Poster final
1
internal communication in libraries Are we organizations 2.0 ? TWITTER FACEBOOK SMS CHAT why ? how ? where ? share updated informa- tion, advice on contingency, sort out easy problems indifferently with business or personal phones, but with business computers or tablets more than personal out and inside facilities no one is using Facebook for internal communication no one is using Facebook for internal communication no one is using Facebook for internal communication advice on contingency, give appointment, inform on their presence or absence, sort out easy problems, share updated information with business phone more fre- quently than personal one out of the facilities more than inside sort out easy problems, advice on contingency, give appoint- ment, share updated information with business devices more fre- quently than personal one out and inside facilities Twitter is rarely used for internal communication, despite the 22.03% of libraries using it with their patrons. The “web” and “web 2.0” characteristics are certainly part of the explanation. Facebook is not used for internal communication, despite the 55.93% of libraries using it with their patrons. The “web” and “web 2.0” characte- ristics are certainly part of the explanation. Twitter is not really used for internal communi- cation, despite the 18.64% of libraries using it with their patrons. The “web” characteristic is certainly part of the explanation. SMS is a very used tool for internal communica- tion, despite the only 3.03% of libraries texting with their patrons. The “non-web” cha- racteristic could be an explanation. 94.2 % 5.08 % 100 % 0 % 96.61 % 69.49 % 30.51 % The evolution of universities is changing our work situations. Modifications of territory, time management and project manage- ment are blurring our positions. In this situation, times conversation seems increasingly difficult to find. To know if the directors of our libraries find alternatives to converse with their direction’s team, we launched a survey about their use of 4 tools of informal communication, including two clearly “web 2.0”. The analysis focuses on complete answers (57% of the libraries). 3.39 % Raphaëlle Bats research & design [email protected] Anne-Laurence Margérard design & production [email protected] CREDITS to be continued... Bibliography & pictures’ sources Paradoxically, web 2.0 tools are the most and the less appre- ciated of these 4 tools for internal communication. If enthu- siasm for qualities prevails over the fear of faults, so direc- tors of our libraries could create new forms of hierarchy and management and could make us libraries 2.0. why ? how ? where ? how ? where ? why ? why ? how ? where ? qualities caption faults A survey of 105 directors of French academic libraries from October 2011 to February 2012 ARE You tEXTING with your team ? Are you chatTing with your team ? Are you using FACEBOOK with your team ? 50 44 59 equality blur authority lack of depth sharing intimacy speed precipitation creativity web 2.0 web 2.0 web 2.0 chat SMS Facebook Twitter Centre Gabriel Naudé IFLA2012.HelsinkiAre you using twitter with your team ? 58 27 47 68 28 42 32 47 49 46 58 57 35 53 54 46 45 63 32 63 41 54 40 41 34 47 48 51 we asked directors their feelings about these tools in terms of qualities and faults - numbers are % -
-
Upload
knitandb-b -
Category
Education
-
view
1.313 -
download
0
description
Le poster créé par Anne-Laurence Margerard et moi-même pour le congrès IFLA 2012
Transcript of Poster final
internal communication in libraries
Are we organizations 2.0 ?
TWITTER FACEBOOK
SMS CHAT
why ?
how ?
where ?
share updated informa-tion, advice on contingency, sort out easy problems
indifferently with business or personal phones, but with business computers or tablets more than personal
out and inside facilities
no one is using Facebook for internal communication
no one is using Facebook for internal communication
no one is using Facebook for internal communication
advice on contingency, give appointment, inform on their presence or absence, sort out easy problems, share updated information
with business phone more fre-quently than personal one
out of the facilities more than inside
sort out easy problems, advice on contingency, give appoint-ment, share updated information
with business devices more fre-quently than personal one
out and inside facilities
Twitter is rarely used for internal communication, despite the 22.03% of libraries using it with their patrons. The “web” and “web 2.0” characteristics are certainly part of the explanation.
Facebook is not used for internal communication, despite the 55.93% of libraries using it with their patrons. The “web” and “web 2.0” characte-ristics are certainly part of the explanation.
Twitter is not really used for internal communi-cation, despite the 18.64% of libraries using it with their patrons. The “web” characteristic is certainly part of the explanation.
SMS is a very used tool for internal communica-tion, despite the only 3.03% of librariestexting with their patrons. The “non-web” cha-racteristic could be an explanation.
94.2 % 5.08 % 100 % 0 %
96.61 %69.49 % 30.51 %
The evolution of universities is changing our work situations. Modifications of territory, time management and project manage-ment are blurring our positions. In this situation, times conversation seems increasingly difficult to find. To know if the directors of our libraries find alternatives to converse with their direction’s team, we launched a survey about their use of 4 tools of informal communication, including two clearly “web 2.0”. The analysis focuses on complete answers (57% of the libraries).
3.39 %
Raphaëlle Bats research & design
Anne-Laurence Margérard design & production
CREDITS
to be continued...
Bibliography & pictures’ sources
Paradoxically, web 2.0 tools are the most and the less appre-ciated of these 4 tools for internal communication. If enthu-siasm for qualities prevails over the fear of faults, so direc-tors of our libraries could create new forms of hierarchy
and management and could make us libraries 2.0.
why ?
how ?
where ?
how ?
where ?
why ? why ?
how ?
where ?
qualities caption
faults
A survey of 105 directors of French academic libraries from October 2011 to February 2012
ARE You
tEXTING with your team ?
Are you
chatTing with your team ?
Are you using
FACEBOOK with your team ?
53
50 44 59
equality blur authority lack of depth sharingintimacy speed precipitation creativity
web 2.0
web 2.0
web 2.0
chat SMS
Facebook Twitter
Centre Gabriel Naudé
IFLA
2012
.
Helsinki
Are you using
twitter with your team ?
58 27 47 68
28 42 32 47
49
46
58
57 35
53
54 46
45 63 32
63 41 54 40 41
34 47
48 51
we asked directors their feelings about these tools in terms of qualities and faults - numbers are % -
