Information Technology

(1)

________________________________________________________________________ Information Technology Capacity of the Jacksonville Public Library

Prepared by LMA Techwork, Inc.

Page 1 11/10

Information Technology

Introduction

The core business of public libraries is information delivery. Today, technology delivers that information. Library buildings, services, staffing, and budgets have all been dramatically impacted by technology in Jacksonville as elsewhere. At the same time as libraries struggle to fully embrace and integrate today’s technology to better serve library customers and improve staff productivity, new technologies arrive, offering both greater service opportunities and greater challenges. The library of the future requires that we meet those challenges. The technology consultant met with the Jacksonville Public Library Board Capacity Plan Committee, the Jacksonville Public Library Capacity Plan Team, and with staff from the city’s Information Technology Department during visits to Jacksonville in July and September 2010. The consultant visited libraries throughout the city, meeting with staff members there. In addition, the consultant participated in the public forums, which were held in September.

Management of IT

Current Environment

ITD Services

Scope – The city’s Information Technology Department (ITD) serves to meet the information technology needs of the library as well as for other city departments. ITD provides the following services to the Jacksonville Public Library (JPL):

• Data Center Infrastructure and Management - 14 library servers hosted at the data center • Backup and Recovery Services

• Enterprise Network Design and Management • Internet Access

(2)

Page 2 11/10

• Desktop Support – 1,750 library computers, including on-site support • Procurement Services – hardware, applications, and services

• Product Life Cycle Management

• Hardware Management – including upgrades, replacement, and support, including network equipment, servers, desktops

• Application Management – including upgrades, replacement, and support • Vendor Relationship Management

• Inventory Control and Management • License Audit and Management • Virus Protection

• E-mail Services – 697 library e-mail accounts

• Telephone System – including upgrades, replacement, and support • Video Conferencing System

• Content Filtering • Reports

• Strategic Planning • Project Management

• Customer Relationship Management

Help Desk – JPL staff in any building can submit a trouble ticket directly to ITD. Staff calls or submits a form. The submitting staff member becomes the “owner” of the trouble ticket, and access to that ticket and its status are restricted to that person. Most of the libraries maintain a paper log to allow other staff members to determine that a ticket has been submitted.

Hardware Management – ITD has a replacement schedule for network equipment which it manages. The schedule is based on replacing equipment before it exceeds its serviceable age. Customer Relationship Management – ITD assigns a Customer Relationship Manager to JPL. The JPL Assistant Director of Support Services and the Library Supervisor of Cataloging/ILS meet with the ITD Customer Relationship Manager every other week. The purpose of the

meeting is to review the status of current projects, plan upcoming projects, and identify potential problems.

The Library Director and the Assistant Director of Support Services meet with ITD management monthly. This meeting began a year ago and was implemented to improve communication between the two agencies. Both agencies agreed that the meetings are beneficial.

(3)

Page 3 11/10

The Library Director serves on the ITD Steering Committee, which is responsible for identifying and planning major projects for and within the enterprise.

Enterprise Projects – In addition to providing services specific to JPL, ITD undertakes enterprise projects which benefit JPL. One example is the recent development of a new data center, which houses servers, including JPL’s servers. Another is negotiating new contracts with current vendors and with alternate vendors to lower costs for the enterprise.

JPLManaged Services

Scope - Responsibility for IT is assigned to JPL’s Assistant Director of Support Services. Support Services has responsibility for IT, collection development, technical services, the integrated library management system (ILS), and the library’s website. Library staff has responsibility for the following IT-related services:

• Procurement Services

• Product Lifecycle Management • Hardware Management

• Application Management

• Vendor Relationship Management • Inventory Control and Management

• Internal Communications System – (Vocera system) including upgrades, replacement, and support

• Content Filtering • Reports

• Strategic Planning • Project Management

• Customer Relationship Management • Website Management

Staffing – At a minimum, 60% of the Assistant Director of Support Services’ time is spent on IT-related activities. In addition, Support Services includes two FTE positions devoted to the website and 65% of another FTE position is devoted to the ILS and library-specific applications. Approximately 10% of the Library Director’s time is devoted to IT-related management.

(4)

Page 4 11/10

Application Management – JPL has direct responsibility for managing the following applications:

• ILS

• meeting room scheduling

• summer reading program management • statistical reporting

• customer opinion surveys • self-check

Project Management –The following schedule provides examples of projects that JPL staff is managing:

October 2010 – Upgrade to GL3.3.1 (Symphony) on ILS test server; November 2010 – Resume testing of eCommerce project.

Late Fall 2010 – Install test instance of eLibrary

Early Spring 2011 – Upgrade ILS production server to GL3.3.1.

Website Management – JPL plans to redesign the site and add a mobile version.

Issues/Assessment

Collaborating with a city department for ITD services should work to the library’s benefit. However, excellent communication, a strong commitment to customer support, and adequate resources to provide the needed services are absolutely necessary for the collaboration to succeed.

Staffing

Library management identified IT management and support as the greatest challenge to the library. The greatest contributing factor is that the library is unable to have any IT positions due to the human resource management approach by the city, which assigns all IT positions to ITD. Yet, because the library’s core business depends on technology, by necessity, JPL staff must assume some IT responsibility, and they do. IT issues dominate the responsibilities and services within Support Services, leaving the Assistant Director of Support Services with little time to focus on the several other components of the department. The Assistant Director manages the department, serves as the liaison to ITD, plans the library’s future use of technology, and

(5)

Page 5 11/10

coordinates all IT projects and services for JPL. This range of responsibilities for this position can create challenges in trying to create a vision for technology at JPL while also trying to deal with day-to-day issues.

An additional challenge is that the Assistant Director must rely on library staff and ITD to provide her with the data necessary to make management decisions. As an example, libraries report IT computer issues directly to ITD, as they should, but the Assistant Director then lacks access to information about the issues. The Assistant Director must have ready access to such information.

A review of library peers found that most use library staff for IT management and support with little dependence on staff from other agencies. IT management and support services are provided primarily, exclusively in some peers, by library staff.

IT Management IT Support

Louisville Free Public Library 100% staff 100% staff Miami-Dade Public Library

System

100% staff 95% staff/5% other

government

Nashville Public Library Shared with other government 70% staff/30% other government

Orange County Library District

100% staff 100% staff

Palm Beach County Library System

80%/20% other government 100%

The 2009-2010 Public Library Funding and Technology Access Survey: Survey Findings and

Results found that 36% of responding Florida public libraries and only 15.7% of libraries

nationally stated that county/city IT staff was the highest reported source of IT support, as opposed to library IT staff.

The five peer libraries reported that they had the following FTE for IT staff: Louisville: 7.5 FTE, Miami-Dade: 18 FTE, Nashville: 5.5 FTE, Orange County: 14 FTE, Palm Beach County: 14 FTE.

The library’s core business is information delivery. Today, technology delivers that information. JPL must have sufficient and expert staff if it is to be able to achieve its primary mission.

To bring IT management and support responsibilities in-house, JPL would need an IT staff of 15 FTE based on a review of its peers. These include positions that JPL already has – those

(6)

Page 6 11/10

responsible for the ILS, those responsible for the website, and that portion of the position of Assistant Director of Support Services devoted to technology management. These current positions total 3.25 FTE, leaving 11.75 FTE needed to reach 15 FTE. The additional positions that JPL would need are those to cover responsibilities now assigned to ITD and, through ITD, to outsourced providers. Specifically, these include responsibility for the network, servers,

applications, telecommunications, and desktop support. Positions would include Managers, Network Technicians and Desktop Technicians/Help Desk Support Staff. In addition, an IT Manager would be needed.

In terms of organization, the department in which the current IT-related positions are assigned, Support Services, would be the appropriate department for any new IT positions. The Assistant Director would retain responsibilities for visioning and strategic planning related to technology, with support from the IT Manager. The IT Manager position would report to the Assistant Director of Support Services and have primary responsibility for day-to-day management, project management, and supervising the next level of managers. New responsibilities could be divided among groups, including Servers/Applications Group, Network/Telecommunications Group, and Desktop Support/Help Desk Group. Staffing for each group would include a Manager and Network Technicians or Desktop Technicians/Help Desk Support Staff.

One way to manage the use of Desktop Technicians and gain more value from their expertise and time is to enable a “power user” within each library location. This is not a new or additional position. Rather this is an existing staff member at that location who has an interest in and an aptitude for serving as a first level resource in resolving computer issues when they arise at that location. Additional training may be provided to power users to insure that best troubleshooting practices are followed. This staff member would serve as a resource for other staff at that location and serve as a primary liaison to the IT staff. Rather than coming on-site, IT staff may first work remotely with this staff member to attempt to resolve the issue or acquire more information about the issue in a more in-depth approach than current practices. A power user may be able to resolve an issue without IT staff coming on-site, for example by replacing a monitor with one that IT ships to it.

Bringing responsibility for IT in-house would give the library more control over the costs of those services, and the selection and implementation of technology. JPL would also be dependent on only its own staff to deliver those services, which can create challenges when positions are vacant. Cross training can help to insure that staff members are able to provide services at such times. Given the continual introduction of new technologies and new

(7)

Page 7 11/10

opportunities to use technology in libraries, the library may still find gaps that it may wish to fill by outsourcing.

One factor in determining whether to pursue the addition of all of these positions is the location and management of the library’s servers. Currently, those servers are located in the city’s data center and are managed by ITD. Because of the quantity of servers that it manages, ITD should be able to store and to manage servers with an economy of scale. Given the small number of servers that JPL has, one option would be to continue to use the city’s data center and ITD for server management, which could be more economical than constructing and maintaining a separate data center at a library location.

As stated above, before JPL can bring any additional IT responsibilities in-house, the city’s approach to human resources management must allow the library to create additional positions with IT responsibilities. As a first step, JPL must work with city HR to create IT positions. The first priority should be for an IT Manager position within Support Services. The need for such a position exists now, as JPL currently has insufficient staffing to effectively manage the

technology that it already uses and to plan for the technology that it requires tomorrow. Help Desk/Desktop Support

JPL has slightly less than one-third of the total computers in the city enterprise. ITD had

previously dedicated 4-5 staff members to JPL, where they maintained their offices. Three years ago, those staff members were pulled into the pool of ITD staff members to support the entire enterprise but left on-site at JPL. For the past year, no ITD staff member has been assigned to or located on-site at JPL. Support for JPL is now allocated as it is for all other city agencies. ITD desktop support staff decreased from 30 FTE to 18 FTE in the past few years. Desktop support services were outsourced in 4QFY10.

The restriction that only the staff member who submits a ticket is able to check on its status prevents library staff from being able to efficiently and effectively manage IT issues. Staff member time is used to maintain paper logs in the buildings so that information can be accessible to other staff. Management staff, including the Assistant Director of Support Services, has no means of collecting necessary data, such as the number of trouble tickets open at any one time, the number of trouble tickets submitted by any building, and the type of issues a library is experiencing – all data needed to effectively manage and plan. This restriction is unacceptable.

(8)

The number of IT work tickets has been declining. The final total for FY10 is not yet known; data for the first nine months of the year are reflected below.

6,472 6,069 5,179 4,601 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 7000

FY07 FY08 FY09 FY 10*

SYSTEMWIDE IT WORK TICKETS

Some branches have few tickets, but not surprisingly, Main has the most, which would also include systemwide issues.

BRANCH FY07 FY08 FY09 FY 10*

Argyle 125 186 147 121 Beaches 241 222 236 169 Brentwood 56 51 67 16 Eastside 67 67 59 51 Graham 87 122 99 81 Highlands 233 264 189 252 Mandarin 251 208 211 205 Maxville 21 41 36 18 Murray Hill 17 15 15 14 Northwest 204 175 162 120 Pablo Creek 356 249 222 225 Regency 256 315 318 284 San Marco 129 124 87 93 South Mandarin 166 127 180 152 Southeast 308 425 245 239 University Park 532 467 458 389 Webb 430 360 312 328 West Regional 205 182 188 148 Westbrook 38 2 16 17 Willowbranch 116 122 76 84 Main 2,634 2,345 1,856 1,595 SYSTEM TOTAL 6,472 6,069 5,179 4,601 IT WORK TICKETS ________________________________________________________________________ Information Technology Capacity of the Jacksonville Public Library

(9)

The chart below shows the distribution of FY10 tickets. 121 169 16 51 81 252 205 18 14 120 225 284 93 152 239 389 328 148 17 84 1,595 0 500 1000 1500 2000 Argyle Beaches Brentwood Eastside Graham Highlands Mandarin Maxville Murray Hill Northwest Pablo Creek Regency San Marco South Mandarin Southeast University Park Webb West Regional Westbrook Willowbranch Main

FY10* IT WORK TICKETS

(10)

From additional data provided by ITD, we see that the number of hours of IT support and services has fluctuated from year to year and library to library. Again, data for FY10 included only the first nine months. No explanation was available for the spike in FY10 hours.

BRANCH FY07 FY08 FY09 FY 10*

Argyle 73 53 36 90 Beaches 56 80 66 157 Brentwood 21 33 14 34 Eastside 22 62 28 50 Graham 34 23 57 24 Highlands 32 38 16 179 Mandarin 46 40 60 70 Maxville 76 70 6 248 Murray Hill 5 2 4 88 Northwest 75 50 14 127 Pablo Creek 61 45 18 156 Regency 27 38 19 85 San Marco 22 55 10 32 South Mandarin 55 29 121 111 Southeast 52 55 28 71 University Park 38 28 60 117 Webb 25 27 15 70 West Regional 68 51 15 40 Westbrook 279 6 1 29 Willowbranch 19 18 20 33 Main 276 163 225 536 SYSTEM TOTAL 1362 965 832 2347 IT SUPPORT HOURS

ITD reported that the average time to close a ticket in the city enterprise was 20 business hours, meaning that a system could be down for three days. Library staff reported that the time to get a computer fixed ranged from a few hours to several days or longer.

Given the quantity of public computers at the library, we can assume that a high percentage of the tickets relate to those computers. Then, given the average time to close a ticket of 20 hours, JPL is almost certainly out of compliance with the Florida Library Association Standards for Florida Public Libraries, adopted in 2009, which states “The down time for any single public access computer workstation/printer does not exceed 48 hours.”

In the 2009-2010 Public Library Funding and Technology Access Survey: Survey Findings and

Results, Florida public libraries responding to the survey reported that 25.6% took less than one ________________________________________________________________________

Information Technology Capacity of the Jacksonville Public Library Prepared by LMA Techwork, Inc.

(11)

Page 11 11/10

day to get computers back in service, 21.8% took one day, 21.9% took two days, and 22.1% took more than two days. Nationally, public libraries reported less than one 15.4%, one day-26.4%, two days-23.4%, and more than two days-23.8%.

Having library staff to provide desktop support available in each library was the change in IT support that library staff most frequently mentioned as desirable. At the same time, staff in most of the branches which the consultant visited in September 2010 stated that response time and desktop support had improved under the outsourcing arrangement, which had been implemented a few months earlier.

Other Services

Procurement – JPL and ITD share responsibilities for selecting and purchasing IT systems. JPL may be more involved in selecting IT systems provided through grants to the library and other non-city funding sources. As a result, systems, particularly computers and laptops, are from multiple vendors. Less standardization of installed systems can increase the resources required to support them.

Product Life Cycle Management – Library staff is rightly concerned that the library lacks a long term management plan for critical IT systems. Lacking a plan, budgeting and planning for upgrades, enhancements, and replacement of the IT system that the library manages are difficult or haphazard at best. The lack of the plan is a result of the lack of resources, particularly of JPL staffing, and an indication of more communication and planning needed between JPL and ITD. Examples of IT systems which JPL may wish to address in such a plan include the ILS, the public computer reservation/session management/print application, the room booking/scheduling application, and the Vocera system. A basic life cycle management plan for an application might include a list of key dates such as when the application was acquired; a record of key upgrades and when they were implemented; warranty and service contract expiration dates; projected dates for replacement of key hardware used by the application, such as a server; a projected date to assess the functioning of the product to determine if it continues to meet the library’s needs; a projected date to conduct a market scan to determine if the technology has changed and newer or different products should be considered; an estimated replacement budget; and a list of critical issues with the application that occur during its use. A primary purpose is to provide the library with a process and with useful data for upgrading or replacing critical IT systems and to avoid being caught by surprise when a product reaches the end of its useful life.

(12)

Page 12 11/10

Hardware and Application Management – Functional requirements are outpacing the IT systems that the library has. The requirements for the server and staff computers for the current version of the library’s mission critical ILS are examples. Hardware replacements were required before the library could upgrade to the current release. In fact, some staff computers must still be replaced to be compatible with the current release. Purchasing computers with sufficient resources, e.g., processor, memory, in anticipation of future applications that will be used on that machine during its life, can better insure that the computer will be able to meet the functional

requirements of the application, and can lead to fewer trouble tickets. Staff computers and public Internet computers are the two primary categories where more powerful specifications should be considered when purchasing new equipment.

While ITD reported that it has a schedule for replacing equipment based on the age of the equipment, JPL has never received a written schedule. JPL requires notice of the schedule in order to effectively plan and manage the library’s operation and services, and ITD should

provide the library with a written schedule. Ultimately, ITD’s budget determines the quantity and schedule of equipment that will be replaced.

Vendor Relationship Management – Both the library and ITD have responsibility for

management of vendor relationships, but each has responsibility for a different set of vendors. Communication and support can be challenging when one party needs information from a vendor which has the primary relationship with the other party. Such challenges can also contribute to lags in project timelines.

The library’s management of the relationship with the ILS vendor is an example. The vendor’s contract is with the library, and library staff manages that relationship. JPL staff manages and supports the application. However, the servers for the application reside in the city data center and are managed by ITD. When the servers need to be upgraded or replaced, both JPL and ITD staff need to have direct access to the vendor. Depending on vendors’ protocols, a party other than the contracting party may or may not have easy and direct access to vendor services. If both parties must be involved, communication may be more problematic, such as due to scheduling issues, and project timelines may be impacted.

Inventory Control – JPL lacks a current inventory of IT equipment and has not been successful in receiving one from ITD. Such basic information is critical for effective management.

(13)

Page 13 11/10

Reports – JPL needs additional data from ITD in order to plan and manage services dependent on technology. As an example, JPL should regularly receive reports on bandwidth usage and on trouble tickets.

Strategic Planning –The library IT needs sometimes run ahead of other city agencies. Because the library’s IT needs are unique to the library, ITD does not always anticipate them, leaving the library to determine its own needs. ITD is then reacting to the library’s needs rather than being proactive in determining them. Realistically, the library is always going to be more aware of its technology needs than ITD, but the library needs both data and expertise from ITD in order to be able to effectively plan. Futher, the library must have sufficient and expert staff to be able to conduct the needs assessment and planning that the library requires. Current library staff deserve much credit for the job they are doing, but they are handicapped by a lack of resources: staffing, funding, and data.

Strategic Planning – ITD is responsible for the citywide IT enterprise and develops strategies and initiatives on a citywide basis. An example is eCommerce. While the library brought this

initiative to ITD and has a current need, ITD is developing the eCommerce initiative with a view to the needs citywide. The library can be the beneficiary of initiatives and projects that ITD undertakes for the enterprise. On the other hand, when a library project becomes an enterprise project, the timeline for developing and implementing initiatives that the library requests and requires can be longer than the library needs.

Project Management –Timelines for IT projects are subject to the availability of both ITD and JPL resources, including staffing to commit to the project. Completion time for projects can be protracted, which can contribute to loss of value of hardware and applications that have been acquired. The project to implement customer credit card payment via self-check is an example. Digital Service Delivery – JPL currently provides customers with access to e-resources stored outside of the library, such as digital audiobooks and e-books. ITD is unclear as to the library’s strategy on digital service delivery and unclear as to what ITD’s role might be. More

communication is needed between ITD and JPL on this topic. However, at this time, most of the resources and services provided make minimal use of any library IT systems, which might impact ITD.

The library of the future will continue to utilize technology as it does now but will also utilize new technologies to create and to deliver new library services.

(14)

Page 14 11/10

Capacity

The library has reached, or even exceeded, its capacity to plan for or manage IT projects within the quantity of staffing that it currently has. The quantity of IT projects will not decrease in the future. The complexity of the projects will only increase, requiring additional expertise in IT. JPL must have more in-house staff resources to plan and manage IT, including staff with IT knowledge and experience.

Key Recommendations

Phase 1

Continue the ILS upgrade and eCommerce projects.

Continue to work with ITD to improve customer relations, communication, and access to data. Work with city HR to enable JPL to manage and support IT services through the addition of IT positions on the library staff.

Create and fill an IT Manager position within Support Services. Create additional IT positions within Support Services.

Require ITD to provide key JPL staff with essential access to trouble tickets submitted by the libraries.

Monitor the time required to close desktop support trouble tickets and inform ITD of any concerns.

Inform ITD of planned changes to JPL’s implementation of digital service delivery. Consider working with ITD to create a written understanding to clarify responsibilities and expectations between the two agencies.

(15)

Page 15 11/10

Phase 2

Fill additional IT positions to complete IT staffing. Designate and train a power user within each location.

Computers

Management

Replacement Schedule – ITD listed the biggest challenge as keeping the computers current and working. To address this problem, ITD is in the second year of an initiative to move to a four year replacement cycle for computers and hopes to reach that replacement cycle in 3-4 years. ITD determines the quantity of computers that the library will receive each year, largely determined by the age of the current computers. ITD will refresh 396 JPL computers in FY11 and refreshed 258 JPL computers in FY10. The Gates Foundation replaced 232 public computers in FY09.

The JPL Assistant Director of Support Services allocates the replacement computers to the specific locations within JPL. Staff computers running the ILS staff client are a priority for replacement in FY11. JPL is scheduled to upgrade the ILS in FY11, and the upgraded staff client requires newer, more powerful computers.

Public Computers

JPL participated in the U.S. IMPACT Study conducted by the University of Washington in 2009. That study found that 63% of respondents had used a computer in the library. Of those, 44% reported they had used the computers for employment or career purposes. In fact, employment-related use was the most frequently reported use of the library’s public computers. Free computer access was identified as important or very important by 88% of Jacksonville respondents. In the

(16)

Page 16 11/10

public forums held in September and in the written public comments submitted via the library’s website at that time, few issues related to public computers were mentioned.

All libraries provide public computers for Internet access. All but one library, Eastside,provide computers dedicated to searching the library’s catalog. In addition, some libraries have training labs, and a few have laptops to checkout to customers to use in the buildings.

Bandwidth

In November 2009, JPL upgraded bandwidth from 35 Mbps out to the Internet to 100 Mbps. Branches have 10 Mbps connections except for Highlands, Regency, and University Park. Those three branches have 4 Mbps; they were not included in the initiative which upgraded the library’s bandwidth although the library had wanted to do so. JPL staff is drafting a business case to request funds to increase bandwidth at these three branches to 10Mbps. Staff uniformly agreed that the increase in bandwidth was needed and that the increase to 100 Mbps has improved access.

JPL staff has considered the possibility of giving staff computers priority access to bandwidth. ITD has proposed that JPL manage Internet access to minimize bandwidth usage, e.g., limiting access to some streaming video.

Access to public computers at JPL is vital to the economic vitality of the city. Employment related use is the most frequently reported use of the library’s public computers.

Quantity of Public Computers

The Florida Library Association Standards for Florida Public Libraries, adopted in 2009, provide a standard for assessing the quantity of Internet access computers. The best level is one

computer per 1,000 population that the library serves. The middle level is .5 computer per 1,000 population that the library serves, and the bottom level is .3 computer per 1,000 population. Applying that standard using 1) the quantity of public Internet access computers provided by JPL on the IT Data Collection Tool provided by the consultant and 2) the total population for the library, JPL would need a total of 918 public Internet computers. (The population of 917,521 was used, which was the population used in the budget analysis spreadsheets provided by JPL). The

(17)

Page 17 11/10

current systemwide total of 884 public Internet computers yields a ratio of .96:1,000, just shy of the state standard’s best level of 1:1,000.

By using the population for each branch’s primary service area as determined by Buxton, we can assess each branch’s quantity of public Internet computers. The primary service area is an

unduplicated allocation of the total population for each of the branches. (This approach is not applicable to Main.)

(18)

As shown below, five branches are in the best category; twelve are in the middle category, and three are in the lowest category.

1.07 0.57 0.75 0.91 1.29 0.83 0.59 0.31 0.56 0.67 0.93 0.38 0.86 0.55 0.91 0.94 0.47 2.18 1.10 1.20 1.00 0.50 0.33 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 Argyle Beaches Brentwood Eastside Graham Highlands Mandarin Maxville Murray Hill Northwest Pablo Creek Regency San Marco South Mandarin Southeast University Park Webb West Regional Westbrook Willowbranch STATE STD.- Best STATE STD.- Middle STATE STD.-Bottom

FY10 BRANCH PUBLIC INTERNET COMPUTERS PER 1000 POPULATION

(19)

However, at any one time, a number of public Internet computers in JPL are not working, and, therefore, unavailable to library customers. To collect data on the number of non-working computers, a snapshot was taken by all libraries on September 14, 2010. As seen below, a total of 106 public Internet computers were not working on that day.

BRANCH Argyle 9 Beaches 3 Brentwood 3 Eastside 0 Graham 0 Highlands 9 Mandarin 5 Maxville 0 Murray Hill 1 Northwest 0 Pablo Creek 28 Regency 0 San Marco 0 South Mandarin 4 Southeast 6 University Park 5 Webb 13 West Regional 17 Westbrook 0 Willowbranch 1 Main 2 SYSTEM TOTAL 106 % NON-WORKING INTERNET COMPUTERS on 9/14/10 ________________________________________________________________________ Information Technology Capacity of the Jacksonville Public Library

(20)

Viewing this quantity as a percentage of each library’s total public Internet computers, we see that eight libraries had more than 10% out of order, with six libraries having more than 20% out of order. 20.5% 8.8% 21.4% 0.0% 0.0% 21.4% 15.2% 0.0% 5.0% 0.0% 38.9% 0.0% 0.0% 9.8% 9.5% 11.6% 25.5% 25.8% 0.0% 5.6% 1.2% 12.0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Argyle Beaches Brentwood Eastside Graham Highlands Mandarin Maxville Murray Hill Northwest Pablo Creek Regency San Marco South Mandarin Southeast University Park Webb West Regional Westbrook Willowbranch Main SYSTEM AVERAGE % NON-WORKING

PUBLIC INTERNET COMPUTERS on 9/14/10

(21)

When the state standard is applied to the quantity of working public Internet computers, four branches are now in the best category, twelve are still in the middle category, but four are now in the lowest category.

0.85 0.52 0.59 0.91 1.29 0.65 0.50 0.31 0.54 0.67 0.57 0.38 0.86 0.49 0.82 0.83 0.35 1.62 1.10 1.13 1.00 0.50 0.33 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 Argyle Beaches Brentwood Eastside Graham Highlands Mandarin Maxville Murray Hill Northwest Pablo Creek Regency San Marco South Mandarin Southeast University Park Webb West Regional Westbrook Willowbranch STATE STD.- Best STATE STD.- Middle STATE STD.-Bottom

FY10 WORKING PUBLIC INTERNET COMPUTERS PER 1000 POPULATION

(22)

Page 22 11/10

Replacement Schedule

A review of JPL’s inventory shows that 64% of the library’s computers, a total of 1,140

computers, are five or more years old. In the 2009-2010 Public Library Funding and Technology

Access Survey: Survey Findings and Results, responding Florida public libraries reported that

12.2% of their public access Internet workstations were five years old. Nationally, this figure dropped to 5.1%. This is not a category in which JPL wants to have the highest number. The survey also reported that 15.7% of responding Florida public libraries reported that the average replacement schedule of public access Internet workstations was three years, 24.1% reported four years, and 54% reported five years. In an article by Michael Kelley in Library

Journal, dated October 22, 2010, “Miami-Dade Takes a Cut But Feels Relieved”, the library

stated that it has had a three year replacement schedule but has now had to put that on hold, http://www.library.journal.com [accessed 10/23/10]. While JPL may never be able to achieve a three year replacement schedule, achieving a four year replacement schedule must be a priority. The delay in timely replacement of staff and public computers is the most significant IT issue impacting customer service and staff productivity. Replacing computers on a four year cycle would increase the number of computers that are working at any one time. More libraries would then achieve a higher ratio of public Internet computers per population, waiting times for

computers would decrease, and the library and customers would gain more value from JPL’s investment.

ITD’s budget determines the quantity of JPL’s computers that are replaced. While ITD has been working to implement a four year replacement cycle, doing so is dependent on ITD receiving the necessary funding. Recognizing the impact that timely computer replacement has on customer service and staff productivity, JPL should 1) support ITD’s budget request for computer replacement, 2) work with ITD to insure that the library and ITD are in agreement on the quantity of library computers to be replaced annually, 3) allocate replacement computers so that the oldest computers are removed from service.

ITD’s current initiative to move the enterprise to a four year replacement schedule of computers could position the library to achieve a four year replacement cycle in FY12 – provided that ITD’s replacement schedule is funded. JPL received 100 computers in FY09, 258 in FY10, and will receive 396 in FY11. Using ITD’s quantity of 1,750 computers for JPL, 438 computers need to be replaced each year to maintain a four year replacement cycle.

(23)

Page 23 11/10

Utilization

The quantity of public computers and the number that are working at any one time are not the only factors in a library’s capacity to provide access to public computers. The hours that the library is open must also be considered. For the calculations below, the count of the actual hours each library was open during FY10 was used, taking into account days the library was closed for holidays or other reasons.

Assuming that each public Internet computer was available each hour that the library was open, we see that two libraries, Regency and University Park, had over 50% utilization. That is a good threshold to use for capacity because even at that rate, there are times when customers are waiting to use computers.

(24)

28.2% 34.4% 33.1% 25.1% 36.7% 41.1% 39.4% 19.2% 48.0% 33.7% 32.2% 51.6% 44.0% 28.3% 35.3% 51.6% 44.0% 25.4% 41.7% 39.9% 48.9% 39.3% 0% 20% 40% 60% Argyle Beaches Brentwood Eastside Graham Highlands Mandarin Maxville Murray Hill Northwest Pablo Creek Regency San Marco South Mandarin Southeast University Park Webb West Regional Westbrook Willowbranch Main SYSTEM AVERAGE

FY10 % PUBLIC INTERNET COMPUTER UTILIZATION OF TOTAL AVAILABLE

COMPUTER HOURS

In its report, Annual Data Package FY2008/2009, JPL reported that the FY09 Utilization

systemwide was 38.3%. Comparing this to the findings shown above, the change is insignificant.

(25)

When the available hours are adjusted for the hours that computers are out of order, then six libraries exceed 50% utilization as shown below.

35.5% 37.7% 42.1% 25.1% 36.7% 52.3% 46.5% 19.2% 50.6% 33.7% 52.7% 51.6% 44.0% 31.4% 39.0% 58.4% 59.1% 34.2% 41.7% 42.2% 49.5% 44.7% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Argyle Beaches Brentwood Eastside Graham Highlands Mandarin Maxville Murray Hill Northwest Pablo Creek Regency San Marco South Mandarin Southeast University Park Webb West Regional Westbrook Willowbranch Main SYSTEM AVERAGE

FY10 % PUBLIC INTERNET COMPUTER UTILIZATION OF TOTAL AVAILABLE

WORKING COMPUTER HOURS

(26)

Using the data collected on September 14, 2010 and projecting it for the entire year, JPL would have lost at total of 316,530 hours of public computer access and potential use. As shown below, some libraries suffered significant losses, with Pablo Creek losing the most hours.

22,635 9,807 5,136 0 0 29,583 15,135 0 2,087 0 84,728 0 0 13,148 18,162 12,615 42,731 51,459 0 2,526 6,778 Argyle Beaches Brentwood Eastside Graham Highlands Mandarin Maxville Murray Hill Northwest Pablo Creek Regency San Marco South Mandarin Southeast University Park Webb West Regional Westbrook Willowbranch Main

FY10 AVAILABLE PUBLIC INTERNET HOURS LOST DUE TO NON-WORKING COMPUTERS

(27)

Page 27 11/10

JPL’s public computer management application does not record data on user wait times. Staff observations are the only source of data on this issue, but staff could also record wait times on designated sampling dates as a means for providing more definitive data. Another urban public library has found that when usage is at 40%, computers are generally available most hours of the day with little waiting. At 50% usage, some customers are waiting during the peak hours of 2:00 to 5:00 PM. At 60% usage, that time lengthens to Noon to 6:00 PM with two to four persons waiting, and with four to five persons waiting during those times at 70% usage.

Based on two factors, no compelling argument can be made that JPL needs additional public computers systemwide. The first factor is that Internet computers per 1,000 population is .96, very near the state’s Best level of 1:1000. The second factor is that systemwide Internet computer utilization runs at 39.3% of total available hours.

However, examining public Internet computer utilization on a branch-by-branch basis shows significant deviations from the systemwide averages. Redistributing computers to equalize utilization can address this issue. One approach would be to redistribute computers from libraries that have utilization rates 10% or more below the system average to libraries whose utilization rates are 10% or more above the system average. Using the utilization chart, that group would include Main, Webb, University Park, San Marco, Regency, and Murray Hill. Priority should be given to those libraries whose utilization rates most exceed the system average. This

redistribution approach is based on the same principle as floating collections, which the library is now implementing.

Of course, other factors must also be considered, such as available physical space, available furniture, and available network connections and access to power. Laptops, rather than desktops, should be considered when physical space and/or desktop furniture are not available. Webb and Murray Hill are already using laptops to increase the quantity of public computers.

If the batteries in the current laptops require recharging between customer uses, the library should consider acquiring laptops with longer battery life or more energy efficient laptops. Of course, this could impact the cost of the laptop, but that would be offset by improved customer service and less staff time spent on managing the recharging. Low cost netbooks, some with batteries rated for eight to ten hours of life, could be an alternative.

(28)

Bandwidth

Although JPL increased bandwidth from 35 Mbps to 100 Mbps less than one year ago, libraries are already beginning to see 100% usage at peak periods. Staff computers must compete with public computers and wireless users for Internet bandwidth. Both ITD and JPL are concerned about the cost of additional bandwidth.

Data provided by ITD for a one week period shows individual library bandwidth utilization. Libraries bolded and highlighted experienced 100% utilization for at least one day that week.

Max. Receive Bandwidth (Mbps) BRANCH 80% 90% 100% Argyle 10 1 0 0 Beaches 10 1 0 0 Brentwood 10 0 0 0 Eastside 10 0 0 0 Graham 10 5 5 4 Highlands 4 7 7 Mandarin 10 4 3 3 Maxville 10 0 0 0 Murray Hill 10 4 3 2 Northwest 10 3 2 2 Pablo Creek 10 3 2 1 Regency 4 6 5 0 San Marco 10 5 3 2 South Mandarin 10 1 1 0 Southeast 10 3 2 2 University Park 4 6 6 Webb 10 4 1 1 West Regional 10 3 3 2 Westbrook 10 0 0 0 Willowbranch 10 2 2 2 Main 100 0 0 0 JPL INTERNET LINK 100 6 6 5 Days (out of 7) Where Receive Bandwidith Utilization =/> % Thur. 4/29/10 - Wed. 5/5/10 7 6

JPL is not alone in the amount of bandwidth that it requires. The San Antonio Public Library with less than 700 public computers (about 300 less than JPL) is already planning to increase

(29)

Page 29 11/10

bandwidth to the Internet to 200 Mbps. As shown below, peer libraries have already increased bandwidth beyond the 100 Mbps that JPL has or are planning to do so. In fact, comparing Internet bandwidth on a per computer basis, JPL has less than any of its peers.

Total Computers Internet Bandwidth (Mbps) Branches Bandwidth (Mbps) Notes Jacksonville Public Library 1805 100 10/4 Louisville Free Public Library

963 150 100/10 Upgrading all branches to 100 Miami-Dade Public

Library System

2175 300

Nashville Public Library

1200 100 100/10 Upgrading Internet to 500 and branches to 100

Orange County Library District

1200 300 30 Palm Beach County

Library System

1604 210

Libraries and cities will continue to plan for increased bandwidth. Chattanooga’s city-owned utility announced that it will offer 1 Gbps Internet service by the end of the year.

The Hayes e-Government Resources, Inc. report, provided to JPL in September 2010, recommends that “Consideration should be given to increasing the library system’s Internet bandwidth to 420 Mbps to improve the Internet service.” The consultant supports that

recommendation. As an interim step, increasing bandwidth to 300 Mbps would move JPL more in line with its peers.

Both ITD and the Hayes report recommend that JPL manage its bandwidth, and the consultant agrees. While bandwidth management will not cancel the need to increase bandwidth, it can maximize the use of existing bandwidth and potentially lengthen the period between increases in bandwidth.

Different approaches exist to manage bandwidth. To determine the best approach for JPL, the library will need to work with ITD to monitor and analyze the current use of the library’s bandwidth. The analysis should consider who is using bandwidth (staff, public), how much bandwidth is used and at what times, and what applications or protocols are using the bandwidth. Armed with this data, JPL and ITD can design a bandwidth management plan best for the library.

(30)

Page 30 11/10

The plan should recognize the need for staff to have timely access to critical applications and for library customers to have fair access to applications and the Internet. The plan should also recognize that while some protocols or Internet resources require more bandwidth, a general restriction based solely on the resource, such as restricting streaming video, is not desirable as that approach can impact staff or customers who need access to such resources for purposes such as training or job skill development.

Different products and services provide bandwidth management. Blue Coat Systems, Inc. is identified in the Hayes report as a provider that ITD is considering. That firm offers products that could enable JPL to create a custom bandwidth management approach. Further, the firm also offers products for web filtering. Currently, the library uses Websense for filtering. In the survey conducted by the Florida Department of State, State Library and Archives of Florida earlier this year, both the Miami-Dade Public Library System and the Sarasota County Libraries Department reported using Blue Coat as their filtering product. JPL may wish to contact these two libraries to hear first hand their experiences with the product.

Capacity

The library has existing capacity to satisfy a significant increase in public Internet computer utilization without the need to add computers. Assuming that a 50% utilization rate is acceptable, assuming a redistribution of computers among branches for more even utilization, and assuming that all public Internet computers are working all hours that the libraries are open, then the existing systemwide total of public Internet computers can support an additional 278,386

computer hours of utilization. This equals a systemwide increase of 27.3% over FY10 utilization. Even if all public Internet computers are not always working, JPL still has the capacity to satisfy an increase. Assuming a worst case scenario where all of the public Internet computers that were not working on September 14, 2010 are not working on any day of the year, the remaining computers could support an 11.8% increase in utilization over FY10 utilization.

Comparing FY09 utilization to FY10 utilization, future annual increases may not be significant. However, utilization should increase once non-working public computers are available, as customers who have chosen not to wait for a computer previously may now find a computer available. Even so, the systemwide total of computers should support that increased use. In the future, more customers will use mobile devices to access the Internet. In late 2008, the Pew Internet & American Life Project reported, “the mobile device will be the primary

(31)

Page 31 11/10

connection tool to the Internet for most people by 2020”, and some say sooner than that. Already, a study by Forrester Research reported that people were migrating from home and office based computers to smartphones, with about fifteen percent of cell phone owners using the Internet on their phones in 2008, as reported in the New York Times on September 2, 2009. However, some customers will continue to need access to computers at the library, especially those without access to a computer at home, to perform tasks that cannot be done on a mobile device. JPL must regular review and assess the quantity of desktop computers needed.

This also speaks to the need for the library to embrace mobile technologies. Making the library’s website and catalog available for mobile devices and enabling other customer convenience services, such as placing holds via mobile devices, should be top priorities. JPL staff must also monitor technology developments by reviewing library and IT industry literature, attending conferences and seminars, participating in groups such as the Mobile Computing Interest Group of the Library and Information Technology Association, and taking courses. Recognizing the need for JPL to move forward with implementing services for mobile devices, ITD should include JPL in planning for initiatives related to mobile technologies as well as provide JPL with access to information on and assistance with planning and implementing mobile services. The library is nearing the capacity of its bandwidth as the reports show. Further, if all public computers were functioning and in use (which is likely to happen as newer computers replace old), the situation would be even worse.

Key Recommendations

Phase 1

Support ITD’s initiative to achieve a four year replacement cycle of library computers.

Request that ITD monitor and analyze the current use of the library’s bandwidth with a review of who is using bandwidth (staff, public), how much bandwidth is used and at what times, and what applications or protocols are using the bandwidth.

Using the analysis from the bandwidth usage review, work with ITD to design a bandwidth management approach.

Reallocate the current quantity of public Internet computers among the libraries to equalize utilization, enabling the existing systemwide total to support an increase of 27% in computer

(32)

Page 32 11/10

hours of utilization. This increased is based on all public Internet computers working all hours that the libraries are open.

Increase the bandwidth for individual locations as recommended in the Hayes e-Government Resources, Inc. report.

Increase the Internet bandwidth to 300 Mbps. Phase 2

Increase the Internet bandwidth to 420 Mbps.

Maintain a pool of computers to use as quick replacement computers for libraries with a disproportionally high number of non-working computers.

Customer Convenience and Productivity Technologies

Customer Convenience

While JPL uses technology to provide many services to customers, a few are highlighted here as particular examples of “customer convenience” services. An example of a customer

convenience not discussed below but implemented at JPL is self-service public computer reservation.

Self-Check – Main and sixteen branches have self-check stations. The systemwide goal is 50% checkout done via self-check, which is a change from JPL’s previous goal of 50% at each library.

Checkin – All checkin is done by staff. Some customers do return materials directly to staff at the circulation desks, often, to have greater confidence that the materials were cleared from their accounts. Staff is considering a test of self-checkin of print materials at the self-check stations.

(33)

Page 33 11/10

DVD Checkout – Theft of DVDs has caused some locations to move some materials to locked cases or behind desks. The library is migrating to a new security case for DVDs.

Fine Payment – Equipment and software were upgraded in FY10 to allow customers to pay fines at self-service units using credit cards (in all but one branch, which lacks the newer equipment). This service was scheduled to be tested in 1QFY11.

Online Fine Payment – In the online comments that JPL received as part of this planning project, customers frequently requested the option of paying a fine online via the library’s website. JPL has been working with ITD on the eCommerce initiative, which includes this functionality. Vending Machine – JPL has previously investigated using a vending machine as a way to increase access to library services. Several models of vending machines are now available to libraries. They are designed primarily for books and/or DVDs/CDs. They can be used to increase the locations where library service is provided, to increase the hours that service is available, and to secure at-risk materials such as DVDs. At this time, JPL has not installed any vending

machine.

Wireless Access – JPL provides Wi-Fi access for the public in all library buildings. Staff Productivity

Checkin – JPL staff must checkin all items, one at a time, either at the circulation desk or in a staff workroom. Tests of checkin have shown that some items are missed and are not checked in before being sorted in preparation for shelving. To minimize misses, where possible and to the extent possible, checkin is being moved from the circulation desk, where many other services are offered, to a workroom where there are fewer distractions. Staff must also sensitize returned materials so that they can be detected by the security system.

Sorting – Staff do an initial sort of all returned items onto carts, followed by a more detailed sort. JPL has requested and received a quote for an automated sorting system, based on barcodes, for Main.

Conferencing – Video conferencing equipment is located in just a few branches, but it is aging and used very little for library to library communication. The library is planning a pilot using web cameras.

(34)

Page 34 11/10

Scheduling – Branch staffs have developed manual processes to manage staff scheduling.

Customer Convenience

In the future, libraries will continue to shift to being more customer-focused and customer-driven and require less staff intervention for basic tasks such as checkout, checkin, and fine payment. In the future, customer and staff use of wireless will continue to grow. Customers will expect to find more information and more access to services and resources via the library’s website and social media.

Self-Checkout – Customer convenience is enhanced by the availability of self-check stations. Self-check usage temporarily decreased with the implementation of the new fine policy, “Customer in Good Standing”, which requires customers to go to a staff station to pay fines before they can checkout or if they need to get a PIN.

While the goal of 50% at each self-check library is no longer in place, three libraries achieved greater than 50% of checkouts via self-check. (The calculation excluded E-Library and talking books.) The systemwide average of 36.7% was calculated including all 21 libraries, including the four that do not have self-check stations. When the four libraries are excluded from the

calculation, the systemwide average increases to 38%. Using the same basis for calculation, the FY10 rate of 36.7% compares favorably with the FY09 rate of 34.9%. Considering that self-check usage in FY10 was initially impacted negatively by the “Customer in Good Standing” program, the FY10 results are somewhat surprising and show that higher rates are possible. The steps that the library is taking should only continue to improve the self-check usage.

Replacing old equipment with equipment that is easier to use and more attractive, upgrading the application, increasing the quantity of self-check stations, locating stations near staff for easy customer assistance, and enabling credit card payment of fines are all positive actions that will result in improved customer service and staff productivity.

Given these improvements and the fact that two libraries had implemented self-check in the last half of FY10, the systemwide goal is achievable. In fact, public libraries elsewhere have

achieved much higher self-check rates than 50%, some nearing 100%.While stabilizing or reducing staff costs is generally the primary incentive, customer service is also improved.

(35)

Libraries have found the following best practices help make self-check successful: • staff embraces self-check as the preferred circulation choice;

• multiple self-service units exist and are conveniently located; • self-check stations are clearly visible to customers;

• assistance from library staff is readily available in the self-check area without requiring a customer to leave the self-check station;

• easy step-by-step instructions are presented by the self-check unit;

• barcodes on library cards and barcodes or RFID tags on materials can be quickly and correctly read;

• barcodes are consistently located and easily visible on library materials;

• blocks are set at a high enough level to minimize the need for a customer to move to the circulation desk to remove a block;

• returned materials for which there are limits, such as DVDs, are checked in upon return so that the customer is not blocked from checking out additional items in the same visit;

• self-check units are reliable;

• and all material types are supported.

If DVDs are to be secured through locking cases, the self-check system must support unlocking the case once the item is checked out. Allowing self-check of DVDs is essential to increasing the rate of self-check. Having a DVD security system that minimizes staff intervention is essential to improving staff productivity.

The best promotion of self-check is to insure that a customer’s experience is easy, quick, and accurate. Staff members support the use of self-check when they see that the customer’s experience is enhanced through easy, quick and accurate self-check and therefore, staff receive few complaints about self-service, and further when staff members realize that their own time is more productive.

The table below shows the additional number of items that JPL could circulate via self-check if higher percentages of self-check were achieved. (The circulation count used excluded E-Library and talking books.)

SELF-CHECK POTENTIAL

Assumed Self-Check % of System Circulation 40% 50% 75% 90% Additional # Items Via Self-Check 288,038 1,174,203 3,389,613 4,718,859

Using FY10 Circulation

(36)

Page 36 11/10

While the general recommendation, which the consultant supports, is to provide one self-check unit for every 100,000 items checked out annually, we can see by the use of self-check at Webb that it is possible to exceed that rate. Assuming three self-check units at Webb, each unit checked out over 130,000 items in each year, FY08 and FY09. If that rate was achieved at each of the existing 42 self-check units, JPL would achieve a systemwide self-check rate of over 60% based on FY10 circulation (including all libraries but excluding E-Library and talking books). As JPL continues to strive to reach its full self-check potential, additional equipment will be required and additional libraries will need to implement self-check.

Fine Payment – The project to offer customer credit card payment at self-check stations has suffered delays and run into unanticipated challenges. Having this service available will improve customer service, improve staff productivity, and increase the value the library is getting from its investment in the self-check system.

Online Fine Payment – Functionality has existed for several years to allow library customers to pay fines and fees online via a library’s website. However, lack of 1) funding, 2) functionality within the library’s ILS, and 3) functionality within the city IT enterprise presented obstacles to implementing this service at JPL. The current eCommerce project now in development is welcome, but its slow progress is disappointing. Online fine payment can improve customer service and staff productivity. A survey conducted by Library Journal earlier this year found that 20% of public libraries surveyed reported offering online fine payments, with 60% of those remaining planning to implement the service within a year, as reported by Beth Dempsey in an article “State of Self-Service 2010: Do-It-Yourself Libraries” published June 10, 2010.

Vending Machines –Consideration of such systems should include an understanding of what types of materials are to be delivered in this way, particularly how long the library will continue to provide DVDs if that is the primary reason that the system is being considered. Industry reports show declining DVD sales. As reported in the New York Times on July 19, 2010, according to the Digital Entertainment Group, DVD sales fell about 15% in the first half of the year while sales of downloads and video on demand rose 23%.

Even so, at this time, and for the next several years, DVDs will comprise a significant portion of the library’s circulation. Using a vending machine provides security for these items and enables self-check, done through the vending machine itself. If the library were to purchase a system that can handle books as well as DVDs, the system could have an extended life.