Selection criteria for quality controlled information gateways
Work Package 3 of Telematics for Research project DESIRE (RE 1004) |
Title page
Table of Contents |
This report is a study of the selection criteria employed for selective information gateways (e.g. subject gateways) on the Internet. It has been produced as part of the Indexing and Cataloguing activities for Workpackage 3, and concentrates on the subject gateways run by DESIRE (Workpackage 3) partners (EELS, KB, SOSIG) and the UK Electronic Libraries (eLib) Programme subject gateways (ADAM, EEVL, OMNI, RUDI, SOSIG) - see Appendix 1 for short descriptions of these services. Selective gateways add value to Internet information because they can choose resources from the Internet with regard to subject matter or quality criteria. Libraries and librarians have an interest in this area and have been widely represented in the creation and maintenance of these services.
The aim of this task was to develop
quality selection criteria and methods use by subject gateways.
This work may additionally be applicable to other selective Internet
services, for example those primarily based on geographical or
linguistic criteria.
The main objectives were to provide:
The study started with a 'state of
the art' review, to capture materials and views in the areas of
quality control and selection criteria. The review covered:
The resulting studies can be found as appendices
to the main report:
An initial review of literature and
current practice indicated that the quality mechanisms in place
for selective Internet services were fairly rudimentary when compared
to developments in the commercial 'customer oriented' sector,
where emphasis has been on developing systems of continuous improvement.
It was decided that a quality model designed specifically for
Internet subject gateways should be developed, which would provide
a framework within which to implement continuous improvement processes.
In parallel with the development of this conceptual model, detailed
work would be done on the 'resource selection' process within
subject gateways. A comprehensive list of quality selection criteria
was to be developed. This was to be mapped iteratively onto the
subject gateway model.
The model and the list of quality criteria would be developed in the light of the 'state of the art', but would also be tested by existing subject gateways to ensure that they were of practical use in the field.
The study aimed to generate two end
products:
The conceptual model aimed to be both
comprehensive and generalised, not constrained to any particular
subject area. Derived from a 'rich picture' description
of the activities necessary to achieve the objectives of a subject
gateway, it would identify key points at which quality criteria
are and may be employed; for example resource selection, training
to enable users to make intelligent and informed searches, and
quality requirements of information providers.
The list of selection criteria aimed
to be comprehensive and flexible. It would be a reference tool
that subject gateways could use to assist the definition of the
most appropriate criteria for their specific service. As an internal
test the list was to map directly onto the quality model, to enable
services to apply quality mechanisms to the process of selection.
This report describes the background and evolution of these two products, and gives reference to the sources and testing used in this development.
Subject gateways consciously emphasise
the importance of skilled human involvement in the assessment
and 'quality control' of their selected Internet resources. The
core activity - selecting and attributing meaning to those resources
is a human activity. Subject gateways are currently run as academic
services and carry out activities that do not lend themselves
to automation (recognising however the importance of complementary
developments in automated resource harvesting to the growth of
subject gateways).
From the outset the view was taken
that defining quality processes and criteria for a subject gateway
involved more than simply listing the right questions to ask about
potential resources. It was agreed that a more rigorous framework
was needed on which to hang the activities, processes and associated
quality aspects. Such a framework would provide a useful tool
for the specification, implementation, development and evaluation
of any subject gateway, making the substance of this report more
generally applicable. It was hoped that in looking at quality
from a broad base, such a model could prove valuable to a subject
gateway as it could be used to:
Subject gateways use a technology (hard)
system and a human activity (soft) system. The human actions need
to be interpreted (understood) before designing or adapting technology
that effectively supports the overall system. We decided to apply
the analytical approach of Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) which
would allow due consideration of both hard and soft aspects (Checkland
1981; Checkland and Scholes 1990).
See Appendix II for an overview of
SSM and its key concepts.
SSM allows the development of a framework
for collecting and interpreting information about the overall
system, its associated issues and constraints. Ultimately it is
used to define the overall system, its boundaries, the tasks performed
by technology and by people, and how they interact. More structured,
formal techniques can later be employed in specifying and designing
the technical aspects of the service.
A model would be developed using SSM to build a framework for Internet subject gateways. The methodology and evolution sections of this report describe how this was done.
The University of Bristol's Social
Science Information Gateway (SOSIG) was used as the subject of
the detailed study using SSM. SOSIG was a well-established real
system (a subject gateway in action).
The scope of the study was not restricted
too early in the process by defining at the outset what the problem
areas were. The aim was to capture various individual views about
purpose, goals or effectiveness of certain tasks or subsystems,
the principal actors and clients involved, the transformations
(what the system did) and what the expectations and constraints
on the system were. Some of the approaches used were:
Information was mainly gathered from
informal interviews, brainstorming and existing evaluation studies.
This enabled the identification of relevant systems, current concerns
and problems and concepts of what a subject gateway did and should
be doing and the likely development issues.
Rich pictures were generated to graphically
represent the structure, processes and issues that could be relevant
to the problem definition. In this case the rich picture rapidly
developed into a generalised system model avoiding specific reference
to SOSIG. (The distinction between the rich picture and the model
distinction was not as easy to maintain as implied by Checkland).
Having gathered this information and
structured a rich picture (graphics, text and an issues matrix)
, a series of root definitions were written to express the primary
and secondary objectives of the subject gateway. These definitions
inform the iterative development of a graphical Conceptual Model
of the overall system. A small team worked on this so that missing
information and conflicts in perceptions were highlighted.
Subject gateways are usually established
to fulfil a stated role and provide a certain service. We adopted
a primary-task approach where an attempt was made to give a neutral
account of the functioning of a subject gateway. We would looked
at statements of what SOSIG was trying to achieve and portray
to the outside world. The root definitions were written specifically
as succinct statements that include Checkland's CATWOE components.
It is important to note that the conceptual model produced is a theoretical construct - it does not represent the existing or potential structure of the organisation. A process of comparison or testing is required to link the conceptual model back to the real world. It is this process of testing that will raise issues and imply subsequent action, both for the model (systems world) and for the subject gateway (real world).
The rich pictures were produced as paper based drawings with attached notes and a matrix of current and anticipated issues (see Appendix X for examples). Attempts to make these more easily interpretable as rich pictures rapidly led to a production of the more idealised conceptual model.
Root definitions for a subject gateway were based on work within SOSIG. The CATWOE analysis revealed broad agreement over the individuals involved in the development and current functioning of SOSIG. The following data were derived from informal interviews and discussions with directors, cataloguers, trainers, evaluators and users. The Social Science bias was subsequently removed for inclusion in the generalised conceptual model
Charities | FE students |
HE students | Information support professionals |
Journalists | Librarians |
Researchers in Government | Researchers in higher education |
Researchers in Industry | Researchers in NGOs |
Resource providers | SE students |
Self help organisations | Social science practitioners |
Statisticians | Subject specialist librarians |
'Surfers' | Teaching staff |
Trainers | Undergraduates |
Advisory group | Cataloguers |
Listeners | Other subject gateways |
Researchers | Software developers |
Subject specialist librarians | Systems administrators/managers |
Trainers | Trusted information providers |
User group |
From: | To:
|
URL
|
==> |
URL
with added value
|
Vast
|
==> |
Small
|
Unpredictable
|
==> |
Predictable
|
Variable
quality
|
==> |
High
quality
|
Unmediated
|
==> |
Mediated
|
Unstructured
|
==> |
Structured
|
Users
with poor search strategies
|
==> |
Users
with well developed search strategies
|
Unsafe
environment
|
==> |
Safe
environment
|
Data
|
==> |
Data
+ meaning = information
|
Timewasting
|
==> |
Time
efficient
|
Labour
intensive
|
==> |
Labour
saving
|
Information
hungry
|
==> |
Enlightened
/satisfied
|
Internet
unconfident
|
==> |
Internet
confident
|
No
metadata record
|
==> |
Rudimentary
metadata
|
No
subject sections
|
==> |
Subject
sections
|
Reluctant
|
==> |
Enthusiastic
(seeds interest)
|
Researchers/users
with habitual search patterns
|
==> |
Individuals
with enlarged horizons of what is possible
|
Intimidated
users
|
==> |
At
ease users
|
No
clues
|
==> |
`now
I know where to go'
|
Uncritical
information users
|
==> |
Users
with well developed critical abilities
|
Trainees
|
==> |
Trainers,
Proselytisers, Sales force
|
Information
user and consumers
|
==> |
Information
providers
|
People
requiring Internet presence
|
==> |
People
with Internet presence
|
Average
career prospects
|
==> |
Enhanced
career prospects for staff and users
|
US
biased
|
==> |
Reduced
US bias
|
These are the relevant bodies for SOSIG and simply
appear as owners in the model
ESRC, eLib, JISC, DGXIII, University, Department, users
People, information overload, software constraints, funding, funding outlook.
A university owned and maintained system that
selects and catalogues subject specialist Internet resources on
the bases of quality and relevance, allowing structured access
by a range of users in research and education in the belief that
such filtering provides an essential added value to the inadequately
structured data available on the Internet.
A university owned and maintained system that
introduces a range of users in research and education to the Internet
as a potential source of relevant high quality information, allowing
them to explore and develop discovery strategies which can be
used in subsequent exploration in the belief that efficient and
critical use of the Internet requires appropriate training.
An academic institution owned and maintained system that builds a publicly accessible catalogue of subject specialist Internet resources by the application of a predefined set of quality selection criteria.
These three root definitions provided different perspectives
of emphasis for a particular subject gateway. They did not imply
three different structures. We attempted to move to a general
model, independent of SOSIG, which would allow for all the above
root definitions.
The model went through three iterations before an
agreed generalised model emerged, capable of incorporating all
the above root definitions. These earlier iterations, the pre-
and post- test models are detailed in Appendix X.
We looked at the logically necessary processes and
components for each of the three root definitions at a depth which
seemed to capture the system. We did not concentrate on establishing
a hierarchical structuring of the processes, but preferred to
work with the whole picture, recognising that for clarity and
explanation we might want later to add such a decomposition.
A conceptual model was developed which
represented graphically the activities logically necessary to
achieve the transformation described in the primary root definition(s).
The model was checked to ensure that it conforms to the following
requirements:
See Appendix II for a more detailed outline of Soft Systems methodology and a definition of terms. The pre-test model is available at: <URL:http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/DESIRE/quality/images/mdlv1_4.gif>
An important stage in the evolution of both the list and the model
was the testing, which had two main aims:
Both products were subjected to testing and were modified in the
light of the results.
The testing was undertaken by the three organisations involved
in building subject gateways as part of the DESIRE project; SOSIG,
KB and EELS. In addition to this, Biz/ed (an eLib funded subject
gateway) took part in the testing due to their close working proximity
to the SOSIG project.
A copy of the pictorial model and a
set of the selection criteria were sent to each organisation.
They were asked to study the model and the associated textual
descriptions and compare the processes indicated by the model
against their own service. Disparities between the systems model
and the real world could indicate problems and/or where improvements
could be made.
Methods for comparison that were used:
A similar procedure was used to test the quality criteria. The participants were asked to work through the list criteria and mark down the criteria that they found relevant for use in their service. See Appendix IX for a list of the personnel involved in the testing.
The final model takes into account some of the results of the testing that was carried out in the field. (NB some changes - notably those relating to heirarchical structuring of the model will be incorporated with the final version of this report). It is available as: <URL:http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/DESIRE/quality/images/mdlv1_5.gif> .
Most of these changes were subsequently incorporated graphically into the model of Appendix X.
The generalised model that has been developed from this study
aims to provide the basis for a useful and comprehensive reference
tool for Internet subject gateways. Used in conjunction with
the lists of quality criteria it will underpin the specification
and development of subject gateways within DESIRE. Additionally
the model attempts to provide a conceptual framework with which
new, existing and emerging subject gateways and related selective
gateways might evolve. It is not intended to be prescriptive and
is not a system specification or design, but rather a means by
which such specifications could be tested and developed.
Each subject gateway could make effective further use of the model if it were to:
The model itself should evolve in use as the specification and development of a subject gateway proceed - it is not intended to be a static model. It is primarily a visual means to capture the complex functioning of a subject gateway in all its aspects. It has proved to be potentially useful in the evaluations carried out with a limited number of services. It should be used subsequently in the implementation phases of DESIRE to provide a means of structured evaluation of the service, establishing criteria for its effective and efficient performance. It will be produced in a revised format as one component tools and methods at the end of the project.
A initial review of the selection process
currently being used by subject gateways revealed two key findings:
These findings reflect the premise
on which these services are based - that human judgement is the
critical factor if only resources of the highest quality are to
be selected. If detailed and definitive criteria could be established
then expert systems could be developed to do the job, but this
has not happened. The implication is that the evaluation of information
resources is a very complex process best carried out by subject
specialists whose judgements are likely to involve detailed and
complex mental processes. It is necessary to draw out and formalise
the tacit knowledge which is currently used in an unexamined way,
particularly if the resource selection process is increasingly
distributed as subject gateways enlarge and expand their information
gathering activities.
The fact that selection is done intuitively and is based on human knowledge, experience and judgement raises the question as to what criteria this intuitive process involves. This study aimed to gather as many of these criteria as possible, from a wide variety of sources, with a view to making as many of these criteria as possible explicit. The list of criteria aimed to be comprehensive so that the benefit of this expertise could be shared as a tool for all subject gateways to use.
A systematic review of selection criteria for Internet resources
was conducted. The initial aim was to capture all the selection
criteria and quality attributes either currently being used by
Internet services, or recently mentioned in the literature. Four
main information sources were used in the review:
The aim was to produce a list of all criteria and attributes found. Comprehensive coverage was the main aim. The trawl was systematic, and at this stage all criteria were included in the terms that they were found in the sources, regardless of duplication or apparent value.
Over 250 criteria were collected from the initial trawl. This
'raw data' then went through the following processes:
A second list was created by the research team and was to be tested
by some subject gateways, after which any modifications necessary
would be made
At this stage the list had been categorised into sections which aimed to reflect the different types of selection criteria, and the selection process itself. These categories were designed in parallel with the quality model. This list was then sent off to be tested by subject gateways (see Section 3.3).
An important stage in the evolution of both the list and the model
was the testing, which had two main aims:
Both products were subjected to testing and were modified in the
light of the results.
The testing was undertaken by the three organisations involved
in building subject gateways as part of the DESIRE project; SOSIG,
KB and EELS. In addition to this, Biz/ed (an eLib funded subject
gateway) took part in the testing due to their close working proximity
to the SOSIG project.
A copy of the pictorial model and a
set of the selection criteria were sent to each organisation.
They were asked to study the model and the associated textual
descriptions and compare the processes indicated by the model
against their own service. Disparities between the systems model
and the real world could indicate problems and/or where improvements
could be made.
Methods for comparison that were used:
A similar procedure was used to test the quality criteria. The participants were asked to work through the list criteria and mark down the criteria that they found relevant for use in their service. See Appendix IX for a list of the personnel involved in the testing.
The final list was created in the light of the test results.
The list of quality selection criteria was well received as a
tool for Internet subject gateways. All the testers gave a rating
4 or 5 on a five-point scale (where 5 was 'very useful' and 1
was 'not at all useful'). This result implied that drastic modifications
were not required. However, the ratings for individual selection
criteria were used to make some minor modifications:
Only one of the criteria was not used by any of the services.
This was the Special Needs criteria in the Scope section. None
of the services said their users had any special needs that would
affect the resources that were selected (e.g. disabled users requiring
large print or audio resources). In general the test results
corroborated the idea that different services use different selection
criteria, since there a variety of differing criteria were used
by the different services.
It was therefore decided that none of the items should be removed
from the list, as they might be appropriate for some services.
However, the order of the criteria were altered, with the criteria
used most commonly by the services doing the testing given a higher
priority within each section (i.e. moved up the list-order).
The testers' comments in answer to the open questions gave a consistent
picture of the relative importance of the different categories
of criteria. The scope criteria and content criteria tended to
carry the most weight in the selection process of the majority
of the services. One service said the collection management criteria
also carried most weight. The process and form criteria tended
to carry the least weight.
One new criterion was added to the list following a suggestion
made by one of the testers. It was suggested that 'complementary
value in a shrinking acquisitions budget' should be used as a
criteria. This was added to the collection management criteria,
as a valuable addition. The complementary value of a resource
in relation to traditional information resources available in
libraries could conceivably affect the value of an Internet resource
in the eyes of the users.
The test results were encouraging, in that they supported the
idea that the list could be a useful reference tool for Internet
subject gateways. The comprehensiveness and adaptability of the
list were well received. It was acknowledged that the list would
need to be tailored to meet the needs of individual services to
be of practical use:
'I think it is useful to start out with this very comprehensive list, and choosing your priorities, work it down to something workable, and maybe from time to time reconsider your priorities by turning to the list once again.' (A comment from the National Library of the Netherlands).
This list of quality selection criteria aims to be a useful reference
tool for Internet subject gateways. Its strength lies in the
fact that it is:
The list takes into account the fact that different quality criteria
will be needed for different services, since 'quality' should
be closely related to 'user satisfaction'. Different services
will be aimed at different users, and so what constitutes a quality
resource will vary across services. The list aims to offer Internet
services:
As indicated in the quality model, selection is a process which involves careful consideration of a number of factors, all of which will affect the definition of a quality resource for the service. The key factors in the selection process of an Internet subject gateway are generic: the users, the information resources, and the service itself. The framework of the list takes all of these factors into account, by suggesting five main types of quality selection criteria:
A 'quality resource' will therefore be defined with
the specific service and its users in mind, as well as the nature
of the information resources. The quality selection criteria
for a specific service can be created by using this framework.
Within each of the five areas the criteria most appropriate for
the service should be decided, defined and continually reviewed.
The framework also helps to structure the actual process of selection:
The framework accounts for the different stages at which decisions about quality need to be made. Like traditional library collections, Internet collections involve selection, maintenance and de-selection. This framework, in conjunction with the quality model, suggests that services need to apply quality selection criteria to resources at all three of these stages, and that many resources will need to be evaluated more than once, if the integrity of the collection is to be maintained.
All of the selection criteria found in the 'state
of the art' trawl have been included in the list, and are organised
according to the framework described above. Individual services
can use the list as a reference tool, to select the criteria that
are appropriate for the service, in the knowledge that in doing
so they will be drawing on a wealth of practice, experience and
knowledge in this field.
By using the framework, and drawing on the list, the definition of a 'quality resource' will be determined by the users and the aims of each service as well as by the nature if the resource. The list can be tailored for use by any selective service. The five main categories of criteria are generic, as they are based on the process of resource selection required to run any service. Each service would need to select from the list, the criteria that are appropriate given their own particular user group and service aims.
The two tools which are detailed here will firstly be used in
the specification and development of the Cataloguing demonstrators
for the next phase of DESIRE. They will be further developed over
the life of the project in parallel with the demonstration phase
and be used to structure the subsequent evaluation. It is recognised
that, having produced tools which are accepted as being of value
to existing and emerging subject gateways, further effort will
be required to make these generally useful and accessible to
new subject gateways which will emerge using the other
tools and methods developed during the life of DESIRE.
Next | Table of Contents |
Page maintained by: UKOLN Metadata Group,
Last updated: 2-Apr-1998