Data, Data, Everywhere, nor Any Time to Think: DIY Analysis of E-Resource Access Problems

Abstract

Auraria Library is a busy library with a growing electronic resources collection and a rather homegrown approach to electronic resource troubleshooting. Without a full-time position dedicated to access issues such as broken links, URL resolver problems, off-campus access issues, and network outages, troubleshooting is the responsibility of a small team of library staff who are otherwise busy with their respective primary job duties. The team is fundamentally reactive without much time to do more than resolve immediate access problems. Researching, purchasing, and implementing troubleshooting tracking software or overhauling the troubleshooting workflow would require more time and resources than the team could offer. Even if the team had the resources to implement a new system, it would be difficult to know how to change the workflow to create more efficiency because there were no data about how efficiently the team was working or what kinds of issues they were resolving. The team recognized that vast amounts of data about the nature of access issues, and data about the team itself, were being collected in the problem reports to which the team responded. Two members of the team decided to analyze the problem reports in detail through a simple process in order to assess the functionality of the troubleshooting team and answer some fundamental questions about the nature of Auraria's access problems. The two-person team also suspected that understanding the problem reports more deeply would lead to improvements in current troubleshooting methods. Better understanding would allow the team to be more proactive and to get ahead of electronic access issues before they were reported.

Fighting an Uphill Battle: Troubleshooting Assessment Practices in Academic Libraries

“…38 However, as Browning notes, the time and staff required to implement a robust ticket tracking system is greater than some libraries can take on, which may explain why ticket tracking tools have not been more widely adopted. 39 Of the fifteen respondents who indicated that an assessment had taken place, the most frequently cited reason for it was to identify common points of failure, mirroring the goals of many of the studies cited here. More specifically, this result suggests that most libraries assess troubleshooting data to find and minimize frequently occurring problems and/or create proactive measures to reduce common access issues, as has been done in many published studies.…”

“…For instance, in the absence of a dedicated ticket tracking system for troubleshooting, Browning's team at Auraria Library at the University of Alabama examined e-mail chains from e-access problem reports to "answer some fundamental questions about the nature of Auraria's access problems." 1 As a result, Browning created a new "quarterly e-resources spreadsheet" in which student workers can systematically check for outages before they are reported. Furthermore, Auraria Library added additional "Report a Problem" links on the A-Z databases page and amended the link on their link resolver landing page, hoping to increase visibility, which ultimately led to more reports of outages from students and faculty.…”

“…21 Browning indicated that implementing software used for tracking requests for troubleshooting (one that could potentially provide robust data for analysis) meant more time and resources than Auraria Library's staff could offer at the time of the study. 22 Rathmel et al likewise indicated that survey respondents reported staff time and budgets were impediments to implementing robust tracking tools for troubleshooting. 23 Furthermore, while Rathmel et al and Heaton found e-mail to be the most frequently used tool for troubleshooting, it lacks the functionality for easy archiving and reporting of metrics necessary for an in-depth analysis of the data within.…”

Essential skills and knowledge for troubleshooting e-resources access issues in a web-scale discovery environment

“…Possible tracking tools include but are not limited to email, shared documents, informal and formal ticketing systems, and other current web applications. Some recent literature highlights various tools used in libraries (Borchert, 2006;Ennis & Tims, 2012;Browning, 2015;Finch, 2014;Pan, et al, 2011). Regardless of the tracking system used, a single point of contact for reporting issues is desirable.…”

Tools for troubleshooting: Which ones and what for

“…Their pricing, features, and ease of use vary. The literature suggests that many of these have made their way into library operations, including the specific tools ServiceNow (Carter & Traill, 2017), Trello, Zapier, IFTTT, Footprints (Finch, 2014), JIRA, Drupal, Basecamp (Wilson, 2011), BugZilla (Browning, 2015), LibGuides, IBM Business Process Manager (Rathmel, Mobley, Pennington, & Chandler, 2015), and Microsoft SharePoint (Ennis & Tims, 2012), as well as generic tool categories such as bug-reporting (Rupp & Mobley, 2007) and ticket-tracking tools (Borchert, 2006), virtual chat (Resnick & Clark, 2009), blogs (Pan, Bradbeer, & Jurries, 2011), shared documents (Carter & Traill, 2017), wikis, electronic resource management systems (ERMS), integrated library systems (ILS), intranets, spreadsheets, web forms, and shared email accounts (Rathmel et al, 2015). The abundance of software applications in use in libraries according to these publications confirms that libraries may benefit from sharing how they chose the tools that they use and whether they are happy with them.…”