Eastern Kentucky University Eastern Kentucky University

Encompass Encompass

EKU Faculty and Staff Scholarship Faculty and Staff Scholarship Collection

2016

Problem Solved! Managing Electronic Resource Work<ows Using Problem Solved! Managing Electronic Resource Work<ows Using

Ticketing System Software Ticketing System Software

Kelly Smith

Eastern Kentucky University

, kelly[email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://encompass.eku.edu/fs_research

of Encompass. For more information, please contact [email protected].

1

For the second installment of the new column Problem Solved!, co-edited by Kelly Smith and

Scott Vieira, Smith explores how libraries have tackled the problem of electronic resource

(eresource) workflow management by implementing ticketing systems in addition to their

existing integrated library system (ILS) and electronic resource management (ERM) tools. Most

libraries employing ticket tracking to manage eresources have chosen one of a variety of

commercial and open source software designed for customer relations management (CRM).

Alternatively, some libraries are developing home grown systems or kluging together freely

desk, task tracking

2

In a 2011 Library Journal survey of a librarians and library vendors, ‘workflow management,’

priority (Collins & Grogg, 2011). Five years later, centralized workflow management remains a

vexing problem for serials and electronic resources librarians.

Every stage of the electronic resource life cycle, from trial, to acquisition, to activation, to

maintenance and troubleshooting, to renewal or cancelation, requires a complex series of non-

linear tasks, typically involving hand-offs between multiple library staff members and follow-ups

with external players such as students, faculty members, administrative offices on campus,

and/or vendors. Let’s just examine one of those steps in the lifecycle: maintenance and

troubleshooting. Maintaining access to individual electronic resources is an ongoing process that

involves a complex web of potential variables and possible root causes when problems arise.

number concurrent users reach, content removed from aggregated database by publisher, etc.);

authentication problems (proxy problems, proxy max virtual hosts, other authentication issue);

3

end user problems (login problems, failure of faculty to provide correct permanent urn, media

player issues, and web browser issues - such as compatibility, cookies, and problems opening

PDFs).

this issue in a limited manner, and in small parts of the lifecycle, such as license management.

Successful eresource management “requires workflows that can facilitate communication and

accommodate the collection of large amounts of information that can be only partially managed

through tools such as ERM systems.” (Rathmel, Mobley, Pennington, & Chandler, 2015)

Despite the lack of functionality found in our current systems, serials and electronic resource

librarians and staff nevertheless must find ways to complete the work. Often, we struggle

through our efforts using a combination of emails and shared spreadsheets. This can often lead to

communication issues due to a lack of transparency, poor service outcomes and frustration as

issues reported via emails get buried in staff inboxes, confusion as to whom has completed what

unsustainable. Additionally, because they don’t have proper tools, it means that staff are

4

On October 9, 2015, I contacted the ERIL-L listserv seeking librarians interested in discussing

some common themes, highlight a few noteworthy features from some of the libraries, and share

my own library’s experience implementing a ticketing system.

Of the fifteen libraries responding (including mine), nine have chosen a commercial product,

four are using an open source solution, and two have kluged together freely available

collaboration software. Most of the libraries paying for a commercial or hosted open source

product elected to invest in their system because of the ability to customize features to fit their

local needs or to integrate into existing systems. To avoid paying costs, several institutions using

commercial systems elected to piggyback on their campus information technology department’s

CRM system (while saving on financial costs, they did not have the ability to choose their

centrally located, shared space for tracking issues.

and customization options. In addition to using ticketing software for its primary purpose (to

5

solve problems reported by end users by addressing maintenance and troubleshooting issues),

many libraries have realized the potential of these systems to provide a proactive method for

tracking other types issues that require time and follow up or multiple steps to complete. Some

licensing processes; departmental work request (such as providing information to departments

for accreditation reports or applying a subject area to a database in the A-Z list); resource

renewal and cancelation; and catalog enhancement requests.

As mentioned previously, unless a library is able to piggyback on the campus CRM system, has

In addition to financial costs, there are workflow limitations. Most commercial CRM systems

were designed for corporate needs, rather than for libraries, so the terminology and organization

of these systems are not always intuitive. A common complaint is that search functions are not

robust and that generally only rudimentary keyword search options are provided, making it

6

difficult to identify patterns or colocate related tickets. Along these lines, the systems don’t sync

with existing library systems, so effort will likely be duplicated as staff may need track and

document collections issues in multiple systems. Finally, end users may report issues via phone

“ping-pong effect of shuttling patrons from one department to another” (Borchert, 2006, p. 9)

Additionally, if patrons will be submitting their own tickets, via either an email or a form, care

must be taken to train staff to respond appropriately. Because of the lack of contextual clues in

written responses, miscommunication with end users is possible. This service issue requires staff

to be careful with tone and wording, etc. As Borchert (2006) writes, “In technical services, many

of us are accustomed to providing terse, efficient responses while we are focused on the

mechanics of solving a problem. This works well in a department of people who know each

other, but patrons appreciate the effort to project a friendlier tone in responding” (p. 10).

ticketing system. The libraries I interviewed saw improvements in the following areas:

7

The number one benefit to implementing a ticketing system, reported by every library I

interviewed, was that it allowed them to move away from email. Not only can end user problem

reports get lost among hundreds of other messages, but keeping issues and solutions hidden in

librarians as a “vast improvement” to “wading” through email, Tim Pellett echoed those

help organize and manage our work and ensure that all tickets are tracked and answered."

As an added benefit, moving problem reports out of email and into a centralized location resulted

in increased transparency and improved communication, both internally and externally. In a

shared system that is consistently coded, staff can quickly scan tickets and identify common

issues. If they notice that another staff member is already working on an issue related to a new

ticket, they can transfer the new ticket to that staff member, which collocates evidence to help

troubleshoot the issue and prevents duplication of effort. All libraries reported the ability to

directly with end users rather than working through an intermediary (typically public services

the same system improved collaboration within and across teams. Michael Mackin from the

8

Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU) explained that having both technical services and

public services staff in one queue helps each have more context to understand others' work. Ladd

Brown from Virginia Tech said that enabling public services to see the way that eresources staff

with end users.

Another feature that encourages collaboration is the ability to tag and collocate similar tickets.

Such a feature is a great training tool for new staff who aren’t quite sure where to start when

working on a new ticket - they can grab a canned reply from a related historical ticket or they can

quickly see which librarians have worked on that category of ticket in the past and go directly to

the experts to get more context and instruction. Jeffrey Mortimore and Debra Skinner from

Georgia Southern University believe that their LibAnswers system contributes to staff

developing confidence in their ability to answer questions from end users, whether it is their area

of expertise or not.

about problems, instead of always reacting to end users after they encounter a problem. Ladd

15

EKU Libraries - Ask Us! - LibAnswers. (2015). Retrieved November 22, 2015, from

http://libanswers.eku.edu/

EKU Libraries - Current status of library systems and apps - LibAnswers. (2015). Retrieved

November 23, 2015, from http://libanswers.eku.edu/systems

Emery, J., & Stone, G. (n.d.). TERMS: Techniques for Electronic Resource Management.

Retrieved November 4, 2015, from https://library3.hud.ac.uk/blogs/terms/

University…. In OLA Super Conference. Toronto. Retrieved from

http://www.slideshare.net/happyrainb/ola-ticketing-system-46284485

Pan, D., Bradbeer, G., & Jurries, E. (2011). From communication to collaboration: blogging to

troubleshoot e‐resources. The Electronic Library, 29(3), 344–353.

https://wikis.utexas.edu/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=102209972

Rathmel, A., Mobley, L., Pennington, B., & Chandler, A. (2015). Tools, Techniques, and

Training: Results of an E-Resources Troubleshooting Survey. Journal of Electronic

Resources Librarianship, 27(2), 88–107. Retrieved from

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1941126X.2015.1029398

Rupp*, N., & Mobley, L. (2007). Use of technology in managing electronic resource workflow.

Against the Grain. Retrieved from

http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5273&context=atg

Smith, K. A. (2015a). Comparison of issue-tracking systems. Retrieved January 1, 2015, from

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_issue-tracking_systems