Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Report on m library activity August 2012
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Report on m library activity August 2012

4,300
views

Published on

Final report on m-library activity via project survey (responses collected July-August 2012).

Final report on m-library activity via project survey (responses collected July-August 2012).

Published in: Education

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
4,300
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
6
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
52
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1.    M-­‐Library  Community  Support  Project    Report  on  current  m-­‐library  activity  December  2012                Jo  Alcock  Pete  Dalton  Eugenie  Golubova  Yvonne  Graves    Evidence  Base  Library  and  Learning  Resources  Birmingham  City  University  www.ebase.ac.uk  
  • 2. Acknowledgements  The  authors  would  like  to  thanks  Owen  Stephens  (Owen  Stephens  Consulting)  and  Ben  Showers  (JISC)  for  their  input  into  survey  development  and  distribution.  In  addition,  we  would  like  to  thank  everyone  who  providing  responses  to  the  survey  and  to  those  who  helped  publicise  it.  
  • 3. Contents    Acknowledgements  .............................................................................................................................................................  2  Contents  ...................................................................................................................................................................................  3  Executive  Summary  ...........................................................................................................................................................  4  1.   Background  ..................................................................................................................................................................  5  2.   Approach  .......................................................................................................................................................................  5  3.   Respondent  demographics  ....................................................................................................................................  6  4.   Current  m-­‐library  initiatives  ................................................................................................................................  7  5.   Current  projects  or  new  initiatives  ....................................................................................................................  9  6.   Future  m-­‐library  initiatives  ................................................................................................................................  12  7.   Barriers  to  utilising  mobile  technologies  .....................................................................................................  15  8.   Overcoming  barriers  .............................................................................................................................................  17  9.   Information  to  assist  decision  making  ..........................................................................................................  20  10.   Confidence  in  implementing  mobile  technologies  ................................................................................  20  11.   Supporting  current/future  m-­‐library  initiatives  ....................................................................................  23  12.   Usefulness  of  project  updates  .........................................................................................................................  25  13.   Summary  ..................................................................................................................................................................  26        
  • 4. Executive  Summary  This  survey  is  a  follow-­‐up  of  a  fact  finding  survey  administered  at  the  beginning  of  the  JISC-­‐funded  mobile  library  community  support  project.  The  survey  aimed  to  examine  the  m-­‐library  landscape  to  see  how  things  had  changed  over  the  course  of  the  project.  The  survey  was  live  from  July  2012  until  August  2012  and  open  to  all.  It  was  promoted  on  numerous  library  listservs,  blogs  and  on  Twitter.  There  were  138  responses  to  the  survey,  primarily  from  the  academic  library  sector  (68%).  The  majority  of  respondents  were  from  the  UK  (65%),  with  other  respondents  from  the  USA  (28.9%),  Canada  (2%),  Australia,  Belgium  and  Turkey.  The  majority  of  the  respondents’  libraries  either  already  have  m-­‐library  initiatives  (92%),  or  are  currently  working  on  m-­‐library  projects  or  services  (61%).  Common  uses  at  present  included  (in  order  of  frequency):   • QR  codes  (72.2%  of  respondents)   • Mobile  catalogue  (49.2%  of  respondents)   • Mobile  website  (36.5%  of  respondents)   • Guides  to  support  the  use  of  mobile  services/apps  (33.3%  of  respondents)   • Mobile  app  for  the  institution  (33.3%  of  respondents)   • Using  mobile  devices  to  support  roving  reference  (30.2%  of  respondents)   • Loaning  mobile  devices  (26.2%  of  respondents)   • Mobile  app  for  the  library  (19%  of  respondents)   • SMS  communication  about  borrower  record  (15.9%  of  respondents)  82%  of  respondents  plan  to  implement  additional  m-­‐library  initiatives  in  future,  though  many  did  not  have  concrete  plans  in  place  and  would  follow  developments  to  see  which  would  be  most  relevant  for  their  library.  For  those  who  did  have  plans,  many  included  initiatives  already  mentioned.  More  innovative  ideas  included  a  mobile  enquiry  service,  augmented  reality,  NFC/RFID,  and  supporting  bring  your  own  device  (BYOD).    Barriers  to  development  of  m-­‐library  initiatives  were  experienced  by  a  large  proportion  of  respondents  (95%  gave  at  least  one  barrier).  When  asked  to  indicate  the  primary  barrier,  the  main  issues  were  resource  constraints  (46%)  and  infrastructure  constraints  (17%).  A  number  of  suggestions  were  made  with  regards  to  overcoming  barriers,  including  quick  wins/low  costs  solutions,  a  strong  business  case,  staffing  changes,  and  internal  or  external  partnerships.  Though  there  are  still  some  who  do  not  feel  at  all  confident  implementing  mobile  technologies  at  their  library,  72%  felt  confident  or  very  confident.  Confidence  correlated  with  having  infrastructure  in  place,  support  from  management,  and  the  resources  to  work  on  development.    All  respondents  planned  to  inform  developments  in  a  number  of  different  ways,  planning  to  keep  up-­‐to-­‐date  with  mobile  technologies,  use  case  studies,  attend  or  follow  events,  read  or  follow  existing  research,  sharing  and  reading  social  media,  library/librarian  blogs,  social  media  discussion,  how-­‐to  guides,  and  mailing  lists.    The  results  of  the  survey  highlight  progress  which  has  been  made  since  the  last  survey,  though  also  raises  the  importance  of  tackling  barriers  if  things  are  to  continue  progressing.    
  • 5. 1. Background  In  November  2011,  JISC  funded  Evidence  Base  at  Birmingham  City  University  in  collaboration  with  Owen  Stephens  Consulting  to  undertake  the  M-­‐Library  Community  Support  project.  The  project  is  part  of  JISC’s  Mobile  Infrastructure  for  Libraries  programme  which  runs  from  November  2011  until  September  2012.  The  aim  of  the  m-­‐library  community  support  project  is  to:   Provide  a  mobile  library  community  support  project  to  help  support  and  engage  the  emerging   m-­‐library  community  by  reviewing  and  synthesising  existing  research  and  evidence-­‐based   guidance.    An  initial  activity  to  inform  the  project  was  to  find  out  more  about  current  and  planned  activity  in  the  area  of  m-­‐libraries  (covering  use  of  any  mobile  technologies  in  libraries  across  all  sectors).  To  enable  this,  a  survey  was  designed  and  distributed  in  November-­‐December  2011.    You  can  view  full  details  of  the  report  at  http://mlibraries.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2012/02/13/report-­‐on-­‐current-­‐m-­‐library-­‐activity/.    In  order  to  identify  any  changes  or  progress  during  the  course  of  the  project,  the  survey  was  repeated  (with  a  few  minor  changes)  towards  the  end  of  the  project.  The  survey  was  live  in  July  and  August  2012  and  the  data  analysed  in  September  2012.  2. Approach  An  online  survey  was  designed  and  distributed  using  SurveyMonkey.  It  was  largely  based  on  the  initial  survey,  and  covered  the  following  broad  areas:   • Current  m-­‐library  activity   • Future  m-­‐library  activity   • Barriers  to  m-­‐library  activities  (and  how  to  overcome  them)   • Areas  where  further  information  is  needed  to  assist  in  decision  making  for  m-­‐library   activities   • Confidence  level  in  implementing  mobile  technologies  The  survey  was  distributed  through  a  variety  of  channels  including  mailing  lists,  the  project  blog  site  and  email  list  and  personal  contacts.  As  the  survey  was  designed  to  understand  the  situation  in  general  (rather  than  a  specific  geographical  region  or  sector),  it  was  decided  to  make  the  survey  available  to  anyone  to  complete.  The  survey  was  made  live  on  8th  August  2012  and  data  collected  for  analysis  on  5th  September  2012.  A  total  of  138  responses  were  received.  The  following  sections  of  the  report  present  the  key  findings.  It  should  be  noted  that  the  survey  questions  were  not  compulsory  so  the  total  number  of  responses  to  individual  questions  varies.  The  number  of  responses  to  individual  questions  is  shown  in  the  findings  below.      
  • 6. 3. Respondent  demographics  Respondents  were  asked  about  which  sector  they  worked  in.    There  were  127  responses.  The  most  represented  sector  was  the  academic  sector,  which  accounted  for  68%  of  the  responses.  The  ‘other’  responses  included  health  or  hospital  libraries,  government  libraries  and  law  libraries.  Figure  1  and  Table  1  illustrate  the  responses.       8%   Academic  library  (Higher  or   9%   Further  Education)   School  library   14%   Public  library   Special  library   1%   68%   Other     Figure  1  Which  sector  do  you  work  in?      Sector   %   n    Academic  Library   74   94  School  Library   1.6   2  Public  Library   15   19  Special  Library   9.4   12  Other     14  Total     127   Table  1  Respondents  by  Sector  Respondents  were  asked  to  indicate  which  country  they  worked  in.  There  were  138  responses  as  illustrated  in  Figure  2  and  Table  2.    
  • 7. 35%   UK   Other  (please  specify)   65%     Figure  2  Which  country  do  you  work  in?    Country   %   n    UK   65.2   90  Other   34.8   48  Total     138   Table  2  Respondents  by  Country  The  majority  of  respondents  were  from  the  UK  (65%),  with  other  respondents  from  the  USA  (28.9%),  Canada  (2%),  Australia,  Belgium  and  Turkey.  4. Current  m-­‐library  initiatives  Respondents  were  asked  to  indicate  whether  their  library/  information  services  currently  offered  any  m-­‐library  services,  and  were  provided  with  a  list  of  options  (based  on  responses  to  the  initial  survey).    126  responses  were  received.    The  most  frequently  chosen  responses  were  QR  codes,  mobile  catalogue,  mobile  website,  guides  to  support  the  use  of  mobile  services/apps,  and  mobile  apps  for  the  wider  institution  (rather  than  a  mobile  app  for  the  library  which  didn’t  receive  as  many  responses).  Figure  3  and  Table  3  illustrate  the  responses.    
  • 8. 80%   72.2%   70%   60%   49.2%   50%   36.5%   33.3%   33.3%   30.2%   40%   26.2%   30%   19.0%   22.2%   15.9%   20%   10%   0%   record  (e.g.  overdues,   Using  mobile  devices   Loaning  mobile   Mobile  app  for  library   Other  (please  specify)   Mobile  app  for  wider   QR  codes   Mobile  website   Guides  to  support  use   Mobile  catalogue   SMS  communication   reference  enquiries   apps  (e.g.  publisher   to  support  roving   of  mobile  services/ about  borrower   devices   institution     Figure  3  Current  m-­‐library  services  offered    Services   %   n    QR  Codes   72.2   91  Mobile  Catalogue   49.2   62  Mobile  Website   36.5   46  Guides  to  Support  Use  of  Mobile   33.3   42  Services/apps  Mobile  App  for  Wider  Institution   33.3   42  Using  Mobile  Devices  to  Support   30.2   38  Roving  Reference  Loaning  Mobile  Devices   26.2   33  Mobile  App  for  Library   19.0   24  SMS  Communication  About   15.9   20  Borrower  Record  Other   22.2   28  
  • 9. Total     126   Table  3  Services  currently  being  offered  by  library/information  services  (most  popular  first)  Those  who  selected  other  included  additional  explanation  on  the  categories  selected  as  well  as  the  following  areas:   • Social  media  (Twitter,  Facebook,  Foursquare)   • Location  of  free  PCs  in  library   • Status  of  printers  in  library   • Mobile  discovery  tool   • SMS  reference  service   • Access  to  mobile  content  (e.g.  ebooks,  audiobooks,  music)   • Mobile  e-­‐learning  website  or  VLE  (Virtual  Learning  Environment)   • Mobile  chat  (enquiry  service)   • Newswire  from  news  agencies     • Teaching/instruction  on  mobile  devices   • SMS  to  send  bibliographic  data  from  website  to  phone   • Mobile  LibGuides  5. Current  projects  or  new  initiatives    Respondents  were  asked  to  indicate  whether  their  library/  information  service  are  currently  involved  in  any  projects  or  new  initiatives  utilising  mobile  technologies.  135  responses  were  provided.  Figure  4  and  Table  4  illustrate  the  responses.   39%   No   Yes   61%     Figure  4  Is  your  library/information  service  currently  involved  in  any  projects  or  new  initiatives  utilising   mobile  technologies?  
  • 10.  Response   %   n    Yes   60.7   82  No   39.3   53  Total     135   Table  4  Current  library  initiatives  The  majority  of  respondents  (60.7%)  indicated  that  they  were  currently  involved  in  an  m-­‐library  development.    In  order  of  popularity,  these  included:   • Mobile  access  to  resources   • Mobile  apps   • Mobile  website   • Mobile  catalogue   • Using  mobile  devices  to  support  roving  reference   • QR  codes   • SMS   • Loaning  mobile  devices   • Augmented  reality   • Social  media  The  following  gives  additional  information  of  items  to  notes  from  some  of  these  categories.  Mobile  access  to  resources  Responses  in  this  category  included  libraries  using  existing  mobile  apps  from  suppliers,  using  mobile  discovery  services,  and  providing  guidance  on  accessing  content:   Ensuring  all  online  services  are  mobile-­‐friendly   Running  projects  to  investigate  supplier  apps  for  lib  resources   Investigation  &  review  of  resources  with  mobile  apps  for  support  of  student  population.   Developing  a  web  page  which  details  mobile  versions  of  information  resources.   Were  just  finishing  a  project  to  address  the  challenges  involved  in  providing  mobile  access   to  eresources  through  a  discovery  tool   I  have  asked  our  systems  team  to  promote  the  implementation  of  a  mobile  version  of  our   discovery  service  for  the  coming  academic  year  Mobile  apps  
  • 11. The  responses  in  this  category  were  largely  working  on  mobile  apps  specifically  for  the  library,  though  some  were  wider  institutional  mobile  apps.    Not  all  specified  whether  or  not  these  were  proprietary  apps  or  developed  in  house,  though  there  were  examples  of  both:   Funded  Ombiel  CampusM  implementation  project,  led  by  Library  &  Information  Services.   We  are  developing  an  app  to  store  library  card  on  mobile  device  as  a  scannable  barcode.     There  are  universal  apps  for  this,  but  were  developing  a  proprietary  one  since  the   universals  arent  ubiquitous.  Most  responses  did  not  specify  the  purpose  of  the  app,  though  one  did:   Our  library  is  in  the  process  of  seeking  a  grant  to  fund  a  collective  effort  with  another   university  to  create  a  mobile  tour  of  architecture  landmarks  in  our  state.  Photos  from   archives  will  be  used  in  a  geolocation  app.  Mobile  website  Many  just  said  they  were  working  on  a  mobile  website,  whilst  two  respondents  mentioned  the  use  of  responsive  web  design:   Rebuilding  our  websites  using  responsive  design   Currently  implementing  a  new  website  using  the  Drupals  Omega  theme  that  uses   responsive  design  principles  and  CSS3  media  queries.  Using  mobile  devices  to  support  roving  reference  Almost  all  respondents  to  this  (all  but  two  who  didn’t  specify)  specifically  mentioned  using  iPads.  Some  mentioned  reference  enquiries  in  particular,  whilst  others  were  more  general  (i.e.  to  support  teaching  also):   Just  purchased  iPads  to  support  roving  help   Public  services  staff  are  being  given  iPads  to  use  in  teaching  and  reference  work.   Information  Specialists  are  about  to  get  iPads  for:  teaching,  enquiry  answering  QR  codes  Most  who  mentioned  QR  codes  planned  to  use  them  within  the  physical  library  collection  to  link  to  electronic  resources:   We  place  QR  codes  on  physical  books  linking  to  the  E-­‐book  where  we  have  them.   Using  QR  codes  to  promote  e-­‐book  collection  One  was  planning  to  use  them  to  help  users  navigate  the  library:   In  development  of  QR  code  for  way  finding  in  the  library  SMS  
  • 12. Initiatives  involving  SMS  included  text  marketing  software,  SMS  reference,  general  communication.  Two  commercial  options  were  mentioned;  Trumpia  (SMS  marketing)  and  ConnectText  (SMS  communication).    Loaning  mobile  devices  Those  who  were  planning  to  start  loan  devices  were  primarily  planning  to  loan  Kindles  preloaded  with  content,  with  one  planning  to  loan  iPads.  Other  Other  current  projects  included  developing  a  mobile  strategy,  planning  Bring  Your  Own  Device  (BYOD)  training,  establishing  a  ‘petting  zoo’  to  test  mobile  devices,  and  setting  up  working  groups  to  investigate  options  for  mobile  technologies.  6. Future  m-­‐library  initiatives  Respondents  were  asked  to  indicate  whether  their  library/  information  service  was  considering  using  mobile  technologies  to  support  any  aspect  of  their  service  or  resource  provision  in  the  future.  132  responses  were  provided.  Figure  5  and  Table  5.   18%   No   Yes  (please  give  brief  details)   82%     Figure  5  Is  your  library/information  service  considering  using  mobile  technologies  to  support  any  aspect  of   the  service  or  resource  provision  in  future?    Response   %   n    Yes   81.8   108  
  • 13. No   18.2   24  Total     132   Table  5  Future  m-­‐Library  Initiatives  81.8%  of  the  respondents  were  considering  using  mobile  technologies  in  future,  though  many  were  not  yet  sure  which  they  would  be  considering.  The  open  text  responses  were  categorised,  and  included  (in  order  of  popularity):   • Roving  support  (using  tablets  for  reference  enquiries,  demonstrations  and  supporting   teaching)   • Mobile  catalogue   • Mobile  app   • Mobile  website   • Mobile  access  to  resources   • SMS   • Loaning  mobile  devices   • Social  media   • QR  codes   • Mobile  web  chat/enquiry  service   • Augmented  reality   • Strategy  development   • NFC/RFID   • Supporting  Bring  Your  Own  Device  (BYOD)   • Bibliographic  management  The  following  gives  additional  information  of  items  to  notes  from  some  of  these  categories.  Many  just  listed  the  topic  (e.g.  mobile  catalogue)  without  additional  context.  Roving  support  (using  tablets  for  reference  enquiries,  demonstrations  and  supporting  teaching)  Most  respondents  again  discussed  use  of  tablets  such  as  iPads  for  supporting  roving  within  libraries.  Some  also  mentioned  how  they  could  be  used  to  provide  support  on  using  apps,  and  used  by  staff  without  a  desktop  computer:   using  mobile  devices  to  answer  queries  -­‐  roving,    providing  support  on  using  apps  for   databases   May  extend  use  of  iPads  for  roving  to  use  by  overnight  staff  (who  dont  currently  have  a   PC)  Mobile  app  Ideas  for  future  apps  included  current  awareness  and  access  to  bibliographic  databases,  as  well  as  common  functionality  such  as  reserving  and  renewing  library  items  and  accessing  the  catalogue.  Mobile  website  
  • 14. Though  most  did  not  give  details,  two  mentioned  that  they  hoped  to  use  responsive  web  design  to  ensure  the  website  can  be  viewed  on  a  variety  of  different  screen  sizes:   Were  looking  at  redeveloping  our  library  website  presence  using  responsive  web  design   principles.   We  are  redeveloping  our  website,  which  will  scale  to  the  device  its  viewed  on  Mobile  access  to  resources  A  number  of  respondents  are  hoping  to  implement  a  mobile  discovery  service  to  enable  users  to  search  for  resources  via  mobile  devices,  as  well  as  providing  access  to  a  wider  variety  of  resources  on  mobiles:   ensure  all  services  are  mobile  compliant   Am  very  interested  in  Adobe  Content  Server  for  serving  ebooks  flexibly  to  mobile  readers   Discovery  service.  Downloadable  ebooks.   might  buy  mobile  version  of  databases  separately  licensed  from  their  web  versions  if   budget  permits   considering  the  use  of  mobile  applications  for  access  to  library  materials  SMS  Most  of  the  responses  mentioning  SMS  were  focused  on  SMS  alerts  or  notifications,  though  some  also  hoped  to  investigate  an  SMS  reference  service.  Loaning  mobile  devices  These  responses  included  libraries  who  were  considering  loaning  mobile  devices  such  as  tablets  to  specific  types  of  users:   We  are  considering  adding  tablet  computers  to  the  collection  that  would  circulate  to   students  with  disabilities.   We  are  looking  at  the  best  model  for  lending  out  tablets  to  support  students  on  our   campus,  as  well  as  healthcare  professionals  in  our  associated  Trust.  Mobile  web  chat/enquiry  service  This  included  both  adding  mobile  functionality  to  existing  enquiry  services,  and  developing  new  mobile  enquiry  services:   We  are  planning  to  provide  mobile  access  to  our  web  chat  service.   development  of  mobile  enquiry  service  Augmented  reality  One  response  gave  further  information  about  plans  to  investigate  using  augmented  reality  to  aid  library  orientation,  especially  during  inductions.  
  • 15. 7. Barriers  to  utilising  mobile  technologies  Respondents  were  asked  to  indicate  whether  they  faced  any  barriers  or  challenges  to  utilising  mobile  technologies  in  their  library/information  service.  131  responses  were  provided.  A  pre-­‐determined  list  of  categories  was  provided  as  well  as  the  option  to  provide  any  additional  reasons.  Respondents  were  able  to  give  more  than  one  reason.  Table  6  and  Figure  6  illustrate  the  responses.   90%   79%   80%   70%   60%   47%   50%   40%   34%   31%   24%   30%   16%   15%   15%   20%   12%   10%   0%   Not  sure  if  users  would  want  to   Lack  of  technical  support   Licensing  concerns   Lack  of  skills  needed   Resource  constraints     Not  a  library/information   Not  an  organisation  priority   Infrastructure/policy   Dont  know  enough  about  how   to  utilise  mobile  technologies   use  mobile  technologies   constraints   service  priority     Figure  6  Barriers  to  utilising  mobile  technologies    Barriers   %   n    Resource  constraints   78.6   103  Infrastructure/policy  constraints   47.3   62  Lack  of  technical  support   33.6   44  Lack  of  skills  needed   31.3   41  Not  an  organisation  priority   24.4   32  Don’t  know  enough  about  how   16.0   21  to  utilise  mobile  technologies  Not  sure  if  users  would  want  to   14.5   19  use  mobile  
  • 16. Not  a  library/information  service   14.5   19  priority  Licensing  concerns   11.5   15  Other   18.3   24  Total     131   Table  6  Barriers  to  utilising  mobile  technologies  Many  of  the  open  responses  provided  additional  explanation  of  the  barriers  they  had  selected  (e.g.  lack  of  time,  staff  and  budget  under  resource  constraints;  poor  mobile  or  wifi  signal  under  infrastructure/policy  constraints).  Additional  barriers  not  already  covered  include:   • Traditional  mindset  of  library  staff/management  resulting  in  risk  averse  culture  and  a   steep  learning  curve  if  staff  were  to  get  involved     • Vendors  investing  in  separate  apps  rather  than  supporting  access  via  library  websites   • Lack  of  third  party  support  for  mobile  resources  (e.g.  catalogue,  e-­‐journals  and   databases)  Primary  barrier  to  adopting  m-­‐library  initiatives  Respondents  were  asked  to  indicate  which  was  the  primary  barrier  that  prevented  them  from  adopting  m-­‐library  initiatives  in  their  library.  134  responses  were  provided.  Figure  7  and  Table  7  illustrate  the  responses.   Dont  know  enough  about  how  to  utilise   mobile  technologies   Lack  of  technical  support   2%   Not  sure  if  users  would  want  to  use   1%   mobile  technologies   8%   2%   Licensing  concerns   8%   Not  an  organisation  priority   17%   7%   Not  a  library/information  service   4%   priority   Lack  of  skills  needed   5%   Resource  constraints  (i.e.  cost/capacity/ time)   Infrastructure/policy  constraints  (i.e.   46%   web  framework,  institutional  structure)   Other  (please  specify)     Figure  7  Primary  barrier  to  utilising  mobile  technologies    
  • 17. Barriers   %   n    Resource  constraints   45.5   61  Infrastructure/policy  Constraints   17.2   23  Lack  of  technical  support   8.2   11  Not  an  organisation  priority   6.7   9  Not  a  library/information  service   4.5   6  Priority  Don’t  know  enough  about  how   2.2   3  to  utilise  mobile  technologies  Licensing  concerns   2.2   3  Lack  of  skills  needed   4.5   3  Not  sure  if  users  would  want  to   0.7   1  use  mobile  Other   8.2   11  Total     134   Table  7  Barriers  in  Adopting  Mobile  Responsive  Technologies  It  is  very  clear  that  resource  constraints  and  infrastructure  constraints  are  the  two  major  barriers.  Areas  under  ‘other’  were  similar  to  the  previous  question  (i.e.  staff  mind-­‐set,  vendor  priorities,  third  party  support).    8. Overcoming  barriers  Respondents  were  asked  to  indicate  how  they  proposed  to  overcome  barriers  that  they  face.  103  responses  were  received.  Some  of  the  responses  referred  to  a  sustained  effort  to  overcome  barriers  (e.g.  broken  record  technique!).  Other  practical  approaches  to  overcoming  barriers  included  the  following  areas.  Quick  wins/low  cost  solutions  A  number  of  responses  felt  there  were  quick  wins  and  low  cost  solutions  that  would  enable  them  to  implement  mobile  technologies  in  some  way  without  a  large  investment  in  terms  of  time  or  money:   initially  go  for  quick  wins,  using  apps/services  that  are  free  or  low  cost,  whilst  beginning  to   embed  mobile  considerations  into  university  processes  and  projects   Explore  Freeopen-­‐source  options;  do  it  and  show  management  positive  results  later.  
  • 18. by  introducing  small  projects  to  show  that  these  barriers  can  be  overcome   Find  one  very  useful  function  of  mobile  technology  that  we  can  implement  as  a  foot  in  the   door   We  are  doing  other  more  cost  effective  projects  such  as  the  QR  code  creation  which  is   effectively  just  time  rich.   by  proving  to  administration  that  our  trial  of  QR  codes  is  successful  &  we  need  to  develop   more  mobile  apps  Business  case  Many  responses  referred  to  the  importance  of  a  clear  business  case  for  utilising  mobile  technologies,  aligned  with  strategic  aims  such  as  the  student  experience:     We  hope  that  clearly  demonstrating  the  potential  benefits  for  the  student  experience  may   result  in  funding  being  made  available  for  mobile  app  development.  A  number  commented  on  the  need  for  examining  mobile  initiatives  in  the  context  of  other  services  to  prioritise  areas  which  need  additional  resource:   It  will  be  prioritised  along  with  other  objectives  within  library  action  plans  and  when  then   a  project  plan  will  be  written  to  ensure  that  staff  resource  is  made  available.   By  making  the  case  for  this  development  as  a  priority     Making  it  a  priority  over  some  traditional  services  that  are  no  longer  meeting  users  needs.  Others  commented  that  the  level  of  demand  from  users  would  be  the  main  factor  that  would  support  a  business  case  for  investing  resources  into  mobile  initiatives:   If  the  users  start  demanding  more  of  this,  the  resourcing  is  diverted  from  other  things   Hoping  users  will  start  complaining!  Only  way  to  raise  up  agenda.  Staff  changes  (additional  staffing  or  re-­‐assign  staff  duties)  Some  responses  referred  to  additional  staffing  with  skills  to  drive  forward  mobile  initiatives:   We  recently  created  a  new  position  for  a  Digital  Branch  Manager,  which  helps  shape  our   vision  for  all  digital  services,  mobile  included,  and  added  1  FTE  to  our  IT  staff.   A  new  E-­‐systems  manager  who  is  familiar  with  mobile  technology  use  in  libraries  was   recently  appointed.  The  goal  is  that  eventually  hell  be  able  to  allocate  the  time  to  focus  on   developing  this  exciting  area  for  the  library.   We  hope  to  shortly  have  a  new  programmer  on  staff  and  have  the  resources  to  move   forward.  Others  suggested  re-­‐assigning  or  prioritising  staff  duties  and  adjusting  time  spent  on  other  activities  to  free  up  time  for  developing  new  ways  of  working:  
  • 19. Reduce  time  spent  on  other  tasks  -­‐  redeploy  staff.   Re-­‐assign  staff  duties   Re-­‐prioritizing  staff  time   Moving  away  from  traditional  desk  reference,  freeing  up  librarians  to  work  in  other  ways,   with  mobile  tech.  Other  suggestions  included  ensuring  new  recruits  have  skills  in  the  area  (e.g.  by  including  it  in  the  job  specification),  making  it  a  small  part  of  many  staff  member’s  roles  with  one  person  co-­‐ordinating,  and  tying  it  into  marketing  and  communication  initatives.  Partnerships  (internal  and  external)  A  number  of  people  were  hoping  to  overcome  barriers  by  partnering  up  with  internal  or  external  partners.  Many  mentioned  utilising  expertise  from  IT  departments:   Utilising  expertise  from  other  departments  (e.g.  IT  department)  and  other  institutions   Further  negotiation  with  our  IT  department   Work  with  our  Corporate  IT  colleagues  to  get  them  to  better  understand  our  requirements   initiate  a  discussion  with  IT  regarding  the  barriers  to  library  development.  Others  hoped  to  work  in  partnership  with  external  partners  to  assist  both  with  funding  and  also  to  help  them  understand  the  barriers  to  implementation:   We  are  actively  seeking  partnerships  with  other  businesses  in  the  form  of  affiliate   partnerships,  donations,  and  advertising  revenue.   Our  Content  and  Licencing  team  are  in  conversation  with  publishers  to  try  to  help  them   realise  the  benefits  of  mobile  delivery  and  negotiate  appropriate  licence  agreements.  Staff  training  Some  people  felt  the  best  way  to  overcome  barriers  was  to  support  staff  training,  either  at  a  local  level  or  by  sending  one  person  to  training  courses  and  encouraging  them  to  report  back  to  share  the  learning.    One  person  also  suggested  the  library  staff  should  act  as  innovators  in  this  area  by  receiving  training  and  then  feeding  this  learning  into  the  wider  institution:   training  library  staff  to  be  able  to  implement  new  technologies,  then  report  back  to  college   to  show  how  can  be  done  Good  practice  With  the  number  of  other  libraries  who  have  been  utilising  mobile  technologies,  some  felt  the  best  way  to  overcome  barriers  was  to  take  good  practice  from  these  to  apply  to  their  own  context:  
  • 20. by  learning  from  those  who  know   Keep  trying  to  acquire  good  practice  from  others  to  save  on  development  costs   For  augmented  reality  we  hope  the  JISC-­‐funded  project  will  deliver  enough  technical   information  for  us  to  create  our  own  content.  Outsourcing  A  small  number  felt  outsourcing  would  be  a  more  desirable  option  to  overcome  barriers:   Outsource  as  much  as  possible   We  would  look  to  outsource  to  private  company  9. Information  to  assist  decision  making  Respondents  were  asked  to  indicate  whether  there  was  any  further  information  that  would  be  of  assistance  in  making  decisions  regarding  utilising  mobile  technologies.  35  responses  were  received.  Suggestions  included  the  following  sources  of  information:   • Forum  to  exchange  experiences,  difficulties  and  solutions     • Evidence  base  on  mobile  technologies  in  libraries  (e.g.  case  studies,  best  practice,   cost/benefit  analysis,  evidence  of  value,  skills  needed,  examples  of  innovation)   • Statistics  on  usage  of  mobile  technologies   • Names  and  contacts  details  for  external  trainers  and  experts  in  the  field   • Mobile  technology  licenses   • Tools  (or  applications)  to  assist  in  coding/development  of  new  service  technologies   • Training  opportunities  for  librarians   • Directory  of  recommended  external  suppliers  who  are  familiar  with  the  use  of  mobile   technology  in  libraries   • Links  to  companies  developing  use  of  mobile  technologies   • Guidance  on  recommended  apps  One  response  felt  there  was  more  needed  in  terms  of  infrastructure:   I  would  like  to  see  orgs  like  this  JISC  implementing  changes  in  their  services  to  support   mobile,  rather  than  information  10.Confidence  in  implementing  mobile  technologies    Respondents  were  asked  to  indicate  on  a  scale  ranging  from  not  at  all  confident  to  very  confident.  135  responses  were  provided.  Figure  8  and  Table  8  illustrate  the  responses.    
  • 21. Not  at  all  conkident   Conkidence  in  implementing   Not  conkident   mobile  technologies   Conkident   Very  conkident   0%   20%   40%   60%   80%   100%    Figure  8:  Bar  chart  to  show  level  of  confidence  in  implementing  mobile  technologies  Barriers   %   n    Not  at  all  confident   2.2   3  Not  confident   25.9   35  Confident   60.0   81  Very  confident   11.9   16  Total     135  Table  8  Confidence  in  implementing  mobile  technologies  The  comments  explain  the  reasons  behind  their  level  of  confidence  (comments  were  optional,  not  all  respondents  left  comments).  Not  at  all  confident  Two  of  the  three  who  were  not  at  all  confident  answered  this  way  due  to  infrastructure  constraints.  The  other  had  no  experience  setting  up  mobile  technologies,  though  was  a  user  themselves.  Not  confident  25.9%  of  respondents  did  not  feel  confident  that  their  library  could  utilise  mobile  technologies.  Reasons  for  those  who  were  not  confident  were  commonly  at  institutions  just  starting  to  experiment  with  mobile  technologies  or  who  had  perhaps  focused  on  one  specific  area  and  would  now  like  to  expand  the  offering:   Weve  done  the  basics  (mobile  site  and  just  started  with  a  mobile  catalog-­‐  outsourced  to   LibraryThing)  but  dont  have  the  time,  staff,  expertise  to  do  much  more  than  that.   At  early  stage  but  developing  knowledge  It  also  included  some  individuals  who  feel  confident  in  their  own  abilities  using  mobile  technologies,  but  who  have  colleagues  who  are  not  confident,  and  vice  versa:  
  • 22. I  dont  have  a  smart  phone,  few  staff  do,  and  those  that  do  are  not  skilled  at  sharing  their   knowledge  and  skills   I  am  not  an  expert  in  mobile  technologies,  however,  we  have  access  to  staff  resource  with   the  appropriate  skills.   Need  lib  staff  to  be  comfortable  using  mobile  devices  and  App   I  can  use  an  ipad  and  my  phone  but  am  not  tech-­‐savvy  per  se  and  my  colleagues  are  even   less  so.  There  were  also  those  who  do  not  have  the  infrastructure  or  senior  management  buy-­‐in  to  support  mobile  technologies:   Lack  of  support  at  senior  manager  level  as  well  as  IT  refusing  to  support  mobile   technologies   We  have  no  support  from  university  administration   My  library  is  reluctant  to  do  anything  unless  success  is  guaranteed.    This  means  it  is   reluctant  to  invest  in  developing  technical  skills  among  its  people,  to  allow  time  to  work  on   mobile  projects,  to  market  a  project,  and  to  give  it  a  chance.    Many  ideas  have  failed  due  to   lack  of  library  administrative  support.   Not  a  library  priority....  Confident  The  majority  of  respondents  (60%)  felt  confident  that  their  library  could  utilise  mobile  technologies.  Comments  from  this  group  of  respondents  demonstrated  the  libraries  have  support  from  senior  management,  have  the  skills  and  knowledge  needed,  and  show  enthusiasm  for  planned  initiatives.  However,  many  comment  that  it  will  take  time  or  they  still  need  to  address  one  or  two  barriers  before  getting  to  implementation:     We  know  how  it  works,  we  just  need  to  do  it.   We  have  the  know  how  but  also  many  competing  demands  on  the  time  of  our  technical   team   I  am  confident  our  University  web  team  can  deliver  this  when  they  have  the  capacity.   We  can  do  it,  it  will  just  take  time.   We  have  the  knowledge  &  skills  available,  its  just  a  case  of  implementation  when  we  have   time.   I  am  sure  we  can  do  it,  it  is  just  we  need  to  think  clearly  who  it  is  for,  how  it  will  help  and   then  how  much  we  can  put  in  via  time  and  expense   We  are  confident  in  our  ability  to  offer  these  services  once  we  have  the  technology  and  time   to  do  so,  but  were  not  so  confident  that  we  will  be  able  to  find  the  time  to  implement  these   initiatives  
  • 23. Very  confident  11.9%  of  respondents  felt  very  confident  that  their  library  would  be  able  to  utilise  mobile  technologies.  These  respondents  were  largely  those  that  have  worked  on  mobile  initiatives  already,  and  plan  to  continue  doing  so.  The  responses  from  this  category  demonstrate  that  they  have  skills  and  knowledge  necessary,  as  well  as  demand  from  users  and  support  from  senior  management:   We  have  been  offering  mobile  web  services  since  2007  so  we  have  staff  with  the  necessary   skills  and  knowledge.   flexible  strategy  in  place  with  full  senior  management  backing  and  growing  expertise   among  Library  staff   Im  very  confident  that  if  it  were  implemented  it  would  be  well  used,  we  could  support  it,   and  it  would  provide  useful  benefits  to  students   I  have  a  clear  understanding  of  the  concepts  involved,  am  a  big  believer  in  the  benefits  of   elearning  and  have  the  backing  of  the  management  team  to  promote  facilitation  of  mobile   learning.  11.Supporting  current/future  m-­‐library  initiatives  Respondents  were  asked  to  indicate  from  a  pre-­‐determined  list  the  methods  that  they  would  use  to  support  current  and  future  m-­‐library  initiatives  in  their  library/information  service.  135  responses  were  provided.  Table  9  illustrates  the  responses  in  order  of  frequency.  Methods   %   n    Keeping  up-­‐to-­‐date  with  mobile   85.2   115  technology  Case  studies   78.5   106  Attending  and  following  events   74.1   100  Reading/following  existing   66.7   90  research  Sharing  and  reading  information   60.0   81  via  social  media  Library/librarian  blogs   54.1   73  Social  media  discussions   53.3   72  How-­‐to  guides   53.3   72  Mailing  lists   51.9   70  
  • 24. Conducting  own  research   45.2   61  Project  blogs   40.7   55  Other   5.9   8   Table  9  Methods  to  Support  Current/Future  Initiatives    The  ‘other’  responses  included  collaborative  projects  (with  other  organisations  or  others  within  the  organisation  who  may  be  more  knowledgeable),  discussion  with/learning  from  colleagues,  in  house  training/awareness  sessions,  creating  your  own  m-­‐library  initiative,  video  demonstrations,  and  support  from  suppliers.  Respondents  were  asked  to  provide  any  further  comments  about  the  support  they  may  need  to  help  with  m-­‐library  initiatives.  16  responses  were  given.  Some  of  these  simply  commented  that  any  help  is  useful,  whilst  others  expanded  on  topics  above:   Practical  demos  and  sessions  are  always  the  most  fulfilling  so  you  can  see  the  technology  in   action.  This  is  what  people  remember.   Good  case  studies  in  relevant  types  of  libraries  (in  our  case  engineering  and  industrial)   might  help.  Some  commented  that  support  was  most  needed  to  help  with  infrastructure/technical  issues:   Hospital  libraries  in  particular  might  require  additional  support  in  relation  to  negotiating   with  unsupportive  IT  departments   From  our  experience,  infrastructure  issues  present  the  biggest  barrier  to  innovation   Locking  in  to  single  technology  platforms  is  the  most  problematic  aspect.  Libraries  must   encourage  publishers  to  provide  resources  that  are  platform  agnostic  (most  usually  mobile   web  based)  Other  areas  in  need  of  support  were  around  providing  evidence  of  the  value  of  mobile  initiatives  and  the  value  of  having  a  developer  within  the  library:   Proof  of  ROI  that  we  could  show  to  our  administration.   Libraries  need  developers  to  take  full  advantage  of  APIs  etc.  that  can  be  used  to  make   services  mobile-­‐friendly/enhance  existing  areas/create  new  webpages/apps  etc.  Not   enough  libraries  have  their  own  developer;  how  can  we  convince  directors  of  their  value   for  money?    One  person  suggested  a  consortium:   A  consortium  for  higher  Ed  in  mobile  tech  One  thanked  the  project  for  its  support  and  hoped  the  community  would  continue:  
  • 25. Please  keep  up  the  good  work,  and  I  hope  the  community  will  continue  after  the  JISC   funding  has  ended  in  September  2012.  12.Usefulness  of  project  updates  As  part  of  our  project  evaluation,  respondents  were  asked  to  indicate  the  usefulness  of  the  information  shared  via  the  project  blog  (http://www.m-­‐libraries.info)  and  the  community  website,  on  a  rating  from  not  at  all  useful  to  very  useful.  130  responses  were  provided.  Table  10  illustrates  the  responses.   Not  at  all  useful   Not  useful   Usefulness  of  project  updates   Useful   Very  useful   Not  used   0%   20%   40%   60%   80%   100%    Figure  9  Usefulness  of  project  updates  Updates   %   n    Not  at  all  useful   1.5   2  Not  useful   2.3   3  Useful   34.6   45  Very  useful   13.1   17  Not  used   48.5   63  Total     130  Table  10  Usefulness  of  Updates  Many  of  the  survey  respondents  (48.5%)  were  previously  unaware  of  the  resources  from  the  project,  and  pleasingly  many  of  these  said  they  would  now  take  a  look  and  imagine  they  will  use  the  resource  in  future.  3.8%  of  respondents  said  the  updates  were  not  at  all  useful  or  not  useful.  Three  of  these  chose  to  leave  comments;  one  of  whom  didn’t  know  about  the  resources  and  one  of  whom  couldn’t  get  access  due  to  the  host  organisation  blocking  access  to  all  social  media  including  blogs.  The  other  responder  felt  there  wasn’t  anything  of  use  from  the  blog  to  follow  up.    47.7%  of  survey  respondents  felt  the  project  resources  were  useful  or  very  useful.    
  • 26. The  case  studies  have  helped  to  either  identify  a  problem  and  potential  work  arounds   which  we  would  have  otherwise  spent  a  long  time  trying  to  resolve   Its  been  a  great  source  of  examples  of  good  practice  from  other  institutions,  and  has  given   us  some  good  ideas!   It  is  worth  knowing  how  all  of  these  libraries  have  gone  about  setting  up  the  projects  so   that  we  can  learn  from  these  and  have  evidence  that  were  not  trying  to  break  the  mould.   always  useful  to  be  able  to  show  examples  and  case  studies  to  senior  management.   the  blog  and  website  are  very  useful,  not  only  to  keep  us  up-­‐to-­‐date  but  to  point  colleagues   at  when  they  ask  what  other  institutions  are  doing.   Theres  quite  a  lot  of  useful  aggregation  of  information  and  theres  been  some  good   interaction  arising  from  the  project  Some  commented  that  they  are  not  be  able  to  utilise  the  information  yet,  but  hope  to  do  so  in  future:   Its  good  to  see  what  others  are  doing  and  to  know  where  to  refer  to  when  we  are  to   progress  more  quickly   I  store  them;  Since  I  cannot  actually  apply  them,  I  have  not  read  most  of  them  Others  felt  they  would  have  been  more  useful  if  there  were  examples  from  institutions  similar  to  their  own:   case  studies  and  best  practices  are  inspirations  for  our  own  project,  but  do  not  always   apply  to  our  case  (mostly  about  academic  or  public  libraries;  mostly  on  Internet)   Interesting  although  usually  University  based  so  much  larger  organisations  13.Summary  Current  m-­‐library  initiatives  and  projects  The  majority  of  the  respondents’  libraries  either  already  have  m-­‐library  initiatives  (92%),  or  are  currently  working  on  m-­‐library  projects  or  services  (61%).  QR  codes,  mobile  catalogue,  mobile  website,  guides  to  support  the  use  of  mobile  services/apps,  and  a  mobile  app  for  the  institution  were  each  being  used  (or  planned)  by  a  third  of  respondents  or  more.    The  full  list  of  uses  at  present  included  (in  order  of  frequency):   • QR  codes   • Mobile  catalogue   • Mobile  website   • Guides  to  support  the  use  of  mobile  services/apps   • Using  mobile  devices  to  support  roving  reference   • Loaning  mobile  devices   • Mobile  app  for  the  library  
  • 27. • SMS  communication  about  borrower  record   • Social  media  (Twitter,  Facebook,  Foursquare)   • Location  of  free  PCs  in  library   • Status  of  printers  in  library   • Mobile  discovery  tool   • SMS  reference  service   • Access  to  mobile  content  (e.g.  ebooks,  audiobooks,  music)   • Mobile  e-­‐learning  website  or  VLE  (Virtual  Learning  Environment)   • Mobile  chat  (enquiry  service)   • Newswire  from  news  agencies   • Teaching/instruction  on  mobile  devices   • SMS  to  send  bibliographic  data  from  website  to  phone   • Mobile  LibGuides  Further  information  in  the  comments  some  of  the  projects  in  this  area  and  ways  the  technologies  are  being  implemented  at  a  local  level  to  fit  the  organisational  context.    Future  m-­‐library  initiatives  82%  of  respondents  plan  to  implement  additional  m-­‐library  initiatives  in  future,  though  many  did  not  have  concrete  plans  in  place  and  would  follow  developments  to  see  which  would  be  most  relevant  for  their  library.    For  those  who  did  have  plans,  many  included  initiatives  already  mentioned  in  the  survey,  with  additional  details  of  how  they  planned  to  implement  them.  This  demonstrates  the  different  stages  libraries  are  at  –  some  have  implemented  a  number  of  different  services  whilst  others  are  still  at  very  early  stages  of  implementation  or  experimentation.    Additional  ideas  for  future  initiatives  included  a  mobile  enquiry  service,  augmented  reality,  NFC/RFID,  and  supporting  bring  your  own  device  (BYOD).      Barriers  to  utilising  mobile  technologies  Barriers  to  development  of  m-­‐library  initiatives  were  experienced  by  a  large  proportion  of  respondents  (95%  gave  at  least  one  barrier).  The  following  barriers  were  each  mentioned  by  respondents  (listed  in  order  of  frequency):   • Resource  constraints  (i.e.  cost,  capacity,  time)   • Infrastructure/policy  constraints  (i.e.  web  framework,  institutional  structure)   • Lack  of  technical  support   • Lack  of  skills  needed   • Not  an  organisation  priority   • Don’t  know  enough  about  how  to  utilise  mobile  technologies   • Not  sure  if  users  would  want  to  use  mobile   • Not  a  library/information  service  priority   • Licensing  concerns   • Traditional  mindset  of  library  staff/management  
  • 28. • Vendors  investing  in  separate  mobile  apps   • Lack  of  third  party  support  for  mobile  resources  When  asked  to  indicate  the  primary  barrier,  the  main  issues  were  resource  constraints  (46%)  and  infrastructure/policy  constraints  (17%).    A  number  of  suggestions  were  made  with  regards  to  overcoming  barriers,  including  quick  wins/low  costs  solutions,  a  strong  business  case,  staffing  changes  (additional  staffing  or  re-­‐assign  staff  duties),  internal  or  external  partnerships,  staff  training,  learning  from  good  practice,  and  outsourcing.  Information  to  assist  decision  making  Some  respondents  gave  suggestions  of  further  information  that  would  be  of  assistance  in  making  decision  regarding  utilising  mobile  technologies.  These  included  (amongst  others)  a  forum  to  exchange  experiences,  difficulties  and  solutions,  an  evidence  base  on  mobile  technologies  in  libraries,  statistics  on  usage  of  mobile  technologies,  and  details  of  external  trainers  and  experts  in  the  field.    Confidence  in  implementing  mobile  technologies  Though  there  are  still  some  who  do  not  feel  at  all  confident  implementing  mobile  technologies  at  their  library,  72%  felt  confident  or  very  confident.  Factors  affecting  confidence  were  common  across  responses  (i.e.  those  that  felt  confident  had  these  in  place,  those  who  didn’t  feel  confident  did  not).  These  factors  included  infrastructure,  knowledge  and  skills,  support  from  management,  and  the  resources  (primarily  time  and  money)  to  work  on  development.    Supporting  current/future  m-­‐library  initiatives  All  respondents  planned  to  inform  developments  in  a  number  of  different  ways.  The  following  lists  the  different  avenues  in  order  of  frequency:   • Keeping  up-­‐to-­‐date  with  mobile  technology   • Case  studies   • Attending  and  following  events   • Reading/following  existing  research   • Sharing  and  reading  information  via  social  media   • Library/librarian  blogs   • Social  media  discussions   • How-­‐to  guides   • Mailing  lists   • Conducting  own  research   • Project  blogs   • Collaborative  projects   • Learning  from  colleagues   • In-­‐house  training/awareness  sessions   • Creating  own  m-­‐library  initiative   • Video  demonstrations   • Support  from  suppliers.  
  • 29. The  list  shows  the  variety  of  different  sources  available  and  the  importance  of  sharing  resources  for  others  to  find.  We  hope  the  resources  developed  through  the  m-­‐library  support  project  will  help  facilitate  this.  Usefulness  of  project  updates  A  relatively  high  proportion  of  survey  respondents  (48.5%)  were  unaware  of  the  resources  made  available  from  the  JISC-­‐funded  mobile  library  community  support  project.  Of  those  who  have  used  them,  92.5%  found  the  resources  useful  or  very  useful.  Areas  which  were  mentioned  as  particularly  useful  included  case  studies  and  examples  of  best  practice,  as  well  as  general  updates.  Some  haven’t  yet  been  in  a  position  to  use  the  resources,  but  plan  to  do  so  in  future.    These  findings  highlight  the  need  for  additional  promotion  to  ensure  those  who  may  be  interested  in  mobile  technologies  in  libraries  are  aware  of  the  resources  from  the  project.