 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
 |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ABSTRACT. When Michigan State University (MSU) Libraries decided to make the foray into virtual reference, the first thing that needed to be done was to decide on the software to use. This article discusses the process used including the items considered essential (deal-breakers) for software to make the first cut, what other features needed to be included, and what features would be useful but were not critical. A literature review of some useful current articles on virtual reference is included. The vendor and software ultimately selected was not one of the original vendors; how MSU Libraries was able to evaluate and select Docutek is presented. Amatrix for software comparison is included in the appendix. KEYWORDS.Chat reference software,software evaluation,Docutek Distance education or virtual learning is becoming a standard at many colleges and universities. While at one time it was considered to be a "poor cousin"¹ to the real classroom, the advent of the Web as well as advances in bandwidth have transformed it into a major means of delivery of education. Off campus students, whether local or in foreign countries need access to a wide variety of resources, including professional librarians who will help students access and navigate online and print resources. Research since the late 1990s has shown declining statistics for reference transactions at traditional reference desks.² Clearly, there is a shift in how students access information for research and term papers. Michigan State University (MSU) Libraries has also seen a decline in the number of reference desk transactions. An e-mail reference service was first instituted in 1997, and by 2000, MSU librarians began to informally explore chat reference as a possibility for reference service for distance learners, off-campus students, and even students working from their dorm rooms or unwilling to give up their terminal in the library. MSU Libraries appointed a formal taskforce to evaluate and recommend software for the implementation of a virtual reference service. The charge to the Taskforce was to identify software, develop a list of required and desired features, evaluate the products, provide demonstrations of the software, and make a recommendation by fall 2001. While the Taskforce was getting under way, the Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC) of the Big Ten Universities3 sponsored a workshop called "Online Reference Services Workshop" at the University of Wisconsin-Madison on May 3-4, 2001. Several members of the Taskforce attended the workshop and brought a nearly overwhelming amount of information back with them. Tom Peters' (Director, Center for Library Initiatives of the CIC) informal notes from the conference are available online.4 While not a substitute for attending, they provide a good overview of the state of chat reference in May 2001. MSU Libraries staff attending conferences during the spring of 2001 checked vendor exhibits and lectures to identify other possible software, in addition to the software presented at the workshop. The Taskforce brainstormed the needs of both the patron's and the librarian's perspectives at the MSU Libraries. While the patron interface would be a potentially higher priority, the librarian interface would also require software that was clear and easy to use. Some of the initial concerns about the software included:
The Taskforce decided on three questions that were considered to be deal breakers; a deal breaker meant the software did not make the first cut and would not be considered.
The Taskforce started with a list of thirteen products: NetAgent, Convey Systems, CS Live, Camden, Virtual Reference Librarian, Live Assistance, LSSI Virtual, Live Person, Live Helper, 24/7 Reference, AskLibris, Human Click, and Blue Ocean. After evaluation during the spring and summer of 2001, LSSI Virtual Reference Desk and 24/7 Reference were quickly eliminated because of high costs of hosting the software locally. Both products were developed with libraries in mind, so it was disappointing they did not make even the first cut. Eventually, only NetAgent, Convey Systems, and CS Live fit all three requirements, and their developers were asked to provide demos for the Taskforce. Once the Taskforce decided which vendors to bring in, a checklist of features sought in chat software had to be developed. The Taskforce identified four key areas to evaluate: user interface, operator (librarian) interface, system features, and vendor issues. For user interface issues, features evaluated were number and size of windows, browser requirements, plug-in required, multiple operating system compatibility, and the privacy option. Under the operator interface, the following issues were identified: number and size of windows, browser requirements (not always the same as the user), plug-in required, option to transfer to another librarian, nature of the patron queue, what is needed to show a patron how to fill out a form, can you push pages, and how hard is the process. System features needed: canned responses, ability to push pages, audible signal for incoming queries, e-mail transcript, use from any computer, administer from any computer, shared responses from different operator locations, allows for anonymous use, co-browsing, how prominent can the service be promoted, transaction logs available, when not in operation will the software default to e-mail, what happens if too many users try to sign on at one time, authentication procedure optional, ADA compliant, what statistics are generated, and what problems are there with proprietary databases. Vendor issues included: training, minimum purchase requirement, response time, how much support available, initial price costs, maintenance costs, and seat cost. Grids were developed for side-by-side comparison5 (see the Appendix). Along with collaborating with librarians already using virtual reference, another key way to identify software and criteria to use is to look in the literature. LISA (Library and Information Science Abstract) provides a number of bibliographic references on the evaluation of software. Kelly Broughton at Bowling Green State University wrote about their experiences in selecting software.6 The key points in this paper included the differences between instant messaging software (e.g., AOL's Instant Messenger and chat software such as HumanClick) and the very different culture of online chatting when compared to mail, phone, or in-person (onsite) interactions. In 2001, Lehigh University decided to investigate virtual reference and developed criteria for evaluating software products.7 Their wish list and required list is very thorough and provides a good starting point for developing one's own list of criteria. Francoeur,² in "An Analytical Survey of Chat Reference Services," provides an overview of why libraries are instituting chat reference, a survey of the types of chat software, where digital reference might head in the future, and some of the issues to be considered when starting a chat service. Steve Coffman discusses what further developments there might be, and most likely should be, added to chat software in future versions of current software and in software not yet developed.1 He discusses the shortcomings of co-browsing and communication issues. In addition, he postulates how networked reference services and online reference collections/knowledge bases could revolutionize current reference services. Bernie Sloan's Digital Reference Services Bibliography is a good starting point for learning about chat reference service. It includes an extensive bibliography of over 400 references related to chat services with many of the references available online.8 Searching the Web using Google and the terms "chat reference software" or "virtual reference software" provides useful sites about virtual reference but few sites that provide an overview of various products. Because of the downturn in Michigan's economy and its effect on budgets at the time of the Taskforce's evaluation, it appeared that MSU Libraries' virtual reference service would be put on hold. However, because of the thoroughness of the evaluation process, it was a simple task for the MSU Librarians attending the American Library Association (ALA) mid-winter meeting, January 2002, to evaluate software from new vendors and new software from established vendors. Docutek was such a vendor. Since 1995, Docutek Docutek's many features include that it can be mounted locally, it offers co-browsing, transcripts can be saved, patrons can print or e-mail the transcript to themselves, Web pages can be pushed, an escort feature allows the patron to see the steps of answering a question, e-mail is available when chat is not running, the screens can be customized, and there is technical support. In the October 2002 upgrade, true co-browsing (a two-way street rather than the current one way - librarian to patron only) and form sharing - the ability to assist a patron in filling out a form - are promised. Technical support has been very good. The company's Web page and documentation says they will respond immediately, and in the world of technical support, they really do. In addition, they have been very willing to listen to the concerns and wants of their user base. Overall, MSU Libraries is very happy with the serendipitous selection of software for virtual reference services at an affordable price-with no additional seat charges and all upgrades included for free.9 The ability to decide and act quickly to select Docutek was due to the thoroughness of the prior planning in deciding what factors were key for selection and what features the Taskforce felt it could do without. Comments and suggestions should be sent to Column Editors: Cindy A. Gruwell (gruwell@umn.edu) and Dawn Littleton (Littleton.Dawn@mayo.edu). 1. Coffman, Steve. "Distance Education and Virtual Reference: Where Are We Headed?" Computers in Libraries 21(4, 2001): 21-5. 2. Francoeur, Stephen. "An Analytical Survey of Chat Reference Services." Reference Services Review 29(3, 2001): 189-203. 3. The Big Ten includes Michigan State University, University of Michigan, Ohio State University, Pennsylvania State University, Northwestern University, University of Wisconsin-Madison, University of Iowa, Purdue University, University of Illinois, Indiana University, and the University of Minnesota. The CIC includes the Big Ten and the University of Chicago. 4. Peters, Thomas. CIC ORS (Online Reference Services) Workshop Notes [Web page], May 2001. Available: 5. Figa, Jan; Behm, Leslie; Cooper, Paul et al. Real-Time E-Reference Final Report. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, 2001. 6. Broughton, Kelly. "Our Experiment in Online, Real-Time Reference." Computers in Libraries 21(4, 2001): 26-31. 7. Kimmel, Stacey, and Heise, Jenne. "Being There: Tools for Online Synchronous Reference." Online 25(6, 2001): 30-9. 8. Sloan, Bernie. Digital Reference Services Bibliography [Web page]. August 7, 2002. Available: 9. Salazer, Rodney. Personal e-mail on Docutek features, August 20, 2002.
Copies of this article are available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: docdelivery@haworthpress.com, Website: http://www.haworthpress.com/. Copyright © 2003 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved. This article is reproduced here with permission of The Haworth Press. |
