VALA2008 DF Presentation


Published on

Modified version (with more supporting notes) of a presentation given at the VALA2008 conference in Melbourne Australia on Wednesday 6 February 2008. See for details.

Published in: Technology, Education
1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • VALA2008 DF Presentation

    1. 1. Measuring your work and reporting your value as we move to Library 2.0 David Feighan Australian Taxation Office Modified version (with more supporting notes) of a presentation given at the VALA2008 conference in Melbourne Australia on Wednesday 6 February 2008 . See for details.
    2. 2. Library 2.0 – reporting value <ul><li>Making sense of Library 2.0 and Web 2.0 </li></ul><ul><li>Assessing Library 2.0 – State of Play </li></ul><ul><li>Measuring Library 2.0 – Challenges </li></ul><ul><ul><li>What to measure </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Boundaries </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The pace of change </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Leveraging off Web 2.0 services and applications </li></ul><ul><li>Mash up stats </li></ul><ul><li>Conclusion </li></ul>
    3. 3. Library 2.0 <ul><li>Facilitates flexible design and creative reuse of content, </li></ul><ul><li>Provides a rich and responsive user experience , and </li></ul><ul><li>Facilitates COLLABORATION . </li></ul><ul><li>Murugesan, S. (2007), “Understanding Web 2.0”, IT Pro , July / August 2007, p.34 – 41 </li></ul>
    4. 4. Library 2.0 <ul><li>“ While the old Web 1.0 was about Web sites, clicks, and ‘eyeballs’, the new Web 2.0 [and by extension Library 2.0] is about communities , participation , and peering .” </li></ul><ul><li>Tapscott, D. & Williams, A.D., (2007), Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything , Portfolio, New York, p. 19. </li></ul><ul><li>But what does this mean? </li></ul><ul><li>To measure, we first need to understand what it is we are measuring and why. </li></ul>
    5. 5. Making sense of Library 2.0 Tag clouds are often used to describe Library / Web 2.0. However, these are often a mish-mash, not that this in itself is a bad thing given much of Web 2.0 is mashed up. But for the purpose of metrics, and grouping like with like, it does not provide clarity or structure. For example in the image above some of these tags relate to principles e.g. “Convergence” and some to “technologies” e.g. RSS.
    6. 6. Making sense of Library 2.0 Source: The Web Trend Map 2.0 is a 200 web-sites mapping organised for relevance and themes. It was designed by a group of Japanese web designer on the model of Tokyo subway. Again, does not really provide assistance for the purpose of provide a structure for metrics
    7. 7. Making sense of Library 2.0 Consider the growing number of Web 2.0 applications. They all do different things. How do we make sense of this? How do we grab these statistics? Should we even try? How do we organise like with like.
    8. 8. Making sense of Library 2.0 This web 2.0 landscape from the makes a good attempt of providing structure and grouping like with like.
    9. 9. Making sense of Library 2.0 The Web 2.0 framework by Ross Dawson is useful in that it includes inputs, outputs, mechanisms, and a structure that is useful for building Web 2.0 / Enterprise 2.0 strategies. Can libraries use or adapt this framework? Ross Dawson's blog can be found at .
    10. 10. Making sense of Library 2.0 Source: In pondering on how to measure Library 2.0, I realise that maybe it was already too late. The technology and world is moving on and now we are talking about…
    11. 11. Making sense of Library 2.0 3.0 Source: … Web 3.0. So what does this means, how do we keep up? Does Web 3.0 actually exist when some say that Web 2.0 doesn’t exist. If Web 3.0 exists, should we forget about Library 2.0 and move onto thinking about measuring Library 3.0? Why is there so little stuff on Wikipedia about these Web 3.0 applications? Now my head is hurting! Lets take a breath and see where we are today.
    12. 12. Assessing Library 2.0 – State of Play <ul><li>Project Counter [ WHAT ] </li></ul><ul><li>Standardised Usage Statistics Harvesting Initiative, SUSHI [ HOW ] </li></ul><ul><li>ISO Standards [ UNIFORMITY ] </li></ul><ul><ul><li>International Standard ISO/DIS 11620:1998/Amd 1:2003: Information and documentation — Library performance indicators, and </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>International Standard ISO/DIS 2789: Information and documentation —International library statistics” </li></ul></ul>
    13. 13. Assessing Library 2.0 – State of Play <ul><li>Association of Research Libraries [one example] </li></ul>                   MINES for Libraries™ is an online transaction- based survey that collects data on the purpose of use of electronic resources and the demographics of users.                    The DigiQUAL™ project is modifying and repurposing the existing LibQUAL+™ protocol to assess the services provided by digital libraries.                     LibQUAL+™ is a rigorously tested Web-based survey that libraries use to solicit, track, understand, and act upon users' opinions of service quality.                                                                    
    14. 14. Assessing Library 2.0 – State of Play <ul><li>However, in mid 2007 there appeared to be very little on Web 2.0 and metrics, let alone Library 2.0 metrics. </li></ul><ul><li>A search on the blog for the terms: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Facebook , Library 2.0 , MySpace , PHP , Social networking , Social networks , Social tag , Tagging , and Web 2.0 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Returned no meaningful results. </li></ul>
    15. 15. Assessing Library 2.0 – State of Play <ul><li>Meanwhile the CAUL Electronic Information Resources Committee (CEIRC) 2007 survey on managing usage statistics found: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>High level of interest in electronic resource management (ERMs) and online statistics </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Libraries still forced to work within manual data collection processes that did not necessarily conform to emerging standards and initiatives </li></ul></ul>Source:
    16. 16. Measuring Library 2.0 - Challenges <ul><li>SO: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Where are the boundaries of what we measure and what we don’t? What is work, what is play? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>If we agree on the boundaries, what do we actually measure? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Should different types of libraries take a different approach? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>How do we measure activity if we have to rely on Web 2.0 application statistics? </li></ul></ul>
    17. 17. Measuring Library 2.0 - Challenges <ul><li>And: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>How do we integrate Library 1.0 and Library 2.0 activities, statistics, and reporting? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>How do we, or should we, implement industry standards in the fast paced and beta is forever world of Library 2.0? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>How do we communicate the value of Library / Web 2.0 within the host organisation’s reporting frameworks? </li></ul></ul>
    18. 18. Measuring Library 2.0 where are the boundaries? <ul><li>Social </li></ul><ul><li>Library </li></ul><ul><li>Academic </li></ul><ul><li>Work </li></ul><ul><li>Physical </li></ul><ul><li>Virtual </li></ul><ul><li>Within our domains, or </li></ul><ul><li>Third party domains </li></ul>Source: Habib, M “Library 2.0 Academic Library concept map” Library 2.0 Facebook Interest Group, http:// =2212848798 accessed 8 September 2007.
    19. 19. Measuring Library 2.0 what do we measure? <ul><li>Blogging </li></ul><ul><li>Messaging </li></ul><ul><li>Social networking </li></ul><ul><li>Tagging </li></ul><ul><li>Mashups </li></ul><ul><li>Web logs </li></ul>Source: Habib, M “Library 2.0 Academic Library concept map” Library 2.0 Facebook Interest Group, http:// =2212848798 accessed 8 September 2007.
    20. 20. Measuring Library 2.0 how do we relate the what to outputs? <ul><li>Blogging </li></ul><ul><li>Messaging </li></ul><ul><li>Social networking </li></ul><ul><li>Tagging </li></ul><ul><li>Mashups </li></ul><ul><li>Web logs </li></ul>Source: Habib, M “Library 2.0 Academic Library concept map” Library 2.0 Facebook Interest Group, http:// =2212848798 accessed 8 September 2007.
    21. 21. Measuring Library 2.0 what do we measure or allow? <ul><li>As a school Library </li></ul><ul><li>Academic Library </li></ul><ul><li>Public Library </li></ul><ul><li>Health Library </li></ul><ul><li>etc, etc </li></ul>Source: Habib, M “Library 2.0 Academic Library concept map” Library 2.0 Facebook Interest Group, http:// =2212848798 accessed 8 September 2007.
    22. 22. Measuring Library 1.0 versus 2.0 <ul><li>Library 1.0 activities: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Library catalogues, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Host organisation servers, or </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Vendor services. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Library 2.0 activities: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Third party social networking services. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Content creation activities – blogging. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>New platforms – Mobile phones. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Supported by relatively few sources which the </li></ul><ul><li>Library / vendors / host organisation control. </li></ul><ul><li>Supported by many varied and remote applications which </li></ul><ul><li>May or may not report usage. </li></ul>
    23. 23. Measuring Library 2.0 <ul><li>Mc2 proto-Library 2.0 social networking site. </li></ul><ul><li>Hosted by the State Library of Victoria </li></ul><ul><li>Library has Control over server and statistics. </li></ul>
    24. 24. Measuring Library 2.0 <ul><li>Deakin university links catalogue to Facebook social networking site. </li></ul><ul><li>Metrics and reporting controlled Facebook. </li></ul>
    25. 25. The pace of change, consider: <ul><li>The development of Library 1.0 metrics has been time consuming and considered . For example: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>COUNTER Codes of Practice. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>ISO 11620 standard [Library performance indicators], and ISO 2789 International library statistics. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Association of Research Libraries (ARL) LibQual, DigiQual, MINES. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>The voting alone on the fourth edition of the ISO 11620 standard took place over a 5-month period between 14 August 2006 and 15 January 2007 </li></ul><ul><li>How then do statistics work in the fast changing, beta is forever, world of Library 2.0 </li></ul>
    26. 26. Reporting 1.0 versus 2.0 <ul><li>Library 1.0 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Annual Reports </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Quarterly Reports </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Monthly Reports </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Library 2.0 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Annual Reports </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Quarterly Reports PLUS </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Real time reporting . </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>This is what many Web 2.0 sites already do. </li></ul></ul></ul>Is the frequency and timeliness of traditional library reporting good enough in the Library 2.0 environment?
    27. 27. Real time reporting and openness <ul><li>Web 2.0 opens up the possibility of using Statistics to engage with clients. </li></ul><ul><li>As participants contributing content they are often develop a sense of ownership and or pride in the their content. </li></ul><ul><li>Show them how it is used. </li></ul><ul><li>Respond to the macro trend of increased accountability and transparency. </li></ul>
    28. 28. Web 2.0 analytics Option 1: Google Google Analytics free and best suited for quick and easy applications or for smaller libraries. Google Urchin software (can be placed behind firewalls) better suited for larger libraries with more complex needs. LibraryThing runs on Google Urchin analytics software. GeoTargeting Find out where your visitors come from and identify your most lucrative geographic markets. Site Overlay See traffic and conversion information for every link as you browse your site (no download required). Funnel Visualization Find out which pages result in lost conversions and where your would-be customers go. Trend and Date Slider Compare time periods and select date ranges without losing sight of long term trends.
    29. 29. Web 2.0 analytics Option 1: Google Google Analytics is easy to set up. I set up Google analytics on my Learning 23 Blog. It took me 5 minutes. These figures are low but this is not the point this and the following page show the type of metrics you can harvest.
    30. 30. Web 2.0 analytics Option 1: Google Google Analytics also offers good graphic displays.
    31. 31. Web 2.0 analytics Option 2: Facebook Facebook also offers analytics. These are but two examples. Experiment, see what works for you!
    32. 32. Web 2.0 analytics: LibraryThing
    33. 33. Web 2.0 analytics: LibraryThing <ul><li>To paraphrase Murugesan (2007), what makes these LibraryThing statistics Web 2.0 compliant is that they: </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>provide a rich source of information that is constantly updated, </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>measure and report the harnessing of the LibraryThing user’s collaboration and content creation, and </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>establish a sense of social networking, as the LibraryThing users can relate the macro level statistics against their own individual statistics. </li></ul></ul></ul>
    34. 34. Library 2.0 Metrics - Conclusion <ul><li>If Library 2.0 is about mash ups, then Library 2.0 statistics will be mashed up . </li></ul><ul><li>We will consider the ways Library 2.0 statistics fit into our business plans , strategic plans , staff performance agreements , and budgets . </li></ul><ul><li>We will still need to measure the what people are doing [ quantitative ] against user satisfaction [ qualitative ] </li></ul><ul><li>We will still continue to report traditional statistics and present these in annual and quarterly and monthly reports, but </li></ul>
    35. 35. Library 2.0 Metrics - Conclusion <ul><li>We will explore and integrate more open and real time information for our Library 2.0 participants. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>To do this we will leverage off the Web 2.0 statistic modules, and </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>We will work to ensure we use the best and most reliable Web 2.0 statistic modules. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>We will also ensure we continue to develop our own industry statistics and best practices , and </li></ul><ul><li>Continue to be proactive in the ways we report value to our host organisations. </li></ul>
    36. 36. Strategic Opportunities <ul><li>Used strategically, Library 2.0 technologies and reporting could provide us with levers to positively position ourselves within our host organisations by demonstrating real value as we change spaces and move to virtual places. </li></ul>
    37. 37. Measuring your work and reporting your value as we move to Library 2.0 QUESTIONS