Talis Insight Asia-Pacific 2017: Victoria University of Wellington
•Als PPTX, PDF herunterladen•
1 gefällt mir•359 views
Empfohlen
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Was ist angesagt?
Was ist angesagt? (20)
Andere mochten auch
Andere mochten auch (20)
Ähnlich wie Talis Insight Asia-Pacific 2017: Victoria University of Wellington
Ähnlich wie Talis Insight Asia-Pacific 2017: Victoria University of Wellington (20)
Mehr von Talis
Mehr von Talis (20)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)
Talis Insight Asia-Pacific 2017: Victoria University of Wellington
- 1. Carrots and sticks: introducing Talis into an academic environment Marcus Harvey Matthew Arrowsmith Victoria University of Wellington Library / Te Pātaka Kōrero Talis Insight Asia-Pacific 3rd February 2017
- 2. Our themes: • How have the relationships with schools and academics been developed and maintained during Talis implementation to ensure success? • What were the lessons learnt? • What are our next steps?
- 3. What we’ll cover: • The early days • Relationships • Communication • Support • Transition to library core business • What we learnt • Opportunities
- 4. The early days • Driver - compliance (Copyright Licensing New Zealand) • Critical deadline (Full compliance by Tri 2 2016) • University project, IT project management • Big bang adoption vs phased adoption • Benefits highlighted – led with the carrot • Print initially dominated internal conversations
- 5. Relationships • Tailored relationship building with schools • Implementation process depended on school approach to support their academics • Early adopters as change agents and testers
- 6. Relationships… • School approach • Course coordinator / academic-led lists • Administrative support • School Administrators • Research Assistants • Temporary Contracted Staff
- 7. Communication • High-level messages from Steering Group • Project team communication timing • Evolving thinking, evolving communication
- 8. Communication… • Communication advice from vendor and other adopters • Carrot rather than stick used in this phase • Addressing the rumour mill • Time lag between filtering down and filtering up
- 9. Support • Initial training support through IT, Matthew and some of Client Services team • Early adopter follow-up • Evolving support model
- 10. Transition to library core business • Advisory group established • Library staff trained • Phased transition with dual support • Thinking and processes still evolving • Communications reviewed
- 11. Faculty Staff or Student calls / Emails LTS technical support library-technologyservices @vuw.ac.nz Incoming Calls ITS Support (04) 463 (extn.) 5050 Staff: ResolveIT Students: ...its/student- services/helpform/ Incoming Calls Library Central Enquiries library@vuw.ac.nz (04) 463 6186 (Client Services) Training requests Reading lists General support Subject Librarians individual contacts .../find-your-subject-librarian Client Services library@vuw.ac.nz (04) 463 6186 Copyright Officer copyright@vuw.ac.nz Vendor (Talis) http://support.talis.com/ Support calls Incoming Calls Issue resolution Contact client Specialised technical support Digitisation issuesTechnical issues Access administration Technical issues Access administration Copyright clarification Talis-Aspire product support
- 13. Transition to library core business… • Leveraged existing Library relationships and built new ones • Physical course readings – worked with specific schools to ensure compliance
- 14. Transition to library core business… • Mostly smooth relationships but there were struggles for compliance • Opportunity to refine processes • Talis requirements vs complex copyright questions
- 15. Transition to library core business… • Regular messages to schools • Academic representation on the Advisory Group • Integrating into a wider strategy to strengthen course reading lists
- 16. What we learnt • Timely communication • Project composition • Copyright knowledge is very limited • Stick effective for mass implementation • Carrot beneficial going forward
- 17. Opportunities • Working closer with University partners and academics to strengthen reading lists • Developing processes and tools to be more convenient for list creators • Building greater knowledge and awareness of Copyright
- 18. Questions
Hinweis der Redaktion
- Driver – agreement with Copyright Licensing New Zealand (CLNZ). Other New Zealand Universities also under this agreement. University project – was important that the project was seen as a University initiative, not a Library, IT or Legal initiative. Elected for “Big Bang” to avoid duplication of effort compared to many other universities implementing a phased adoption by school. Other Library projects (ALMA/PRIMO) kept us from focusing on Talis from early as we might have liked. Print dominated the initial internal conversation with stakeholders. This was the first University implementing Talis where E wasn’t the dominant content type. There were concerns voiced by academics that this project was a way to get them to stop using print content and it took some time to address and move past that concern.
- Relationship building was done on a school by school basis. This provided a basis to understand and address their concerns. Tailored relationship building was required because there were differences between schools in terms of types of content used and also how schools were supporting the creation of lists. We had issues with the early adopter relationship. Early adopters (original group of 20) many didn’t feed back as some used this an opportunity to find out more about the project and quickly became more about early training and training practice rather than as testing and feature feedback. This is where concerns were raised about print use. Project had hoped to develop a partnership where the adopter group helped us to develop our use of Talis but this never eventuated. The follow-up with the adopter group was also highlighted by participants as an area of the relationship that required strengthening. This concern was addressed in a later training and support model led by the Library.
- The big bang implementation approach for Trimester 2 required complex relationship management and constant tailored communication with schools. We were expecting approximately 750 reading lists to be created and 400 academics trained in a window from April to June 2016. It was very difficult to accurately determine the actual number of lists required to be created due to changing courses and finding out what courses used a reading list. The culture in each school was different. There were different content types and concerns raised and therefore responses requiring tailoring and often with Heads of Schools and individuals that raised concerns or did not want to engage with the project. On occasions these questions and responses had to be dealt at a senior project level. Some schools could utilise administrative support or hire research assistants to complete lists. Most schools expected course coordinators to take responsibility for their lists and create them. School administrator were generally really useful (one point of contact and quickly became adept with Talis ins and outs, could manage the coordinator relationship, generally knew the ins and outs of school and what was required) but had some drawbacks when administration was unfamiliar with subject matter, library systems and appropriate metadata (i.e. not knowing what the course coordinator intended or what was needed for a good bookmark).
- Messages from the Vice-Provost (Academic and Equity) helped with setting high level University expectations, however the project team were also gathering feedback and issues and reporting these back to the Steering Group for guidance. The project team had to ensure any messages they were then conveying were in line with new decisions and this did result in some pausing while new communication was planned and sent out to the University. This situation with communication was largely to be expected as the project was evolving and responding to any concerns raised. It did provide some downstream relationship issues as schools would hold to earlier communication and decisions despite the process subsequently evolving.
- Communication was largely derived from advice and examples from Talis and other adopters. The carrot was largely used in the early project phase with benefits of adoption highlighted rather than the compliance message. There were may rumours and murmurings from academics during this phase as information and impressions of the system was shared by the early adopter group with colleagues. Email and newsletter communication was sent out however these channels met with limited success, largely due to its perceived lack of relevance due to other commitments or as another complex tool for academics to learn. One of the first initiatives to address the increasing awareness of the coming product was a presentation arranged with the project team and the University’s Copyright officer for teaching staff. The project team found it took 2 months for new information to flow through to schools as a change of practice by the time issues and themes of concerns were identified, new processes determined, communication arranged, disseminated and filtered through to course coordinators. Many messages were not being passed on by school staff to coordinators which also added to the rumour mill in a vacuum of information.
- Initial training support through IT and Library Client Services. The Subject Librarians were not involved during this phase. The project used IT Learning Technology Specialists in conjunction with Matthew from Library Client Services to conduct training and IT took the lead in developing online support information. An absence of consistent early adopter follow-up created downstream relationship issues as some participants felt underutilised or not kept in the loop. At the same time the project team was seeking feedback and the lack of responses or focus on system features was frustrating efforts to develop processes that reflected how and why the system was to be used. In the lead up to Trimester Three 2015 the Subject Librarians were advised that that they would be the primary channel for Talis training and support in the future and that all courses were expected to be using Talis by Trimester Two 2016. Planning then got underway to transfer support processes from the project and IT to the Library. During this phase schools and coordinators were advised that all course reading lists would need to be in Talis by Trimester Two and the compliance message became stronger as the scope of the task ahead became apparent.
- An advisory group was established of project and library staff and led by the Library. This was to ensure a smooth transition from the project to Library core business. There was no academic representation in the early stages. The advisory group had participants that were also on the Steering Group which aided communication and decisions on changes to process. Subject Librarians and Library Client Services staff were trained to offer training and support. They were assisted in training by the IT Learning Technology Specialists and this helped forge a closer relationship with their role and subsequent support for other activities. Our thinking about processes was still evolving, the use of the program and support guides were redeveloped online and placed within the Library web space. The communications plan was revised and communication became a standing item in the advisory group agenda. This collective input helped with devising wording and sped up the process of communicating through the steering group when necessary. It also helped to utilise the Subject Librarian relationship with the schools to disseminate information and provide training and support follow up – particular important in a big bang adoption when large numbers of staff were require to engage in learning Talis.
- This was the support model developed as part of the transition process. It simplified communication channels for list creators and moved support to a library-mediated process.
- This is the front page of the Subject Guide created to support academics. It used a LibGuides template. It was largely based on the work of earlier adopter Libraries such as Auckland University and the IT Learning Technology Specialists. Support information highlighted both compliance and the benefits of adopting Talis.
- Even though Subject Librarians had an existing relationship with their schools and academics it was not with everyone. Talis provided an opportunity to work in depth with new clients and build new relationships which proved useful for other Library services. As part of the support process is was also useful to gain access to the relevant Blackboard course which is something the Library had been trying to do for years. Client Services also started to build closer relationships with academics by assisting with digitisations. As processes had evolved, were still changing or complex content questions were emerging there was a lot of work with specific schools to establish a process that would ensure compliance by Trimester Two. Specific school agreements were sometimes put in place with caveats to ensure readings were entered by the deadline. An element of pragmatism had to be employed depending on the content, any pre-existing copyright agreements and how older readings could be sourced over time.
- Generally schools and individuals met requirements although pockets of school or staff resistance. In some cases the project manager or Vice-Provost (Academic and Equity) was required to smooth the way. Variety of reasons for resistance from perceived work increase, resistance to copyright in general, challenge to long established reading list processes. There were also other affected parties such as the main copying provider and our independent university bookshop seeing a reduction in physical printed notes or concerns about late supply. Often these conversations did provide an opportunity to refine processes that could be broadly applied to questions posed by other list creators and that information filtered through to updating support information or announcements. Increasingly there were complex Copyright questions raised and some time spent on resolving these in term of Talis expectations. Due to the big bang implementation these questions were numerous and it did get to a point where any Copyright questions were to be parked during Talis training and addressed separately. It also came to pass that Subject Librarians directed list creators back to University Copyright guidance or the Copyright officer and deal only with resolving getting bookmarks into Talis. Subsequently this resulted in the creation of a list of required vs recommended content in Talis. This list will have downstream support implications as it is a subtle change from the all readings must be in Talis message. Regardless, the compliance and benefits of Talis still apply and are strongly communicated by the team.
- Recent process changes include regular combined rollover / list creation messages and we now have academic involvement on the Advisory Group. This has been due to recognising that the big bang approach has added to the school and academic workload in a short period of time and academic involvement has helped with developing communication and refining processes. Rollovers also present communication challenges at this time as many courses do not run consistently from year to year. This involvement highlighted an opportunity in several areas of the Talis system where we are interested in future developments. One of the interesting developments is supporting future work by our Centre for Academic Development to work with academics to create reading lists that are relevant to students, are used effectively and integrated into the teaching. By now highlighting Talis benefits over compliance as we move into a core business phase it creates the space for that conversation and work to take place.
- Taking into account the time it takes to gather feedback, disseminate information and address rumour. Perception of ownership – the change from IT to Library process ownership and the perception of becoming a Library project rather than the intended University project. Messages from the Vice-Provost (Academic and Equity) helped with setting high level expectations, however the Library managing the process did create the perception this was a Library imposed process. Potentially more communication from that level may have helped manage the perception. Getting the SLs trained and involved in support earlier. They entered the training cold but responded very efficiently and effectively as did Client Services in fulfilling digitisation requests. Early Adopters- Getting them involved (support for them, also many didn’t give adequate feedback). – turned into a early trained group rather than change agents. Limited institutional Copyright knowledge became time consuming to resolve and had to be separated from Talis requirements. Copyright questions had to be parked and resolved by following University guidelines. Resolving copyright issues within Talis and knowing what rules were being applied took time to learn and our knowledge and processes evolved. Another 6 months testing with core group of early adopters, consolidate processes. Knowing the system before training rather than evolving our training messages as we learnt. Essentially being “one lesson ahead.” We made some process decisions when we were unfamiliar with Talis and dealing with limitations for different content types which led to decisions being changed later. Tailoring relevant messages- could have used more. A more uniform message reiterated consistently for Tri 2 (everyone get on board) was more successful than some communication in early days. In a big bang adoption the stick was crucial to gain traction but the carrot will be used in the next phase of working with academics.
- As mentioned we now have an opportunity within the university to strengthen reading lists for the benefit of students. The recent earthquake did provide a realisation in some quarters of resistance that online reading lists provided a major benefit in hindsight. Our processes and tools will continue to be enhanced, made more relevant and gaps addressed. During the project there have been many instances of strengthening Copyright knowledge with individuals and at a University level this is something that can continue build. There has been a heightened awareness of how Copyright affects teaching and growing interest in the potential upcoming legislative changes in New Zealand.