One box to search them all. Implementing federated search at an academic library
| Published date | 06 March 2009 |
| Pages | 118-133 |
| Date | 06 March 2009 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/07378830910942973 |
| Author | Ian Gibson,Lisa Goddard,Shannon Gordon |
| Subject Matter | Information & knowledge management,Library & information science |
OTHER ARTICLE
One box to search them all
Implementing federated search at an academic
library
Ian Gibson, Lisa Goddard and Shannon Gordon
Memorial University Libraries, St John’s, Canada
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to present how, in May 2008, the Ad Hoc Committee on
Federated Search was formed to prepare a preliminary report on federated searching for a special
meeting of Librarians Academic Council at Memorial University Libraries. The primary purpose is to
discuss current implementation of federated searching at this institution, explore what other
institutions have done, examine federated search technologies, and offer recommendations for the
future of this resource.
Design/methodology/approach – Information was drawn from a recent usability study, an
informal survey was created, and a literature/technology review was conducted.
Findings – These four recommendations were proposed and unanimously accepted: actively develop
the current federated search implementation by developing a web presence supporting “federated
search in context”, re-evaluating the need for consortial purchase of a federated search tool, continuing
to assess the current federated search marketplace with an eye to choosing a next-generation federated
search tool that includes effective de-duping, sorting, relevancy, clustering and faceting, and that the
selection, testing, and implementation of such a tool should involve broad participation from the
Memorial University Libraries system.
Originality/value – Provided is an inside look at one institution’s experience with implementing a
federated search tool. The paper should be of interest to anyone working in academic libraries,
particularly the areas of administration, public services, and systems.
Keywords Information retrieval, Databasemanagement systems, Academic libraries, Search engines
Paper type General review
Introduction
Federated search at Memorial University Libraries has had many bumps. After a few
years of low usage and concerns voiced by librarians, the Librarians Academic Council
formed an ad hoc committee to assess our current implementation and recommend
future directions for federated searching at Memorial University. This paper, an
abridged version of the report submitted to Council, will describe the current
implementation, outline what has been done elsewhere, and examine federated search
technologies.
Part A: Implementation at Memorial
Memorial’s current implementation of SirsiDynix Single Search was purchased
through a consortial agreement without broad in-house consultation. Librarians had a
mixed reaction to the product when it was first launched in Spring 2006, and
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0737-8831.htm
LHT
27,1
118
Received 21 July 2008
Revised 25 August 2008
Accepted 26 August 2008
Library Hi Tech
Vol. 27 No. 1, 2009
pp. 118-133
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
0737-8831
DOI 10.1108/07378830910942973
reservations were expressed about federated search in general. Consequently, the
resource was not heavily used, nor was it consistently promoted to patrons.
Frequently described as a resource discovery tool, SingleSearch is a single interface
allowing users to simultaneously search multiple resources. A search can be queried
two ways. First, a user can search by selecting any number of subject areas or
groupings (i.e. earth sciences, library catalogues, all subjects). Second, a use r can
search by selecting individual resources (i.e. America: History and Life, ebrary,
Memorial University Libraries Catalogue). Memorial’s federated searching tool is
accessible through a quick search menu present throughout the library web site. More
recently, SingleSearch has been incorporated into Memorial’s “Explore a topic”
implementation of SirsiDynix’s Rooms content management software. By default,
search results are displayed according to a fastest first configuration, meaning that
results which are returned the quickest appear first on the results list.
I. Is it Usable?
Usability is defined as “the ease with which a computer interface can be efficiently and
effectively used, especially by a novice. The first priority in designing for usability is to
provide clear, consistent navigation of content” (Reitz, 2007). With this in mind, a
usability study was conducted in March 2006 to evaluate the use and perception of
Memorial’s federated search tool based on its effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction.
To investigate these aspects, participants were asked to complete these basic
SingleSearch tasks:
.Selecting subject groupings and/or individual resources based on a provided
topic.
.Conducting a search also based on a provided topic.
.Identifying one book and one article from the first page of results.
.Checking local holdings for selected book and article.
.Using the “Get it @ Memorial” Resolver[1] button to determine location of an
item (Byrne and McGillis, 2008).
Drawing on interconnected tasks, the study was able to present participants with
realistic, problem-based research scenarios.
Usability observations. This usability study resulted in several surprising and
perhaps not so surprising findings which offer useful insight. Of these, consistent
trends included: scale, lots of clicking, determining local holdings, easy access, and lack
of sophisticated search strategies:
.Scale. Participants were generally successful in selecting appropriate categories,
with few opting to choose individual resources. This suggests that these library
users are attracted to searching broader categories as compared to information
seeking at a micro level. For example, the depth of categories was sometimes so
vast that 25 resources were being searched at once (Byrne and McGillis, 2008).
.Lots of clicking. Byrne and McGillis (2008) observed that participants required an
average of five minutes to find an article or give up, and four minutes for books.
It was also noted that “the high number of clicks and multiple attempts indicate
extreme difficulty finding holdings information and even a confusion as to what
holdings were”.
One box to
search them all
119
To continue reading
Request your trial