Talis Aspire - NTU - Running a resource list service - 17 November 2011


Published on

Richard Cross, Dr Richard Cross, Resource Discovery and Innovation Team Manager

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

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

No notes for slide

Talis Aspire - NTU - Running a resource list service - 17 November 2011

  1. 1. Enhancing life-long learning, teaching and research throughinformation resources and services 1 21 November 2011
  2. 2. Running a Resource List service –opportunities and challenges forstudents, academics and librariansDr Richard Cross, Resource Discovery and Innovation Team ManagerLibraries and Learning ResourcesNovember 2011 2 21 November 2011
  3. 3. Agenda• Resource lists at Nottingham Trent University – a snapshot• The original resource lists challenge• Implementing Talis Aspire as a resource list solution• Running a resource list management system – new challenges and opportunities• Anticipating future developments 321 November 2011
  4. 4. Nottingham Trent University and the RLMS• Information Systems  Virtual Learning Environment (VLE)  Shibboleth Libraries and Learning Resources  Information Resources  Acquisitions  Metadata services  Document supply and digitisation  Technical services  Customer Services  Front-line support for students  Academic liaison  Information literacy  Advocacy and promotion
  5. 5. My role in NTU Resource List project…• Lead Resource Discovery and Innovation Team within Information Resources• Technical lead for the Resource List project group• Administrator of NTU‟s Talis Aspire Tenancy• Member of the RLMS management team• Manage the team responsible for resource list „link checking‟• Liaison between LLR and VLE team• Liaison between LLR and Information Systems (inc. Shibboleth)
  6. 6. Resource Lists at Nottingham TrentUniversity – a snapshot 621 November 2011
  7. 7. Resource lists – the university • NTU has set out an encouraging resource list policy environment  Requirement for „basic onlineness‟ for all taught courses  Requirement that all courses benefit from a resource list • Vice-Chancellor has been an enthusiastic advocate • Learning and Teaching Co-ordinators have been energised to promote • Capitalised on good co-ordination between LLR, VLE team and IS team; and academic teams 721 November 2011
  8. 8. Resource lists – the university• „Library manages; academics deliver; students benefit‟• „Lists will match the hierarchy and typology of the VLE‟• „Lists will be dynamic and year specific‟• „Lists will prioritise electronic and online over print and physical materials‟ 821 November 2011
  9. 9. Resource lists - students • Delivering resource lists to students, across disciplines and at all levels; • Populated, authored and owned by academics; • Integrated with VLE (1-to-1 match: module to list) • Academics can annotate, rank and organise materials in subject relevant ways • Materials are validated (metadata and linking) by the library 921 November 2011
  10. 10. Resource lists - students• Resources on lists are acquired, licensed and discoverable through the library;• Resource lists are integrated with library discovery systems (link resolver, library catalogue and search portal)• Resource lists materials can be exported to student reference management application (RefWorks) 1021 November 2011
  11. 11. Student feedback - positive• Student focus groups elicited consistently positive feedback• Students are important advocates for increased adoption from not-yet- engaged academicshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=0PDaF4Ma9jY#t=93s 1121 November 2011
  12. 12. Resource lists - academics• Own, author, populate and revise resource lists• Benefit from automatic and dynamic association with modules• Access variety of methods for gathering materials („bookmarks‟)• Have access to training and support when-and-where needed• Recognise „contract‟ with the library to resource lists 1221 November 2011
  13. 13. Resource lists – library service• Resource list management central to library activity• Front facing teams working with academics; supporting students• Back-of-house teams working with list validation and processing 1321 November 2011
  14. 14. The original resource lists challenge –why did LLR acquire Aspire? 1421 November 2011
  15. 15. NTU: A renewed push for information skills• Raising information and literacy skills – an increasing priority• Key aims: facilitate development of the „independent learner‟; and support „directed study‟ through access to information resources• Student feedback reported failings in delivery of „direct reading‟ “I can‟t find the things my lecturer told me to read” “I can‟t find a list of things from my lecturer that I ought to read”•Existing resource/reading list management was not up to task
  16. 16. How were reading lists being managed?• No guarantee to the student: no certainty that course offerings would provide the learner with a reading list; experiences differed• No consistent ‘format’: not physical format; nor structure; nor extent; nor over reach and range of materials• No single point of student discovery: some lists were held in the VLE database; some as VLE documents; some as print-only• No consistent method for library discovery: library sought to acquire as many lists as possible, but only accessed a small percentage (circa 20%)• No rigorous workflow: lists were not seamlessly processed from the academic, through the library service, to the student• No fully supportive policy framework: to underpin systems
  17. 17. New Resource List solution had to deliver• For students…. – Consistent, good quality Resource Lists with (much) improved availability – Clearer guidance on different types of material (Essential, Supplementary etc) – Simple access to the lists (primarily through the learning space in the VLE)• For academic staff… – Easy population of lists from the library OPAC and other sources (with support for transferring existing lists to Aspire) – Required resources „on shelves‟ (actual, virtual) quicker, with less effort – Fewer complaints from students!• For library staff… – Improved internal workflows, and more efficient use of staff resources – Enhanced liaison opportunities with academic staff (a good „story‟ to tell) – Better targeting of book and other collection budgets – Fewer complaints from students!
  18. 18. Selection process• Project group set up to procure a software solution• Business specification document drawn up• „Expression of interest‟ sought from software providers• Talis Aspire – short listed• Purchase confirmed at end of July 2009• “Early adopter” status agreed
  19. 19. Implementation plan• Target live date – September 2010• No pilot; comprehensive launch• Parallel strands to implementation process  Deliver technical aspects  Securing policy environment  Providing training to academics  Preparing library to underpin live service• Went live in September 2010!• Now in second full year of RLMS
  20. 20. Talis Aspire – some key implementationand service considerations 2021 November 2011
  21. 21. A centralised or devolved RLMS service? Centralised Devolved• Policy and best practice • Local or optional practices frames RLMS activity shape RLMS practice• Lists closely reflects course • Academics create own lists environment on-demand• Academic-to-module matches • Academics cascade are managed from central permissions to each other authority source • Academic permissions are• Academic permissions are maximized filtered • Library involvement may be• Library acquisitions more peripheral or infrequent processing is key
  22. 22. Mediated or direct list creation? Mediated Direct• Librarians author lists on • Academics gather own academics‟ behalf „bookmarks‟ and author and manage own lists• Academics do not need to acquire how-to software skills • Academics require training and support in list authoring• Lots of record creation work required – results are good • Authoring is done by academics quality – results may vary• As sole list creator, the library • Library waits for academic to has knowledge of all „complete‟ submit list for Library Review lists (as submitted) before actioning• List authoring tends to be • Lists are updated dynamically, phased and queued on-demand; across disciplines
  23. 23. Use legacy data or start fresh? Use legacy Fresh start• Loading legacy data (part) • „Fresh start‟ discourages copy- populates environment; reduces and-paste and encourages repetition in record exploration of new system management • Poor quality legacy data ingest• Pre-population may have may be disincentive to adopt positive impact on take-up and adoption• Preparing legacy data may be resource intensive and produce partial results
  24. 24. Slow burn or big bang implementation? Slow burn Big bang• Piloted launch allows tweaking • Would you describe your boss and embedding of processes as „happy in the slow lane‟?• Targeting eager schools and • What about those poor students academics may establish in non-pilot schools who have to positive momentum for others wait?• Phased withdrawal of existing • A mix of new and old systems systems may be less disruptive might confuse and frustrate students
  25. 25. The nature of the „library commitment‟ More Less• The library brokers an „if you • The library is more circumspect; adopt, then we will…‟ or encourages list creation from agreement with academic existing (or newly acquired) managers resources• Library resourcing realigns to • Academics are made support resource lists with responsible for list quality appropriate priority (metadata, linking)• Library invests staff resources in validating and correcting list items (metadata, linking)
  26. 26. Talis Aspire – technical implementation atNottingham Trent University 2621 November 2011
  27. 27. Talis Aspire – a hosted SaaS application• As part of the implementation process, Talis will work with a new customer to: • Customise the look-and-feel of the Tenancy (including branding) • Integrate the local LMS OPAC (Bookmarklet metadata extraction; Availability look-up) • Load a course offerings hierarchy (if available) for click-through Browsing • Configure and carry out the batching loading of legacy resource list data (with LMS record augmentation where possible) • Secure authenticated access to the Tenancy (premised on Shibboleth FAM) and devolved permissions
  28. 28. Customising our Aspire tenancy• Basic branding• Navigation elements• CSS changes• Integration of chat support services• Google Analytics
  29. 29. Integrating the Library Catalogue• Bookmarklet – configuring a z-look-up (z3950) to enable two-click bookmarking from the local library catalogue to „My Bookmarks‟ in Aspire• Data loading augmentation – where „minimal‟ legacy resource list data exists (like spreadsheets with an LCCN entry), Aspire can carry-out a look-up as it loads the data to improve or replace the source record• Availability (end user) – through the z-look-up to configure real- time Availability look-up in the full-view of a List Item• Availability (library staff) – an on-demand z-look-up to offer stock and holdings data in Report and Acquisitions reviews
  30. 30. Integrating the link resolver• Talis has licensed use of CrossRef service for Aspire – DOI (Digital Object Identifier) parsing is key mechanism for retrieving electronic journal metadata• Customers with a linkresolver can have thisauto-embedded inresource list items
  31. 31. Reflecting the course hierarchy• In addition to Search and Deep-link URL discovery, Aspire provides a Browseable Hierarchy (e.g. College > School > Department > Module > List)• If you have an authority source for this data, Talis are able to load this course hierarchy into Aspire
  32. 32. Integrating Shibboleth (authentication)• With customer input (on IdP side), Shibboleth based authentication (against the Talis Aspire SP) enables students, academics, librarians and administrators to login to the application• Remember: no login is required to view any public list in any Aspire Tenancy• Students login – to retrieve their „My Lists‟ and annotate• Academics login – to edit and manage their module Lists• Librarians login – to assist academics; progress Acquisitions• Administrators login – to manage the Tenancy and its users
  33. 33. Integrating Shibboleth (authorisation)• Aspire manages „who can do what to which Modules‟ through a range of different parameters (Roles, Permissions and Scopes)• When combined with „devolved permissions‟ in Shibboleth, deliver combined authentication and authorisation Students – Academics – Automatic read- Automatic editing only association privileges for their with their modules module lists 3321 November 2011
  34. 34. VLE linking web part deployed• Uses the Aspire list-linking API for dynamic deep-linking 3421 November 2011
  35. 35. Running a Resource List service –opportunities and challenges 3521 November 2011
  36. 36. Resource lists – challenges for students• Incomplete coverage (correlates to subject area to significant extent)• Resilience of old school and alternative solutions by academics• Inconsistent length, format and presentation• Library resource budgetary constraints• Resource format constraints (publisher profiling of eBooks) 3621 November 2011
  37. 37. Resource lists – challenges for academics • Need to learn a new authoring tool • Academic ownership and the need to invest • Limitations over current „smart‟ bookmarking to Aspire • Needing to anticipate library lead times • IP and the openness of Aspire lists 3721 November 2011
  38. 38. Resource lists – challenge for library service*• Required a significant investment in training and advocacy by Liaison Librarians• Acquisitions processes have been revised fundamentally• CLA digitisation has had to align with new RLMS workflows• Metadata librarians have had to acquire new expertise in authentication-aware linking• Keeping RLMS and VLE „in synch‟ * Much depends on the degree to requires ongoing staff resource which the library manages and mediates the RLMS service 3821 November 2011
  39. 39. The Library Review of Resource Lists• Academics submit completed resource lists for Library Review 3921 November 2011
  40. 40. The processing of resource lists under review Review of lists: Processing of Lists: Making resourced lists Academic Liaison Information available to Team Resources students• An opportunity in IR to rethink and refashion existing workflows• Aim to deliver the most efficient and timely resourcing of lists• Profound impact on existing ways of working – for all teams involved 4021 November 2011
  41. 41. The Information Resources workflow • Researching e-availability • One-touch ordering, whenever possibleAcquisitions • Updating the RLMS and LMS in parallel • Improving quality of descriptive metadata Link • Updating electronic links to be persistent checking • Ensuring access available from any location • Processing items marked for digitisation • Enabling linking through the RLMSDigitisation • Supporting delivery through VLE 4121 November 2011
  42. 42. Resource lists – challenges for library service• All stock management and collection development processes have had to become RLMS-aware• Funding has been realigned from „collection development‟ to meet the RLMS commitment• Aspire has no file store (no „upload your document‟ feature) but link-to management has its own challenges• RLMS is a „good news story‟ for the library to pitch to academics; but in the current context of a tightening of budgets
  43. 43. Local technical and service innovations• Relic – Resource List Item Checker (using an Aspire API)• http://www.urko.org.uk/library/rlms/relic/index.php?type=doi&sear ch=10.1177/0309132509105004 4321 November 2011
  44. 44. Local technical and service innovations• SlyFox (SFX OpenURL generator) and CatNip (Catalogue DLG) 4421 November 2011
  45. 45. Local technical and service innovations• Uses the Bookmarking API for Aspire (now supports OpenURL)• Enables any OpenURL supporting service to become a bookmarking source• Method would work with other link resolvers• Any metadata received by SFX can be sent to Aspire• Several other customers have deployed this target service 4521 November 2011
  46. 46. RLMS and Aspire – future developments 4621 November 2011
  47. 47. Aspire enhancements anticipated• Extending the bookmarking tool (to improve quality of item records)• Better Management Information reporting (especially self-service)• Acquisitions workflow extension (enabling LLR to bring more processing into Aspire)• Improving RefWorks integration (moving to selective, direct export)• Synchronisation API VLE-to-Aspire (to dispense with manual processes)
  48. 48. LLR RLMS service developments• Managing the new resource list adoption drive• Integrating RLMS with new discovery solution Primo (Ex Libris) [bookmarking; availability]• Identifying new e-formats and print editions for existing resource list materials• Integrating PDA (Patron Driven Acquisitions) into the RLMS workflow• Improving management of CLA processing (requesting, processing, linking and delivery) for resource lists
  49. 49. Questions or comments?NTU Resource Lists http://resourcelists.ntu.ac.ukRichard Cross Resource Discovery and Innovation Team Manager Libraries and Learning Resources, Nottingham Trent University richard.cross@ntu.ac.uk 4921 November 2011