Managing OPACs: approaches to the process of OPAC change and development in ECU
Lisa BillinghamInnopac Systems Librarian
ECU
Summary
Frequency of reviews Timing during the year Procedure followed Results (what went well, what we
learnt)
Frequency of reviews
Annual Minor changes between reviews
agreed with Senior Librarians Corrections added immediately we
become aware of a problem
Timing (of 2005 review) 1st meeting – February 2005 - before
upgrade to Silver / 2005LE 2nd meeting – March 2005 – post-
upgrade Meetings held monthly until July 1st site revision – late April 2005 2nd site revision – late May 2005 3rd site revision – late June 2005 Launch end of Semester 2, 2005
Procedure followed
committee structure responsibilities topics included research communication plan testing procedures feedback gathering procedures
Committee structure
Facilitator / Project Manager Representative from each section:-
Library Collections and Access Reference Loans Faculty
Responsibilities All
Research of other sites / webOPACs Testing Promotion of project
Facilitator Web redesign Project management
Other team members Liaison with relevant staff
Topics included Review layout of web pages Review content of web pages Consider 2005LE standard webpage
design, and features in new release Consider activation of optional features
(e.g. My Millennium) Consider relevant new products (e.g.
WebBridge, Metafind, AirPAC, Advanced Searching) and recommend any purchases.
Consider accessibility factors
Research New features in next Millennium release Functions in current release not yet
activated New products available from III Other Innovative library webOPACs (
http://www.libdex.com/vendor/Innovative_Interfaces,_Inc.html)
Other library catalogues
Communication plan Group members communicate with their
respective groups of staff before and after each group meeting
Project Manager sends out e-mails to all library staff prior to project start, at beginning of project, when each version of webOPAC is available on staging port, and at conclusion of project
Notices placed on webOPAC main page immediately prior to, and after change
Testing procedures Testing conducted on staging port
HTML changes Activation of new functions Activation of new products
Tested by Project Manager and also by project team members, then all staff invited to test and comment
Test plans used (adapted from those used after upgrades)
Feedback gathering
Gathered from staff via their representatives – fed back at team meetings or between meetings if urgent
Also sent direct to Project Manager
Results – what worked well Research of various design options Testing Web redesign Some proposals led to other
projects Promotion of overall project and
major stages
Results – what we would do differently Liaison with relevant staff Separate Reference Group Issues
How to deal with no response How to deal with no consensus