A Study of the Requirement and Functionalities for Academic Libraries’ Apps

With growing popularity of mobile devices, libraries have begun offering mobile services. The two major service types are mobile Websites and apps. However, existing literatures lack information on how libraries in Taiwan have addressed user needs for mobile services and to what extent apps are used as a means for mobile services delivery. Thus, this study employs a combination of research methods including survey, content analysis, focus group, in-depth interview, and analytical hierarchy process (AHP) questionnaire to study the following four research questions: (1) To what extent university libraries in Taiwan have offered mobile services via mobile Web or apps? (2) What are the user needs and expectations for university library apps? (3) What difficulties do libraries face in developing apps? (4) How do librarians and students perceive the design priorities of university library apps in regards to service functions, information content, and system setup? The survey showed that, by January 22, 2015, 62 of the 159 (38.99%) university and college libraries in Taiwan had provided either mobile websites or apps. Twenty-seven libraries (16.98%) had together offered 30 library apps, six of which were single-function apps; 24 were multi-functional apps. Content analysis of the 24 multifunctional apps revealed that many of the existing apps supported library collections search and provided library-related information, but none of them provided full access to electronic resources. Although the current designs fulfilled partial user needs, the focus group interviews revealed that students expected more in flexible and seamless service functions and access to some electronic resources. Comparing the results from student focus group interviews and librarian in-depth interviews, it shows that librarians and student users agreed on some service components, while librarians were further concerned of some difficulties and challenges such as insufficient human resources, lack of funding, technical and legal issues with existing information system and content sources, et cetera. The AHP analysis further revealed librarians and students’ perceptions of the design priorities of library apps. The two parties shared higher agreement on the dimension of service functions. But on the other hand, greater disagreement was observed in the dimension of information content: while librarians placed a rather great emphasis on access to e-books, students expected more access to language learning resources and comparatively disregarded mobile access to e-books. The system setup was the least considered dimension by both parties.