From Google Scholar to “Library Search” via Koha:reflections on a different journeyDavid Peacock, Content & Collections ManagerUniversity of Hertfordshire

https://library.herts.ac.uk/

Outline of presentation:

• Background to the University of Hertfordshire (UH)

• Library Search Project: What we wanted to achieve.

• Why an open source LMS? Why work with a third party developer?

• Why a Discovery service? Why not just use Google Scholar?Why did we completely replace our Library OPAC with a discovery service?

• How we implemented the systems – why did we use Business Analysts? • Flexible options – a case study of ILL integration

• Outcomes – Have we achieved what we wanted to achieve?

• Initial feedback / usage statistics – Has use of our resources increased?

Some background – University of Hertfordshire

University of Hertfordshire– post-1994 University– medium sized teaching university

• 24,4800 students, predominantly on taught courses• 30% part-time• 22% post-graduate (20% taught courses, 2% research)• 17% international students (majority non-EU)

– Subjects: Medical and health sciences (25%), Business (17%), Creative Arts (10%), Education (10%)

– Strategic focus on fostering and strengthening research

Content and Collections Team (Library and Computing services)– ‘traditional’ library functions – acquisitions, cataloguing, journals, library

systems, ILL– usage statistics collection and analysis, e-resource management, licensing– development and project work

University of Hertfordshire (UH)

• 2 LRCs, open 24/7, provide the University with; 3,000 study places; 1,200 computer workstations; over 40,000 current online and print journal; and over 875,000 books (incl. 375,000 online ebooks).

• Voyager LMS since 1999• Relied on Google Scholar as our Discovery

platform and Voyager OPAC – integrated within our in-house VLE

The old search interface:

The New search interface:

The New search interface:

What we wanted to achieve (1)

• Improve student experience/satisfaction by providing easier, consistent search discovery of library resources in a single “google” like search box.

• Continue to embed library discovery search within the Universities Online learning Environment.

• Replace the outdated Voyager Library Management System (LMS) with a modern integrated low cost, hosted, free and open-source software (FOSS) solution for remaining LMS functions.

What we wanted to achieve (2)

• Increase use of UH library collections /resources increasing Value for Money (VFM) in existing substantial investment

• Provision of additional search functionality and access / delivery of resources

• Provision of search functionality tailored to particular groups of students via module pages.

• Significantly lower annual revenue cost than the current Voyager annual support agreement

• Increased workflow efficiencies in back end library processes, with maximum integration with Reading list management & digitisation Software and the VLE at a later stage, at minimal additional cost.

• Improve management information, business intelligence for better decision making / VFM.

Why an open source LMS?

• Lower costs• Avoiding vendor lock-in• Open Standards –

– Increased adaption, customisation and innovation – fast development environment (UH rather unique service -Unmediated ILLs)

– Easier integration and interoperability with other University and Library Systems. Pace – “today interoperability in library automation is more myth than reality”

• Opportunity for more Agile developments – adopt a more “start-up” culture.

• Excellent third party support – no need for a high level of IT support.

• Being part of a wider worldwide community

What are the problems of using open source?

• Unanticipated EffortsA library may find that it needs to do a great deal more work than anticipated to adapt the software to local needs. • Lack of coordination The decentralized development of open source software means that progress can be chaotic and there may be delays in addressing bugs. • Inadequate technical supportDocumentation tends to be limited and aimed at developers. There usually is limited technical support, especially for users of the software

Role of the Supplier in FOSS terms:

• Commitments on; Functionality; Cost; Timescale; Service Levels

• Hosting (SaaS)• Installation and configuration of LMS• Data conversion and loading into LM• Training & on-going support• Software development• Custom / integration work• Bug fixes and upgrades

What is Koha?

• Koha is a full featured LMS. There is no cost for the license, you have the freedom to modify the product to adapt it to your needs, etc.

• Developed initially in New Zealand by Katipo Communications with Horowhenua Library Trust.

• It is currently maintained by a dedicated team of software providers and library technology staff from around the globe.

• That by adopting it, the customer becomes "joint owner " of the product. In particular, the customer can freely install new versions or not, and can take part in new developments by financing them or by carrying them out them self.

LMS Integration needed

LMS

Student finance /

WPM Online Payments

VLE Online Library

VLE Learning Analytics

Discovery Layer/

Reading lists

IDM / SSO / ADFS

Student / Staff System

Why a Discovery Service? Why not continue to use Google Scholar? (1)

Issues with Google Scholar:• No University control over Google.

– “Google thought they were being searched by a robot and showed our users a captcha”

• Lack of transparency and control over indexing coverage.

• Inability to highlight and/or increase relevancy of UH resources.

• Google Scholar cannot be tailored to local circumstances

• Print books and many –ebooks resources remain excluded.

• Problems interfacing and linking to UH resources.

Why a Discovery Service? Why not continue to use Google Scholar? (2)

Benefits of a Resource Discovery System:• Potential access to everything found. • Single search box for all resources including print.• High quality transparent metadata/indexing. • Full text searching of UH ebooks. • Very easy to use• Increased use of subscription resources• Increased level of refinement and improved

functionality• Easy integration with VLE / module resources• Greater choice of outputs.

Why a Discovery Service? Why not continue to use Google Scholar? (3)

• Optimised for smart phone /mobile device usage

• Potential replacement of the Library OPAC. • Easier Management of Demand Driven

Acquisition (DDA) Resources. • Improving information literacy training• Greater Personalisation.

But we still encourage use of Google Scholar

Aaron Tay : “5 things Google Scholar does better than your library discovery service” • Google Scholar updates much quicker• Covers scholarly material not on usual "Scholarly"

sources   • Greater and more reliable coverage of Open Access

and free sources• Better Relevancy due to technology and the need

to just support article searching• Nice consistent features

Implementation – reflections on lesson learnt

• Get buy-in of all interested parties• Listen to stakeholders – collective decision-

making• Project manage the process• Communicate !!! Weekly briefings, Staff

sessions.• Training geared to the different type of staff• Communication plan for end users• Map existing processes – identify any current

issues. Use Business Analysts if you can!

Missing Book processLT

SSt

ud

en

t/St

aff

He

lpd

esk

Phase

Contact Helpdesk that they cannot

find the book

Helpdesk contact LTS

Search for bookCan the book be

found immediately?

Notify student that the book is on the

shelf

Email received

Yes

Search for book again 1 week later

No

Can book be found?

Yes

Notify Helpdesk book cannot be

found

Update status of book to Missing

Notify student/staff that book is missing

Notify Information Manager that the

book is missing

No

Case Study - Inter Library Loans at UH

1999–2015– bespoke server based scripts on Voyager LMS (Ex Libris) facilitated

unmediated ILLs

Unmediated ILLs: unlimited ILLs for any member of staff or student at no cost to the patron

– How?• form on OPAC enabled patron to submit request • Overnight, automated process emails it to BL via ARTEmail

– Why?• Cost savings (staffing)

– ILL functions carried out by Content and Collections Team, 1 member of staff with responsibility for ILL alongside other duties

• efficiency for patrons

The new solution!

2015 - BL introduced API– new API– Intention to stop ARTEmail service

• PTFS (Koha support) to the rescue– UH provided a detailed process map and procedures– PTFS adapted their ILL module to suit our need for unmediated requests

• ILL module for Koha, created by PTFS– interrogates BL catalogue using the API and sends requests for found articles

off directly– records manual requests and book requests in Koha, which are then dealt

with, very quickly by our team

The process for patrons – placing a requesthttps://library.herts.ac.uk/

In Summon – option to request non-UH items

Search form in Koha

Returns results from the British Library, with option to place requestIf the

correct item is not shown in the BL results, there is an option for a manual request

Helpful pop-ups …

Process for staff – managing requests

Some requestsneed further details

Once all request details completed, a script is run to bundle the requests up and send to BL via ARTEmail

–Have we achieved what we wanted to achieve?

• Improved Student experience / satisfaction (?) Single “google” like search box Embedded within the VLE Replace Voyager with an Open source VLE• Increase usage /VfM (?) Provide additional functionality Search functionality tailored to module pages Significantly lower annual revenue costs Increased workflow efficiencies in back-end library

processes• Improved Management Statistics (?)• Better integration with University and Library systems (?)

Outcomes: Have we achieved what we set out to achieve?

Initial usage statistics…..Comparison of: Aug 2014– April 2015 and Aug 2015- April 2016

• Introduction of auto-renewals – September 2016• 33 Journal and database publishers – saw an overall increase so far of 18% on the same period

(August – April ) in the previous year. (JR1 Counter reports or equivalents).Highlights include:

– Emerald – up 30%– Project Muse – up 133%– EbscoHost titles – up 51%– Taylor and Francis – up 40%

• E-book usage (BR1 Counter reports or equivalents):– Overall usage up by 8%– EBL – up 30%

• Inter Library Loans (Aug-April ):- 37% Decrease in the number of ILLS requests submitted

• Print books- Issues – up 5% (reversing years of declining issues)

• UH Research Archive:– 30% increase in hits

In conclusion:

• Resource Discovery Services give substantial benefits over Google Scholar. But Google Scholar still has its uses!

• RDS seem to increase usage of UH subscribed resources

• FOSS is a viable, cost effective, mainstream option when you work with an experienced commercial third party support company

• Use the implementation of an LMS to review processes and realise further benefits

• Use the opportunities of the open Standards within FOSS for fast development and integration at minimal risk

Thank you!

David Peacock d.m.peacock@herts.ac.uk

Content & Collections Team Library and Computing ServicesUniversity of Hertfordshire