Dorothy Atherton and Helen Adey from the Library Service at NTU spoke at a Talis Aspire Open Day in November 2012. These slides share the NTU experience of getting to 100% adoption of a reading-list service.

1. Enhancing life-long learning, teaching and research through
information resources and services
1
04 December 2012

2. Supporting NTU Strategy with Talis Aspire
Helen Adey, Resource Acquisitions and Supply Team Manager &
Dorothy Atherton, Services Manager - Resource Acquisitions and Supply
2
04 December 2012

3. Agenda
• Before Aspire
• NTU Strategy
• What were we trying to deliver?
• 100% target
• How well did we do?
• Digitisation at NTU
• TADC
• Conclusion
3
04 December 2012

4. Before Aspire.
• LLR knowledge of resource lists
variable at best
• Reading lists in many different
formats and locations
• Traditional budget and
acquisitions approach:
– Majority of stock selection carried
out by Academic Liaison Team
members
– Variable levels of involvement by
academic staff
– Digitisation - a standalone request
and delivery service
4
04 December 2012

5. 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 „directed 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

6. 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)
– 100% of all active modules must have a Resource List
• 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!

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
04 December 2012

8. 100% Target
• After two years, take up plateaued at c. 70% of modules
• University demanded 100% take up by October 2012
• Library responsible for achieving 100% Target
• “Non-populaters” allowed to email or post their old-style reading
lists to the Library to be converted into Aspire
• If all else failed empty lists were filled by raiding VLE for indicative
reading lists & converted to Aspire Lists
8
04 December 2012

9. How well did we do?
• In acquisitions throughput time reduced from 72
days to 35
Throughput • Formula driven rule-based process
times • Shelf-ready
• 6 week lead time monitored
• Academics request content – LLR decides optimum
Easy access source, format and delivery
via Aspire • IR policy to always purchase „e‟ where available
in the most • eBook links created at time of purchase
• „One touch‟ process keeps Aspire up to date
appropriate
• Link checking ensures good quality persistent links
format • Real time links to catalogue
• Aspire the only route for academics to request
Single , materials
• All types of resource requested in the same process
seamless • ALT as single point of contact
workflow • „One touch‟ process allows lists to pass smoothly
from acquisitions to digitisation to link checkers

10. But there was a fly in the ointment!
Digitisation did
not sit happily
in the resource
list process.
Why not?
10
04 December 2012

11. Some background on our digitisation service
• Grew up in an „ad-hoc‟ way through word of mouth
• Used with enthusiasm by a limited number of academics, mostly in
Education, Social Sciences, Arts and Humanities
• A well regarded, bespoke, almost personalised service
• Requests made to a generic mailbox. We encouraged use of a
request grid
• Lots of contact between digitisation team and individual academics.
Good open channels of communication
• Work ordered and prioritised according to need-by date. This
allowed flexibility for processing urgent requests, and spread the
workload.
• We delivered content via the VLE
• We currently use PackTracker
11
04 December 2012

12. Some Facts and Figures
Digitised Texts at NTU
3000
2500
2000
1500 Number of Digitised Texts on VLE
Number of New Requests
1000
500
0
2007/8 2008/9 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12
12
04 December 2012

13. Digitised Texts by School 2011/12
A&D
NBS
SBE
EDU
ACC
LLR
LAW
SS
SST
ARES
13
04 December 2012

14. Some background on our digitisation service
• Grew up in an „ad-hoc‟ way through word of mouth
• Used with enthusiasm by a limited number of academics, mostly in
Education, Social Sciences, Arts and Humanities
• A well regarded, bespoke, almost personalised service
• Lots of contact between digitisation team and individual academics
• Requests made to a generic mailbox. We encouraged use of a
request grid.
• Work ordered and prioritised according to need-by date. This
allowed flexibility for processing urgent requests, and spread the
workload.
• We delivered content via the VLE
• We currently use PackTracker
14
04 December 2012

15. For digitisation as part of RLMS…..
• Throughput time grew longer – targets missed
• Requests submitted later
• Lists „queuing‟ in acquisitions
Throughput
• No standard request format meant missing
times information
• No „need by‟ dates
• Single point of contact proved to be a frustration
Easy access • Digitised documents still accessed via VLE
in the most • Legacy documents not represented on Aspire
• No robust way of linking from Aspire to VLE
appropriate • Students had to go outside Aspire to access texts
format
• Academics found Aspire confusing and frustrating
Single for digitisation requests
seamless • Loop backs between teams
workflow • Digitisation record keeping more fragmented and
difficult to maintain – lots of keying!
15
04 December 2012

16. The quality of the digitisation service had
diminished with Aspire. How could we
improve it again?
•Mandatory fields for bib data
Better quality •Need by dates
requests •Flagging where access was needed to a particular
extract
Requests to reach •Avoid queues
•Digitisation requests submitted as soon as possible
the team more •Digitisation requests submitted separately but still
quickly within Aspire
Discovery of
•Way of linking to VLE?
digitised resources •New storage/delivery solution for digitised texts
directly from Aspire
16
04 December 2012

17. Our knights in shining armour!
Initial meeting with Chris Clarke
Showed good understanding of Emphasis that Talis had been in
Asked us the right questions
issues related to digitisation discussion with CLA
Workshop with five other HEIs
Demonstration of a working HEI reps encouraged to try the
Collecting feedback and ideas
prototype application and express opinions
Further visit to NTU from Talis reps
Further discussion of our current workflows and processes
Invitation to express interest in becoming a development partner
Our pilot proposal was accepted
17
04 December 2012

18. How will TADC help?
• Allows requests to be made
independently of the rest of
the list
• No queuing
Throughput • Better quality request data
Times
• Need by dates!
• More automation of checking
saves time for staff
• Less time keying in data
18
04 December 2012

19. • All texts accessed directly
through Aspire
• Academics can flag possible
digitisation requests
Easy Access • Management of authentication
• More control of which texts are
accessible at what times
• Better management of end of
year rollover
19
04 December 2012

20. • Academic requesting still within
Aspire
• Much easier request process for
academics to manage
• Workflows within dig team much
Single seamless
simpler – less keying of data, only
workflow one set of records to manage
• Many previously manual tasks
automated
• Another tool to help with
copyright compliance
20
04 December 2012

21. Our Pilot
Period of off-line testing (trying to break the product)
Feedback and Consultation
Feedback and consultation with Talis
Selection of two pilot schools and 6 pilot modules
Digitisation team make first live requests for legacy documents
Liaison Librarians make live requests for new documents
Request permissions rolled out to academics in pilot schools
21
04 December 2012

22. Communication with Talis
• Dig team • Weekly phone
• ALT • Email
• Academics • Site visits
• Students • Ideas
Feedback
Testing
to Talis
Changes and Talis acts
developments on
reported
feedback
•
• Weekly bulletin
• TADC Homepage
• Weekly phone call
22
04 December 2012

23. Waiting for Widget 2. What‟s still missing?
Requesting journal articles through Aspire
Information entered in TADC to carry through to Aspire
Ability for two-way communication with academics
Configurable wording on standard messages
Workflow tracking
Concierge to search where an eBook is available
More flexibility in manipulation of document in viewer
More detailed suite of reports
23
04 December 2012

24. 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)
• 100% of all active modules must have a Resource List
• 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!
24
04 December 2012

25. Questions or comments?
NTU Resource Lists
http://resourcelists.ntu.ac.uk
• Helen Adey, helen.adey@ntu.ac.uk
• Dorothy Atherton, dorothy.atherton@ntu.ac.uk
Libraries and Learning Resources, Nottingham Trent University
25
04 December 2012