rlm deliver mar03

Evaluation of Resource List Management Systems: 

Evaluation of Resource List Management Systems Nicole Harris, Project Officer London School of Economics

UNA Process: 

UNA Process Different methodologies adopted at LSE and DMU. DMU two mixed user groups. LSE two library staff group consultations. one student focus group. individual interviews with academic staff and course designers. consultation with learning technology staff. Summarised and examined by project staff. Identified 78 recommendations.

UNA Results: 

UNA Results Defined four specific sets of recommendations: Resource list requirements. VLE Developments. Using ANGEL. Institutional requirements. Translated into requirements (technical and non-technical) through a team brainstorming.

Interpreting the Results – Resource List Requirements: 

Interpreting the Results – Resource List Requirements Resource lists (not reading lists). Three options: Develop a resource list management system in-house. Use an existing open-source or commercial product. Develop and enhance existing systems at institutions. 21 Requirements identified (including): Defining resource metadata. Allowing academics to define sub-lists. Import of data. Aggregated student numbers (for purchase decisions). Bookshop links.

Why Out Source?: 

Why Out Source? Desire for quick installation and uptake at institutions. Project timescale. Directing development at ‘unsolved’ problems. (Sensible) ANGEL development plan. Good test of working hybrid technologies (open source and commercial). DELIVER project funding WILL NOT cover purchase or support costs for products.

The Evaluation Process: 

The Evaluation Process Product selection: TalisList (commercial) ReadingListDirect (managed service) Bookworm (open source from Loughborough University) Separate evaluation of each product against the 21 requirements (simple meets / does not meet). Comments invited from stakeholders via e-mail. Comments summarised and documented. Meetings with relevant institutional staff. INSTITUTIONAL DECISION.

TalisList: 

TalisList Benefits: List compilation: shopping tools. Good levels of hierarchy within lists. Well defined permissions levels. Drawbacks: Poor support for library requirements. Only searches one resource target at a time. Poor support for discovery of new material.

ReadingListDirect: 

ReadingListDirect Benefits: Book collection ‘knowledge’. Students guided to a variety of resource locations. Good statistical information for libraries. Drawbacks: Off-site hosting. Use of advertising. Questions over VLE integration.

Bookworm: 

Bookworm Benefits: Cost. Strong back-end database for library staff. Flexibility of interface development. Drawbacks: Only searches Library Catalogue. Need to enter ‘other’ resources by hand. Development time and cost.

Product Costs: 

Product Costs This information is based on information provided to the DELIVER partner institutions. Any institution wishing to adopt a system should discuss cost issues directly with the supplier. The local costs for the institution, including input required by IT staff, general system administration, and product-specific training have not been assessed.

Missing Functionality: 

Missing Functionality Deep-linking. Printable Lists. Better resource discovery support. Solution? Developing ANGEL: Smart Link Finder.

Documents: 

Documents User Needs Analysis: Final Report: <http://www.angel.ac.uk/DELIVER/deliverables/UNA_final.doc> RLMS Evaluation Report: <http://www.angel.ac.uk/DELIVER/deliverables/RLM_analysis.doc>