IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY EXTERNAL FIVE-YEAR PROGRAM REVIEW OF THE E-LIBRARY

IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY EXTERNAL FIVE-YEAR PROGRAM REVIEW OF THE E-LIBRARY 13 JULY 2004 Review Team: Brian E. C. Schottlaender (Chair), University Librarian University of California - San Diego Ann J. Wolpert, Director of Libraries Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lawrence A. Woods, Director of Health Sciences and Information Technology University of Iowa On-Campus Visit: 11 13 April 2004. Relationship of Reviewers to Iowa State University Leadership: Schottlaender and Dean of Libraries Olivia Madison serve together on the Board of Directors of the Association for Library Collections & Technical Services, a division of the American Library Association. They are also both members of the Scholars Portal Project Team within the Association of Research Libraries. Wolpert is President-Elect of the Association of Research Libraries, in which organization Dean of Libraries Olivia Madison represents Iowa State University Library as a member. Woods has worked with both Library staff and Academic Technologies staff at ISU since he came to the University of Iowa in 1991. He has served on the Board of the Iowa Research and Education Network (IREN) with staff from both departments. University of Iowa and Iowa State University Library IT staff have met annually as a Regents Libraries Peer Group for over a decade. INTRODUCTION The development of the e-library at Iowa State University was and is an exciting and bold concept. Iowa State University Library administrators have exhibited exceptional leadership in being among the first research libraries to adopt a comprehensive e-library services and collections strategy. The strategy has drawn national attention to the University, as well as appreciation from the many faculty and students whose work has benefited from its implementation. The Library has learned a great deal as a consequence of its early adoption of an e-library strategy. Positive and notable are the fact that the Library was able to pursue a clear mandate with vigor and commitment because additional funds were made available and because the strategy had strong backing from the research and teaching faculty. Moreover, because the staff and faculty of the Library were enthusiastic and willing, the Library moved

2 quickly to implement the strategy and accomplished a great deal in a relatively short period of time. However, as is often the case with fast moving initiatives, the Library is now facing the predictable challenges that flow from the rising expectations of a highly visible, successful program. The Library needs to improve its alignment with other aspects of the University, particularly the University s computing activities, and identify ongoing, reliable funding support for the e-library. It must also develop the technical capabilities (human, software, and machine) necessary to turn an innovative initiative into a sustainable operating program of the Library. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS 1. The Library s mandate to develop a full-fledged electronic library... as well as increasingly sophisticated services, which was articulated in separate reports in 1999 and 2001, has substantial infrastructural and financial implications for both the Library and the campus. Although the program has received considerable publicity, and has broad support across the faculty, it is not clear that the University s senior administration has grasped or accommodated the long-term financial and infrastructure requirements of the e-library. 2. Academic Computing, Administrative Computing, and the Library operate in silos to a degree that is troubling. The Review Team concludes that the Library s e-library initiative suffers from a lack of constructive coordination across these computing domains. From a resource perspective, the Library does not itself have sufficient IT staff to support its mandate or installed base of software over the longer term. From a strategic planning perspective, the e-library initiative appears to have received only token endorsement by the other computing agencies on campus. The strategic plans of all three units should be informed by those of the others. All three units should coordinate their service offerings and staff expertise more effectively. 3. The electronic branch metaphor is a novel and interesting strategy for positioning the Library s electronic services and resources. It s usefulness as a metaphor is under stress at this point, however, given that the e-library is, in fact, neither funded nor operated as a free-standing entity. Modifying or renaming the metaphor would relieve the staff of the difficult task of force-fitting an increasingly problematic image onto a dynamic new service model. 4. Library staff tend to be focused on the form the e-library takes (navigation, nomenclature, etc.) rather than on its function and architecture. Care should be taken to provide an adequate balance of effort between the public face of the e-library and its underlying technical functionality. The Team recommends that the Library improve its processes for evaluating the impact and sustainability of its e-library software and service choices so that system support and integration receive adequate attention in the decision-making process. 5. As the e-library grows, it will need to support a wide variety of digital objects. The Library should consider how best to develop more expertise, possibly within the technical services departments, with a wide variety of metadata schema.

3 6. The future Arts Wing is an interesting and innovative idea in concept and design that has captured the imagination of many faculty members at Iowa State University. That said, the focus on the Arts seems somewhat out of the mainstream of the University s mission. It is unclear to the Team whether the project s abiding value and long-term prospects are best served if it is developed as a Library resource or as a campus-wide initiative. If the latter, the Team recommends far broader consultation take place in its development, with a view toward ensuring broad-based support, financial and otherwise. If it is to be developed as a Library resource, grant or other external funding should be sought to launch the project, as existing technical staff, in particular, are already heavily committed. COLLECTIONS 7. Neither the length of the Review Team s visit nor the background information provided were sufficient to enable the Team to provide an informed assessment of the overall merits of the Library s electronic content acquisition program. The Team believes, however, that the campus would be well advised to revisit the decision to choose electronic over print and reaffirm (or not) the Library s mandate to go electronic, particularly in the absence of a clear strategy to ensure archival access to electronic information the Library has licensed. This decision was last reviewed in 2001, and support for this aspect of the e-library strategy is a necessary prelude to the campus developing future strategies for its research and curricular success. The Team recommends that Dean of Libraries Madison, the Chair of the Faculty Library Committee, and Provost Allen craft the strategy that will enable the campus to have this discussion. 8. During the Team s visit, the creation of additional locally managed and preserved digital content emerged as an area of interest for many in the Library. Given fiscal and operational realities, however, the Team recommends that the Library first develop, particularly in the context of other campus activities in this arena, the robust infrastructure needed to manage the digital content it already has, both local (e.g., eres, IHDP, exhibits) and purchased content. A clearer understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of Luna Insight as a broadly-functional Digital Asset Management System should be explored in this process. 9. There are no ready definitions for what constitutes a collection in the electronic library environment. The environment is not only evolving rapidly, but axiomatically lends itself to a complete rethinking of traditional collection concepts. The Team recommends that the Library look to successful implementations at other libraries, conduct usability testing, and decide what curatorial principles are appropriate in the ISU context. 10. Usability studies are critical at this point in the evolution of the e-library Web site. The Team endorses the Library s suggestion that it seek high-level assistance from a trained usability specialist. Usability testing would help resolve, among other issues, the nonintuitive and sometimes contradictory bifurcation between Collections and Services at the uppermost level of the Library s Web site.

4 11. At this stage in the e-library s development, collection assessment at the individual user level is likely not as important as is a more global look. The Team recommends that the Library develop broader strategies, in consultation with the faculty, to assess the extent to which the collections are serving the campus research and curricular needs. SERVICE AREAS 12. The debate about how services are defined and collections are named is clearly a serious one within the libraries. The Team recommends that the Library not attempt to resolve this issue internally, but rather look outside the Library to identify and adopt widely established principles regarding effective Web site design. The Library should accept the point of view that the site will reflect not the Library s traditional organization, but its community of users and what they need and want to do. 13. As suggested above, the bifurcation between Collections and Services has become organizationally problematic. Here again, the team urges the Library to look to best practices for the design of library Web sites, rather than attempting to resolve their differences of opinion through internal discussion. CLASSES & TOURS The Library has done an admirable job of reaching out to teaching faculty in order to establish effective working relationships and deploy useful instructional support services. On the other hand, the absence of clear policies (e.g., standards regarding the availability of library instructional materials for courses that are no longer or not currently taught) has led to questionable resource allocation as well as complicated and difficult decision-making processes. In many instances, matrix organizational structures have resulted in individuals having responsibility without authority or control over resources. The Team notes that instructional support, including e-reserves, can be expected to have difficulty sustaining growth, given the current workflow model. Instructional services and materials are distributed across the e-library site in a manner that reflects the Library s organization, but is not intuitive to an outsider. The nomenclature used to describe services and materials is likewise confusing. Self-service strategies (e.g., interactive forms) are underutilized. 14. The Team recommends that Library staff engaged in instructional support services work together with their campus counterparts to explore the appropriate relationships between the campus course management system (CMS) WebCT and the Library s electronic reserves (eres) and integrated library systems. Some institutions are beginning to move readings that support the curriculum out of the library eres system and into the campus CMS instead. The Library and the campus should also collaborate on acquiring or developing tools that facilitate: a) the integration of library resources into the CMS (cf. the Scholar s Box initiative at UC Berkeley) and b) the discovery of library resources from within the CMS. To this latter end, some libraries have embedded portions of the library portal directly into the campus CMS. 15. Although institutional policy with regard to intellectual property falls outside the scope of the e-library program review, the Team strongly suggests that ISU consider reviewing

5 its policies and developing a comprehensive educational program concerning student and faculty rights in the use of intellectual property. 16. Library 160. The Team recommends that the Library give serious consideration to managing its Library 160 course in WebCT, the dominant and centrally supported course management system in current use at ISU. Despite WebCT s limitations, greater uniformity in course delivery will provide advantages to both students and the Library. To increase the credibility of the instruction program, Library 160 should look, to whatever degree possible, like other required courses at ISU. If the Library determines that Library 160 can be delivered via WebCT, one-time funding should be requested from the Provost as necessary to migrate the course content. 17. Instruction Commons. The collaboration between faculty and library staff is an admirable and effective innovation. As currently designed, however, it will be extremely difficult to scale to maximum effectiveness and it introduces yet another software environment that must be managed by the Library s IT staff. Here again, the use of WebCT, in conjunction with an underlying digital repository to handle e-reserves, would be worth exploring. 18. Navigation. The Team recommends that the Library consider consolidating access to all electronic instructional support through one portal. This, in turn, could direct faculty and students to the particular site appropriate for their needs, using descriptive identifiers determined through usability testing, rather than Library-defined headers. The distinctions drawn between Library 160, the Instruction Commons, course-related instruction, e-reserves, and workshops and tutorials are constructs of the Library, and do not appear to provide distinctions intuitively useful to the community. Decisions as to nomenclature and organization should be developed consequent to usability testing. If electronic instruction is to function effectively, the navigational terminology employed should be as user-centric as possible. The Instructional Technology Librarian would be a logical candidate for implementing and managing usability testing in the instructional domain. 19. Software Proliferation. Concern with the appearance of the Web site, while important to the user interface, appears to mask a systemic lack of understanding on the part of many Library staff of the considerable technical complexities that underlie the current e-library IT structure. Every layer of unsupported proprietary software adds to the difficulty of keeping the system operating. Wherever possible, software choices should seek to leverage central institutional licensing and support, and new initiatives should reflect a thorough analysis and understanding of the technical support that will be necessary to sustain the desired service. 20. Tours and Visits. The Team recommends that the Library rethink tours and high school visits in the context of institutional priorities and available resources. With an increased emphasis on teaching enrolled students and delivering course-related instruction, many libraries now offer only two options for generic tours: self-guided tours, or specific days and times at

6 which tours are offered. The question of whether the Library should develop an instruction program for visiting high school students should be carefully considered in the context of the Library s mission. The Library should look to the availability of additional resources, whether from the admissions office or the community relations office, to support such a new, non-core enterprise. ART & EXHIBITS The art in Parks Library is significant, quantitatively and qualitatively. Collectively, it represents a substantial campus resource and asset. As such, it no doubt warrants the special attention directed to it in the e-library. The Library s ambitions to evolve the Art and Exhibits section of the e-library into an Arts Wing are intriguing, suggesting at one and the same time great possibilities for better managing and highlighting the campus art collection, and substantial costs thereunto. The commingling of art and library exhibits in this section of the e-library, already somewhat fractious, will be even more problematic when and if the Arts Wing comes into being, inasmuch as the content of library exhibits is not circumscribed to art. Indeed, it often includes no art at all. 21. The Team recommends that the Exhibits portion of the e-library be divorced from the Special Collections Department. This will facilitate (in more ways than one), the independent curation of exhibits by Library faculty outside of Special Collections, a development the Team supports. 22. The Team, moreover, recommends that the Department of Special Collections be brought into the e-library architecture. Their incorporation into that architecture and their retaining a more or less distinctive identity need not necessarily be mutually exclusive. That said, rationalizing for the end user what is and isn t part of the e-library is a more important objective than maintaining sensitivity to look and feel issues at the departmental level. 23. The Team recommends that, when considering the mission of the evolved Arts Wing, the Library consider not only its potential roles in supporting instruction and research, but also the possibility it might function as a content management system (as some museum Web sites do). 24. To the extent the Arts Wing plays a role that transcends documenting and providing digital access to Parks Library art, the Team strongly recommends that the Library ensure it has explicit campus-level support for the build out: administrative support, IT support, and financial support. In this regard, the Library is well advised to actively pursue a collaborative relationship with the campus art museum. IT INFRASTRUCTURE The ISU Library has taken a number of bold steps in the area of information technology and has been extraordinarily responsive to both faculty and student needs. In a number of areas they have been pioneers, particularly with their Scholars Portal implementation of Fretwell- Downing s Z-Portal. Their work on the Horizon integrated library system has received national attention. In fact, when it appeared to many that the Horizon system was not going

7 to be appropriate for a large research institution, the ISU Library staff worked with the vendor to implement a number of critical changes which are now part of the standard system offering of Horizon. These substantial accomplishments notwithstanding, the Team has real concerns about the Library s general IT infrastructure and several of the critical components of the e-library. 25. It is not clear to what extent or how well the various components of the Library s IT infrastructure interoperate. This apparent lack is exacerbated by what appears to be poor infrastructure integration at the campus-level for authentication and authorization (A/A). The need to address this situation will become more and more critical as the e-library expands both quantitatively (number of digital objects managed) and qualitatively (types of digital objects managed). An essential component of a successful solution will be a comprehensive campus A/A plan. Once that is in place, all of the major components of the e-library will need to be examined to ensure their interoperation with the integrated A/A system. 26. Horizon. ISU was an early implementer of the Horizon Library System. At the time of its selection, it was a reasonable choice and a logical replacement for the NOTIS system. The company (now DYNIX) went through a number of organizational changes and changes of focus and vision. A number of the early customers chose to migrate to other systems. ISU chose to work with the company and make the system work. For many of the common functions of an integrated library system, Horizon works adequately as a consequence, largely, of the effort the ISU staff put into correcting major shortcomings of the system. The migration of the Horizon system from its Sybase implementation to Oracle, which is planned for later this year, will integrate it better into the campus computing environment. However, the development of the system has failed to keep pace with the changing environment of electronic scholarship and has fallen short of being able to fulfill all its original promise. While the Team does not recommend migrating away from the Horizon system at this point, ISU will need to look to other vendors for some added functionality. 27. Z-Portal from Fretwell-Downing. ISU is also one of the early implementers of the Z-Portal product from Fretwell- Downing. The Library is working with several other ARL Libraries to further develop this product. The focus has been on implementation as a student library portal. This portal, dubbed Find it!, appears to handle simple federated searching and discovery well. The interface is intuitive and attractive. That said, the Library will need to think carefully about the role of Find it! vis-à-vis that of the Library Catalog. Both are featured prominently side-by-side, in fact on the e-library home page; their relationship, however, is non-intuitive.

8 Moreover, the link resolver embedded in the Fretwell-Downing software LinkList does not appear to have the scope and depth of other link resolver systems. The Library should consider interfacing another vendor s resolver with the Z-Portal product. 28. Luna. The Library plans to utilize Luna s Insight as a Digital Asset Management System (DAMS). This product has a focused, but limited utility in managing digital objects. If this product is used, it will need to be supplemented by a fully functional DAMS. The DAMS needs to seamlessly handle single sign-on and integration with the campus authentication and authorization environment. The DAMS needs to provide for easy ingest of digital objects from faculty, using Web-based tools and templates. The DAMS needs to handle rights management issues. The DAMS needs to handle preservation issues and integrate with whatever institutional repository ISU ends up creating. ASSESSMENT The ISU Library has begun to plan for expanded utilization of standard Web traffic assessment tools. The Library will need a strategy for balancing the undeniably value of assessment with the equally undeniable cost and effort thereunto. At a minimum, the Library should monitor traffic on its sites and perform click tracking where appropriate. Usability testing will be critical to the design of an effective, user-friendly interface to the e-library. ISU should urge any non-participating information content vendors to comply with the COUNTER code of practice.