Managing OPACs: approaches to the process of OPAC change and development in ECU Lisa Billingham Innopac 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) 1 st meeting – February before upgrade to Silver / 2005LE 2 nd meeting – March 2005 – post- upgrade Meetings held monthly until July 1 st site revision – late April nd site revision – late May rd 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 ( ive_Interfaces,_Inc.html) ive_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 s 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