Richard Cross, Dr Richard Cross, Resource Discovery and Innovation Team Manager

1. Enhancing life-long learning, teaching and research through
information resources and services
1
21 November 2011

2. Running a Resource List service –
opportunities and challenges for
students, academics and librarians
Dr Richard Cross, Resource Discovery and Innovation Team Manager
Libraries and Learning Resources
November 2011
2
21 November 2011

3. Agenda
• Resource lists at Nottingham Trent University – a snapshot
• The original resource lists challenge
• Implementing Talis Aspire as a resource list solution
• Running a resource list management system – new challenges and
opportunities
• Anticipating future developments
3
21 November 2011

4. Nottingham Trent University and the RLMS
• Information Systems
 Virtual Learning Environment (VLE)
 Shibboleth
 Libraries and Learning Resources
 Information Resources
 Acquisitions
 Metadata services
 Document supply and digitisation
 Technical services
 Customer Services
 Front-line support for students
 Academic liaison
 Information literacy
 Advocacy and promotion

5. My role in NTU Resource List project…
• Lead Resource Discovery and Innovation Team
within Information Resources
• Technical lead for the Resource List project group
• Administrator of NTU‟s Talis Aspire Tenancy
• Member of the RLMS management team
• Manage the team responsible for resource list „link
checking‟
• Liaison between LLR and VLE team
• Liaison between LLR and Information Systems (inc.
Shibboleth)

6. Resource Lists at Nottingham Trent
University – a snapshot
6
21 November 2011

7. Resource lists – the university
• NTU has set out an encouraging
resource list policy environment
 Requirement for „basic onlineness‟ for
all taught courses
 Requirement that all courses benefit
from a resource list
• Vice-Chancellor has been an
enthusiastic advocate
• Learning and Teaching Co-ordinators
have been energised to promote
• Capitalised on good co-ordination
between LLR, VLE team and IS team;
and academic teams
7
21 November 2011

8. Resource lists – the university
• „Library manages; academics
deliver; students benefit‟
• „Lists will match the hierarchy and
typology of the VLE‟
• „Lists will be dynamic and year
specific‟
• „Lists will prioritise electronic and
online over print and physical
materials‟
8
21 November 2011

9. Resource lists - students
• Delivering resource lists to
students, across disciplines and at
all levels;
• Populated, authored and owned
by academics;
• Integrated with VLE (1-to-1
match: module to list)
• Academics can annotate, rank and
organise materials in subject
relevant ways
• Materials are validated (metadata
and linking) by the library
9
21 November 2011

10. Resource lists - students
• Resources on lists are acquired,
licensed and discoverable through
the library;
• Resource lists are integrated with
library discovery systems (link
resolver, library catalogue and
search portal)
• Resource lists materials can be
exported to student reference
management application
(RefWorks)
10
21 November 2011

11. Student feedback - positive
• Student focus groups elicited
consistently positive feedback
• Students are important
advocates for increased
adoption from not-yet-
engaged academics
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=0PDaF4Ma9jY#t=93s
11
21 November 2011

12. Resource lists - academics
• Own, author, populate and revise resource lists
• Benefit from automatic and dynamic association with modules
• Access variety of methods for gathering materials („bookmarks‟)
• Have access to training and support when-and-where needed
• Recognise „contract‟ with the library to resource lists
12
21 November 2011

13. Resource lists – library service
• Resource list management central to library
activity
• Front facing teams working with academics;
supporting students
• Back-of-house teams working with list
validation and processing
13
21 November 2011

14. The original resource lists challenge –
why did LLR acquire Aspire?
14
21 November 2011

15. NTU: A renewed push for information skills
• Raising information and literacy skills – an increasing priority
• Key aims: facilitate development of the „independent learner‟; and
support „directed study‟ through access to information resources
• Student feedback reported failings in delivery of „direct reading‟
“I can‟t find the things my lecturer told me to
read”
“I can‟t find a list of things from my lecturer
that I ought to read”
•Existing resource/reading list management was not up to task

16. How were reading lists being managed?
• No guarantee to the student: no certainty that course offerings
would provide the learner with a reading list; experiences differed
• No consistent ‘format’: not physical format; nor structure; nor
extent; nor over reach and range of materials
• No single point of student discovery: some lists were held in the
VLE database; some as VLE documents; some as print-only
• No consistent method for library discovery: library sought to
acquire as many lists as possible, but only accessed a small
percentage (circa 20%)
• No rigorous workflow: lists were not seamlessly processed from
the academic, through the library service, to the student
• No fully supportive policy framework: to underpin systems

17. New Resource List solution had to deliver
• For students….
– Consistent, good quality Resource Lists with (much) improved availability
– Clearer guidance on different types of material (Essential, Supplementary etc)
– Simple access to the lists (primarily through the learning space in the VLE)
• For academic staff…
– Easy population of lists from the library OPAC and other sources (with support
for transferring existing lists to Aspire)
– Required resources „on shelves‟ (actual, virtual) quicker, with less effort
– Fewer complaints from students!
• For library staff…
– Improved internal workflows, and more efficient use of staff resources
– Enhanced liaison opportunities with academic staff (a good „story‟ to tell)
– Better targeting of book and other collection budgets
– Fewer complaints from students!

18. Selection process
• Project group set up to procure a software solution
• Business specification document drawn up
• „Expression of interest‟ sought from software providers
• Talis Aspire – short listed
• Purchase confirmed at end of July 2009
• “Early adopter” status agreed

19. Implementation plan
• Target live date – September 2010
• No pilot; comprehensive launch
• Parallel strands to implementation process
 Deliver technical aspects
 Securing policy environment
 Providing training to academics
 Preparing library to underpin live service
• Went live in September 2010!
• Now in second full year of RLMS

20. Talis Aspire – some key implementation
and service considerations
20
21 November 2011

21. A centralised or devolved RLMS service?
Centralised Devolved
• Policy and best practice • Local or optional practices
frames RLMS activity shape RLMS practice
• Lists closely reflects course • Academics create own lists
environment on-demand
• Academic-to-module matches • Academics cascade
are managed from central permissions to each other
authority source
• Academic permissions are
• Academic permissions are maximized
filtered
• Library involvement may be
• Library acquisitions more peripheral or infrequent
processing is key

22. Mediated or direct list creation?
Mediated Direct
• Librarians author lists on • Academics gather own
academics‟ behalf „bookmarks‟ and author and
manage own lists
• Academics do not need to
acquire how-to software skills • Academics require training and
support in list authoring
• Lots of record creation work
required – results are good • Authoring is done by academics
quality – results may vary
• As sole list creator, the library • Library waits for academic to
has knowledge of all „complete‟ submit list for Library Review
lists (as submitted) before actioning
• List authoring tends to be • Lists are updated dynamically,
phased and queued on-demand; across disciplines

23. Use legacy data or start fresh?
Use legacy Fresh start
• Loading legacy data (part) • „Fresh start‟ discourages copy-
populates environment; reduces and-paste and encourages
repetition in record exploration of new system
management • Poor quality legacy data ingest
• Pre-population may have may be disincentive to adopt
positive impact on take-up and
adoption
• Preparing legacy data may be
resource intensive and produce
partial results

24. Slow burn or big bang implementation?
Slow burn Big bang
• Piloted launch allows tweaking • Would you describe your boss
and embedding of processes as „happy in the slow lane‟?
• Targeting eager schools and • What about those poor students
academics may establish in non-pilot schools who have to
positive momentum for others wait?
• Phased withdrawal of existing • A mix of new and old systems
systems may be less disruptive might confuse and frustrate
students

25. The nature of the „library commitment‟
More Less
• The library brokers an „if you • The library is more circumspect;
adopt, then we will…‟ or encourages list creation from
agreement with academic existing (or newly acquired)
managers resources
• Library resourcing realigns to • Academics are made
support resource lists with responsible for list quality
appropriate priority (metadata, linking)
• Library invests staff resources
in validating and correcting list
items (metadata, linking)

26. Talis Aspire – technical implementation at
Nottingham Trent University
26
21 November 2011

27. Talis Aspire – a hosted SaaS application
• As part of the implementation process, Talis will work with a new
customer to:
• Customise the look-and-feel of the Tenancy (including branding)
• Integrate the local LMS OPAC (Bookmarklet metadata extraction;
Availability look-up)
• Load a course offerings hierarchy (if available) for click-through
Browsing
• Configure and carry out the batching loading of legacy resource
list data (with LMS record augmentation where possible)
• Secure authenticated access to the Tenancy (premised on
Shibboleth FAM) and devolved permissions

28. Customising our Aspire tenancy
• Basic
branding
• Navigation
elements
• CSS
changes
• Integration
of chat
support
services
• Google
Analytics

29. Integrating the Library Catalogue
• Bookmarklet – configuring a z-look-up (z3950) to enable two-click
bookmarking from the local library catalogue to „My Bookmarks‟ in
Aspire
• Data loading augmentation – where „minimal‟ legacy resource list
data exists (like spreadsheets with an LCCN entry), Aspire can
carry-out a look-up as it loads the data to improve or replace the
source record
• Availability (end user) – through the z-look-up to configure real-
time Availability look-up in the full-view of a List Item
• Availability (library staff) – an on-demand z-look-up to offer
stock and holdings data in Report and Acquisitions reviews

30. Integrating the link resolver
• Talis has licensed use of CrossRef service for Aspire – DOI (Digital
Object Identifier) parsing is key mechanism for retrieving electronic
journal metadata
• Customers with a link
resolver can have this
auto-embedded in
resource list items

31. Reflecting the course hierarchy
• In addition to Search and Deep-link URL discovery, Aspire
provides a Browseable Hierarchy (e.g. College > School >
Department > Module > List)
• If you have an authority source for this data, Talis are able to load
this course hierarchy into Aspire

32. Integrating Shibboleth (authentication)
• With customer input (on IdP side), Shibboleth based
authentication (against the Talis Aspire SP) enables students,
academics, librarians and administrators to login to the application
• Remember: no login is required to view any public list in any Aspire
Tenancy
• Students login – to retrieve their „My Lists‟ and annotate
• Academics login – to edit and manage their module Lists
• Librarians login – to assist academics; progress Acquisitions
• Administrators login – to manage the Tenancy and its users

33. Integrating Shibboleth (authorisation)
• Aspire manages „who can do what to which Modules‟ through a
range of different parameters (Roles, Permissions and Scopes)
• When combined with „devolved permissions‟ in Shibboleth, deliver
combined authentication and authorisation
Students – Academics –
Automatic read- Automatic editing
only association privileges for their
with their modules module lists
33
21 November 2011

34. VLE linking web part deployed
• Uses the Aspire list-linking API for dynamic deep-linking
34
21 November 2011

35. Running a Resource List service –
opportunities and challenges
35
21 November 2011

36. Resource lists – challenges for students
• Incomplete coverage (correlates to subject area
to significant extent)
• Resilience of old school and alternative
solutions by academics
• Inconsistent length, format and presentation
• Library resource budgetary constraints
• Resource format constraints (publisher profiling
of eBooks)
36
21 November 2011

37. Resource lists – challenges for academics
• Need to learn a new authoring tool
• Academic ownership and the need to
invest
• Limitations over current „smart‟
bookmarking to Aspire
• Needing to anticipate library lead times
• IP and the openness of Aspire lists
37
21 November 2011

38. Resource lists – challenge for library service*
• Required a significant investment
in training and advocacy by
Liaison Librarians
• Acquisitions processes have been
revised fundamentally
• CLA digitisation has had to align
with new RLMS workflows
• Metadata librarians have had to
acquire new expertise in
authentication-aware linking
• Keeping RLMS and VLE „in synch‟ * Much depends on the degree to
requires ongoing staff resource which the library manages and
mediates the RLMS service
38
21 November 2011

39. The Library Review of Resource Lists
• Academics submit completed resource lists for Library Review
39
21 November 2011

40. The processing of resource lists under review
Review of lists: Processing of Lists: Making
resourced lists
Academic Liaison Information available to
Team Resources
students
• An opportunity in IR to rethink and refashion existing workflows
• Aim to deliver the most efficient and timely resourcing of lists
• Profound impact on existing ways of working – for all teams involved
40
21 November 2011

41. The Information Resources workflow
• Researching e-availability
• One-touch ordering, whenever possible
Acquisitions
• Updating the RLMS and LMS in parallel
• Improving quality of descriptive metadata
Link
• Updating electronic links to be persistent
checking
• Ensuring access available from any location
• Processing items marked for digitisation
• Enabling linking through the RLMS
Digitisation
• Supporting delivery through VLE
41
21 November 2011

42. Resource lists – challenges for library service
• All stock management and collection
development processes have had to become
RLMS-aware
• Funding has been realigned from „collection
development‟ to meet the RLMS commitment
• Aspire has no file store (no „upload your
document‟ feature) but link-to management
has its own challenges
• RLMS is a „good news story‟ for the library to
pitch to academics; but in the current context
of a tightening of budgets

43. Local technical and service innovations
• Relic – Resource List Item Checker (using an Aspire API)
• http://www.urko.org.uk/library/rlms/relic/index.php?type=doi&sear
ch=10.1177/0309132509105004
43
21 November 2011

44. Local technical and service innovations
• SlyFox (SFX OpenURL generator) and CatNip (Catalogue DLG)
44
21 November 2011

45. Local technical and service innovations
• Uses the Bookmarking
API for Aspire (now
supports OpenURL)
• Enables any OpenURL
supporting service to
become a bookmarking
source
• Method would work
with other link
resolvers
• Any metadata received by SFX can be sent to Aspire
• Several other customers have deployed this target service
45
21 November 2011

46. RLMS and Aspire – future developments
46
21 November 2011

47. Aspire enhancements anticipated
• Extending the bookmarking tool (to
improve quality of item records)
• Better Management Information
reporting (especially self-service)
• Acquisitions workflow extension
(enabling LLR to bring more processing
into Aspire)
• Improving RefWorks integration
(moving to selective, direct export)
• Synchronisation API VLE-to-Aspire (to
dispense with manual processes)

48. LLR RLMS service developments
• Managing the new resource list adoption
drive
• Integrating RLMS with new discovery
solution Primo (Ex Libris) [bookmarking;
availability]
• Identifying new e-formats and print editions
for existing resource list materials
• Integrating PDA (Patron Driven
Acquisitions) into the RLMS workflow
• Improving management of CLA processing
(requesting, processing, linking and
delivery) for resource lists

49. Questions or comments?
NTU Resource Lists
http://resourcelists.ntu.ac.uk
Richard Cross
Resource Discovery and Innovation Team Manager
Libraries and Learning Resources, Nottingham Trent University
richard.cross@ntu.ac.uk
49
21 November 2011