This section presents findings from the project deliverables in all programme areas, but largely excludes Training and Awareness which is dealt with in a separate section.
The need to achieve a critical mass of content was a recurring theme throughout the project documentation. Several different projects (across different programme areas) highlighted the sheer problem of finding enough material (such as multimedia copy for electronic journals, Internet resources for the subject gateways and course material for ODP). Inevitably achieving critical mass would be a prerequisite to encouraging use of the products and services (and subsequently cultural change). As the Tavistock have already pointed out, users would need to see the tangible benefits of changing to a new type of information product, especially where training or a steep learning curve is required. The results of user surveys repeatedly highlighted the need for more resources or material to be available.
The timing of publicity on a product was also crucial in encouraging positive responses from potential users. Some of the Training and Awareness projects found they had mis-timed their dissemination strategies and had consequently raised user expectations prematurely, often a long time before courses were available. A similar problem had occurred in other project areas where the marketing or publicity on a product was out of all proportion to its size or value to users.
A number of projects recognise the need for new ways to kick start communication flows and relationships between different stakeholder groups. If communication and terminology is seen as integral to the cultural change process these issues need to be addressed at a number of different levels. One example where this issue has received some attention is one Electronic Journal project, which is attempting to build a virtual community across different stakeholder groups (computing staff, academics, educational developers, librarians) and has specifically explored the use of language and terminology. However they note in their annual report:
"The distances between some of the staff in our four constituent target groups are quite extensive and that there is a lot of work still to do in building a common resource, a common language and an effective meeting place".
One way of doing this is to ensure that appropriate vocabulary is used to refer to the new electronic environment (and which emphasises the interactive dimension of electronic resources, in terms of interaction both among people and between people and information) rather than clinging to terminology normally associated with print publishing. The assumption is that use of new terminology will shape people's perceptions of electronic information and contribute to a change in attitudes.
The majority of projects looked at for the purposes of this Study are concerned with the prototyping, building and testing of technical systems for the delivery of electronic information services. Furthermore, projects tend to be experimental in nature. The annual reports of projects (where available) are evidence of the widespread preoccupation with technical attributes and the technical functionality of the system under development.
It is reasonable to say that the principal driving force underpinning these projects is the technical product, and of secondary importance is how an information service is best delivered for the benefit of its users (after all, if user-driven information services were at the heart of the eLib programme, it would not be reasonable to have the preconception that the electronic medium is the most appropriate form of service delivery). User needs for the most part are considered only in relation to technical system under development.
The evaluation plans of some projects indicate that the likely usage of the system in practice comes into consideration only once the system (or at least a prototype of it) has been built. An Electronic Journal project in the sample took the approach of starting with a 'user needs analysis' phase, but this appeared to be structured in order to justify the project's preconceptions about the nature and scope of the service. The same project also made the assumption that it already knew the user needs:
"the cultural and organisational contexts are, we believe, well understood because the team is working within its own domain of library and information management."
Whilst the product-driven nature of projects does not necessarily preclude their mobilisation of cultural change, there is a danger that a new system which does not properly address both the practical and human nature of information use, will be disregarded by users in favour of existing tried and tested methods. What chance does the project then have of mobilising cultural change? One ODP project in the sample recognised that as its potential users are working in the humanities, they were likely to encounter considerable technophobia: It therefore presented to the user community a technical system alongside its more traditional print relations, in order to demonstrate the possible advantages in a context in which the users would feel comfortable. The project also recognised that "a plurality of media reflects the real world". Such pragmatism is to be applauded if it helps to change the perceptions of the electronic information medium. Those projects which present information users with the assumption that "electronic is best" may exacerbate existing suspicions and fears, and in any case, may already be preaching to the converted.
As discussed (in the user needs section) above, many of these projects claim to be experimental "test beds" and the experiences gained in the course of the projects are intended to act as templates for other institutions wishing to develop similar systems. It is interesting to note that none of the projects in the sample claim to be developing a system which is intended solely for use in its own institution. This aim is characterised typically by one ODP project as to
"create the technical and organisational basis for a subsequent expansion of the service for the HE sector, in terms of number of users supported and other subject areas."
However, there are surprisingly few projects which address the problems of scaling up and extending into the rest of HE, in terms of the diversity of institutional contexts. This diversity is manifest, for example, in types of HEI (e.g there are differences in the structures of new and old universities), or in the makeup of student bodies. One project identifies problem areas as academic traditions, committee structures, administrative methods, and the availability of resources. There are projects which address the problem of organisational diversity using consortia of partners representing different types of institution. However, in the case of projects which ignore issues of organisational usability, it is difficult to imagine how a system which has been developed using the human and technical resources of the local institution can automatically fulfil the needs of HE as a whole.
One ANR project in the sample actually established an aim to focus on "organisational issues rather than technical/operational requirements" at both the departmental and institution-wide level and cover "questions relating to institutional policy, strategy and organisational infrastructure". It does this by adopting two organisational models within different institutions where the library plays either a central or distributed role, and interestingly, the project makes no assumption that the library is necessarily where the service should reside: What is most important is what works best for all stakeholders, from the individual user, through the department to the institution level. For a project to have a good chance of taking root in a context wider than the library in which it was conceived, it cannot rely solely upon its technical merits to sell itself to other HEIs. In order for it to effect cultural change in HE more widely, it needs to be aware of the different cultures in which it may be required to work.
The eLib programme has aimed to foster a learning culture, where success or failure of the project is of less importance than the experience which projects have learned in the process. The fact that many projects aim to learn on behalf of other HEIs which may wish to develop similar systems in the future (as discussed in the section above) suggests that projects have responded to the learning process underpinning the programme. However, there is evidence of difficulties in the experiences of projects which have either sought to learn from other projects in the programme or from development projects which pre-exist eLib. There is also evidence of common problems which could be addressed by shared solutions, drawing upon the pools of expertise which are growing up across the programme. This begs the question, that if there is little collective or coordinated action within the programme for projects to learn from each other, how can they expect the systems they are developing to be passed on to the wider HE community?
Interestingly, an ODP project which investigated the experiences of other pre-eLib projects in drawing up its proposal and project plan, talked about the difficulty of applying lessons from other electronic library projects to its own set of circumstances and requirements. This comment not only underlines the need for eLib projects to be aware of cross-institutional diversity, but is also suggests that factors of organisational usability are extremely important to the project. One slightly more worrying conclusion to be drawn is that projects may prefer to ignore other similar developments elsewhere, as those projects may pre-empt or indeed negate what they themselves are trying to pioneer. It needs to be emphasised that a learning culture involves a two-way process: projects must be willing to learn as well as disseminate.
Previous section: Findings: analysis of Training and Awareness projects
Next section: Findings: workshop on tentative findings
The Electronic Libraries Programme (eLib) was funded
by the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC)
Page version: 1;
Web page maintained by
UKOLN Systems Team
and hosted by
UKOLN
- feedback to
systems@ukoln.ac.uk
.
Site last revised on: Tuesday, 24-Nov-1998 14:21:08 UTC
DC Metadata