Best Practices for Training and Support FINAL

BEST PRACTICES FOR TRAINING AND SUPPORT OF LIBRARY STAFF DURING IMPLEMENTATION OF AN INTEGRATED LIBRARY SYSTEM

BY

MARISSA JEANINE ANTOSH

A Special Project Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of

Master of Library Science

Southern Connecticut State University New Haven, Connecticut

August 2012

ii

BEST PRACTICES FOR TRAINING AND SUPPORT OF LIBRARY STAFF DURING IMPLEMENTATION OF AN INTEGRATED LIBRARY SYSTEM

BY

MARISSA JEANINE ANTOSH

This Special Project was prepared under the direction of the candidate’s Special Project Advisor, Dr. Yan Quan Liu, Department of Library and Information Science, and it has been approved by the members of the candidate’s Special Project Committee. It was submitted to the School of Graduate Studies and was accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Library Science.

___________________________________ Yan Quan Liu, Ph.D.

Special Project Advisor

___________________________________ Mary Anne Mendola Franco, Wilton Library Association

Second Reader

___________________________________ Chang Suk Kim, Ph.D.

Department Chairperson, Library Science

___________________________________ Holly Crawford, Ph.D. Dean, School of Graduate Studies ___________________________________ Date

iii

ABSTRACT

Author: Marissa Jeanine Antosh

Title: BEST PRACTICES FOR TRAINING AND SUPPORT OF

LIBRARY STAFF DURING IMPLEMENTATION OF

AN INTEGRATED LIBRARY SYSTEM

Special Project Advisor: Yan Quan Liu, Ph.D.

Institution: Southern Connecticut State University

Year: 2012

The purpose of this special project is to determine how libraries can best train and

support their staffs during an initial implementation or new migration to a different

integrated library system. As technology continues to improve, a library’s integrated

library system (ILS) will become out of date and need to be upgraded to newer software

that is more user-friendly and dynamic. Library staff members will need to be trained to

use this software efficiently and will need to be supported before, during, and after the

ILS migration. This paper examines the experience of staff members from one library

consortium in the state of Connecticut and, along with a review of literature on ILS

migrations, presents a set of best practices for libraries looking to implement a new ILS.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author would like to thank Dr. Yan Quan Liu for his guidance in developing the

proposal for this special project and students in the Spring 2012 ILS 580-S70 for their

commentary. Thank you to staff at Bibliomation, Inc. for answering questions and

directors of Bibliomation member libraries across Connecticut for completing the survey

integral to this project. Finally, special thanks are due to Mary Anne Mendola Franco,

Head of Network Services at the Wilton Library Association in Wilton, Connecticut, for

acting as this project’s second reader.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………...6 LITERATURE REVIEW…………………………………………………………………8

METHODOLOGY………………………………………………………………………12

RESULTS………………………………………………………………………………..13

DISCUSSION……………………………………………………………………………16

CONCLUSIONS………………………………………………………………………...19

APPENDIX A: List of Bibliomation Libraries…………………………………………..22

APPENDIX B: Initial Participant Letter…………………………………………………25

APPENDIX C: Survey…………………………………………………………………...26

APPENDIX D: Facebook Post…………………………………………………………..28

APPENDIX E: Follow-up Participant Letter…………………………………………….29

APPENDIX F: Follow-up Enclosure…………………………………………………….31

REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………..32

6

INTRODUCTION

Library automation is standard practice. While some institutions still have card

catalogs, most have an integrated library system (ILS) that manages circulation,

acquisitions, and cataloging in addition to providing an online public access catalog

(OPAC). As technology improves, ILS vendors are adding new features such as

interlibrary loan integration, automated telephone calls and emails regarding materials on

hold, OPAC access through mobile devices, and database management for e-journals and

other electronic resources (Felstead, 2004). Since 2004, ILS vendors have also added

social media features such as posting a reading list to Twitter, recommending materials to

a Facebook friend, writing a review, and adding topical or genre tags to a bibliographic

entry. Other features in newer ILSes may include cover images, virtual shelf browsing,

auto-completion, spell check, and suggestions of search terms (Weare, Toms, &

Breeding, 2011). These features improve access for library patrons and streamline library

workflows. However, library staff must be able to operate the new ILS effectively and

confidently. After surveying staff experiences from a recent, consortium-wide migration

to an open-source product in Connecticut, this paper will answer the question “How do

library staff members react to implementation of a new ILS and what is the best way to

train and support them during migration to a new ILS?”

A library’s ILS is the backbone of the main library functions affecting every

aspect of its service and every member of its staff; therefore staff members need to be

considered when a library wishes to implement a new ILS. The process is more than

migrating data. Reference and circulation staffs serve patrons directly. Technical

services, cataloging, and acquisitions staffs may not interact with library patrons face-to-

7

face, but their actions behind the scenes affect the library’s collection. Therefore, library

staff members need to be trained and supported before, during, and after a library or

library system implements a new ILS in order to feel confident and capable to operate it.

Within the last year, the Connecticut-based company Bibliomation, Inc. switched

its eighty-one member libraries from a legacy system to a new open-source ILS called

Evergreen. In order to find out about staff experiences, I emailed the directors at

Bibliomation’s member libraries. I mailed a cover letter to the few whom I could not

email directly. The email and the letter contained a link to a survey for any staff of the

library to complete. This survey gauged staff experiences with the new ILS

implementation and that data along with a review of the literature will formulate the best

practices for training and supporting staff through an ILS migration. Bibliomation’s

migration to Evergreen is the research tool in this particular study; however, the

conclusions drawn from the study will be applicable to any library system looking to

migrate to a new ILS. Supporting staff is a managerial necessity, so libraries wishing to

implement a new ILS in the future can use the data collected in this study to make sure

their staff is well supported before, during, and after the ILS migration, thus ensuring

their migration will go smoothly. Library staffs are the front line of a patron’s library, and

their buy in and willingness to learn is vital to a successful migration because it affects

the patron experience as well.

8

LITERATURE REVIEW

My study focuses on the human element of integrated library system (ILS)

implementation—the library staff. The following reviewed studies mostly focus on why

and how a library switched to a new ILS, but little is written on the effect upon the staff.

Dennison and Lewis (2011) wrote that when the Paine College Collins-Callaway

Library initially implemented an ILS in 1999, library and college technology staff had

extensive training. Over time, staff members left the library’s employ and in 2007 only a

cataloging assistant who had the initial training was left (Dennison & Lewis, 2011).

When the college began exploring open-source ILSes for the library, the staff had

anxiety about the difficulty of learning a new system and the short time period allotted

for the ILS migration (Dennison & Lewis, 2011). Despite this apprehension, the library

moved forward and ended up migrating to the open-source ILS Koha in three months. A

demonstration system with full staff privileges was set up, which was an advantage.

Dennison and Lewis (2011) wrote “The Library staff was rightly concerned about the fast

implementation schedule, so they were motivated to use the demonstration system.” It

appears the administration moved quickly without much staff input with regard to the

timeline. The library ran training modules, and after the implementation, “The Library

staff is able to handle all the administrative functions of the module on their own, and

they may also contact the hosting company for assistance” (Dennison & Lewis, 2011).

The Paine College experience ended up working out, but the library staff did not have

much say in the timeline of implementation. They selected which training modules to

attend and worked on the demonstration system, which was a benefit, but it does not

appear they were consulted on much else.

9

Similarly, the National Library of Wales (NLW) migrated to a new ILS in 2007.

In their study, Evans and Thomas (2007) detailed the extensive collections housed at the

NLW, including audio-visual and digital content. The current legacy-based system they

used was no longer going to be supported in the future, and migrating to a new ILS would

provide better access in that users would not need to search several catalogs to find what

they were looking for (Evans & Thomas, 2007). A new ILS would also streamline library

working practices that had developed over the years, making the staffs of all departments

work more consistently, efficiently, and without duplication (Evans & Thomas, 2007).

In 2003, the NLW formed a Project Board from the department heads of

Acquisitions, Systems, Reader Services, the National Screen and Sound Archive of

Wales, and Computers sections. Two external board members were also chosen.

Together, they reviewed the legacy system and laid the groundwork for procuring a new

ILS (Evans & Thomas, 2007). It is unclear whether the two external board members were

library support staff or additional administrative department heads.

Evans and Thomas (2007) indicated some early staff involvement: “Each supplier

visited the library separately in order to hold internal discussions with staff, and to give

presentations of their systems, which were open to both staff and members of the public.”

This allowed them to voice any comments and concerns. In addition, staff members were

involved in systems evaluation. Finally, the NLW provided a weekly email to staff to

keep them updated on new developments. Despite this, Evans and Thomas (2007)

acknowledged that the staff involvement could have been better: “In addition to the

weekly brief perhaps more open sessions could have been held to give staff the

opportunity to raise any issues or questions in a face-to-face environment.” From the

10

study, it appears that staff were consulted and involved in the ILS implementation at

NLW, but the library could have invited more staff participation.

Nigeria’s Bowen University faced the challenge of automating for the first time in

2007. Otunla and Akanmu-Adeyemo (2010) acknowledged that the library staff input

must be adequate in order for the library to implement the correct ILS for their unique

situation. Like Paine College, Bowen University decided to install the open-source ILS

Koha based upon a number of factors, two of them being user-friendliness and training

availability after implementation (Otunla & Akanmu-Adeyemo, 2010). Since this was a

first time automation, the staff needed to be able to easily use the software and be

properly trained.

Otunla and Akanmu-Adeyemo (2010) detailed the features of Koha that made it

the right fit for Bowen University and then described the automation process that

included briefing university staff, training library staff, and converting the card catalog

into digital records. From the study, it appears that staff was not consulted in the

implementation process, but they were eager to learn the new ILS once it was installed.

According to the study, two requirements of a successful library automation project

include well-informed, dedicated staff and staff that is computer literate (Otunla &

Akanmu-Adeyemo, 2010). At Bowen University, both of these requirements were in

place at the start of the automation process.

Post-automation, a satisfaction survey of the staff that used Koha daily was

completed. Questions included rating the various Koha modules (acquisitions, cataloging,

circulation, et cetera), interface with the Internet, software reliability, productivity, and

user-friendliness (Otunla & Akanmu-Adeyemo, 2010). The staff returned positive

11

answers. In post-automation interviews, one library staff member from each unit of the

library was interviewed and those interviews elicited responses of increased productivity,

less original cataloging, easier fine payments, and less traffic at the circulation desk and

the catalog (Otunla & Akanmu-Adeyemo, 2010). The survey indicated that the library

wanted to know staff opinions about how the new system worked, but there were no

questions about the implementation process itself before Koha was put into place.

Each study acknowledged the importance of staff in the implementation process,

but none appear to have asked staff directly how they would like the implementation to

be run. Indeed, only the study at Bowen University surveyed the staff at all. Brannon

(2010) outlined the following steps to help in implementation of new library

technologies: let the staff know ahead of time, explain why it fits with the library’s

mission, get them involved, provide excellent training, and let them practice with the new

technology. I intend to examine in my study whether staff at Bibliomation’s member

libraries felt these steps were completed. Staff participation is important, and their views

about implementation would have been well utilized in Georgia, Wales, and Nigeria.

12

METHODOLOGY

Participant Selection

The participants for this research were staff members at Bibliomation-affiliated

libraries in Connecticut. According to Bibliomation, Inc.’s website, there are eighty-one

member libraries in the state (Appendix A). To effectively reach this population, I

contacted the directors or media specialists of all eighty-one member libraries. I

determined that contacting library directors and indicating that I was looking for

participation by any of their staff members would allow a variety of staff from different

library departments with different experiences to participate.

Participation in this research was voluntary. Any person who started the survey

did not have to complete it, and the participants could skip any question. Furthermore, the

survey was anonymous. Out of the eighty-one libraries, forty-eight were initially

contacted by email and the other thirty-four were sent a direct letter. All libraries were

sent a direct letter as a follow-up.

Procedure

Participants were emailed or directly mailed a cover letter (Appendix B)

requesting their completion of an online survey created on Polldaddy.com (Appendix C).

Each email was sent individually so the library directors could be addressed by name

(e.g. Dear Ms. Jones). This individualization also ensured that participants could not see

the email addresses of other library directors. The cover letter was also posted on the

Connecticut Library Consortium’s Facebook page (Appendix D).

The emails and letters were sent on a rolling schedule. Approximately two weeks

after the initial contact, a follow-up letter was sent by direct mail to all participants

13

(Appendix E). This letter included several small, business-card sized enclosures for

directors and media specialists to distribute to their staff if they chose (Appendix F). The

last follow-up letters were sent May 4, 2012 and the survey closed on May 24, 2012,

effectively giving participants 5-7 weeks to complete it if they chose.

Data analysis of the resulting sixty-five responses was completed approximately a

week and a half after the survey closed. Each question had at least three possible

responses, and the online poll software calculated the percentages for each response. For

questions that had a free text “other option” for participants to complete, the poll software

calculated those answers together as “other” even if the participant wrote in the answer

that was one of the initial choices. The data analysis will look at each question and

answer individually and then draw conclusions and best practices from the overall

picture.

RESULTS

Eighty-nine percent of participants were aware of the reason for switching from

Bibliomation’s previous ILS, SirsiDynix Horizon, to the open-source Evergreen ILS. Of

the remaining eleven percent, nine percent were not sure of the reason and only two

percent did not know the reason for the migration. According to Melissa Lefebvre at

Bibliomation, Evergreen was chosen because Horizon was no longer going to be

supported by its parent company SirsiDynix and the member libraries would have to

switch to SirsiDynix’s Symphony ILS.

The results were not as promising for the poll’s second question “Do you think

Evergreen is an improvement over your previous integrated library system?” While fifty-

six percent of participants answered yes, forty-one percent said no. The remaining three

14

percent indicated no difference. It is important to note that not all the libraries that made

the change to Evergreen had been members of Bibliomation prior to the new ILS. A

small group joined Bibliomation as “development partners” to help test and evaluate

Evergreen. In addition, a number of Bibliomation libraries are school libraries. Public and

school libraries serve different demographics, so what may be an improvement for one

set of patrons may not adequately serve another.

While the participants were split on whether the new ILS was an improvement,

forty-nine percent of participants felt that Evergreen was good for their library and its

patrons overall. The next highest percentage was twenty-eight percent for “other option”

where participants could write in an answer. Of these, the majority indicated that there

were advantages and disadvantages to the new ILS. Other answers included “too soon to

tell,” “not school-friendly,” and “had an overall positive effect in the end, but was an

extremely stressful and unhappy process for both staff and patrons.”

When asked about the timeline of the migration, sixty-one percent felt that there

was enough time to migrate data from their old ILS to Evergreen and train their staff.

Seventeen percent there was not enough time, and nine percent indicated it took too much

time to migrate data. The remaining thirteen percent selected “other option” and included

comments such as “took longer than expected” and “there were problems with data

migration that had nothing to do with time.” These answers suggest that there was not a

problem with the quantity of time, but the quality of how the time was used.

The fifth question inquired as to how many trainers participants would have liked

given the choice. Bibliomation trained two staff members from each library and those

trainers worked with the rest of their staff at each individual member library. Forty-six

15

percent of respondents would have preferred the number of trainers to be relative to the

library’s staff size, meaning that larger staffs would have more trainers. No respondents

wanted less than two, and twelve percent would have been pleased with at least three.

Forty-two percent of respondents chose “other option.” These answers included “we

wouldn’t have preferred any different” and “all staff trained [by Bibliomation] instead of

train the trainers.” Others indicated that as library media specialists, they are the only

staff member and this question was not applicable to them.

Bibliomation’s outreach efforts included weekly emails, blog posts, and Facebook

updates. Sixty-six percent of participants found this level of communication useful. Six

percent did not find the communication useful, and nine percent did not know about it.

Nineteen percent of participants selected “other option” and wrote in comments such as

“It was useful as far as it went but so much did not go as planned that advance

communications ended up being almost irrelevant in the event.” Others felt that the tone

of the communication was “overly cheerful” and did not address issues member libraries

were dealing with, and communication prior to the migration was good, but during the

migration it was lacking.

In terms of demographics, forty-five percent of participants had been in their

current library for more than twelve years and thirty-nine percent were library directors.

Thirty percent selected “other option” as their primary area of work and most of the

answers indicated that they worked at a very small library or they were library media

specialists. In both cases, they were essentially responsible for all library functions.

The final question asked for anything additional that participants wanted to add.

Thirty-one participants responded, and many comments mentioned that this was a rough

16

migration, there was not enough testing done to make sure data would migrate properly,

Evergreen is not ideal for school libraries, and tasks take longer using Evergreen. Others

indicate that they are pleased to be new members of Bibliomation, and the staff at

Bibliomation did a good job training staff at member libraries. Finally, several

acknowledge that there was no choice but to move to Evergreen due to the fact that the

previous ILS would not be supported any longer according to Bibliomation.

DISCUSSION

The survey showed the varied experiences for staff at Bibliomation member

libraries as they made the switch to the open-source Evergreen ILS. Most participants

knew why Bibliomation was switching to a new product and a majority felt that

Evergreen was an improvement. However, many “other option” answers indicated that it

has been an improvement in the long run, but the transitional period was very difficult.

This is unfortunate, because the transition is crucial. Staff members need to feel confident

that they can successfully operate the new ILS before they have to use it.

A number of answers indicated the migration took much longer than expected.

One participant wrote, “The process took 10 days longer than originally advertised and

was fraught with confusion, the loss of major chunks of data and some promised

features/modules still not in place almost a year later.” Clearly, the new ILS did not

immediately live up to expectations, frustrating the staff and patrons. It is difficult to

advertise a “new and improved” system when it cannot be accessed and there are pieces

missing. This leaves the library and its staff looking disorganized. Patrons may speculate

as to the library’s value to them when the library cannot get its computer system to work.

17

From the survey answers, it is evident that library media specialists had a

particularly tough time with the implementation of Evergreen. Not only are they usually

the only staff member at their library, but they also have to retrain all of the students who

use the library every time a change is made. Changes are made before the children have

had time to learn the previous version. One library media specialist commented, “We do

not believe that Evergreen has a place in a school library. It is limiting in scope and

difficult to use. It is not intuitive at all and requires many calls to help desk. In fact, we

are switching to Follett's Destiny as soon as possible.” Since a trip to the library is usually

part of a structured school day schedule, delays may end up wasting a significant amount

of class time.

During this particular migration, Bibliomation did communicate with its member

libraries, but some comments suggest that there was an attempt to minimize the extent of

the technical difficulties. One respondent wrote, “Day after day, we'd get emails saying

the system will be coming up shortly, then later, "sorry, not today, maybe tomorrow" and

so on.” Staff may become disheartened after so many unmet expectations. Another

respondent mentioned that the training database had different features than the actual

product. This lack of continuity is confusing when a staff member is expecting to see

some features that are not present after the new ILS goes live.

It does not seem that staff were reluctant to learn a new ILS. With forty-five

percent of respondents working in their current library for twelve years or more, the

move to Evergreen was probably not their first migration to a new ILS. One participant

responded, “When the consortium migrated from CARL to Horizon-- the trainers were

trained months in advance to allow time for staff to be trained-- here the training was

18

done way too close to actual migration with the feeling that this would be an

"immersion"…however that is not how it works at libraries with part-time staffs and

patrons to serve as we go live.” In comparison to prior experience, the migration to

Evergreen was hasty.

Several respondents commented that there were shortcomings on the

programming end. Data loss was attributed to a lack of testing to make sure the migration

would go smoothly. One respondent suggested that the programmers neglected to speak

to support staff about their workflows and more beta testing before selecting a go live

date would have been better. They go on to say that the service makes the library look

bad and alienates staff, resulting in poor service to patrons. Clearly, a new ILS is going to

function differently, but not asking staff about their current practices and indicating how

those practices will work in the new ILS shows a lack of communication. A programmer

or trainer familiar with both systems would have been ideal because they could show how

the workflows would change.

Despite the problems with the migration, a number of respondents think

Evergreen will be useful in the long run. One respondent felt that Bibliomation had set up

a reasonable timeline, but many things went awry. They also recognize that Bibliomation

staff were trying hard to correct problems, but many aspects of the migration did not go

according to plan. Fortunately, an open-source ILS like Evergreen can be adjusted to

meet customer needs. After a rough start, Evergreen might work out with the right

modifications for member libraries.

19

CONCLUSION

It is evident from the literature review and the researcher’s survey about

Bibliomation’s migration to Evergreen that a set of best practices is needed to guide

libraries as they begin the process of implementing a new ILS. These best practices will

help ILS migrations run more smoothly, thus making training and support of library staff

easier. Since the staff members interact with library patrons, their ability to effectively

use the new ILS improves patron experience and the library’s image. For those that work

behind the scenes, the new ILS needs to keep intact or improve upon existing workflows

such as cataloging and acquisitions. From the research and survey, the best practices for

training and support of library staff during implementation of an integrated library system

are as follows:

Careful product selection

While the basic functions of all ILSes are the same, some may be better suited to

a specific type of library. From the survey results, it is clear that Evergreen is not ideal

for school libraries, but it shows promise for public libraries. Staff should be involved in

the selection process since they will be working with the new ILS on a daily basis.

Involvement should include attending potential vendor presentations, evaluating positive

aspects of the current ILS that should be included in the new system, and providing

feedback to colleagues or supervisors who will be making the final decision.

20

Reasonable timeline

Implementing a new ILS should not be rushed. There must be time for thorough

beta testing, training staff, practicing with the new system, and identifying and remedying

issues. In the case of Bibliomation, unforeseen problems with data migration added an

extra week to the process. If the extra time was built into the timeline, the delay would be

accounted for ahead of time and the member libraries would not be stalled without a

functioning ILS for ten days. The migration timeline will be different based on library or

consortium size and the amount of data to be processed, but it is advisable to include at

least two extra days in case something goes awry.

Reasonable expectations of the system

A computer system can only do what it is programmed to do. This makes

selecting the right ILS even more important. Features demonstrated in training should be

available in the live database. If staff see interlibrary loan integration during a training

module and it is not there when the ILS goes live, they may doubt the integrity of the

system and the training they received. Libraries should get clear information from the

vendor about what their new ILS will include and pass this information on to their staff.

Vendors and libraries should not overpromise extensive features and faster workflows

because staff will be frustrated when they do not get what they expected.

Clear, comprehensive communication

Communication is the key to the entire migration process. Vendors need to

communicate with libraries, libraries need to communicate with staff, and staff members

should communicate any concerns they have before the ILS is implemented. A weekly

email is not enough if only the top-level staff are getting it and not forwarding it to their

21

staff members. Facebook posts are not effective if, in the case of one of the participants,

there is no Facebook access in the school library.

There should be open dialogue between staff and administration about a new ILS.

Staff should know why there is going to be a change, how the new ILS will improve their

workflows, what products are being looked at, and the reasonable timeline of the

implementation process. They should sit in on demos, speak to vendors, and feel free to

comment about what features they would like to see in the new ILS. Furthermore, they

should indicate what they like about the old ILS so similar features may be explored

when looking at potential systems. While staff input does not guarantee that the new ILS

will have all the features that all staff members want, their involvement is necessary so

the new ILS is the best for the majority of the staff and patrons. When the new ILS is

implemented, staff should be informed about all available training so they can explore the

new system as much and as thoroughly as possible.

Finally, problems and their potential solutions should be communicated to staff.

They should know about expected upgrades, possible downtime, and anything that strays

from normal operating functions. A fundamental tenet of librarianship is the

dissemination of information, and that is especially true when changing a vital part of the

library’s operation.

Best practices in regard to a new integrated library system will evolve as the

systems themselves evolve. However, product selection, a reasonable timeline,

reasonable expectations, and excellent communication will always be important when

training and supporting staff during a new ILS implementation.

22

APPENDIX A: List of Bibliomation Libraries

BIBLIOMATION MEMBER LIBRARIES—PUBLIC LIBRARIES Beacon Falls Public Library Beacon Falls Ansonia Public Library Ansonia Bentley Memorial Library Bolton Bethel Public Library Bethel Bridgeport Public Library Bridgeport Brookfield Library Brookfield C.H. Booth Library Newtown Cornwall Free Library Cornwall David M. Hunt Library Falls Village Derby Neck Library Derby Derby Public Library Derby Douglas Library Hebron Douglas Library North Canaan Easton Public Library Easton Edith Wheeler Memorial Library Monroe Guilford Smith Library South Windham Gunn Memorial Library Washington Hagaman Library East Haven Hall Memorial Library Ellington Hotchkiss Library of Sharon Sharon Howard Whittemore Library Naugatuck Jonathan Trumbull Library Lebanon Kent Library Association Kent Kent Memorial Library Suffield Killingly Library Danielson Mansfield Library Mansfield Mark Twain Public Library Redding Middlebury Public Library Middlebury Minor Memorial Library Roxbury Morris Public Library Morris New Milford Public Library New Milford Norfolk Library Norfolk Oliver Wolcott Library Litchfield Oxford Public Library Oxford Plumb Memorial Library Shelton Plumb Memorial- Huntington Branch Shelton Putnam Public Library Putnam Ridgefield Public Library Ridgefield Rockville Library Vernon Rowayton Library Rowayton Salem Free Public Library Salem

23

Scoville Memorial Library Salisbury Seymour Public Library Seymour Sherman Library Sherman Silas Bronson Library Waterbury Silas Bronson- Bunker Hill Branch Waterbury Slater Library Jewett City Somers Public Library Somers Southbury Public Library Southbury Sprague Public Library Baltic Stafford Library Stafford Terryville Public Library Terryville Thomaston Public Library Thomaston Thompson Public Library North Grosvenordale Tolland Public Library Tolland Warren Public Library Warren Weston Public Library Weston Willimantic Public Library Willimantic Windham Free Library Windham Center Wolcott Public Library Wolcott Woodbury Public Library Woodbury Public libraries and branches = 61

24

BIBLIOMATION MEMBER LIBRARIES—SCHOOL LIBRARIES Bolton Center School Bolton Chalk Hill School Monroe Crosby High School Waterbury Fawn Hollow Elementary School Monroe Gunnery School Washington John F. Kennedy High School Waterbury Lebanon Elementary School Lebanon Lebanon Middle School Lebanon Lyman Memorial High School Lebanon Mary R. Fisher Elementary School North Grosvenordale Masuk High School Monroe Monroe Elementary School Monroe North End Middle School Waterbury Stepney Elementary School Monroe Thompson Middle School North Grosvenordale Tourtellotte Memorial High School North Grosvenordale Wallace Middle School Waterbury Waterbury Arts Magnet School Waterbury West Side Middle School Waterbury Wilby High School Waterbury School libraries = 20

25

APPENDIX B: Initial Participant Letter

Dear Library Director,* I am a Library Science graduate student at Southern Connecticut State University and I’m requesting your assistance in conducting a research project titled “Best Practices for Training and Support of Library Staff During Implementation of an Integrated Library System.” I am seeking staff members of Bibliomation member libraries to complete a brief survey about the recent migration to Evergreen, the open-source integrated library system (ILS). The information gathered from this survey will be used to complete a research project aimed at compiling a set of best practices for training and supporting library staff through an ILS migration or first-time implementation. These best practices may be used in the future by other libraries wishing to migrate a new ILS with the goal of supporting their staff in order to make the transition as smooth as possible. If you and/or any of your staff members would like to help me in this project, I would greatly appreciate your assistance. To complete this brief survey, please visit the following link: [LINK TO SURVEY].** This voluntary survey does not require any names and all responses are anonymous. I will retain the data electronically for three years after which it will be purged. If you have any questions or need copies of any of my IRB documentation, please do not hesitate to contact me at [email protected]. When the project is completed, I am happy to provide you with a copy if you wish. Thank you for your time. Regards, Marissa J. Antosh Candidate for Master’s of Library and Information Science Southern Connecticut State University [email protected] *Letters and emails were personalized; this is inserted as a placeholder in the sample letter. **The survey is created through Polldaddy.com but is not viewable without taking the survey itself. It is inserted as Appendix C.

26

APPENDIX C: Survey

1. I am aware of the reasons for migrating to Evergreen. [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] I'm not sure 2. Do you think Evergreen is an improvement over your previous integrated library system? [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] There is no difference 3. Migrating to Evergreen was... [ ] Good for my library and its patrons overall [ ] Made no difference [ ] Bad for my library and its patrons overall [ ] Other (please specify): 4. Were you satisfied with the time it took to implement Evergreen at your library? [ ] Yes, I think it was enough time to migrate our data and train staff [ ] No, I do not think it was enough time to migrate our data and train staff [ ] No, I think it there was too much time to migrate our data and train staff [ ] Other (please specify): 5. Two library staff members were selected to be trainers at your library after they

were trained on Evergreen. Would you have preferred... [ ] More trainers from my library staff-- at least three [ ] Fewer trainers from my library staff-- one would have sufficed [ ] The number of trainers relative to the number of library staff (larger staff=more trainers) [ ] Other (please specify): 6. Blog posts, weekly emails, and Facebook updates were used as outreach during implementation. How did you feel about this level of communication? [ ] I found it useful [ ] I did not find it useful [ ] I didn't know about it [ ] Other (please specify):

27

7. I have been working at my current library for... [ ] less than 1 year [ ] 1-3 years [ ] 4-6 years [ ] 7-9 years [ ] 10-12 years [ ] more than 12 years 8. My primary area of work at my library is... [ ] Director or assistant director [ ] Reference [ ] Youth services (children and/or teens) [ ] Circulation [ ] Technical services and/or cataloging [ ] Media/audiovisual [ ] Information technology [ ] Shelver/page [ ] Other (please specify): 9. Do you have any comments or additional information you would like to share?

28

APPENDIX D: Facebook Post

Dear Colleagues at Bibliomation Member Libraries, I am a Library Science graduate student at Southern Connecticut State University and I’m requesting your assistance in conducting a research project titled “Best Practices for Training and Support of Library Staff During Implementation of an Integrated Library System.” I am seeking staff members of Bibliomation member libraries to complete a brief survey about the recent migration to Evergreen, the open-source integrated library system (ILS). The information gathered from this survey will be used to complete a research project aimed at compiling a set of best practices for training and supporting library staff through an ILS migration or first-time implementation. These best practices may be used in the future by other libraries wishing to migrate a new ILS with the goal of supporting their staff in order to make the transition as smooth as possible. If you and/or any of your staff members would like to help me in this project, I would greatly appreciate your assistance. To complete this brief survey, please visit the following link: [LINK TO SURVEY].** This voluntary survey does not require any names and all responses are anonymous. I will retain the data electronically for three years after which it will be purged. If you have any questions or need copies of any of my IRB documentation, please do not hesitate to contact me at [email protected]. When the project is completed, I am happy to provide you with a copy if you wish. Thank you for your time. Regards, Marissa J. Antosh Candidate for Master’s of Library and Information Science Southern Connecticut State University [email protected] **The survey is created through Polldaddy.com but is not viewable without taking the survey itself. It is inserted as Appendix C.

29

APPENDIX E: Follow-up Participant Letter

Marissa J. Antosh 11 Cove Road Brookfield, CT 06804 [email protected] 203-241-5964 May 13, 2012 Ms. Library Director* Public Library 123 Main Street Town, CT 06000 Dear Ms. Director, About three weeks ago, I emailed you regarding a survey I am conducting for a research project titled “Best Practices for Training and Support of Library Staff During Implementation of an Integrated Library System.” This project fulfills my final requirement for my Master’s of Library Science degree at Southern Connecticut State University. I am seeking staff members of Bibliomation member libraries to complete a brief survey about the recent migration to Evergreen, the open-source integrated library system (ILS). The survey takes approximately 3-5 minutes and is available at the following link: http://tinyurl.com/antoshsurvey

30

If you have already completed this survey, many thanks! The more responses I receive, the better I can develop a set of best practices that may be used in the future by other libraries wishing to migrate to a new ILS. If you have not completed the survey, I would greatly appreciate it if you could spare a few minutes and share your experiences from the Evergreen migration. Please use the enclosed cards to share the survey with colleagues. All responses to this survey are anonymous. I will retain the data electronically for three years after which it will be purged. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at [email protected]. When the project is completed, I am happy to provide you with a copy if you wish. Thank you for your time and assistance. Sincerely, Marissa J. Antosh Candidate for Master’s of Library and Information Science Southern Connecticut State University *Letters and were personalized; this is inserted as a placeholder in the sample letter.

31

APPENDIX F: Follow-up Enclosure

Please complete a brief survey about Your library’s migration to the open-source Evergreen integrated library system at http://tinyurl.com/antoshsurvey Questions? Email [email protected] Thanks for your help! Marissa Antosh

Please complete a brief survey about Your library’s migration to the open-source Evergreen integrated library system at http://tinyurl.com/antoshsurvey Questions? Email [email protected] Thanks for your help! Marissa Antosh

Please complete a brief survey about your library’s migration to the open-source Evergreen integrated library system at http://tinyurl.com/antoshsurvey Questions? Email [email protected]

Thanks for your help! Marissa Antosh







Each follow-up letter contained at least three of these cards for library directors to share

with their staff if they chose to.

32

REFERENCES

Brannon, S. (2010). Say no to speed bumps! Computers in Libraries, 30 (6), 79-80.

Dennison, L.H., and Lewis, A. (2011). Small and open source: Decisions and

implementation of an open source integrated library system in a small

private college. Georgia Library Quarterly, 48 (2), 6-8.

Evans, M.F., & Thomas, S. (2007). Implementation of an integrated information

management system at the National Library of Wales: a case study. Program:

electronic library and information systems, 41 (4), 325-337.

doi:10.1108/00330330710831558

Felstead, A. (2004). The library systems market: a digest of current literature.

Program: electronic library and information systems, 38 (2), 88-96.

doi:10.1108/00330330410532805

Otunla, A.O., and Akanmu-Adeyemo, E.A. (2010). Library automation in Nigeria: the

Bowen University experience. African Journal of Library, Archives and

Information Science, 20 (2), 93-102.

Weare, W.H., Jr., Toms, S., and Breeding, M. (2011). Moving forward: the next-gen

catalog and the new discovery tools. Library Media Connection, 30 (3), 54-57.

Best Practices for Training and Support FINAL

Documents

Transcript of Best Practices for Training and Support FINAL