Zillane Focus Group Participant Fact Sheet

Moen Study

4/2002

From your perspective, what are the two most valuable services provided by the LLSAP bibliographic system?

•Buy into a large diverse bibliographic database. (2)

•Turn-key management of technical side of database maintenance.

•Technical and managerial system support. (2)

•Easy patron initiated requesting of all library materials. (3)

•Resource-sharing. (8)

•Automating local library process to provide economies of scale.

•Ease of searching.

•Cataloging quality.

•Enhances the local collection.

•Allows patrons to access resources from other agencies.

•Access to a wide range of materials. (8)

•Quick arrival of material. (2)

•Access from home computers.

•Physical movement of materials.

•With other member libraries and borrow from the other collections without actually buying them for their library.

•Tracking of patron and circulation data.

•Do not use LLSAP bib.

•Shared database.

•Economy of scale in creating bibliographic database. (2)

•Location and shelf status. (2)

•Delivery.

•Interlibrary loan services. (2)

•Tech support services.

•Local linkage of “library community”.

•Patrons from my library doing direct check out at other member libraries.

•Tracking of materials (i.e. overdues, etc.)

From your perspective, what are the two major barriers keeping libraries from participating/becoming members in the LLSAP bibliographic system?

•Cost – However often the costs being compared are not for comparable sets of features. (22)

•Idea that library automation is for bigger libraries. (i.e., stand alone is less expensive option, but it is lacking key benefits of consortium.)

•Low service expectations

•Fear of change.

•Perceive costs along with personalities of individual communities.

•Mentality that it isn’t needed.

•Attitude of the librarian and board. (2)

•Patron attitude.

•Lack of education by the board and staff for benefits. (3)

•Work of barcoding items.

•Local trustees.

•Staff/time

•Issues of control. (2)

•Ongoing maintenance costs. (2)

•Perceived loss of control regarding cataloging/circulation policies. (4)

•Perceptions of how important participation is.

•Trained librarians.

•Value libraries provide an ongoing education.

•Conveniencing their governing bodies that membership is beneficial.

•Small libraries with limited staff (overwhelmed).

•Time and lack of staff.

From your perspective, what are the two key challenges facing the LLSAP in the next 2 years?

•Replacing the model for building a capital fund for system replacement in light of web-based access replacing dedicated port access.

•Maintaining growth of LLSAP without incentive grant funding for start up costs. (12)

•Migrating to an ILS with up-to-date technology. (2)

•Extending shared MARC records to shared metadata of all library resources.

•Incorporating electronic items into current system (as well as incorporating any items not currently in System).

•Expanding the LLSAP to be more than a bib system to an info system. (4)

•Changing ways to determine how to build automation equity fund.

•Cost of bringing new members on in the face of dealing finances. (10)

•Keeping present standards.

•Upgrading the interface to better serve patron and staff expectation

•ILL outside LLSAP.

•Funding necessary to maintain system administrative services at levels expected and needed by member libraries who view the system as a service provider. (2)

•Figuring out where we want our automation to be.

•Value of libraries and learning – perception “thing”.

•Increased Internet searching skills of patrons (don’t stay local).

•Updating and or maintaining our LINC system as technologies continues to change. (4)

From your perspective, what are two new services the LLSAP should offer in the next 2 years?

•Self-checkout

•From school library database to a shared metadata resource.

•Consortial purchase of e-resources.

•Delivery of items to home or office. (3)

•Purchase of items people want.

•Digitized images in bibliographic catalog. (2)

•Adding different types of agencies.

•Adding broader information resources.

•Better patron access for searches. (3)

•Faster delivery.

•Better indexing.

•Help libraries work with electronic copy delivery.

•DSL services for users.

•”Enhanced” cataloging – table of contents, etc.

•Updated systems – continuous policy at least every ten years.

•Continuous education for library directors.

•Full text journal article via attachment or online. (2)

•Eastern and U of I accessible for holds instead of having to go to another level.

•We have great services at present.

•Unite LINC, UIUC, EIU into a single search.

•Non DOS or upgraded version

•Cross-systems searching

From your perspective, what are two effective strategies for improving the quality of bibliographic records created by LLSAP members for loading into the database?

•Require high level of training as cataloger to be able to input bib record. (5)

•Implement the IFLA ____?____ model so titles can be linked for purposes of resource sharing and identification of virtual groups of bib records representing the same work.

•Standards (state-wide) and requiring all libraries to meet standards. (4)

•Make ILL records to MARC standards.

•Centralizing cataloging

•System handles the cataloging.

•Our system does original accurate cataloging.

•Local automation standards.

•Access to bibliographic utility (OCLC)

•Limiting staff that are allowed to add records.

•Requiring OCLC records.

•Our system provides excellent cost effective service.

•State support on what we are doing via funding and looking for new, improved services.

•Current services are great with cataloging center access.

•In-service training of tech staff members.

•Mentoring opportunities.

•Records are already high quality

•LTLS has done such a great job with this that all they need to do is keep doing what they are doing.