Evolving Library Access Needs
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
2 likes•4,984 views
The document discusses the evolving needs of library access and how this is redefining the role of libraries. It explores opportunities and challenges related to off-site access through a survey of librarians' experiences. Key findings include that demand for remote access is growing but also creating user experience challenges as systems struggle to seamlessly support access from varied locations. The document considers how seamless access could mean single sign-on access to resources from any location without barriers.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (20)
Similar to Evolving Library Access Needs
Similar to Evolving Library Access Needs (20)
More from Jisc
More from Jisc (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Evolving Library Access Needs
- 1. How evolving access needs are redefining the library role: • What are the challenges? • What are the opportunities? • What is seamless user access? Jon Bentley Head of Product Marketing OpenAthens Jisc #Digifest15
- 2. The next 45 minutes • Who am I? • OpenAthens • Our survey • Our survey results • Discussion
- 3. Who am I?
- 4. Jon Bentley, Head of Product Marketing • Joined OpenAthens in January 2015 • 15 years in commercial publishing • The “voice of the customer”
- 6. OpenAthens
- 7. Our purpose • We help organisations connect their communities with the content and resources they need to develop their ideas and make the best possible decisions
- 8. Our vision: a single platform Market Medical Corporate Academic Government Product OpenAthens Options Managed Directory Local Authentication Service Provider
- 9. Our survey Librarians’ experiences and perceptions of identity and access management
- 10. Whose views?
- 11. Whose views?
- 12. Whose views?
- 14. Access management is critical
- 15. Ownership is clear, decisions are given priority
- 16. Behind the curve, systems struggle to support needs
- 17. Maintenance struggles, insufficient IT support
- 18. Demand for off-site access is growing
- 19. Why are people off-site? “Research at my institution is collaborative with partners in many countries and researchers carry out a lot of travel.” Julia Martin, Head of Information Services, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine
- 20. Opportunities driven by off-site access
- 21. Touchpoints “Patrons are coming to me more these days for help in learning how to do this [digital / off-network access]. It gives me a new into the kinds of information they use, and how they use it.” Keydi Boss O’Hagan, Librarian, Holy Name Medical Center (teleinterview) “[Off-network access] makes it difficult to be engaged with users - less contact time may mean we are out of touch with what they want.” Ellie Hunt, Information Advisor, Kingston University
- 22. Wider implications and opportunities “Increased demand for remote users has caused libraries to rethink how they present and interact with customers which has also had knock on benefits for improving the customer experience for onsite customers, e.g. a customer may be onsite but no longer needs to leave his office.” Anne Knight, Head of Content, Digital and Client Services, Cranfield University “Redefine the library mission and purpose away from physical storage to supporting learning and research in different ways.” Valerie Stevenson, Head of Academic Services, Library Services, Liverpool John Moores University “Opportunity to rethink what we use the physical library building for (study space etc).” Tom Hyland, Library Systems Manager, Teesside University
- 23. Challenges of off-site access
- 24. User experience and troubleshooting “I think we need to work harder to ensure a smooth experience when off campus. The danger is people will not use the bought resources through frustration or lack of knowledge.” Andrew Simpson, Associate University Librarian, University of Portsmouth “The more complex the route to a resource, the more chance there is of technical breakdown and the more difficult it becomes to identify the problem.” Bill Barker, Assistant Librarian, Procurement and Access, LSE “[Off-network access] means we have to deal with more varied user environments and have to spend time working out where it isn't working as well as why.” Alan Fricker, Library Liaison Manager, KCL “If the access management is too complicated the library will be seen as an obstruction, rather than an enabler.” Martin Wolf, Research Support Lead, University of Liverpool Library “Creates further authentication problems which are beyond our jurisdiction to resolve.” Laura Wilkinson, E-Resources Librarian, University of Sunderland
- 25. A source of friction “We often have different ideas on things; [the IT department’s] main focus is keeping things protected, whereas the library’s job is to make everything open to everyone! So there is discord, but we can usually work things out.” Heather Holmes, Information Services Librarian, Summa Health System
- 26. A source of friction
- 27. Solutions to the frictions? “I’d like there to be a lot less training required, because any kind of barrier discourages usage.” Nancy Goodwin, Director, Library & Knowledge Services, Middlesex Hospital
- 28. Talking the talk “There is complexity around the technical language and responsibilities - content people don't understand the technical language - technical people don't understand the content / third party set up and licences.” Claire Grace, Head of Content & Licensing, The Open University
- 29. Talking the talk
- 30. Aspirations
- 31. Aspirations “Seamless means they can get from one place to another without multiple steps. [But] there’s a concern that patrons would think ‘we don’t need the librarian’ if it’s too easy!” Keydi Boss O’Hagan, Librarian, Holy Name Medical Center (teleinterview) “Seamlessness means the user doesn’t see the effort we’re putting into this, and they don’t have to put in much effort. [But] We need to get our branding in there.” Nancy Goodwin, Director, Library & Knowledge Services, Middlesex Hospital
- 32. What is seamless access?
- 34. User experience
- 35. What is seamless user access? “The user not having to login multiple times, and not having to know that they need to click on a particular link and follow a particular path or route which doesn’t make sense even to librarians. The most seamless authentication currently is one that mimics the IP authentication experience. They are logged in, they are not logging in.”
- 36. What is seamless user access? “Integration of systems to ensure users get access to the electronic resources they are entitled to using [hopefully] a single authenticated username and password (single sign-on).”
- 37. What is seamless user access? “Enabling an end-user to access the specific, licensed resource needed at that time, from any location, using a single user name and password, that works for all resources, on-site and off-site.”
- 38. Thank you Full survey report is available at stand 19 Jon Bentley Head of Product Marketing, OpenAthens @openathens openathens@eduserv.org.uk www.eduserv.org.uk/openathens
Editor's Notes
- Sector / type: 52.6% education, 44.8% healthcare, 5.5% government, 3.1% corporate research, 2.1% pharma / biomedical (some organizations can be classified in multiple sectors so respondents were able to select more than one options)
- Region: 68.1% Europe, 27.5% North America, 1.6% Asia, 1.6% Australasia, 0.8% Africa, 0.5% Middle East (no respondents in South America; full respondents country data is available in the raw data but has not been parsed at this point)
- Current access management solutions: Onsite: IP address (80.3%), username and password (51.6%), OpenAthens (38.3%), Shibboleth (22.8%), EZProxy (21.6%), portal (16.3%), remote desktop (13.4%), VPN (13.2%), Infotrieve (2.9%), PingIdentity (1.9%) Offsite: username and password (48.2%), OpenAthens (36.5%), EZProxy (29.3%), Shibboleth (22.5%), VPN (19.9%), remote desktop (18.9%), IP address (14.6%), portal (12.0%), PingIdentity (0.96%), Infotrieve (0.96%) The fact that the proportion of respondents using OpenAthens is relatively high may reflect that 26.6% of responses came via the link circulated in newsletters of OpenAthens and its partners. There was also a relatively high proportion of UK respondents (43.1%) and OpenAthens was the most popular choice for this question among UK respondents, although Shibboleth was also notably more common among UK HE respondents. It is clear from the above percentages that any single organization will use several different access management solutions. For example, the London Business School’s respondent indicated 8 different solutions are in use, half of them just for off-network access, the other half for both onsite and off-network access. Filtering responses to this question on those who had selected OpenAthens for either onsite or off-network access revealed that OpenAthens is rarely used in isolation; of the 197 respondents using OpenAthens, only 20 (10.2%, or 3.7% of the entire respondent group) were not also using one other option.
- 98.3% (n = 424) of respondents agreed that access management is critical to meeting users’ needs and maximizing investment in resources. Those who didn’t agree made good points, for example, that access management is critical to providers but can in some respects be a barrier to meeting end users’ needs; what is critical to them is access provision. This may be considered a semantic point but it reminds us to remain focused on the end rather than the means.
- Ownership of access management is clear (40.8% of respondents agree or strongly agree), and decisions about access management are given the necessary priority within their own team (58.8% agree or strongly agree) – but not so much by other stakeholders (only 26.7% agree or strongly agree) Ownership Where this is unclear, it can be either in the sense of whether access management is a library or IT responsibility, or in the sense of which team in the library should own (e.g. e-resources or acquisitions) “Generalist” IT teams struggle to understand the environment of library services (e.g. much of the language of provider contracts is impenetrable to non-informationists), and precedents don’t always exist (e.g. for sharing access credentials with third parties to aid trouble-shooting) Limited knowledge of senior decision-makers The technical implications of strategic licensing decisions are not always sufficiently understood to shape those decisions – for example, licenses may require granular tracking or management of users in a way that may not be supported by the extant system The skills implications of the changing access management landscape are not always recognized by those in charge of hiring and training new staff
- At the other end of the spectrum, however, respondents feel they are behind the curve in terms of what they offer to users (42.5% agree or strongly agree), and that current systems aren’t sufficiently granular / flexible to support users’ evolving needs (26.3% agree or strongly agree) Those in the US were also more likely to feel that they are behind the curve in terms of what they offer to users, with 11.5% strongly agreeing with this statement, compared to 8.0% of the wider group. Environmental instability One respondent commented specifically that “software vendors are marketing software that is out of date as soon as it appears” and there were hints that this view is held elsewhere, though the tone of others’ comments suggests greater sympathy with and understanding of the challenges that might be causing this scenario The growth of the market and the subsequent provider switching has caused headaches One user commented on the frequency with which problems occur and the lack of explanation from their provider, concluding in frustration that “This is baffling. Websites should be becoming easier to use!” Both EZProxy and Shibboleth received criticism throughout the survey, with one respondent commenting in this question that “Shibboleth = worst tech ever”
- There is insufficient IT support for access management – it’s hard to keep up with maintenance and library teams are having to take on IT responsibilities.
- Almost all (97.6%, n = 545) respondents agreed that demand for off-site access is growing. It was considered that the most likely reason for this is that research is increasingly taking place on mobile devices (84.3% of 459 respondents considered this a likely reason). The fact that research is increasingly taking place at home was also considered by many to be a factor, with 76.5% of 459 respondents choosing this option. Those that did not agree that demand for off-site access is growing came from healthcare (3 respondents) or education (5 respondents), or had not given an indication of the type of organization in which they work (3 respondents). These respondents typically gave one of the following explanations: Demand for off-site access has grown in the past but stabilized now It is not possible to tell whether demand is growing. Only one respondent felt categorically that they saw little demand for off-site access.
- Comments in relation to the growth in demand for off-site access are summarized as follows: Overall change in user demographics: Users are increasingly comfortable with digital formats and their expectations are shaped by 24/7 digital availability Users increasingly work or study in multiple locations, often without a central “on-site” base (distance learning and community working were each mentioned by several respondents); being “on-site” is no longer necessarily the norm, and can be an inconvenience Research and learning are increasingly taking place at home, or “interstitially” – in the gaps between other activities, and often in public places such as trains, cafes etc. Poor on-site technology – examples given included outdated browsers, slow connections and blocks on social media sites Multi-site institutions and cross-site collaborations, such as international research partnerships.
- In terms of opportunities: The majority (86.0%, n = 464) of respondents considered that off-site access can help to increase usage of licensed information resources. A distinctly lower but still significant proportion of respondents considered that offline access can help to increase engagement with users (57.1%). While at least one user felt offline access actually reduces opportunities for engagement with users, this answer option was referring to additional “touch points” created as a result of the additional support and training often required by off-site users, and there were more comments supporting this perspective than contesting it.
- Comments flagged up the way that off-network access can drive wider changes to user experience that will help libraries to redefine their role as not just a physical presence but also a virtual enabler. Better digital and mobile services for all users, whether on- or off-site Increased incentive to negotiate for more flexible licenses, for example, in relation to simultaneous use Rethinking the library’s mission, purpose and use of space.
- 80.3% of respondents (n = 467) indicated that off-site access requires their staff to have more technical skills and knowledge; this was echoed in the comments, with several indicating that off-site access adds technical complexity and creates more work for already busy staff. The limitations of current access management options was identified as a challenge by 71.7% of respondents (75.0% in pharma / biomedical organizations, where this was the most popular choice); the extent to which some common systems are fit for purpose was further questioned in the comments.
- 66.6% of respondents considered that off-site access requires users to have more technical skills and knowledge; the highest proportion of comments on this question also picked up on the frustrations faced by users. An important point raised in two comments is that the landscape of off-site access (and of course, access management more generally) is still unstable; librarians remain uncertain about which technologies to trust (for present day performance and future availability), and resources are changing too rapidly for users – particularly those whose usage is infrequent – to achieve competence and confidence in using them.
- 61.8% (n = 411) agreed that access management is a source of friction A substantial minority (38.2%) disagreed that access management is a source of friction, indicating via comments that in their organization: Access functions, or is managed, sufficiently well that it does not cause friction Good relationships and shared goals help to diffuse any possibility of friction The issue of access management is not sufficiently visible or considered to be of such priority that it causes friction The term “friction” would not be appropriate; these respondents suggested access management can be a source of debate / discussion, frustration / annoyance, tension or concern. OpenAthens customers were slightly *more* likely to indicate that access management is a source of friction in their organization (65.6% compared to 61.8% of the wider group). They were more likely to consider solutions that don’t require IT knowledge to be the way forward (71.3% compared to 64.4% of the wider group). Shibboleth users were less likely to indicate that access management is a source of friction in their organization (55.9%, compared to 61.8% of the wider group).
- primarily because of the limitations of current systems (66.5%, n = 242), and the tension between the library’s desire to provide access and the IT department’s desire to secure systems (57.4%, n = 242). Respondents in UK HE were less likely to consider frictions around access management to be caused by the tension between access and security, with only 48.1% UK HE respondents choosing this option, compared to 57.4% of the wider group. UK HE respondents were also less likely to consider these frictions to be related to current systems preventing easy use of mobile, with only 41.6% choosing this option compared to 50.4% of the wider group. UK HE respondents were more likely to consider that frictions around access management are caused by the need for skills beyond their normal remit, with 48.1% choosing this option compared to 37.6% of the wider group. However, UK HE respondents conformed with the wider group in considering that the main reason for friction is that current systems prevent easy use of resources.
- The most desirable solution to these frictions was felt to be solutions that don’t require IT knowledge (64.4%, n = 239). Typically, respondents do not wish to resolve such frictions by increasing their own IT skills, or those of their users, with only 33.5% and 28.5% respectively opting for these proposed solutions; however, respondents in the US had more of an appetite for training, particularly for their users, with 37.5% of this group selecting this option as desirable. Other solutions suggested included: Development of existing products to better serve users’ evolving needs, for example, users with multiple affiliations, or the ability to re-purpose existing user passwords rather than requiring new ones More flexibility on the part of content providers, for example, to simplify or remove licensing restrictions Better training of, and relationships between, institutional teams with shared responsibility for access management, and more granular clarity of ownership Better standards, and more strategic direction within institutions, to set expectations across the board.
- Respondents were not confident in their understanding of the more technical language often used in relation to identity and access management. For example, only 5.9% of respondents felt confidently able to define the term “SAML” (Security Assertion Mark-up Language). Even more generic terms such as “SaaS” (Software as a Service) were confidently understood by only 15.1% of respondents, though in that example, a much higher proportion of respondents (52.9%) felt confidently able to define the hypernym “Cloud”. There is still a lack of confidence around Shibboleth, with 46.3% of respondents not feeling confidently able to define the term “WAYF” (Where Are You From, the first step in many Shibboleth log-in processes) and 16.7% of respondents not confidently able to define the term “Shibboleth” itself. Respondents in the UK (overall, not specifically HE) generally seemed more confident with terminology around identity and access management, with fewer respondents choosing “I am not confident that I could define this term”; conversely, those in the US seemed less confident, with many more choosing that option. Respondents in the US seemed surprisingly and disproportionately unfamiliar with key Shibboleth terms; for example: WAYF: 78.4% of US respondents selected “I am not confident that I could define this term”, compared to 46.3% of the wider group, and 28.8% of UK respondents SAML: 72.9% of US respondents selected “I am not confident that I could define this term”, compared to 59.7% of the wider group, and 51.9% of UK respondents Shibboleth: 40.8% of US respondents selected “I am not confident that I could define this term”, compared to 16.7% of the wider group, and 6.4% of UK respondents Identity provider: 38.1% of US respondents selected “I am not confident that I could define this term”, compared to 23.7% of the wider group, and 16.9% of UK respondents.
- As would be expected, those in UK HE were substantially more familiar with the term “Access management federation”, 41.1% selecting “I am confident that I can define this term”, compared to 22.8% of the wider group. Perhaps less to be expected, UK HE respondents were also substantially more familiar with the terms: Deep link: 43.2% of UK HE respondents selected “I am confident that I can define this term”, compared to 26.8% of the wider group Discovery service: 66.9% of UK HE respondents selected “I am confident that I can define this term”, compared to 50.9% of the wider group.
- Respondents’ clear priority is a seamless user journey, with 66.5% (n = 397) choosing this as their top priority. Easy off-network access and more granular usage statistics were also popular choices. Better mobile device options was a high priority for respondents in healthcare and education, but less so for respondents in other groups.
- Need to address UX issues and replace ‘Alternative login’ with something more consistent and intuitive. Your thoughts on this are welcome.