Final report on m-library activity via project survey (responses collected July-August 2012).

1.
M-­‐Library
Community
Support
Project
Report
on
current
m-­‐library
activity
December
2012
Jo
Alcock
Pete
Dalton
Eugenie
Golubova
Yvonne
Graves
Evidence
Base
Library
and
Learning
Resources
Birmingham
City
University
www.ebase.ac.uk

2. Acknowledgements
The
authors
would
like
to
thanks
Owen
Stephens
(Owen
Stephens
Consulting)
and
Ben
Showers
(JISC)
for
their
input
into
survey
development
and
distribution.
In
addition,
we
would
like
to
thank
everyone
who
providing
responses
to
the
survey
and
to
those
who
helped
publicise
it.

3. Contents
Acknowledgements
.............................................................................................................................................................
2
Contents
...................................................................................................................................................................................
3
Executive
Summary
...........................................................................................................................................................
4
1.
Background
..................................................................................................................................................................
5
2.
Approach
.......................................................................................................................................................................
5
3.
Respondent
demographics
....................................................................................................................................
6
4.
Current
m-­‐library
initiatives
................................................................................................................................
7
5.
Current
projects
or
new
initiatives
....................................................................................................................
9
6.
Future
m-­‐library
initiatives
................................................................................................................................
12
7.
Barriers
to
utilising
mobile
technologies
.....................................................................................................
15
8.
Overcoming
barriers
.............................................................................................................................................
17
9.
Information
to
assist
decision
making
..........................................................................................................
20
10.
Confidence
in
implementing
mobile
technologies
................................................................................
20
11.
Supporting
current/future
m-­‐library
initiatives
....................................................................................
23
12.
Usefulness
of
project
updates
.........................................................................................................................
25
13.
Summary
..................................................................................................................................................................
26

4. Executive
Summary
This
survey
is
a
follow-­‐up
of
a
fact
finding
survey
administered
at
the
beginning
of
the
JISC-­‐
funded
mobile
library
community
support
project.
The
survey
aimed
to
examine
the
m-­‐library
landscape
to
see
how
things
had
changed
over
the
course
of
the
project.
The
survey
was
live
from
July
2012
until
August
2012
and
open
to
all.
It
was
promoted
on
numerous
library
listservs,
blogs
and
on
Twitter.
There
were
138
responses
to
the
survey,
primarily
from
the
academic
library
sector
(68%).
The
majority
of
respondents
were
from
the
UK
(65%),
with
other
respondents
from
the
USA
(28.9%),
Canada
(2%),
Australia,
Belgium
and
Turkey.
The
majority
of
the
respondents’
libraries
either
already
have
m-­‐library
initiatives
(92%),
or
are
currently
working
on
m-­‐library
projects
or
services
(61%).
Common
uses
at
present
included
(in
order
of
frequency):
• QR
codes
(72.2%
of
respondents)
• Mobile
catalogue
(49.2%
of
respondents)
• Mobile
website
(36.5%
of
respondents)
• Guides
to
support
the
use
of
mobile
services/apps
(33.3%
of
respondents)
• Mobile
app
for
the
institution
(33.3%
of
respondents)
• Using
mobile
devices
to
support
roving
reference
(30.2%
of
respondents)
• Loaning
mobile
devices
(26.2%
of
respondents)
• Mobile
app
for
the
library
(19%
of
respondents)
• SMS
communication
about
borrower
record
(15.9%
of
respondents)
82%
of
respondents
plan
to
implement
additional
m-­‐library
initiatives
in
future,
though
many
did
not
have
concrete
plans
in
place
and
would
follow
developments
to
see
which
would
be
most
relevant
for
their
library.
For
those
who
did
have
plans,
many
included
initiatives
already
mentioned.
More
innovative
ideas
included
a
mobile
enquiry
service,
augmented
reality,
NFC/RFID,
and
supporting
bring
your
own
device
(BYOD).
Barriers
to
development
of
m-­‐library
initiatives
were
experienced
by
a
large
proportion
of
respondents
(95%
gave
at
least
one
barrier).
When
asked
to
indicate
the
primary
barrier,
the
main
issues
were
resource
constraints
(46%)
and
infrastructure
constraints
(17%).
A
number
of
suggestions
were
made
with
regards
to
overcoming
barriers,
including
quick
wins/low
costs
solutions,
a
strong
business
case,
staffing
changes,
and
internal
or
external
partnerships.
Though
there
are
still
some
who
do
not
feel
at
all
confident
implementing
mobile
technologies
at
their
library,
72%
felt
confident
or
very
confident.
Confidence
correlated
with
having
infrastructure
in
place,
support
from
management,
and
the
resources
to
work
on
development.
All
respondents
planned
to
inform
developments
in
a
number
of
different
ways,
planning
to
keep
up-­‐to-­‐date
with
mobile
technologies,
use
case
studies,
attend
or
follow
events,
read
or
follow
existing
research,
sharing
and
reading
social
media,
library/librarian
blogs,
social
media
discussion,
how-­‐to
guides,
and
mailing
lists.
The
results
of
the
survey
highlight
progress
which
has
been
made
since
the
last
survey,
though
also
raises
the
importance
of
tackling
barriers
if
things
are
to
continue
progressing.

5. 1. Background
In
November
2011,
JISC
funded
Evidence
Base
at
Birmingham
City
University
in
collaboration
with
Owen
Stephens
Consulting
to
undertake
the
M-­‐Library
Community
Support
project.
The
project
is
part
of
JISC’s
Mobile
Infrastructure
for
Libraries
programme
which
runs
from
November
2011
until
September
2012.
The
aim
of
the
m-­‐library
community
support
project
is
to:
Provide
a
mobile
library
community
support
project
to
help
support
and
engage
the
emerging
m-­‐library
community
by
reviewing
and
synthesising
existing
research
and
evidence-­‐based
guidance.
An
initial
activity
to
inform
the
project
was
to
find
out
more
about
current
and
planned
activity
in
the
area
of
m-­‐libraries
(covering
use
of
any
mobile
technologies
in
libraries
across
all
sectors).
To
enable
this,
a
survey
was
designed
and
distributed
in
November-­‐December
2011.
You
can
view
full
details
of
the
report
at
http://mlibraries.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2012/02/13/report-­‐on-­‐current-­‐m-­‐library-­‐activity/.
In
order
to
identify
any
changes
or
progress
during
the
course
of
the
project,
the
survey
was
repeated
(with
a
few
minor
changes)
towards
the
end
of
the
project.
The
survey
was
live
in
July
and
August
2012
and
the
data
analysed
in
September
2012.
2. Approach
An
online
survey
was
designed
and
distributed
using
SurveyMonkey.
It
was
largely
based
on
the
initial
survey,
and
covered
the
following
broad
areas:
• Current
m-­‐library
activity
• Future
m-­‐library
activity
• Barriers
to
m-­‐library
activities
(and
how
to
overcome
them)
• Areas
where
further
information
is
needed
to
assist
in
decision
making
for
m-­‐library
activities
• Confidence
level
in
implementing
mobile
technologies
The
survey
was
distributed
through
a
variety
of
channels
including
mailing
lists,
the
project
blog
site
and
email
list
and
personal
contacts.
As
the
survey
was
designed
to
understand
the
situation
in
general
(rather
than
a
specific
geographical
region
or
sector),
it
was
decided
to
make
the
survey
available
to
anyone
to
complete.
The
survey
was
made
live
on
8th
August
2012
and
data
collected
for
analysis
on
5th
September
2012.
A
total
of
138
responses
were
received.
The
following
sections
of
the
report
present
the
key
findings.
It
should
be
noted
that
the
survey
questions
were
not
compulsory
so
the
total
number
of
responses
to
individual
questions
varies.
The
number
of
responses
to
individual
questions
is
shown
in
the
findings
below.

6. 3. Respondent
demographics
Respondents
were
asked
about
which
sector
they
worked
in.
There
were
127
responses.
The
most
represented
sector
was
the
academic
sector,
which
accounted
for
68%
of
the
responses.
The
‘other’
responses
included
health
or
hospital
libraries,
government
libraries
and
law
libraries.
Figure
1
and
Table
1
illustrate
the
responses.
8%
Academic
library
(Higher
or
9%
Further
Education)
School
library
14%
Public
library
Special
library
1%
68%
Other
Figure
1
Which
sector
do
you
work
in?
Sector
%
n
Academic
Library
74
94
School
Library
1.6
2
Public
Library
15
19
Special
Library
9.4
12
Other
14
Total
127
Table
1
Respondents
by
Sector
Respondents
were
asked
to
indicate
which
country
they
worked
in.
There
were
138
responses
as
illustrated
in
Figure
2
and
Table
2.

7. 35%
UK
Other
(please
specify)
65%
Figure
2
Which
country
do
you
work
in?
Country
%
n
UK
65.2
90
Other
34.8
48
Total
138
Table
2
Respondents
by
Country
The
majority
of
respondents
were
from
the
UK
(65%),
with
other
respondents
from
the
USA
(28.9%),
Canada
(2%),
Australia,
Belgium
and
Turkey.
4. Current
m-­‐library
initiatives
Respondents
were
asked
to
indicate
whether
their
library/
information
services
currently
offered
any
m-­‐library
services,
and
were
provided
with
a
list
of
options
(based
on
responses
to
the
initial
survey).
126
responses
were
received.
The
most
frequently
chosen
responses
were
QR
codes,
mobile
catalogue,
mobile
website,
guides
to
support
the
use
of
mobile
services/apps,
and
mobile
apps
for
the
wider
institution
(rather
than
a
mobile
app
for
the
library
which
didn’t
receive
as
many
responses).
Figure
3
and
Table
3
illustrate
the
responses.

8. 80%
72.2%
70%
60%
49.2%
50%
36.5%
33.3%
33.3%
30.2%
40%
26.2%
30%
19.0%
22.2%
15.9%
20%
10%
0%
record
(e.g.
overdues,
Using
mobile
devices
Loaning
mobile
Mobile
app
for
library
Other
(please
specify)
Mobile
app
for
wider
QR
codes
Mobile
website
Guides
to
support
use
Mobile
catalogue
SMS
communication
reference
enquiries
apps
(e.g.
publisher
to
support
roving
of
mobile
services/
about
borrower
devices
institution
Figure
3
Current
m-­‐library
services
offered
Services
%
n
QR
Codes
72.2
91
Mobile
Catalogue
49.2
62
Mobile
Website
36.5
46
Guides
to
Support
Use
of
Mobile
33.3
42
Services/apps
Mobile
App
for
Wider
Institution
33.3
42
Using
Mobile
Devices
to
Support
30.2
38
Roving
Reference
Loaning
Mobile
Devices
26.2
33
Mobile
App
for
Library
19.0
24
SMS
Communication
About
15.9
20
Borrower
Record
Other
22.2
28

9. Total
126
Table
3
Services
currently
being
offered
by
library/information
services
(most
popular
first)
Those
who
selected
other
included
additional
explanation
on
the
categories
selected
as
well
as
the
following
areas:
• Social
media
(Twitter,
Facebook,
Foursquare)
• Location
of
free
PCs
in
library
• Status
of
printers
in
library
• Mobile
discovery
tool
• SMS
reference
service
• Access
to
mobile
content
(e.g.
ebooks,
audiobooks,
music)
• Mobile
e-­‐learning
website
or
VLE
(Virtual
Learning
Environment)
• Mobile
chat
(enquiry
service)
• Newswire
from
news
agencies
• Teaching/instruction
on
mobile
devices
• SMS
to
send
bibliographic
data
from
website
to
phone
• Mobile
LibGuides
5. Current
projects
or
new
initiatives
Respondents
were
asked
to
indicate
whether
their
library/
information
service
are
currently
involved
in
any
projects
or
new
initiatives
utilising
mobile
technologies.
135
responses
were
provided.
Figure
4
and
Table
4
illustrate
the
responses.
39%
No
Yes
61%
Figure
4
Is
your
library/information
service
currently
involved
in
any
projects
or
new
initiatives
utilising
mobile
technologies?

10.
Response
%
n
Yes
60.7
82
No
39.3
53
Total
135
Table
4
Current
library
initiatives
The
majority
of
respondents
(60.7%)
indicated
that
they
were
currently
involved
in
an
m-­‐
library
development.
In
order
of
popularity,
these
included:
• Mobile
access
to
resources
• Mobile
apps
• Mobile
website
• Mobile
catalogue
• Using
mobile
devices
to
support
roving
reference
• QR
codes
• SMS
• Loaning
mobile
devices
• Augmented
reality
• Social
media
The
following
gives
additional
information
of
items
to
notes
from
some
of
these
categories.
Mobile
access
to
resources
Responses
in
this
category
included
libraries
using
existing
mobile
apps
from
suppliers,
using
mobile
discovery
services,
and
providing
guidance
on
accessing
content:
Ensuring
all
online
services
are
mobile-­‐friendly
Running
projects
to
investigate
supplier
apps
for
lib
resources
Investigation
&
review
of
resources
with
mobile
apps
for
support
of
student
population.
Developing
a
web
page
which
details
mobile
versions
of
information
resources.
We're
just
finishing
a
project
to
address
the
challenges
involved
in
providing
mobile
access
to
eresources
through
a
discovery
tool
I
have
asked
our
systems
team
to
promote
the
implementation
of
a
mobile
version
of
our
discovery
service
for
the
coming
academic
year
Mobile
apps

11. The
responses
in
this
category
were
largely
working
on
mobile
apps
specifically
for
the
library,
though
some
were
wider
institutional
mobile
apps.
Not
all
specified
whether
or
not
these
were
proprietary
apps
or
developed
in
house,
though
there
were
examples
of
both:
Funded
Ombiel
CampusM
implementation
project,
led
by
Library
&
Information
Services.
We
are
developing
an
app
to
store
library
card
on
mobile
device
as
a
scannable
barcode.
There
are
universal
apps
for
this,
but
we're
developing
a
proprietary
one
since
the
universals
aren't
ubiquitous.
Most
responses
did
not
specify
the
purpose
of
the
app,
though
one
did:
Our
library
is
in
the
process
of
seeking
a
grant
to
fund
a
collective
effort
with
another
university
to
create
a
mobile
tour
of
architecture
landmarks
in
our
state.
Photos
from
archives
will
be
used
in
a
geolocation
app.
Mobile
website
Many
just
said
they
were
working
on
a
mobile
website,
whilst
two
respondents
mentioned
the
use
of
responsive
web
design:
Rebuilding
our
websites
using
responsive
design
Currently
implementing
a
new
website
using
the
Drupal's
Omega
theme
that
uses
responsive
design
principles
and
CSS3
media
queries.
Using
mobile
devices
to
support
roving
reference
Almost
all
respondents
to
this
(all
but
two
who
didn’t
specify)
specifically
mentioned
using
iPads.
Some
mentioned
reference
enquiries
in
particular,
whilst
others
were
more
general
(i.e.
to
support
teaching
also):
Just
purchased
iPads
to
support
roving
help
Public
services
staff
are
being
given
iPads
to
use
in
teaching
and
reference
work.
Information
Specialists
are
about
to
get
iPads
for:
teaching,
enquiry
answering
QR
codes
Most
who
mentioned
QR
codes
planned
to
use
them
within
the
physical
library
collection
to
link
to
electronic
resources:
We
place
QR
codes
on
physical
books
linking
to
the
E-­‐book
where
we
have
them.
Using
QR
codes
to
promote
e-­‐book
collection
One
was
planning
to
use
them
to
help
users
navigate
the
library:
In
development
of
QR
code
for
way
finding
in
the
library
SMS

12. Initiatives
involving
SMS
included
text
marketing
software,
SMS
reference,
general
communication.
Two
commercial
options
were
mentioned;
Trumpia
(SMS
marketing)
and
ConnectText
(SMS
communication).
Loaning
mobile
devices
Those
who
were
planning
to
start
loan
devices
were
primarily
planning
to
loan
Kindles
preloaded
with
content,
with
one
planning
to
loan
iPads.
Other
Other
current
projects
included
developing
a
mobile
strategy,
planning
Bring
Your
Own
Device
(BYOD)
training,
establishing
a
‘petting
zoo’
to
test
mobile
devices,
and
setting
up
working
groups
to
investigate
options
for
mobile
technologies.
6. Future
m-­‐library
initiatives
Respondents
were
asked
to
indicate
whether
their
library/
information
service
was
considering
using
mobile
technologies
to
support
any
aspect
of
their
service
or
resource
provision
in
the
future.
132
responses
were
provided.
Figure
5
and
Table
5.
18%
No
Yes
(please
give
brief
details)
82%
Figure
5
Is
your
library/information
service
considering
using
mobile
technologies
to
support
any
aspect
of
the
service
or
resource
provision
in
future?
Response
%
n
Yes
81.8
108

13. No
18.2
24
Total
132
Table
5
Future
m-­‐Library
Initiatives
81.8%
of
the
respondents
were
considering
using
mobile
technologies
in
future,
though
many
were
not
yet
sure
which
they
would
be
considering.
The
open
text
responses
were
categorised,
and
included
(in
order
of
popularity):
• Roving
support
(using
tablets
for
reference
enquiries,
demonstrations
and
supporting
teaching)
• Mobile
catalogue
• Mobile
app
• Mobile
website
• Mobile
access
to
resources
• SMS
• Loaning
mobile
devices
• Social
media
• QR
codes
• Mobile
web
chat/enquiry
service
• Augmented
reality
• Strategy
development
• NFC/RFID
• Supporting
Bring
Your
Own
Device
(BYOD)
• Bibliographic
management
The
following
gives
additional
information
of
items
to
notes
from
some
of
these
categories.
Many
just
listed
the
topic
(e.g.
mobile
catalogue)
without
additional
context.
Roving
support
(using
tablets
for
reference
enquiries,
demonstrations
and
supporting
teaching)
Most
respondents
again
discussed
use
of
tablets
such
as
iPads
for
supporting
roving
within
libraries.
Some
also
mentioned
how
they
could
be
used
to
provide
support
on
using
apps,
and
used
by
staff
without
a
desktop
computer:
using
mobile
devices
to
answer
queries
-­‐
roving,
providing
support
on
using
apps
for
databases
May
extend
use
of
iPads
for
roving
to
use
by
overnight
staff
(who
don't
currently
have
a
PC)
Mobile
app
Ideas
for
future
apps
included
current
awareness
and
access
to
bibliographic
databases,
as
well
as
common
functionality
such
as
reserving
and
renewing
library
items
and
accessing
the
catalogue.
Mobile
website

14. Though
most
did
not
give
details,
two
mentioned
that
they
hoped
to
use
responsive
web
design
to
ensure
the
website
can
be
viewed
on
a
variety
of
different
screen
sizes:
We're
looking
at
redeveloping
our
library
website
presence
using
responsive
web
design
principles.
We
are
redeveloping
our
website,
which
will
scale
to
the
device
it's
viewed
on
Mobile
access
to
resources
A
number
of
respondents
are
hoping
to
implement
a
mobile
discovery
service
to
enable
users
to
search
for
resources
via
mobile
devices,
as
well
as
providing
access
to
a
wider
variety
of
resources
on
mobiles:
ensure
all
services
are
mobile
compliant
Am
very
interested
in
Adobe
Content
Server
for
serving
ebooks
flexibly
to
mobile
readers
Discovery
service.
Downloadable
ebooks.
might
buy
mobile
version
of
databases
separately
licensed
from
their
web
versions
if
budget
permits
considering
the
use
of
mobile
applications
for
access
to
library
materials
SMS
Most
of
the
responses
mentioning
SMS
were
focused
on
SMS
alerts
or
notifications,
though
some
also
hoped
to
investigate
an
SMS
reference
service.
Loaning
mobile
devices
These
responses
included
libraries
who
were
considering
loaning
mobile
devices
such
as
tablets
to
specific
types
of
users:
We
are
considering
adding
tablet
computers
to
the
collection
that
would
circulate
to
students
with
disabilities.
We
are
looking
at
the
best
model
for
lending
out
tablets
to
support
students
on
our
campus,
as
well
as
healthcare
professionals
in
our
associated
Trust.
Mobile
web
chat/enquiry
service
This
included
both
adding
mobile
functionality
to
existing
enquiry
services,
and
developing
new
mobile
enquiry
services:
We
are
planning
to
provide
mobile
access
to
our
web
chat
service.
development
of
mobile
enquiry
service
Augmented
reality
One
response
gave
further
information
about
plans
to
investigate
using
augmented
reality
to
aid
library
orientation,
especially
during
inductions.

15. 7. Barriers
to
utilising
mobile
technologies
Respondents
were
asked
to
indicate
whether
they
faced
any
barriers
or
challenges
to
utilising
mobile
technologies
in
their
library/information
service.
131
responses
were
provided.
A
pre-­‐
determined
list
of
categories
was
provided
as
well
as
the
option
to
provide
any
additional
reasons.
Respondents
were
able
to
give
more
than
one
reason.
Table
6
and
Figure
6
illustrate
the
responses.
90%
79%
80%
70%
60%
47%
50%
40%
34%
31%
24%
30%
16%
15%
15%
20%
12%
10%
0%
Not
sure
if
users
would
want
to
Lack
of
technical
support
Licensing
concerns
Lack
of
skills
needed
Resource
constraints
Not
a
library/information
Not
an
organisation
priority
Infrastructure/policy
Don't
know
enough
about
how
to
utilise
mobile
technologies
use
mobile
technologies
constraints
service
priority
Figure
6
Barriers
to
utilising
mobile
technologies
Barriers
%
n
Resource
constraints
78.6
103
Infrastructure/policy
constraints
47.3
62
Lack
of
technical
support
33.6
44
Lack
of
skills
needed
31.3
41
Not
an
organisation
priority
24.4
32
Don’t
know
enough
about
how
16.0
21
to
utilise
mobile
technologies
Not
sure
if
users
would
want
to
14.5
19
use
mobile

16. Not
a
library/information
service
14.5
19
priority
Licensing
concerns
11.5
15
Other
18.3
24
Total
131
Table
6
Barriers
to
utilising
mobile
technologies
Many
of
the
open
responses
provided
additional
explanation
of
the
barriers
they
had
selected
(e.g.
lack
of
time,
staff
and
budget
under
resource
constraints;
poor
mobile
or
wifi
signal
under
infrastructure/policy
constraints).
Additional
barriers
not
already
covered
include:
• Traditional
mindset
of
library
staff/management
resulting
in
risk
averse
culture
and
a
steep
learning
curve
if
staff
were
to
get
involved
• Vendors
investing
in
separate
apps
rather
than
supporting
access
via
library
websites
• Lack
of
third
party
support
for
mobile
resources
(e.g.
catalogue,
e-­‐journals
and
databases)
Primary
barrier
to
adopting
m-­‐library
initiatives
Respondents
were
asked
to
indicate
which
was
the
primary
barrier
that
prevented
them
from
adopting
m-­‐library
initiatives
in
their
library.
134
responses
were
provided.
Figure
7
and
Table
7
illustrate
the
responses.
Don't
know
enough
about
how
to
utilise
mobile
technologies
Lack
of
technical
support
2%
Not
sure
if
users
would
want
to
use
1%
mobile
technologies
8%
2%
Licensing
concerns
8%
Not
an
organisation
priority
17%
7%
Not
a
library/information
service
4%
priority
Lack
of
skills
needed
5%
Resource
constraints
(i.e.
cost/capacity/
time)
Infrastructure/policy
constraints
(i.e.
46%
web
framework,
institutional
structure)
Other
(please
specify)
Figure
7
Primary
barrier
to
utilising
mobile
technologies

17. Barriers
%
n
Resource
constraints
45.5
61
Infrastructure/policy
Constraints
17.2
23
Lack
of
technical
support
8.2
11
Not
an
organisation
priority
6.7
9
Not
a
library/information
service
4.5
6
Priority
Don’t
know
enough
about
how
2.2
3
to
utilise
mobile
technologies
Licensing
concerns
2.2
3
Lack
of
skills
needed
4.5
3
Not
sure
if
users
would
want
to
0.7
1
use
mobile
Other
8.2
11
Total
134
Table
7
Barriers
in
Adopting
Mobile
Responsive
Technologies
It
is
very
clear
that
resource
constraints
and
infrastructure
constraints
are
the
two
major
barriers.
Areas
under
‘other’
were
similar
to
the
previous
question
(i.e.
staff
mind-­‐set,
vendor
priorities,
third
party
support).
8. Overcoming
barriers
Respondents
were
asked
to
indicate
how
they
proposed
to
overcome
barriers
that
they
face.
103
responses
were
received.
Some
of
the
responses
referred
to
a
sustained
effort
to
overcome
barriers
(e.g.
broken
record
technique!).
Other
practical
approaches
to
overcoming
barriers
included
the
following
areas.
Quick
wins/low
cost
solutions
A
number
of
responses
felt
there
were
quick
wins
and
low
cost
solutions
that
would
enable
them
to
implement
mobile
technologies
in
some
way
without
a
large
investment
in
terms
of
time
or
money:
initially
go
for
quick
wins,
using
apps/services
that
are
free
or
low
cost,
whilst
beginning
to
embed
mobile
considerations
into
university
processes
and
projects
Explore
Freeopen-­‐source
options;
do
it
and
show
management
positive
results
later.

18. by
introducing
small
projects
to
show
that
these
barriers
can
be
overcome
Find
one
very
useful
function
of
mobile
technology
that
we
can
implement
as
a
foot
in
the
door
We
are
doing
other
more
cost
effective
projects
such
as
the
QR
code
creation
which
is
effectively
just
time
rich.
by
proving
to
administration
that
our
trial
of
QR
codes
is
successful
&
we
need
to
develop
more
mobile
apps
Business
case
Many
responses
referred
to
the
importance
of
a
clear
business
case
for
utilising
mobile
technologies,
aligned
with
strategic
aims
such
as
the
student
experience:
We
hope
that
clearly
demonstrating
the
potential
benefits
for
the
student
experience
may
result
in
funding
being
made
available
for
mobile
app
development.
A
number
commented
on
the
need
for
examining
mobile
initiatives
in
the
context
of
other
services
to
prioritise
areas
which
need
additional
resource:
It
will
be
prioritised
along
with
other
objectives
within
library
action
plans
and
when
then
a
project
plan
will
be
written
to
ensure
that
staff
resource
is
made
available.
By
making
the
case
for
this
development
as
a
priority
Making
it
a
priority
over
some
traditional
services
that
are
no
longer
meeting
users
needs.
Others
commented
that
the
level
of
demand
from
users
would
be
the
main
factor
that
would
support
a
business
case
for
investing
resources
into
mobile
initiatives:
If
the
users
start
demanding
more
of
this,
the
resourcing
is
diverted
from
other
things
Hoping
users
will
start
complaining!
Only
way
to
raise
up
agenda.
Staff
changes
(additional
staffing
or
re-­‐assign
staff
duties)
Some
responses
referred
to
additional
staffing
with
skills
to
drive
forward
mobile
initiatives:
We
recently
created
a
new
position
for
a
Digital
Branch
Manager,
which
helps
shape
our
vision
for
all
digital
services,
mobile
included,
and
added
1
FTE
to
our
IT
staff.
A
new
E-­‐systems
manager
who
is
familiar
with
mobile
technology
use
in
libraries
was
recently
appointed.
The
goal
is
that
eventually
he'll
be
able
to
allocate
the
time
to
focus
on
developing
this
exciting
area
for
the
library.
We
hope
to
shortly
have
a
new
programmer
on
staff
and
have
the
resources
to
move
forward.
Others
suggested
re-­‐assigning
or
prioritising
staff
duties
and
adjusting
time
spent
on
other
activities
to
free
up
time
for
developing
new
ways
of
working:

19. Reduce
time
spent
on
other
tasks
-­‐
redeploy
staff.
Re-­‐assign
staff
duties
Re-­‐prioritizing
staff
time
Moving
away
from
traditional
desk
reference,
freeing
up
librarians
to
work
in
other
ways,
with
mobile
tech.
Other
suggestions
included
ensuring
new
recruits
have
skills
in
the
area
(e.g.
by
including
it
in
the
job
specification),
making
it
a
small
part
of
many
staff
member’s
roles
with
one
person
co-­‐
ordinating,
and
tying
it
into
marketing
and
communication
initatives.
Partnerships
(internal
and
external)
A
number
of
people
were
hoping
to
overcome
barriers
by
partnering
up
with
internal
or
external
partners.
Many
mentioned
utilising
expertise
from
IT
departments:
Utilising
expertise
from
other
departments
(e.g.
IT
department)
and
other
institutions
Further
negotiation
with
our
IT
department
Work
with
our
Corporate
IT
colleagues
to
get
them
to
better
understand
our
requirements
initiate
a
discussion
with
IT
regarding
the
barriers
to
library
development.
Others
hoped
to
work
in
partnership
with
external
partners
to
assist
both
with
funding
and
also
to
help
them
understand
the
barriers
to
implementation:
We
are
actively
seeking
partnerships
with
other
businesses
in
the
form
of
affiliate
partnerships,
donations,
and
advertising
revenue.
Our
Content
and
Licencing
team
are
in
conversation
with
publishers
to
try
to
help
them
realise
the
benefits
of
mobile
delivery
and
negotiate
appropriate
licence
agreements.
Staff
training
Some
people
felt
the
best
way
to
overcome
barriers
was
to
support
staff
training,
either
at
a
local
level
or
by
sending
one
person
to
training
courses
and
encouraging
them
to
report
back
to
share
the
learning.
One
person
also
suggested
the
library
staff
should
act
as
innovators
in
this
area
by
receiving
training
and
then
feeding
this
learning
into
the
wider
institution:
training
library
staff
to
be
able
to
implement
new
technologies,
then
report
back
to
college
to
show
how
can
be
done
Good
practice
With
the
number
of
other
libraries
who
have
been
utilising
mobile
technologies,
some
felt
the
best
way
to
overcome
barriers
was
to
take
good
practice
from
these
to
apply
to
their
own
context:

20. by
learning
from
those
who
know
Keep
trying
to
acquire
good
practice
from
others
to
save
on
development
costs
For
augmented
reality
we
hope
the
JISC-­‐funded
project
will
deliver
enough
technical
information
for
us
to
create
our
own
content.
Outsourcing
A
small
number
felt
outsourcing
would
be
a
more
desirable
option
to
overcome
barriers:
Outsource
as
much
as
possible
We
would
look
to
outsource
to
private
company
9. Information
to
assist
decision
making
Respondents
were
asked
to
indicate
whether
there
was
any
further
information
that
would
be
of
assistance
in
making
decisions
regarding
utilising
mobile
technologies.
35
responses
were
received.
Suggestions
included
the
following
sources
of
information:
• Forum
to
exchange
experiences,
difficulties
and
solutions
• Evidence
base
on
mobile
technologies
in
libraries
(e.g.
case
studies,
best
practice,
cost/benefit
analysis,
evidence
of
value,
skills
needed,
examples
of
innovation)
• Statistics
on
usage
of
mobile
technologies
• Names
and
contacts
details
for
external
trainers
and
experts
in
the
field
• Mobile
technology
licenses
• Tools
(or
applications)
to
assist
in
coding/development
of
new
service
technologies
• Training
opportunities
for
librarians
• Directory
of
recommended
external
suppliers
who
are
familiar
with
the
use
of
mobile
technology
in
libraries
• Links
to
companies
developing
use
of
mobile
technologies
• Guidance
on
recommended
apps
One
response
felt
there
was
more
needed
in
terms
of
infrastructure:
I
would
like
to
see
orgs
like
this
JISC
implementing
changes
in
their
services
to
support
mobile,
rather
than
information
10.Confidence
in
implementing
mobile
technologies
Respondents
were
asked
to
indicate
on
a
scale
ranging
from
not
at
all
confident
to
very
confident.
135
responses
were
provided.
Figure
8
and
Table
8
illustrate
the
responses.

21. Not
at
all
conkident
Conkidence
in
implementing
Not
conkident
mobile
technologies
Conkident
Very
conkident
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Figure
8:
Bar
chart
to
show
level
of
confidence
in
implementing
mobile
technologies
Barriers
%
n
Not
at
all
confident
2.2
3
Not
confident
25.9
35
Confident
60.0
81
Very
confident
11.9
16
Total
135
Table
8
Confidence
in
implementing
mobile
technologies
The
comments
explain
the
reasons
behind
their
level
of
confidence
(comments
were
optional,
not
all
respondents
left
comments).
Not
at
all
confident
Two
of
the
three
who
were
not
at
all
confident
answered
this
way
due
to
infrastructure
constraints.
The
other
had
no
experience
setting
up
mobile
technologies,
though
was
a
user
themselves.
Not
confident
25.9%
of
respondents
did
not
feel
confident
that
their
library
could
utilise
mobile
technologies.
Reasons
for
those
who
were
not
confident
were
commonly
at
institutions
just
starting
to
experiment
with
mobile
technologies
or
who
had
perhaps
focused
on
one
specific
area
and
would
now
like
to
expand
the
offering:
We've
done
the
basics
(mobile
site
and
just
started
with
a
mobile
catalog-­‐
outsourced
to
LibraryThing)
but
don't
have
the
time,
staff,
expertise
to
do
much
more
than
that.
At
early
stage
but
developing
knowledge
It
also
included
some
individuals
who
feel
confident
in
their
own
abilities
using
mobile
technologies,
but
who
have
colleagues
who
are
not
confident,
and
vice
versa:

22. I
don't
have
a
smart
phone,
few
staff
do,
and
those
that
do
are
not
skilled
at
sharing
their
knowledge
and
skills
I
am
not
an
expert
in
mobile
technologies,
however,
we
have
access
to
staff
resource
with
the
appropriate
skills.
Need
lib
staff
to
be
comfortable
using
mobile
devices
and
App
I
can
use
an
ipad
and
my
phone
but
am
not
tech-­‐savvy
per
se
and
my
colleagues
are
even
less
so.
There
were
also
those
who
do
not
have
the
infrastructure
or
senior
management
buy-­‐in
to
support
mobile
technologies:
Lack
of
support
at
senior
manager
level
as
well
as
IT
refusing
to
support
mobile
technologies
We
have
no
support
from
university
administration
My
library
is
reluctant
to
do
anything
unless
success
is
guaranteed.
This
means
it
is
reluctant
to
invest
in
developing
technical
skills
among
its
people,
to
allow
time
to
work
on
mobile
projects,
to
market
a
project,
and
to
give
it
a
chance.
Many
ideas
have
failed
due
to
lack
of
library
administrative
support.
Not
a
library
priority....
Confident
The
majority
of
respondents
(60%)
felt
confident
that
their
library
could
utilise
mobile
technologies.
Comments
from
this
group
of
respondents
demonstrated
the
libraries
have
support
from
senior
management,
have
the
skills
and
knowledge
needed,
and
show
enthusiasm
for
planned
initiatives.
However,
many
comment
that
it
will
take
time
or
they
still
need
to
address
one
or
two
barriers
before
getting
to
implementation:
We
know
how
it
works,
we
just
need
to
do
it.
We
have
the
know
how
but
also
many
competing
demands
on
the
time
of
our
technical
team
I
am
confident
our
University
web
team
can
deliver
this
when
they
have
the
capacity.
We
can
do
it,
it
will
just
take
time.
We
have
the
knowledge
&
skills
available,
it's
just
a
case
of
implementation
when
we
have
time.
I
am
sure
we
can
do
it,
it
is
just
we
need
to
think
clearly
who
it
is
for,
how
it
will
help
and
then
how
much
we
can
put
in
via
time
and
expense
We
are
confident
in
our
ability
to
offer
these
services
once
we
have
the
technology
and
time
to
do
so,
but
we're
not
so
confident
that
we
will
be
able
to
find
the
time
to
implement
these
initiatives

23. Very
confident
11.9%
of
respondents
felt
very
confident
that
their
library
would
be
able
to
utilise
mobile
technologies.
These
respondents
were
largely
those
that
have
worked
on
mobile
initiatives
already,
and
plan
to
continue
doing
so.
The
responses
from
this
category
demonstrate
that
they
have
skills
and
knowledge
necessary,
as
well
as
demand
from
users
and
support
from
senior
management:
We
have
been
offering
mobile
web
services
since
2007
so
we
have
staff
with
the
necessary
skills
and
knowledge.
flexible
strategy
in
place
with
full
senior
management
backing
and
growing
expertise
among
Library
staff
I'm
very
confident
that
if
it
were
implemented
it
would
be
well
used,
we
could
support
it,
and
it
would
provide
useful
benefits
to
students
I
have
a
clear
understanding
of
the
concepts
involved,
am
a
big
believer
in
the
benefits
of
elearning
and
have
the
backing
of
the
management
team
to
promote
facilitation
of
mobile
learning.
11.Supporting
current/future
m-­‐library
initiatives
Respondents
were
asked
to
indicate
from
a
pre-­‐determined
list
the
methods
that
they
would
use
to
support
current
and
future
m-­‐library
initiatives
in
their
library/information
service.
135
responses
were
provided.
Table
9
illustrates
the
responses
in
order
of
frequency.
Methods
%
n
Keeping
up-­‐to-­‐date
with
mobile
85.2
115
technology
Case
studies
78.5
106
Attending
and
following
events
74.1
100
Reading/following
existing
66.7
90
research
Sharing
and
reading
information
60.0
81
via
social
media
Library/librarian
blogs
54.1
73
Social
media
discussions
53.3
72
How-­‐to
guides
53.3
72
Mailing
lists
51.9
70

24. Conducting
own
research
45.2
61
Project
blogs
40.7
55
Other
5.9
8
Table
9
Methods
to
Support
Current/Future
Initiatives
The
‘other’
responses
included
collaborative
projects
(with
other
organisations
or
others
within
the
organisation
who
may
be
more
knowledgeable),
discussion
with/learning
from
colleagues,
in
house
training/awareness
sessions,
creating
your
own
m-­‐library
initiative,
video
demonstrations,
and
support
from
suppliers.
Respondents
were
asked
to
provide
any
further
comments
about
the
support
they
may
need
to
help
with
m-­‐library
initiatives.
16
responses
were
given.
Some
of
these
simply
commented
that
any
help
is
useful,
whilst
others
expanded
on
topics
above:
Practical
demos
and
sessions
are
always
the
most
fulfilling
so
you
can
see
the
technology
in
action.
This
is
what
people
remember.
Good
case
studies
in
relevant
types
of
libraries
(in
our
case
engineering
and
industrial)
might
help.
Some
commented
that
support
was
most
needed
to
help
with
infrastructure/technical
issues:
Hospital
libraries
in
particular
might
require
additional
support
in
relation
to
negotiating
with
unsupportive
IT
departments
From
our
experience,
infrastructure
issues
present
the
biggest
barrier
to
innovation
Locking
in
to
single
technology
platforms
is
the
most
problematic
aspect.
Libraries
must
encourage
publishers
to
provide
resources
that
are
platform
agnostic
(most
usually
mobile
web
based)
Other
areas
in
need
of
support
were
around
providing
evidence
of
the
value
of
mobile
initiatives
and
the
value
of
having
a
developer
within
the
library:
Proof
of
ROI
that
we
could
show
to
our
administration.
Libraries
need
developers
to
take
full
advantage
of
APIs
etc.
that
can
be
used
to
make
services
mobile-­‐friendly/enhance
existing
areas/create
new
webpages/apps
etc.
Not
enough
libraries
have
their
own
developer;
how
can
we
convince
directors
of
their
value
for
money?
One
person
suggested
a
consortium:
A
consortium
for
higher
Ed
in
mobile
tech
One
thanked
the
project
for
its
support
and
hoped
the
community
would
continue:

25. Please
keep
up
the
good
work,
and
I
hope
the
community
will
continue
after
the
JISC
funding
has
ended
in
September
2012.
12.Usefulness
of
project
updates
As
part
of
our
project
evaluation,
respondents
were
asked
to
indicate
the
usefulness
of
the
information
shared
via
the
project
blog
(http://www.m-­‐libraries.info)
and
the
community
website,
on
a
rating
from
not
at
all
useful
to
very
useful.
130
responses
were
provided.
Table
10
illustrates
the
responses.
Not
at
all
useful
Not
useful
Usefulness
of
project
updates
Useful
Very
useful
Not
used
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Figure
9
Usefulness
of
project
updates
Updates
%
n
Not
at
all
useful
1.5
2
Not
useful
2.3
3
Useful
34.6
45
Very
useful
13.1
17
Not
used
48.5
63
Total
130
Table
10
Usefulness
of
Updates
Many
of
the
survey
respondents
(48.5%)
were
previously
unaware
of
the
resources
from
the
project,
and
pleasingly
many
of
these
said
they
would
now
take
a
look
and
imagine
they
will
use
the
resource
in
future.
3.8%
of
respondents
said
the
updates
were
not
at
all
useful
or
not
useful.
Three
of
these
chose
to
leave
comments;
one
of
whom
didn’t
know
about
the
resources
and
one
of
whom
couldn’t
get
access
due
to
the
host
organisation
blocking
access
to
all
social
media
including
blogs.
The
other
responder
felt
there
wasn’t
anything
of
use
from
the
blog
to
follow
up.
47.7%
of
survey
respondents
felt
the
project
resources
were
useful
or
very
useful.

26. The
case
studies
have
helped
to
either
identify
a
problem
and
potential
work
arounds
which
we
would
have
otherwise
spent
a
long
time
trying
to
resolve
It's
been
a
great
source
of
examples
of
good
practice
from
other
institutions,
and
has
given
us
some
good
ideas!
It
is
worth
knowing
how
all
of
these
libraries
have
gone
about
setting
up
the
projects
so
that
we
can
learn
from
these
and
have
evidence
that
we're
not
trying
to
break
the
mould.
always
useful
to
be
able
to
show
examples
and
case
studies
to
senior
management.
the
blog
and
website
are
very
useful,
not
only
to
keep
us
up-­‐to-­‐date
but
to
point
colleagues
at
when
they
ask
what
other
institutions
are
doing.
There's
quite
a
lot
of
useful
aggregation
of
information
and
there's
been
some
good
interaction
arising
from
the
project
Some
commented
that
they
are
not
be
able
to
utilise
the
information
yet,
but
hope
to
do
so
in
future:
Its
good
to
see
what
others
are
doing
and
to
know
where
to
refer
to
when
we
are
to
progress
more
quickly
I
store
them;
Since
I
cannot
actually
apply
them,
I
have
not
read
most
of
them
Others
felt
they
would
have
been
more
useful
if
there
were
examples
from
institutions
similar
to
their
own:
case
studies
and
best
practices
are
inspirations
for
our
own
project,
but
do
not
always
apply
to
our
case
(mostly
about
academic
or
public
libraries;
mostly
on
Internet)
Interesting
although
usually
University
based
so
much
larger
organisations
13.Summary
Current
m-­‐library
initiatives
and
projects
The
majority
of
the
respondents’
libraries
either
already
have
m-­‐library
initiatives
(92%),
or
are
currently
working
on
m-­‐library
projects
or
services
(61%).
QR
codes,
mobile
catalogue,
mobile
website,
guides
to
support
the
use
of
mobile
services/apps,
and
a
mobile
app
for
the
institution
were
each
being
used
(or
planned)
by
a
third
of
respondents
or
more.
The
full
list
of
uses
at
present
included
(in
order
of
frequency):
• QR
codes
• Mobile
catalogue
• Mobile
website
• Guides
to
support
the
use
of
mobile
services/apps
• Using
mobile
devices
to
support
roving
reference
• Loaning
mobile
devices
• Mobile
app
for
the
library

27. • SMS
communication
about
borrower
record
• Social
media
(Twitter,
Facebook,
Foursquare)
• Location
of
free
PCs
in
library
• Status
of
printers
in
library
• Mobile
discovery
tool
• SMS
reference
service
• Access
to
mobile
content
(e.g.
ebooks,
audiobooks,
music)
• Mobile
e-­‐learning
website
or
VLE
(Virtual
Learning
Environment)
• Mobile
chat
(enquiry
service)
• Newswire
from
news
agencies
• Teaching/instruction
on
mobile
devices
• SMS
to
send
bibliographic
data
from
website
to
phone
• Mobile
LibGuides
Further
information
in
the
comments
some
of
the
projects
in
this
area
and
ways
the
technologies
are
being
implemented
at
a
local
level
to
fit
the
organisational
context.
Future
m-­‐library
initiatives
82%
of
respondents
plan
to
implement
additional
m-­‐library
initiatives
in
future,
though
many
did
not
have
concrete
plans
in
place
and
would
follow
developments
to
see
which
would
be
most
relevant
for
their
library.
For
those
who
did
have
plans,
many
included
initiatives
already
mentioned
in
the
survey,
with
additional
details
of
how
they
planned
to
implement
them.
This
demonstrates
the
different
stages
libraries
are
at
–
some
have
implemented
a
number
of
different
services
whilst
others
are
still
at
very
early
stages
of
implementation
or
experimentation.
Additional
ideas
for
future
initiatives
included
a
mobile
enquiry
service,
augmented
reality,
NFC/RFID,
and
supporting
bring
your
own
device
(BYOD).
Barriers
to
utilising
mobile
technologies
Barriers
to
development
of
m-­‐library
initiatives
were
experienced
by
a
large
proportion
of
respondents
(95%
gave
at
least
one
barrier).
The
following
barriers
were
each
mentioned
by
respondents
(listed
in
order
of
frequency):
• Resource
constraints
(i.e.
cost,
capacity,
time)
• Infrastructure/policy
constraints
(i.e.
web
framework,
institutional
structure)
• Lack
of
technical
support
• Lack
of
skills
needed
• Not
an
organisation
priority
• Don’t
know
enough
about
how
to
utilise
mobile
technologies
• Not
sure
if
users
would
want
to
use
mobile
• Not
a
library/information
service
priority
• Licensing
concerns
• Traditional
mindset
of
library
staff/management