The financial options of video conferences in libraries

Citation

Maxymuk, J. (2003), "The financial options of video conferences in libraries", The Bottom Line, Vol. 16 No. 1. https://doi.org/10.1108/bl.2003.17016aag.001

The financial options of video conferences in libraries

The financial options of video conferences in librariesKeywords: Computer-based training, Video conferencing, Librarians, Libraries, Time management

You cannot be in two places at one time, as the saying goes, paying homage to the laws of physics. However, the wonders of technology bring this assertion into question and raise the possibility of saving both time and money through telecommunications.

We have all watched and/or participated in library-related video conferences sponsored by a professional association and usually delivered via satellite feed. Generally these were one-way transmissions broadcast as a viewing, not interactive, experience. As the technology has advanced and the costs have decreased, more and more libraries and other organizations have obtained their own video conferencing equipment to enable the interactive transmission of video and audio between two or more places. Most commonly, these setups take advantage of existing high-speed Internet infrastructure and transmit their signals over the net. They can be of two main types: desktop video conferencing or room-based video conferencing. Desktop video conferencing is done over two or more PCs using software such as the inexpensive CuseeMe or the Microsoft product NetMeeting that is built into Windows 2000. It is simple and useful for video chats and demonstrating something on a PC. Room-based video conferencing employs more powerful cameras and microphones set up in a meeting room and is better able to broadcast to and from a full room.

Personal experience

At my institution, we used grant money to purchase four Polycom ViewStations for our disparate campuses: one for the main campus library in New Brunswick, one for the Systems Office across the river in Piscataway, one for the Newark campus library 25 miles to the north, and one for the Camden campus library 60 miles to the south. All four stations can connect and interact at the same time allowing for librarians to be in the same room 85 miles apart.

As would be expected of a research library system of 26 libraries, collections and reading rooms distributed among three main campuses, there are endless reasons for librarians and staff members to meet and discuss the management and governance of the workings of the library system. With councils, committees, subcommittees, task forces, working groups, etc., there is no shortage of convocations compelling librarians and staff to gather in one place to hash out details and discuss goals and plans. That one place generally has been the main campus in New Brunswick, with the occasional side trip to Camden or Newark. The costs of the travel involved in this setup are extensive. Most obvious is the considerable financial cost of travel reimbursement at $0.35 per mile plus tolls. Less obvious is the productivity cost. When someone travels from Camden to a meeting in New Brunswick, he or she can figure on a three-hour round trip in the car sandwiched around a three-hour meeting, resulting in practically a whole day spent out of the library. For a small-staffed branch library, constantly missing one or more librarians or staff members puts a negative strain on how we function as a library.

Video conferencing has begun to change that. As long as the meeting is held in a room with an Internet connection and electrical power, then the cart with the viewstation can be wheeled in and hooked up. Then the New Jersey highways can be less congested by at least one car for that day. A Camden person can attend a meeting in New Brunswick and then go right back to work when the meeting concludes without leaving the building. Moreover, if all or part of the agenda pertains to more than one librarian or staff member, it is no problem for multiple people to attend all or part of the meeting. So not only is the system more efficient by allowing one person to attend a distant meeting without travel time, but it also permits more people to be involved in a discussion if they choose. More voices can be heard.

The hardware essentially consists of a television, one or more microphones, and a camera/computer operated by a remote control. To make a connection, one only needs to power up the station and enter the IP address of the remote station(s) where other conferees are located. Audio and video can be controlled via the remote control. Using the remote control, for example, one can direct the camera in the remote location to turn in any desired direction and to focus on anything in sight. One can also put the camera on an automatic setting that causes it to follow the origin point of sound, so when a person is speaking, the camera will pan in that person's direction. As might be expected, on the automatic setting the camera does not quite keep up with the speed of a normal conversation. It often lags behind by a speaker or more.

We found that different users have different needs and desires. One user raved over how much he felt that he was involved in the meeting because he was able to control the camera in the remote location to view what he wanted to be able to see. When person A said something, our user sometimes wanted to see the facial reaction of person B to the comment rather than the speaker and he could. When someone wrote information on the white board in the conference room, he was able to focus on that just as if he were in the room itself. A second user had a completely different approach and that was to not be bothered by moving the camera at all, but to leave it stationary and focused on the whole group. In that way, the second user could best focus on the content of what was being said so as to be able to contribute to the discussion intelligently. However, if that first and second user were to attend the same meeting control of the remote camera would have to be negotiated. Still a third user had a more curmudgeonly response. She would rather attend a distant meeting via speaker phone without a camera, so that she could get other things accomplished (e-mail and paper work) during the meeting. Multitasking is the polite word for that. The clearest advantage video conferencing has over listening in on a meeting via speaker phone is that one can see who is speaking. That is not always clear on the telephone.

Once initial details like transmission speed, settings for lighting, and camera placement were worked out, the video quality has been very good. Sound quality has, likewise, been good with both sites able to hear the other without problem. Additional advanced video conferencing features are available on a variety of systems for a price. A whiteboard function would allow a user to write on the screen using a digital pen and pad. A computer can be plugged into the system so that applications can be shared among the sites and a desktop demonstration at one site can be viewed at another. Web pages can be pushed from one site to another. Video streaming of external moving image files can be utilized. The audio can be exported to a surround-sound capability so that a voice from the back of the room in the sending location sounds like it is coming from the back of the room in the receiving location. And unlike desktop video conferencing on a pc a large group of people can be involved in the video conference.

Future potential

Attending in-house meetings is just one use of video conferencing. The aforementioned professional conferences typically transmitted one-way by satellite can be tied into a video conferencing setup by taking the feed and distributing it to each of the viewstations so that people on each campus can view the same conference.

Another obvious use is for teaching and training. A teacher could broadcast to a remote group of users or a teacher in front of a group could broadcast to an additional student or group of students at a remote location. In either case, the broadcast is an interactive one where teacher and students can communicate back and forth with one another across a distance in real time, very similar to a regular classroom.

A collaborative project is still another use for video conferencing. In a collaborative project, a whiteboard can be used for sharing notes and diagrams. Both applications and data can be shared, and data can be modified by either party. This can be helpful for planning joint presentations, preparing proposals, and pursuing research activities.

Learning more on the Web

The best place to expand your knowledge about video conferencing is the Video Conferencing Cookbook (http://www.videnet.gatech.edu/cookbook/) created by the Video Development Initiative, a collaboration of a number of (mostly) southeastern university research libraries. The cookbook describes the uses of video conferencing, outlines popular and emerging collaborative technologies, such as Web clients and wireless video, details the basic requirements for video conferencing, discusses best practices and practical steps, and clarifies advanced and network matters.

Less detailed, but good basic info written in an understandable style can be found on the video conferencing page set up by the Texas State Library and Archives Commission site (http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ld/pubs/dl/video.html). Finally, the Public Library Association's Tech Notes project authored by GraceAnne A. DeCandido includes the useful Video Teleconferencing: Here, There, and Everywhere (http://www.pla.org/publications/technotes/technotes_videoconferencing.html). Applications for both academic and public libraries are covered.

While not cheap, a basic video conferencing setup is not prohibitively expensive either, particularly if it can purchased with grant money. Depending on the institution, resultant savings on time and money can be a great boost in productivity in many aspects of the library.

Comments on this column are welcome and can be sent to maxymuk@crab.rutgers.edu, or visit my Web page (http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~maxymuk/home/home.html).

John MaxymukReference Librarian at the Paul Robeson Library, Rutgers University, Camden, NJ, USA