SPEC Kit 304: Social Software in Libraries · 105
Relatively low adoption rates among
users.
UB
Setting priorities.
CP
Some people still feel overwhelmed by
the technology and figuring out which
technology fits their needs. O
Resistance from a small number of staff to
change and technology. SB
Getting students to recognize the library
as a 2.0 participant. UB
Re-assuring our Systems Department that
“it’s OK!” O
Resources required, e.g., software, set-
up and training, support, troubleshoot,
upgrades.
ST, TC
Reluctance to expose the library to a
public dialogue and commit to the work
that such a continuing dialogue would
require.
O
Security is an issue. If you use free
software you may be exposed to outside
threats such as viruses and worms.
Allowing outside users to access our
servers to log into a software where they
can deposit information is also a risk. SP
Some of these technologies are difficult to
learn, especially for older librarians.
SP
Many of this activity is tacked on to
existing job responsibilities. Using social
software can sometimes double the work
you do since you still do it the old way,
too.
T, CP
Maintaining the content in these new sites
and ways can be very time consuming.
For example, to create a blog that library
patrons actually find valuable takes time
and diligence. These tools aren’t magical.
They need good content and constant
upkeep. MC
Some users may be put off by the libraries’
faculty and staff having a presence in
these spaces, especially social networking
sites—they may view it as “their turf.” O
Faculty and staff may see use of social
software as “one more thing” to learn.
T, CP
This may be another area/item that the
Libraries have to maintain. If employees
are already very busy, it may seem
burdensome to up keep. T, CP
Staff participation. With each new
technology there must be training and
while many are interested in learning
new things it does get taxing to some to
have to learn the new version of the new
software knowing that next year it will be
something else. ST, SSB
Getting the word out. With so many
resources and services and user groups
promoting social software such as our
blogs or our Facebook page has not been
a priority for the library which may have
affected use of these technologies.
UB
Determining effectiveness of the social
software.
AE
Staff slow to adopt new technologies
resistance to change.
SB
If there is little use, it is hard to know if
the service just isn’t desired or if it merely
needs to be marketed better. AE
Staff time for development and
implementation and maintenance. T
Staff buy-in.
SB
Need for staff expertise in programming.
ST
Relatively low adoption rates among
users.
UB
Setting priorities.
CP
Some people still feel overwhelmed by
the technology and figuring out which
technology fits their needs. O
Resistance from a small number of staff to
change and technology. SB
Getting students to recognize the library
as a 2.0 participant. UB
Re-assuring our Systems Department that
“it’s OK!” O
Resources required, e.g., software, set-
up and training, support, troubleshoot,
upgrades.
ST, TC
Reluctance to expose the library to a
public dialogue and commit to the work
that such a continuing dialogue would
require.
O
Security is an issue. If you use free
software you may be exposed to outside
threats such as viruses and worms.
Allowing outside users to access our
servers to log into a software where they
can deposit information is also a risk. SP
Some of these technologies are difficult to
learn, especially for older librarians.
SP
Many of this activity is tacked on to
existing job responsibilities. Using social
software can sometimes double the work
you do since you still do it the old way,
too.
T, CP
Maintaining the content in these new sites
and ways can be very time consuming.
For example, to create a blog that library
patrons actually find valuable takes time
and diligence. These tools aren’t magical.
They need good content and constant
upkeep. MC
Some users may be put off by the libraries’
faculty and staff having a presence in
these spaces, especially social networking
sites—they may view it as “their turf.” O
Faculty and staff may see use of social
software as “one more thing” to learn.
T, CP
This may be another area/item that the
Libraries have to maintain. If employees
are already very busy, it may seem
burdensome to up keep. T, CP
Staff participation. With each new
technology there must be training and
while many are interested in learning
new things it does get taxing to some to
have to learn the new version of the new
software knowing that next year it will be
something else. ST, SSB
Getting the word out. With so many
resources and services and user groups
promoting social software such as our
blogs or our Facebook page has not been
a priority for the library which may have
affected use of these technologies.
UB
Determining effectiveness of the social
software.
AE
Staff slow to adopt new technologies
resistance to change.
SB
If there is little use, it is hard to know if
the service just isn’t desired or if it merely
needs to be marketed better. AE
Staff time for development and
implementation and maintenance. T
Staff buy-in.
SB
Need for staff expertise in programming.
ST
