1 / 11

Comparing Consortium and Stand-Alone Chat Reference Models for Libraries

This presentation explores the differences between consortium and stand-alone chat reference models in libraries. Key findings highlight staffing, technical support, and question nature affecting service effectiveness. While consortium models offer extensive coverage and centralized support, they may lack local expertise crucial for specific inquiries. Conversely, stand-alone services can provide quicker responses and higher local satisfaction but may be less cost-effective and struggle with service continuity. The evaluation draws on various studies and anecdotal evidence from libraries experiencing both service models.

noma
Télécharger la présentation

Comparing Consortium and Stand-Alone Chat Reference Models for Libraries

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Chat ReferenceConsortium vs. Stand-alone Katherine Holvoet ULA/MPLA Annual Conference 2008

  2. Common Chat Reference Service Models • Stand-alone • Local staffing • Local tech support • May involve “branch” libraries • Consortium • Centralized staffing (multi-institution, state, national) • Centralized tech support

  3. Issues common to both service models • Librarians can’t staff a physical and virtual reference desk at the same time • Librarians can multi-task while staffing chat reference • Issues with the medium • Pressure to answer quickly and completely • Lack of nonverbal cues with patrons • Difficulties with shift changes

  4. Further issues • Relatively low volume of questions per hour • Cost effectiveness • Nature of questions • “An evaluation of chat sessions revealed that a substantial portion of inquiries received related to university-specific interests.” from Virtual Reference Services: Consortium versus Stand-Alone

  5. Stand-Alone chat service • Local staffing benefits • Produces higher patron satisfaction for local-expertise required questions • Fast response time to local questions (which constitute more than 1 in 5 queries) • Local control of training enables more uniform level of response • May be less expensive overall

  6. Local staffing down side • Many more hours dedicated to service than consortium members while still not providing 24/7 coverage • May not be less expensive overall, depending on software choice and total staffing costs • Free software has downsides

  7. Consortium Chat • Consortium chat benefits • Extensive coverage (often 24/7 365) • Overall higher reference volume • Centralized scheduling and troubleshooting

  8. Consortium chat downsides • More expensive • 23% of questions require local expertise and 60% of questions require some institutional knowledge of resources, etc. • Training needs are greater due to many more members • Librarian dissatisfaction

  9. Reasons chat reference services are discontinued • “The major reason for discontinuation was funding problems, followed by low volume (including low volume by target audience). Other reasons were staffing problems, technical problems, and institutional culture issues.” from A multiple-case study investigation of the discontinuation of nine chat reference services

  10. Anecdotal Evidence • Off-Campus Library Services Conference • 3 libraries either switched from consortium to stand-alone services or ran both simultaneously • All three reported much higher satisfaction with stand-alone chat reference service from patrons and librarians, even with far fewer service hours

  11. Resources used in this presentation • Bishop, Bradley Wade. “Virtual Reference Services: Consortium versus Stand-Alone.” College & Undergraduate Libraries 13(4) 2006: 117-127. • Kwon, Nahyun. “Public libraries’ patrons’ use of collaborative chat reference service: The effectiveness of question answering by question type.” Library & Information Science Research 29 (2007): 70-91. • Radford, Marie L. “A multiple-case study of the discontinuation of nine chat reference services.” Library & Information Science Research 28 (2006): 521-547. • Akers, Cynthia. “From IM to Collaboration: Providing Virtual Reference Services at a Medium-Sized Institution.” College & Undergraduate Libraries 13(4) 2006: 75-95.

More Related