Measuring the smartness of a library

Jadhav, Dnyaneshwar; Shenoy, Dinesh

doi:10.1016/j.lisr.2020.101036

Cited by 19 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For this research, the fuzzy linguistic scales in Narayanamurthy et al (2018) and Jadhav and Shenoy (2020) were used with minor modifications to the linguistic labels (see Table 5). A team of five assessors was used for this study, including an expert each from engineering, design and architecture, contract management and user facilities.…”

Section: The Case Of a Metro Rail: Key Findings And Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Successful studies reported in the literature include the deployment of lean Six Sigma processes in manufacturing industries (Sreedharan et al , 2019), the design and development of a sub-system of a missile delivery system (Roy et al , 2016), the assessment of lean processes in healthcare (Narayanamurthy et al , 2018) and the measurement of the agility of supply chains (Lin et al , 2006). The theory of readiness has also been adapted to estimate the smart elements of smart cities (Jadhav and Shenoy, 2020). Snee (2010) has also dealt with the issue of readiness for implementing the lean Six Sigma processes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Measuring the readiness of a megaproject

Shenoy

Mahanty

2021

IJMPB

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeA vast proportion of global megaprojects have not performed up to the expectations of their stakeholders. A failed megaproject has the potential even to derail the economy of a country where it was implemented. Stakeholders must, therefore, ensure that they do not invest in megaprojects that are bound to fail. But, how can stakeholders consistently identify such megaprojects? This paper develops a framework for a metric that can help stakeholders measure the readiness of a megaproject.Design/methodology/approachA comprehensive literature review identified 19 critical success factors of megaprojects. These success factors were integrated into a fuzzy-based model to develop the megaproject readiness metric. An assessment team studied the levels of presence and importance of these success factors in a candidate megaproject to derive its readiness.FindingsThe readiness-based model provides stakeholders valuable insights into the strong and weak areas of a megaproject. It can help stakeholders prioritize and systematically eliminate the identified weaknesses and improve megaproject readiness. While the model was tested on a metro rail megaproject, it can be used on any megaproject across domains.Originality/valueThis paper adopts the concept of readiness for the domain of megaprojects. Besides the readiness measurement framework, a vital contribution of this research is its application to a real-life case. Future research can include more granular success factors to improve the estimate of megaproject readiness.

show abstract

Section: The Case Of a Metro Rail: Key Findings And Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring the readiness of a megaproject

Shenoy

Mahanty

2021

IJMPB

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…smart services, smart people, smart places and smart governance) from a smart city perspective and pointed out that the concept of smart libraries is a process, a way of how to get things done that is less structured and more creative and innovative. Some researchers have discussed the potential elements of smart libraries' development by reviewing the literature and publications (Baryshev et al, 2018;Cao et al, 2018;Jadhav and Shenoy, 2020). Cao et al (2018) examined existing literature and practices and pointed out that libraries could plan and implement advanced technologies such as cloud computing (Aharony, 2015), data mining (Mahmood and Khan, 2018), AI (Yu and Huang, 2020), Internet of Things (Chan and Chan, 2018) and voice-based searches (Jadhav and Shenoy, 2020).…”

Section: Literature Review 21 Conceptions Of Smart Librariesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some researchers have discussed the potential elements of smart libraries' development by reviewing the literature and publications (Baryshev et al, 2018;Cao et al, 2018;Jadhav and Shenoy, 2020). Cao et al (2018) examined existing literature and practices and pointed out that libraries could plan and implement advanced technologies such as cloud computing (Aharony, 2015), data mining (Mahmood and Khan, 2018), AI (Yu and Huang, 2020), Internet of Things (Chan and Chan, 2018) and voice-based searches (Jadhav and Shenoy, 2020). Moreover, they indicated that service building, patron cultivation and librarian training to transform smart libraries also need to be taken into account.…”

Section: Literature Review 21 Conceptions Of Smart Librariesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, faced with the rapid advancement of technology and the vast amount of recorded data and collections in libraries, many researchers have focused on the development of smart libraries (Cao et al, 2018;Cox et al, 2018;Jadhav and Shenoy, 2020). In addition, researchers have shown that technology alone does not actively achieve the benefits of library services and that it is necessary to understand patron needs to know the determinants that influence a patron's adoption of library services (Liu et al, 2010;Tu, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Differences between LIS and non-LIS undergraduates’ conceptions of smart libraries: a drawing analysis approach

Tu¹,

Hwang

Chen

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This study aims to compare similarities and differences in library and information science (LIS) and non-LIS undergraduates’ conceptions and perceptions of smart libraries via drawing analysis. Design/methodology/approach In this study, a total of 156 undergraduate students described their perceptions of smart libraries as drawings and textual descriptions. A modified coding scheme with 8 categories and 51 subcategories was used to analyse the undergraduate students’ drawings. Findings Most of the undergraduate students’ conceptions of smart libraries still involve self-checkout and learning/reading, focusing on information appliances, technical services, activities and objects. The differences are that the LIS undergraduates’ drawings showed smart libraries with robots, interactive book borrowing with technology tools, intelligent services, location-aware services or mobile applications, whereas non-LIS undergraduates presented smart libraries as readers (learners), other activities and no smart technology services. LIS undergraduates focused on providing patron services with technologies. Non-LIS undergraduates were more likely to draw a complex space with immediate access to books or digital resources, quiet reading and the freedom to engage in library activities. Originality/value The results provide a baseline for future research on the topic and provide preliminary evidence of using the methods to discern LIS and non-LIS undergraduates’ conceptions of smart libraries.

show abstract

Smart library architecture based on internet of things (IoT) and software defined networking (SDN)

Zhou

2024

Heliyon

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Measuring the smartness of a library

Cited by 19 publications

References 33 publications

Measuring the readiness of a megaproject

Measuring the readiness of a megaproject

Differences between LIS and non-LIS undergraduates’ conceptions of smart libraries: a drawing analysis approach

Smart library architecture based on internet of things (IoT) and software defined networking (SDN)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About