1. Can’t We All Get Along? The highs and lows of librarian/IT collaborations Carrie Iwema, PhD, MLS Information Specialist in Molecular Biology Fran Yarger, MA, MAEd Assistant Director for Computing Services Health Sciences Library System University of Pittsburgh MLA 2010

2. HSLS = Health Sciences Library System University of Pittsburgh – 6 health sciences schools – University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) – Patron base = 55,000 – HSLS Web site = 3,000,000 visitors/year

3. HSLS Homepage http://www.hsls.pitt.edu/

4. HSLS Web Development Players 7 member Executive Committee 22 FT, 2 PT faculty Librarians 5 member Web Committee 3 member IT Development Team

5. Molecular Biology Information Service

6. Morning Report Blog

7. Consumer Health Information Portal

8. New HSLS Web Projects—Foundation Theory-based – Pirolli’s Information Foraging – Nielsen/Norman group Cost/benefit ratio Question: “what problem does this solve”

9. New HSLS Web Projects—Initiation Executive Committee – Project charter – Global view SMEs (Subject Matter Experts) – Ideas, plans, and outcomes Application developer & web programmer – Realistic view of technology capabilities

10. New HSLS Web Projects—Work Flow 1.Meeting between SME & IT project manager (ongoing) 2.Paper / online prototypes 3.Usability testing 4.Revisions 5.Launch 6.Maintenance

11. New HSLS Web Projects—Accomplishments 2 years = >20 web-based projects launched A few started but not completed Projects include:

12. Systematic Review Class

13. Clinical Focus

14. History of Medicine

15. Document Delivery

16. Thoughts on the process? Survey—SMEs Interviews—IT Development Team

17. 33 Questions, including: When working on your web based project was there clear communication regarding expectations, process and, if needed, work to be completed? Before development began, did you or your group have a needs assessment plan for the project? In your own words, how would you explain HSLS’s web design process?

18. Results—IT services used N = 23

19. Results—SME feedback (averages) N = 7

20. Results—SME feedback (individual) 0= N/A 1=strongly disagree 2=disagree 3=neither agree nor disagree 4=agree 5=strongly agree

21. Survey Comments—Positive (Paper prototyping) was very flexible and permitted input from multiple sources simultaneously. (The launch/update/ upgrade schedule was) very effective and timely. (The usability testing process was) well done, although it would be nice for it to be more extensive…results were useful and led to some changes. (The HSLS web design process is) seamless...and very effective.

22. Survey Comments—Negative I wonder if any usability is ever done and if it is if the negative comments are really used. A prototype…would have saved on a lot of problems…decisions were made by IT. Should be more listening to librarians…and less dictating by systems. More input from departments if it directly impacts their work.

23. IT Suggestions to Improve Process (SME) Bring list of wants/needs/target audience Provide content Create paper prototype for IT to convert to electronic version Supply questions for usability testing Have a non-involved party run usability testing (reduces bias) Be goal-driven not tool-driven

24. IT Suggestions to Improve Process (IT) Ask questions to clarify goals Clearly explain IT capabilities Create electronic prototype Assist w/usability testing Formalize maintenance schedule

25. Moving Forward… Better communication! Especially when leadership-driven Between SME & IT Expectation management

26. Thanks for your attention! Carrie Iwema, PhD, MLS Information Specialist in Molecular Biology Fran Yarger, MA, MAEd Assistant Director for Computing Services Health Sciences Library System University of Pittsburgh