ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries C&RL News ■ A p ril 1999 / 267 C o l l e g e & R e s e a r c h L i b r a r i e s news Building a virtual library How the University of South Florida Libraries did it by Monica Metz-Wiseman, Tina Neville, Ardis Hanson, Kim Grohs, Susan Silver, Edward Sanchez, Margaret M. Doherty I f academic libraries had feet, what path­ways would they tread in quest of the vir­ tual library? Will the new millennium be a prosperous “golden age” for those daring enough to embark on the journey now, or do the electronic equivalents of whirlpools and monsters await? No less than the heroes of the epic sagas, all types o f libraries now face these “how” and “when” dilemmas. The University of South Florida (USF) Libraries explored these questions, made their choice, and are implementing the organizational and technical changes necessary to build a vir­ tual library. USF is the second largest institution in the State University System with 34,000 students and 2,000 faculty members. Within the USF library system there are five libraries geo­ graphically separated by 60 miles. Focusing on remote users with more than 87% of the students living off-campus, the libraries also support an average annual enrollment of 10,000 students in distance education pro­ grams. In the planning and implementation of this project, library staff confronted a num­ ber o f firsts: cross-functional teams with fa­ cilitators as managers; project- and user- driven goals; system-wide positions; and new budgeting techniques driven by cost/benefit analyses. The planning process In September 1995 the USF Library directors charged the Virtual Library Planning Com­ mittee with the development of a virtual li­ brary plan. Goals for the virtual library in­ cluded: access to expanded services and resources for all eligible users regardless of geographic location; the development of an easy-to-use, yet powerful retrieval system; support for distance learners; a heightened awareness of existing on-site collections and services; and the elimination of duplication among the USF Libraries. To bring all members quickly up to speed on virtual library issues and technology, the committee supplemented a traditional com­ prehensive literature review with a judicious monitoring of mail lists and the Web. Each committee member attended a conference or workshop. While all the conferences were helpful, Cornell University’s “The Successful Library” proved to be the most useful for the planning aspects o f the project. The committee laid its first foundation About the authors Monica Metz-Wiseman is the virtual library project manager at the University o f South Florida (USF) Libraries, e-mail: monica@lib. usf.edu; Tina Neville is the head o f reference at USF, St. Petersburg, e-mail: neville@neìson. usf.edu; Ardis Hanson is director o f the Florida M ental Health Institute Library a t USF, e-mail: hanson@fmhi.usf.edu; Kim Grohs is director o f Information and Access Services at USF, Sarasota/New College, e-mail: grohs@sar. usf.edu; Susan Silver is electronic resources librarian at USF, e-mail: ssilver@lib.usf.edu; Edward Sanchez is electronic information librarian at USF, St. Petersburg, e-mail: sanchez@nelson. usf.edu; M argaret M. Doherty is the referen ce and collection developm ent librarian at USF, e-mail: mdoherty@lib.usf.edu mailto:hanson@fmhi.usf.edu mailto:ssilver@lib.usf.edu mailto:mdoherty@lib.usf.edu 268 / C&RL News ■ A p ril 1999 stone with an analysis of the USF Libraries’ e le c­ tronic infrastructure in re­ lation to peer institutions. The committee-designed survey instrument elicited a mixture of qualitative judgments and quantita­ tive data from eight peer libraries selected on the basis of ACRL and ARL statistics. Ques­ tions concerned electronic collections and services, cataloging available for electronic resources, staffing and budgeting, and de­ tails on hardware and connectivity issues. Since one of the primary goals o f the project was to create a user-centered virtual library, the committee next consulted library users. Fourteen focus groups examined user needs, with each group developing an im­ pression of the current use of electronic re­ sources at USF and the perceived electronic needs and desires within the USF commu­ nity. Participants gave their personal defini­ tion of a virtual library and described the kinds of electronic resources and services that they were currently using or would like to access. Using cluster analysis to examine the re­ sults, the committee organized the mass of research data into four sections: services, col­ lection and content, interface and infrastruc­ ture, and organizational structure. Over the next four months the committee followed this framework in laying out their plan for the USF Libraries Virtual Library. The resulting document The USF Librar­ ies Virtual Library Project: A Blueprint f o r De­ velopment, reported the research data and identified the project groups that would cre­ ate the virtual library. The needs and desires articulated by the focus groups were now benchmarks. These benchmarks, reinforced by proposed standards and reachable by long- and short-term actions, constituted the route toward the virtual library. The im plem entation process The press for implementation of the virtual library became so great that the first stages of the implementation process overlapped the last stages of the planning process. A team was already reviewing group purchases of electronic resources for all USF Libraries. In a flurry o f paperwork, this team composed From the focus groups came tw o basic them es: provide easy, seam less access to relevant, inter­ connected resources and enhance the quality of services currently offered. an evaluation form, a collection development policy, and an acquisitions and processing procedures statement for electronic resources. A common Web interface was o f critical concern so that resources could be mounted, organized, and easily accessed by patrons, both remotely and on-site at the libraries. Each new electronic resource required train­ ing and marketing. These goals could not be attained within the framework of the existing infrastructure or without the leadership of a system-wide coordinator. In March 1997, the library di­ rectors named a project manager. The full implementation of the Virtual Library Project was well underway. To provide continuity, most members of the Virtual Library Planning Committee stayed on, and in February 1997, they convened as the re-christened Implementation Team. Working with the project manager, this team recommends policy to the library directors. The Implementation Team began by writing the charges for the ten teams initially identi­ fied in the Blueprint that would create the virtual library: interface design, electronic collections, metadata, digitization, marketing, training and staff development, electronic theses and dissertations, electronic reserves, document delivery, and the implementation team. Preliminaries over, it was time to engage the full participation of the library staff. The Implementation Team presented the plan to staff at each library. At the presentations, they asked staff members to express prioritized interest in joining any of the virtual library teams. Nearly 90 staff members volunteered. The Implementation Team recommended team composition based on interest, balanced representation from each library, and back­ ground in public services, technical services, or systems. To ensure continuity with the original virtual library concept, each of the virtual library teams has a facilitator who also serves on the Implementation Team. C&RL News ■ A p ril 1999 / 269 With so many people involved in the project, keeping the lines o f communication open between the teams could have been a daunting proposition. A virtual library mail list provides ongoing discussions open to all staff members o f the USF Libraries. Team Web p a g e s d isp lay m e e tin g m in u tes, progress reports, documents, and forms. Team facilitators present updates at the Implementation Team’s biweekly meetings. The collaboratively created interface, the project’s cornerstone, turned out to be one of the most complex components of the vir­ tual library. From the focus groups came two basic themes: provide easy, seamless access to relevant, interconnected resources and enhance the quality of services currently offered. With this in mind, the Interface Design Project Group divided into four mini-groups: user perspectives, graphic design, Web de­ velopment, and scripts/search engines. The User Perspectives Group looked at how to best find what was needed, e.g., subject, title, format of materials, and how to enhance ser­ vices. The Web Development and Scripts/ Search Engines groups mapped and navi­ gated the site by maximizing the use of vi­ sual cues. Library staff with graphic design expertise created the interface logotype. This new interface, launched mid-November 1997, is available at http://www.lib.usf.edu/ virtual/. While the interface was the first and most visible landmark on the road to the virtual library, 1997 saw other significant achieve­ ments in terms of both acquisitions and in­ frastructure development. University and li­ brary administrators rallied to the cause. They approved the purchase o f OCLC’s SiteSearch software, powerful servers, and funded an Interface Designer position to work on the more technical aspects of the interface. The USF Libraries purchased access to Elsevier Science Journals, JSTOR, Web of Science, Lexis-Nexis UNIVerse, Project Muse, and other significant electronic resources. Additional projects are underway for 1998- 99. The highest priority is the integration of SiteSearch software into the user interface. An “all-in-one” search that will allow access across multiple Z 3 9 .50 databases is in the testing stage. Team members are also ex­ panding the electronic course reserves sys­ tem, furthering the development of online interactive tutorials, building on digitization projects, and creating enhanced cataloging records. When running at full-tilt, it is diffi­ cult to stop and reassess, but the Implemen­ tation Team is currently doing just that. An analysis of 1997-98 activities focusing on as­ sessment and outcome is in progress. A fter yea r one . . . As the virtual library celebrates its first birth­ day, its successful incorporation into the university’s research and administrative struc­ ture has been validated with the inclusion of the virtual library as one of six key com­ ponents of the USF Information Technol­ ogy Task Force. Other university task force teams include research, teaching and outreach, technology management, student access services, and health sciences support. T o g e th e r, th e s e team s w ill set the university’s technological tenor for the next three-to-five years. While the university is collapsing the recently issued individual plans for a coherent planning document to be issued in the spring of 1999, the USF Libraries are currently involved in user as­ sessment and long-range planning for the virtual library. Topics for the future include the development o f individually customized user interface, an expanded role in univer­ sity-wide information literacy, and electronic publishing programs. Beyond infrastructure and databases, the Virtual Library Project served as a catalyst for changes within its participants. USF’s Vir­ tual Library Project became a collaborative learn ing e x p e rie n ce , a “com m unity-in- practice.” Virtual library team members de­ veloped strong working relationships with one another that transcended rank, depart­ ment lines, and geography. In learning about the virtual library, they also learned how to be members of a larger “community.” Organizationally, the transfor­ mations within the USF Libraries are paying dividends in the coin of multi-campus co­ operation. However, the continued success o f this collaboration requires ongoing evalu­ ation leading, inevitably, to additional change and innovation. ■ http://www.lib.usf.edu/ 270 / C&RL News ■ A p ril 1999