2. Work with other groups,as appropriate, such as the Digital Interface Group ( DIG )for , implementing changes to the e- journal process. Leverage existing
expertise and service/resource management processes to add efficiency, integration,and different points of view and expertise to the redesign and
3. Recognize that websiteredesign and development is an ongoing process that needs to reflect changing user needs and changing technologies and not a
discrete and massive project occurring every 3- 5 years. Develop a version schedule for incremental, ongoing changes. Schedule at least two websiteversions
4. Identify and prioritize websitefunctionalities int o coherent and coordinated websiteversion releases.
5. Recognize dependencies/interrelationship to other developments, such as the selection of a new open source public access catalog for VALE that would be a
strong candidate for the new public catalog interface for RUL. Other dependencies include integration with services offered via OIT (Sakai, myRutgers, etc. ),
changes to RUcoreetc. ,
Several remaining issues point to possible future activities:
1. At the request of the Core Team, Jeanne Boyle, the remaining principal investigator for this project, filed a successful request for continuing review with the
Institutional Research Board to give us flexibility in following up with users for clarification, feedback, etc. The Core Team remains ready t o oversee any
additional data gathering required. We encourage all library faculty and staff to consult existing ethnographic data or use Google Analytics or RUL website
statistics before beginning new data gathering projects.
2. We need to market the websiteredesign and development process more actively within the L ibraries.
3. The websiteredesign and development process needs to be informed by the differences between user and librarian beliefs, which in itself is one of the key
take-waysfrom a the ERP study.
4. Research guides and other current similar efforts need to have their assumptions challenged not only for service effectiveness but also for r eturn on
investment. Students are asking to be directed to the appropriate resources particular to their specific r esearch needs. Research guides have traditionally been
the Libraries approach to addressing this need, but students don’t seem to be generally aware of research guides. Are the libraries receiving a useful return on
investment for research guides, given t he amount of time and effort involved in creating a research guide? Should more agile and dynamic approaches, such as
packaging resources into custom portals, be employed instead? What are our peer institutions doing? It was agreed that the evaluation of the research guide
methodology is out of scope for this working group but that the research guide strategy should be evaluated, in light of ERP findings, perhaps by a specific
working group tasked by the two councils.
5. Additional recommendations for website improvement are included in the review reports from relevant councils and committees on the Libraries website.