Information Services Management Committee

Minutes of the Meeting of March 26, 2002
1:30 – 3:45 pm
Davis Conference Room

Regrets:Helena Calogeridis, Melanie Watkins

Guest:Michele Laing

1. Minutes of Previous Meeting
   The minutes of the meeting of March 19, 2002 were approved as written.

2. Virtual Reference:  Report from Cost Estimates for Hardware, etc. Group
   Linda, Doug and Michele provided the Committee with their written report “Cost Estimates for Hardware, Software, Furnishings and Equipment.”  The Committee found no outstanding questions or concerns, but suggested that the software cost estimates include travel expenses.  Linda will revise the group’s report.

3. Virtual Reference:  Review of March 25, 2002 Discussion with ISR and Others

   The Committee reviewed what it had learned at its meeting with ISR and other staff on virtual reference.  ISMC felt that although there was a good, shared understanding among those who attended of what virtual reference service is; by the end of the meeting, it was unclear whether there was support for implementing the service at UW Library.  To get a better sense of staff views on this matter, Susan requested those who attended the meeting to respond, by email, to these two questions:

   • Do you think the Library should provide virtual reference service?
   • Are you interested in participating in the provision of the service?

   The responses received indicate that there is widespread support for the idea, and that most would like to participate.  However, some expressed concern about whether participating in the provision of virtual reference would present workload pressures.  The Committee thought it would be worthwhile polling ISR staff who weren’t at the meeting to provide them the opportunity to comment as well.  Sue will email those staff and invite them to respond to the two questions above. 

4. Virtual Reference Issues
   We considered what issues associated with virtual reference should be included in our final report.  The following issues were identified as those that need to be investigated further and resolved before proceeding to a pilot phase (in no particular order):
   1. Workload
   2. Cross-training (e.g., unfamiliarity with other disciplines)
   3. Funding
   4. EZProxy (the timing of this could affect implementation of virtual reference, e.g., co-browsing)
   5. Management of virtual reference service

   Other issues arose during this discussion, but were not considered to be ones that might prevent the pilot from moving forward.  They were identified as follows:
   1. Scheduling
   2. Offering print or electronic resources
   3. Restricting ourselves to a subset of journal indexes
   4. Service to non-UW clients
   5. Level of service
   6. Hours of service
   7. Length of shift
   8. Response time during virtual reference sessions
   9. Ensuring staff get enough hours to gain experience
   10. Definition of pilot

   Who will address the issues that require further investigation?  The answer is as yet unclear; other groups or individuals reporting to ISMC will most likely be involved.  Other questions include:  Who will provide virtual reference service?  It was suggested that virtual reference be started with a core group of staff, so they can develop their skills.

   The discussion turned to the final report, which will include key elements such as:

   • ISMC’s recommendation to introduce virtual reference service at the University of Waterloo
   • The rationale for the recommendation
   • What issues need to be overcome to move forward with the service.

5. Other Business
   
   1. Web usability study:Susan reported briefly on a focus group she recently participated in, and students’ observations about the Ask Us/Tell Us button.  (They suggested that it be called “Get help with research.”)
   2. Project management tools:Susan felt it would be useful for ISMC members to report on their experiences or thoughts about using the project management approach for the virtual reference feasibility study project.  It was suggested that we hold a discussion on this topic after the final report is completed.
   3. Value of referring to a first phase of virtual reference as a pilot project:  The Committee discussed why it would want to use the term “pilot project.”  The merits of  “pilot” and “first phase”, and the expectations or perceptions they invoke were explored.
   4. Sharing software definitions and table:  Other libraries may be interested in the software evaluation table and definitions that Doug, Linda and Michele prepared in the course of their virtual reference work.  Linda agreed to edit the table and send it to ISMC to preview before offering it to others.