Making Chat Reference Permanent

The following document was brought to a Library Dept. Heads meeting in March 2009 and was accepted.

_____________________________

It has been noted that the UW Library Chat Reference service is still operating as a pilot 6 years after starting up. The Chat Reference Operational Group (CROG) requests that chat reference be part of the library’s official reference services.

_____________________________

Virtual reference, chat reference, digital reference and remote reference are pretty much the same thing – providing reference service to people who are using computer network communications instead of standing in front of a reference desk. The differences between this service and telephone reference are the medium (computer networks), the potential for “great things” and the fact that telephones have been around long enough that they are no longer sexy. The mindset of the librarian, however, is fairly similar for both media.

An email reference service has been in operation at the UW Library for a longer time than chat reference. Because it operates in a different manner, with different people, it is not being considered here.

Chat reference at UW

The Chat Reference service began as a “virtual reference” pilot, sponsored by ISMC, in the fall of 2002 using LSSI software and servers. Their software was supposed to permit chat and screen sharing but only the chat performed consistently. Vivid red screens that appeared when the connection was lost were disconcerting to say the least.

In 2004, we changed to Docutek, which initially performed well. Shortly before we were about to go live, computer security increased with the release of MS Service Pack 2 and screen sharing once again did not function well if at all. There was a long hiatus as we attempted to get screen sharing restored. We finally restarted, offering chat only (without screen sharing) and the email reference group using Docutek’s email module. After two years, we still could not get the screen sharing capability to function consistently and recognized that we were spending a lot of money for software with functionality that was available from other Sources for free.

In fall 2006, we abandoned Docutek and, with guidance from Dan Sich, converted to the present format of using Instant Messaging (IM) chat lines and Meebo. In fall 2007, Skype was added; we have seen questions come in via Skype Chat but few via Skype VOIP. Also, Dan Sich had found some freeware, Unyte, that allows us to show a user what is on our screen without the difficulties of full two-way screen sharing.

Looking back, the expectations of full two-way screen sharing created by the early software releases were wonderful in demonstrations but in daily use, did not live up to the hype. There were problems juggling proxied connections between users, a database or ejournal server and the VR servers and the librarian; there were also security issues regularly appearing that blocked screen sharing between three workstations. When we moved to chat only, there were no great expectations and thus fewer disappointments.

We experimented with longer hours, running the service until 7:00 pm from the Davis Reference Desk. We felt that the 37 uses during the 7 weeks, just over 1 question per evening, was not sufficient to warrant making the extension permanent at that time.

Statistics – do people use the service?

In the 2.5 years of chat reference using Meebo, use of the service has grown. At an anecdotal level, when we started it was not uncommon to have a two-hour shift with no questions; now it is exceedingly rare to have only one question in that same two hours. The statistics bear this out.

Chat reference use
	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008

Jan		17	30		41	72	88
Feb		13			32	90	77
Mar		30			50	126	73
Apr		5			24	60	58
May		15		9	33	44	56
June		8		26	26	37	39
July		18		18	25	23	49
Aug					15	37	40
Sept		23		18	39	53	76
Oct	14	29		26	43	80	88
Nov	42	56		31	57	99	90
Dec	8	10		5	16	51	35
Total	64	224	30	133	401	772	769
Q’s/hr	0.30	0.25	-	0.24	0.41	0.76	0.78

Notes:

Questions per hour is very loosely calculated based on estimates of annual coverage.
2002 counts include many practice sessions.
The Feb. 2004 – May 2005 hiatus happened when we encountered problems after switching to Docutek. Service was also suspended during August 2003 and 2005 term breaks.

The growth of use in 2007 is a result of two initiatives. 37 extra uses were from the extended hours experiment during February-March of 2007. There was also an advertising campaign during the winter term - obviously something to repeat!

A sustainable service

Why do we need chat reference?

Increasingly users are remote, computer-based, and seemingly reluctant to come into the library or to leave their workstation in a lab or in the library. IM is a technology many are already familiar with and willing to use to ask questions. While students are well-equipped with mobile phones it would appear that they may prefer to IM a librarian over phoning the reference desk.

The service is essentially the opening of another reference desk with no specific location at less cost and with lower workload impact than adding the equivalent number of physical reference desks.

Current costs are:

Zero for software or services
Zero for additional furniture
Headsets for Skype
Staff time of Systems Dept. to set up and optimize software
ISR staff time to run the service. For many people, this means being scheduled and available 2 hours per week.

Technology

At the moment we are using free technologies (Meebo, Skype, Unyte) that are serving us well. A limitation of Meebo is that only one librarian can be “on the desk” at a time per account. If business increases we may need to either develop work-arounds or move to other software. Other technologies, such as Twitter and texting, have potential for the next channels to monitor.

Recommendation: We continue with the current suite of software and monitor developments.

Workload impact

Varies. Yes, the librarians are tied to their desk. Some shifts the librarian has no or only a couple of short questions. Other times there can be lengthy, involved questions with several concurrent shorter questions. In the latter situation, little other work gets done. Other than handling simultaneous questions this parallels workload at the physical desk.

It has been suggested that the service could be offered by the person at the reference desk. This was done during the extended-hours trial. Some people, but not all, were uncomfortable with this:

There was the thought that the desk person might have to drop the chat session if a “live” customer arrived. While similar to handling a phone client when a “live” client arrives; in the case of chat, the “live” client cannot see that the chat session is business rather than pleasure.
The speakers have been disabled on the desk workstations resulting in some missed chat-calls due to not hearing the bell announcing an incoming call.

Recommendation: Chat reference continue to be offered from staffer’s desks. Offering the service from home, from a laptop in a meeting or elsewhere will be at the discretion of the librarian and his or her supervisor.

Volunteer vs. mandatory

At the moment, there are sufficient staff members to cover the hours of service on a voluntary basis. Extending hours would require more staff and may need to be mandatory much like staffing the reference desk is mandatory for ISR librarians and associates.

Recommendation: Participation should remain voluntary.

Hours of service

We have been offering the service Monday to Friday, 12 – 4, since the beginning. The initial service hours were selected based on the number of staff available as well as what daytime hours were busiest for physical and email reference. Other institutions offer longer hours.

The experiment to extend hours to 7 pm was not particularly successful although many intuitively feel that operating until midnight or later would be popular with some students. Running later from the office or from home would require a different mandate from Lib Exec.

Recommendation: That we offer the service Monday to Friday, 12 – 4, and that we continue to investigate longer hours of service if staffing levels permit & demand is can be demonstrated.

Shared or consortial chat desks?

From the beginning, the option of sharing chat reference desk time with other institutions has been suggested, either within OCUL or international cooperation with, for example, an Australian university library covering our late nights and vice versa. We have shied away from such offers as it has been our experience that a high proportion of our queries have dealt with local policies and situations rather than a general subject search.

Recommendation: We continue to monitor consortial offers that are made in a structured manner, but participation will depend on staff comfort levels answering questions about other institutions.

Balance with physical desk time

It is only reasonable that chat reference time count towards a staffer’s total desk time. At the moment the schedulers are counting it at 50% (e.g., in a week with 4 hours physical desk and 2 hours chat reference the librarian is credited with 5 hours desk time). Equivalent questions can take 2-3 times longer with chat than face to face settings.

Recommendation: That the chat reference service be counted with a 1:2 ratio (compared to the physical desk) when establishing schedules.

Advertising/promotion

Getting the Ask-A-Librarian link on the Library’s left navbar where it will appear on all Library pages helped promote the service considerably. Having the service mentioned in the Library’s news column a couple of times during the 2007 extended hours trial, as well as posters, also helped.

Recommendation: We should revive the promotion campaign, developing a working plan with the Communications Librarian.

Training

Training has usually been handled one-to-one by a CROG member as new librarians are added to the service with occasional (but not recent) group meetings, sharing experiences.

Recommendation: Initial training will continue on a one-on-one basis. We should implement regular group meetings to share experiences, update practices and sound out librarians on plans.

Recommendations

The service is being used and demand is growing. It is providing a service to people who were less well served before we started (distance education, those working at home...). It is not costing a lot (in terms of real dollars) at the moment. We recommend that chat reference be made a permanent part of reference service.

Summary: We recommend that chat reference be made a permanent service. And that:

We continue with the current suite of software and monitor developments.
Chat reference continue to be offered from staffer’s desks. Offering the service from home, from a laptop in a meeting or elsewhere will be at the discretion of the librarian and his or her supervisor.
Participation should remain voluntary.
We offer the service Monday to Friday, 12 – 4, and that we continue to investigate longer hours of service if staffing levels permit & demand can be demonstrated.
We continue to monitor the consortial offers that are made in a structured manner, but participation will depend on staff comfort levels answering questions about other institutions.
That the chat reference service be counted with a 1:2 ratio (compared to the physical desk) when establishing schedules.
We should revive the promotion campaign, developing a working plan with the Communications Librarian.
Initial training will continue on a one-on-one basis. We should implement regular group meetings to share experiences, update practices and sound out librarians on plans.

June 25, 2010