SESSION CONTROL SOFTWARE FOR COMMUNITY USERS IN AN ACADEMIC LIBRARY
Jeffrey A. Franks
With more and more scholarly materials becoming available online and the burgeoning popularity of social networking and gaming, demand for public access computers (PACs) has increased dramatically. At an academic library steadily growing enrollment can add to the demand. In response, some of us have increased the number of available workstations or added circulating laptops. In cases where the only issue is an actual shortage of computers, this is often sufficient. However, for some university or college libraries there may be additional factors. Whether your particular library is large or small, public or private, competition for workstations between students and community users can present a seemingly insurmountable set of issues. Resolving these issues may require creativity and effort, as we saw at the University of Akron (UA).
UA is a medium-sized, state-supported institution in the city of Akron, Ohio. Its urban campus is surrounded by residential neighborhoods, businesses, several social service agencies, and a large homeless shelter. The University Libraries (UL) includes Bierce, the main campus library, and Auburn, the science and technology library. The UL has a long tradition of service to its surrounding community, including borrowing and library use privileges, which complement the collections and services available at the large, state-of-the-art public library located just a few blocks away.
Until recently the UL was able to provide these services without conflict, but two simultaneously occurring factors were to change a long-standing set of harmonious circumstances: the university experienced significant growth in enrollment, and an increasingly large number of community users began to monopolize library PACs. Even with wireless student laptops (150 at Bierce and 60 at Auburn), students often had to wait for an available computer, especially if they preferred to use a hard-wired workstation.
What attracted the large number of community users to the UL? Why did they prefer our PACs over those at the public library? Once we began to analyze these questions, we discovered some surprising facts.
ANALYSIS AND INSIGHT
Our analysis brought several issues to light. A significant number of community users have to use our PACs to access information that is available only through the academic databases we provide; off-campus access is not available to nonaffiliated users. Some community users simply prefer the campus atmosphere. Others are drawn here for the full Internet access; for example, they can view adult-content websites that are unavailable at the nearby public library. And in contrast to the two-hour time computer use limit at the public library, the UL did not limit the amount of time an individual could spend at PACs per day; the growing popularity of social networking and gaming makes unlimited access time highly desirable. Although there are other needs that we meet, these stood out as the main reasons community use had risen so dramatically.
To complicate matters further, some community users presented behavioral problems, requiring the intervention of campus police. The worst offenses included stealing network passwords from students, sharing passwords with others, breaching network log-in scripts, and utilizing a tag-team approach to hold PACs for themselves and their peers. Additionally, some community users displayed loud, disruptive, and at times harassing behaviors. Each of these offenses violates one or more university or library policies.
The situation reached a crucial crossroads during a semester of intense competition for PACs and increased unpleasant encounters with community users. Students registered numerous complaints, staff intervened frequently to quell disputes, and campus police responded to several instances of stolen passwords and network violations. Finally, the student-run newspaper ran an article describing the issue in detail and expressing the opinion that students should not have to compete with community users for PACs.
Although the UL’s management team had discussed possible solutions, the problem escalated in a short span of time, creating a situation that called for swift and decisive action. The dean of libraries created an ad-hoc working group consisting of heads of three departments—library systems, Bierce Library reference, and the Auburn Science and Technology Library—along with the UL’s systems administrator, a staff position specializing in technical support. The group’s specific assignment was quickly to select and implement an access and session control software solution for the UL. The group was to come up with solutions that would
OUR APPROACH
To implement an effective solution, group members would need to work collaboratively with each other and with reference faculty and staff from both libraries. At its first meeting the group divided up the following tasks:
OUR FINDINGS
Meeting with reference providers from both libraries, the group discovered an acute sensitivity to the needs of community users but also a desire to provide better service to our primary clientele—students, faculty, and staff. Both libraries reached a separate consensus as to the appropriate number of workstations to designate for community use (four at Bierce; no limit at Auburn), and everyone agreed to mirror the public library’s two-hour time limit per person per day.
A review of the professional literature on access and session control software and their applications revealed numerous products providing various features, including time management, computer security, reservation systems, and print management. Although most articles discuss public library settings, where these products are widely employed, Richard Wayne’s definitive overview of available products and features is applicable to any type of library and is a good starting point.1 To understand the latest features of any software product, it is best of visit the company website. By visiting company websites and contacting the technical experts for those products that seemed most appropriate, the UL determined that CybraryN (www.cybraryn.com) was the most suitable product for our needs.
The computer use policies of peer institutions, usually available on campus websites, revealed numerous policies similar to those already in place at UA.2 Reviewing other policies facilitated our understanding of potential violations and reinforced our sense that we were taking appropriate action.
IMPLEMENTATION AND RESULTS
In the end, the UL was able to implement a software solution in just a few weeks. The new policy and procedures were communicated to library staff, and signage posted at workstations clearly defined new time limit parameters. Upon implementation, student response was immediate and overwhelmingly positive, as was the response from library employees. Surprisingly, most community users expressed an understanding of the rationale for the change, and few complaints were received. Some community users, however, were not happy with the new two-hour time limit and have attempted to breach the software. These users are subject to enforcement of appropriate policies and are asked to leave the library. In summary, this solution has resolved a set of issues for the UL, restoring an environment where student needs are met more efficiently.
Notes
1. Richard Wayne, “An Overview of Public Access Computer Software Management Tools for Libraries,” Computers in Libraries 24, no. 6 (2004): 24–30.
2. Access and Acceptable Use of University Computer and Information Resources Policy: www.uakron.edu/ogc/docs/11–10_11–6-06.pdf. The UL Acceptable Behavior Policy: www.uakron.edu/libraries/bierce_scitech/about/policies/policies_detail.dot?inode=369493.