Can’t We All Get Along?The highs and lows of librarian/IT collaborations

Carrie Iwema, PhD, MLSInformation Specialist in Molecular Biology

Fran Yarger, MA, MAEdAssistant Director for Computing Services

Health Sciences Library SystemUniversity of Pittsburgh

MLA 2010

HSLS = Health Sciences Library System

•University of Pittsburgh

–6 health sciences schools

–University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC)

–Patron base = 55,000

–HSLS Web site = 3,000,000 visitors/year

HSLS Homepage

http://www.hsls.pitt.edu/

HSLS Web Development Players

•7 member Executive Committee

•22 FT, 2 PT faculty Librarians

•5 member Web Committee

•3 member IT Development Team

Molecular Biology Information Service

Morning Report Blog

Consumer Health Information Portal

New HSLS Web Projects—Foundation

• Theory-based– Pirolli’s Information Foraging– Nielsen/Norman group

• Cost/benefit ratio

• Question: “what problem does this solve”

New HSLS Web Projects—Initiation• Executive Committee– Project charter

– Global view

• SMEs (Subject Matter Experts)– Ideas, plans, and outcomes

• Application developer & web programmer– Realistic view of technology capabilities

New HSLS Web Projects—Work Flow

1. Meeting between SME & IT project manager (ongoing)

2. Paper / online prototypes3. Usability testing4. Revisions5. Launch6. Maintenance

New HSLS Web Projects—Accomplishments

•2 years = >20 web-based projects launched

•A few started but not completed

•Projects include:

Systematic Review Class

Clinical Focus

History of Medicine

Document Delivery

Thoughts on the process?

• Survey—SMEs

• Interviews—IT Development Team

33 Questions, including:

• When working on your web based project was there clear communication regarding expectations, process and, if needed, work to be completed?

• Before development began, did you or your group have a needs assessment plan for the project?

• In your own words, how would you explain HSLS’s web design process?

Results—IT services used

N = 23

Results—SME feedback (averages)

N = 7

Results—SME feedback (individual)

0= N/A 1=strongly disagree 2=disagree 3=neither agree nor disagree 4=agree 5=strongly agree

Survey Comments—Positive

(Paper prototyping) was very flexible and permitted input from

multiple sources simultaneously.

(The launch/update/ upgrade schedule was) very effective

and timely.

(The usability testing process was) well done, although it

would be nice for it to be more

extensive…results were useful and led

to some changes.

(The HSLS web design process is)

seamless...and very effective.

Survey Comments—Negative

I wonder if any usability is ever done

and if it is if the negative comments

are really used.

A prototype…would have saved on a lot of problems…decisions

were made by IT.

Should be more listening to

librarians…and less dictating by systems.

More input from departments if it directly

impacts their work.

IT Suggestions to Improve Process (SME)• Bring list of wants/needs/target audience• Provide content• Create paper prototype for IT to convert

to electronic version• Supply questions for usability testing• Have a non-involved party run usability

testing (reduces bias)• Be goal-driven not tool-driven

IT Suggestions to Improve Process (IT)

• Ask questions to clarify goals• Clearly explain IT capabilities• Create electronic prototype• Assist w/usability testing• Formalize maintenance schedule

Moving Forward…

Better communication!• Especially when leadership-driven• Between SME & IT• Expectation management

Thanks for your attention!

Carrie Iwema, PhD, MLSInformation Specialist in Molecular Biology

Fran Yarger, MA, MAEdAssistant Director for Computing Services

Health Sciences Library SystemUniversity of Pittsburgh