of hours and knowledge sharing
…depends on your particular needs and resources
Comparison: Features/Quality
Virtual Reference Software Co-browsing Scripted messages (for speed and
consistency) Database of answers and transcripts Information about patron (college,
student/faculty/other, program) available to librarian
Comparison: Features/Quality
Virtual Reference SoftwareStatistics (access points, number of
missed calls, librarian on duty, type of patron, etc.)
Ease of sharing service across Consortium
Red arrow to highlight items on screen (no longer available in Tutor.com)
Transcripts automatically sent to patrons for referring back.
Comparison: Features/Quality
Virtual Reference SoftwareCo-browsing – Pro’s: Survey from University of Illinois at Carbondale:
found that over 90% of virtual reference users are open to instruction.
Found high satisfaction with co-browsing among students surveyed - concluding that cobrowsing is effective as an instruction tool.*
* Graves, Stephanie and Christina Desai. “Does Co-Browsing Enhance Instruction in Virtual Reference? VRD Conference Proceedings, 2005.
Comparison: Features/Quality
Co-browsingThe most used feature is co-
browsing with all others (page push, canned greetings and replies, canned URLs, etc.) a close second, except for slideshows. (Survey conducted of all VAL staff, 2005).*
Peters-Lise, Jennifer. “Using IM for VR” Internal report, Feb. 2006.
Comparison: Features/Quality
Virtual Reference SoftwareCo-browsing – Con’s:Co-browsing now requires a software
download to work – no students downloaded the software from Sept. – Dec. 2006.
Co-browsing as a result did not work well in 19% of Mohawk sessions and many sessions from other colleges in VAL.
Comparison: Features/Quality
IM – Pro’s Students are already using the software
(no learning curve – see Pew Report: The Rise of the Instant-Message Generation)*
Staff are already familiar with software Buddy lists encourage repeated usage Quick – no lag time between messages Cheap Can see students typing
* http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/24/press_release.asp
Comparison: Features/Quality
IM – Con’sBasic statistics (logs only)No scripted messages, transcripts
for quality control.Sharing across consortium? TBD
Conclusions: Features/Quality
If co-browsing is problematic, IM will suffice.
If limited hours are an issue, consortial arrangement is better.
Overall Conclusions
Staff Satisfaction: Staff happier using IM to answer queries. If VR software improves?
Usage: Greater use of VR software but IM on the rise.
Administration: Cheaper and easier to use IM.
Features/Quality: More features in VR.
IM acronym quiz break!
G2G means: Got To Go
Future Directions at Mohawk & VAL
Monitor stats for trendsInvestigate use of Instant
Messenger software for consortium – co-branding?
Investigate other software such as Skype/Unyte, etc. Free co-browsing alternative?
Survey users of IM service
Questions?
Resources:http://del.icio.us/electriclibrarian/virtualreferenceContact:Jenn HorwatheLibrarianLibrary @ [email protected] (yahoo!/MSN/aol) or
jennmohawk (yahoo!)
