Minutes

The committee considered the responses to the surveys we recently distributed to libraries and librarians participating in the pilot program. The Librarian Evaluation Survey elicited responses that were on the whole positive but reflected some common concerns. The two concerns that stood had to do with technical problems and staffing issues. Comments on the technology often took the form of suggestions that we look at simpler or easier to use products. With regard to staffing, many librarians wished that the service could concentrate its efforts more on BLC or local libraries.

Discussion of technical issues

Brooke distributed her collation of the section of the survey where librarians rated software features, indicating which features they considered essential, desirable or unnecessary. She also reported on her environmental scan of virtual reference products. She looked primarily at QuestionPoint and Docutek. She found that the features and problems of each were very similar to what we have encountered with 24/7 Reference software. Question Point has streaming video and voip; however, we noted that our librarians have not asked for these features.

We decided to look at mid-level products such as Live Person. Anne will talk to institutions currently using Live Person. In a related matter, Sarah will contact librarians at MIT to try to learn why they discontinued their virtual reference service.

Discussion of staffing Issues

After lengthy discussion of comments made on the surveys, we isolated what we consider to be the crucial question we must address: do we need to continue to provide some form of online service? It seems clear to us from the survey responses that we do. Therefore, we confront the questions:

• Do we stay with the same vendor?
• If we do stay with the same vendor, do we continue in the coop or do we staff on our own? If we go on our own, many questions stem from that decision.

How to proceed? Many comments indicate that librarians feel that they are not giving good service because they are stretched thin in trying to serve patrons from so many libraries in the growing academic queue. At the same time, there is strong support for the service the BLC libraries provide for each other. Expansion to a cohesive regional network of academic libraries might be a solution. We considered whether it would be feasible to admit local academic libraries from beyond BLC. We decided to ask Barbara Preece whether BLC directors might be receptive to the idea.

After-hours coverage remains an important consideration in any decision to make a change. We noted that transcript analysis indicates that heaviest use of the service is Sunday through Thursday, between noon and 2 a.m. We decided to ask the participating libraries how many hours they can staff the service and when. The answers to this question will go a long way toward answering the question of whether we could provide service alone, i.e., stay with 24/7 Reference as a vendor but remove ourselves from the coop. We also agreed to ask 24/7 Reference if our costs would change if we no longer were in the coop. We agreed that we are satisfied with 24/7 Reference's response to our previous concerns, and survey responses indicate that participants have seen improvement in the quality of after hours service. Anne, as a member of the 24/7 Reference steering committee noted that the coop and non-coop libraries have very different concerns.

In order to address librarian concerns about difficulties of providing service to so many disparate libraries, we decided to ask if the vendor would consider breaking the academic queue into smaller sections.

Another issue related to staffing is how to achieve the goal of equity in staffing among our own participating libraries. We questioned whether we should base staffing assignments on the ratio of librarians to students. Some survey respondents suggested that the libraries with more librarians staff more hours; however those libraries are serving larger constituencies and do not necessarily have more time to staff the online service. We considered whether we can move our coverage to later in the day since the statistics show that's when the students are logging in.

One possible scenario would be to continue the program for another year with the participation of all interested BLC libraries as well as other interested libraries, possibly going beyond BLC. The numbers of patrons using the service during hours we cannot staff will determine whether we need to be in the coop. To address technical concerns a component of this scenario would be to encourage 24/7 Reference to look at alternative software. At the conclusion of the year, participants could make an assessment and decide whether to stay in the coop or take the service entirely local.

We decided to use last year's report as a model, adding components as necessary. We reviewed section headings and distributed assignments among ourselves. We decided to include a summary of the results of the follow-up with the vendor following the last report. The sections were assigned as follows:

• Julie: qualitative summary
• Sarah: history of the program
• Anne: quantitative summary
• Brooke: environmental scan

At the next meeting we will formulate our recommendations based on the information we have gathered.

The next meeting will take place on May 7 at 10:00 a.m. at BU, Mugar Library, Room 503.

The Task Force met at Boston Public Library. Barbara Preece provided us with folders containing a description of our charge and timeline, BLC task force guidelines and guides for working effectively. Also included was a copy of the final report of the 24 x 7 Task Force II, submitted last July. Our report is due to Barbara on May 27 as it will be presented to the Board on June 26th.

Barbara told us that the BLC contract with 24/7 Reference ends next October, and we are required to give them sixty days notice if we intend to terminate it. She asked us to evaluate the pilot program in terms of whether it is good for the consortium as a whole rather than for any one institution. She suggested that we communicate regularly with the Reference COI and with the BLC 24/7 reference users group to keep them informed of our activities.

Barbara also filled us in on some of the concerns of BLC member institutions that she is aware of. They include: the issue of promotion and marketing; outcomes measured against standards; and defining whether this is a core service;

We discussed whether to plan a program as part of our task. It was generally thought that the teleconference which is cosponsored by BLC, NELLCO, and BPL, the second installment of which is scheduled for April 16, would fulfill this objective. We had some discussion of whether to schedule more training in Worcester or further West.

• Should the service continue past the trial? Why or why not?
• Should we continue with the same vendor? Why or why not?
• If the service is to continue, should there be modifications? (e.g., alter the 24 hours 7 days a week service model).
• Should other institutions be allowed to join or leave the service?
• When should the service be evaluated next?

We discussed other similar services. It was noted that the service instituted by Wesleyan and some affiliated institutions along a slightly different model has been discontinued.

We decided it is advisable to do an environmental scan for competitive products/vendors, since it is two years since the first 24/7 reference task force conducted one. Brooke agreed to gather information on QuestionPoint and Docutek.

• Whether there is a direct link to the service on every web page
• Whether there is an "option" page where ask 24/7 is offered along with other options
• Whether the service is marketed in instruction sessions
• Whether it has been featured as a web site "spotlight," in email announcements, and as links on campus web sites
• Whether it has been publicized in print, including: posters and signs, either in the library or elsewhere on campus; bookmarks; campus newspapers; faculty communications
• Whether it has been publicized through media about Library or campus events or demos; radio and TV.
  Sarah agreed to draw up a list of questions.

We agreed we would not update the policy manual in this evaluation.

We made plans to survey individual participating librarians as the previous task force did, using their instrument as a model, with the addition of a question about what product features are desirable now, in light of our experience. We plan to include a check-off list in the survey and ask librarians to designate features as essential, desirable, or unnecessary. We also decided to delete the question that asks whether the librarian considers the service to be of value to the students; it seems to us that the answer to this question is implicit in the answer to the first question, which gets at the librarian's opinion of the value of the service. Julie agreed to draft the survey. We hope to have results back by March 19.

We will communicate and share our work by email pending our next meeting.