Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Informationsdienstleistungen"
  • × type_ss:"a"
  • × type_ss:"el"
  1. Knoll, A.: Kompetenzprofil von Information Professionals in Unternehmen (2016) 0.01 
    0.008042662 = product of:
  0.060319968 = sum of:
    0.021100556 = weight(_text_:und in 3069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021100556 = score(doc=3069,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06422601 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.328536 = fieldWeight in 3069, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3069)
    0.03921941 = sum of:
      0.015662652 = weight(_text_:information in 3069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.015662652 = score(doc=3069,freq=14.0), product of:
          0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = queryNorm
          0.3078936 = fieldWeight in 3069, product of:
            3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
              14.0 = termFreq=14.0
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3069)
      0.023556758 = weight(_text_:22 in 3069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.023556758 = score(doc=3069,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.101476215 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3069, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3069)
  0.13333334 = coord(2/15)
    Abstract
    Zielsetzung - Information Professionals sind in Unternehmen für den professionellen und strategischen Umgang mit Informationen verantwortlich. Da es keine allgemeingültige Definition für diese Berufsgruppe gibt, wird in der vorliegenden Arbeit eine Begriffsbestimmung unternommen. Methode - Mit Hilfe dreier Methoden - einer Auswertung von relevanter Fachliteratur, der Untersuchung von einschlägigen Stellenausschreibungen und dem Führen von Experteninterviews - wird ein Kompetenzprofil für Information Professionals erstellt. Ergebnisse - Die 16 wichtigsten Kompetenzen in den Bereichen Fach-, Methoden-, Sozial- und persönliche Kompetenzen sind IT-Kenntnisse, Sprachkenntnisse, Quellenkenntnisse, Recherchekenntnisse, Projektmanagement, Darstellungskompetenz, Problemlösungskompetenz, selbständiges Arbeiten, Kommunikationsfähigkeit, Teamfähigkeit, Servicementalität, Interkulturelle Kompetenz, Analytische Fähigkeiten, Eigenmarketing, Veränderungsbereitschaft und Stressresistenz. Schlussfolgerung - Die Kompetenzen geben eine Orientierung über vorhandene Fähigkeiten dieser Berufsgruppe für Personalfachleute, Vorgesetzte und Information Professionals selbst. Ein Kompetenzrad kann als Visualisierung dienen.
    Content
    Vgl.: https://yis.univie.ac.at/index.php/yis/article/view/1324/1234. Diesem Beitrag liegt folgende Abschlussarbeit zugrunde: Lamparter, Anna: Kompetenzprofil für Information Professionals in Unternehmen. Masterarbeit (M.A.), Hochschule Hannover, 2015. Volltext: https://serwiss.bib.hs-hannover.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/528 Vgl. auch: (geb. Lamparter): Kompetenzprofil von Information Professionals in Unternehmen. In:
    Date
    28. 7.2016 16:22:54
    Source
    Young information scientists. 1(2016), S.1-11
  2. Hapke, T.: Zu einer ganzheitlichen Informationskompetenz gehört eine kritische Wissenschaftskompetenz : Informationskompetenz und Demokratie (2020) 0.00 
    0.0041692443 = product of:
  0.03126933 = sum of:
    0.028309368 = weight(_text_:und in 5685) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028309368 = score(doc=5685,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.06422601 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.4407773 = fieldWeight in 5685, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5685)
    0.002959963 = product of:
      0.005919926 = sum of:
        0.005919926 = weight(_text_:information in 5685) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005919926 = score(doc=5685,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 5685, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5685)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.13333334 = coord(2/15)
    Abstract
    1. Was ist Informationskompetenz? Was macht Informationskompetenz im Kern aus? Wie weit greift sie, wo endet sie? Inwiefern spielt Informationskompetenz mit weiteren Kompetenzen zusammen? 2. Wie soll man Informationskompetenz vermitteln? Wie soll Informationskompetenz am besten vermittelt werden? Wie werden Menschen am besten zu informationskompetentem Verhalten motiviert und geführt? 3. Welches sind die zentralen Entwicklungen im Bereich der Informationskompetenz und Informationskompetenzvermittlung? Wie entwickelt sich Informationskompetenz? Welche Bereiche werden künftig wichtiger? 4. Weitere Aspekte des Themas - Welche? Warum sind diese wichtig? Was folgert daraus?
    Footnote
    Leicht veränderte Fassung eines Beitrages, der für das Projekt "Informationskompetenz und Demokratie" erstellt wurde (Daphné Çetta, Joachim Griesbaum, Thomas Mandl, Elke Montanari). Die ursprüngliche Fassung ist enthalten in: Çetta, D., Griesbaum, J., Mandl, T., Montanari, E. (Hg). (2019). Positionspapiere: Informationskompetenz und Informationskompetenzvermittlung: Aktueller Stand und Perspektiven. Projekt: Zukunftsdiskurse: Informationskompetenz und Demokratie (IDE): Bürger, Suchverfahren und Analyse-Algorithmen in der politischen Meinungsbildung, Universität Hildesheim, http://informationskompetenz.blog.uni-hildesheim.de/files/2019/10/Projekt_Informationskompetenz_und_DemokratieKompilation_aller_Positionspapiere.pdf. Die Fragen, die den Beitrag strukturieren und entsprechend hervorgehoben werden, wurden von den Hildesheimer Forschern gestellt.
    Theme
    Information
  3. Meyer-Doerpinghaus, U.; Tappenbeck, I.: Informationskompetenz neu erfinden : Praxis, Perspektiven, Potenziale (2015) 0.00 
    0.0017977946 = product of:
  0.026966918 = sum of:
    0.026966918 = weight(_text_:und in 2478) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026966918 = score(doc=2478,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.06422601 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.41987535 = fieldWeight in 2478, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2478)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    Im Jahr 2012 forderte die Hochschulrektorenkonferenz (HRK) in ihren Empfehlungen "Hochschule im digitalen Zeitalter" dazu auf, Informationskompetenz neu zu begreifen und die Praxis der Vermittlung von Informationskompetenz an den Hochschulen auf den gesamten Prozess von Lehre und Forschung auszuweiten. Die Rektoren und Präsidenten der deutschen Hochschulen setzten damit das Thema ganz oben auf ihre Agenda. Der vorliegende Beitrag stellt anhand ausgewählter Praxisbeispiele dar, wie die Bibliotheken bisher auf diese Anforderungen reagiert haben und welche praktischen Konzepte und konkreten Ansätze der Umsetzung dieses erweiterten Verständnisses von Informationskompetenz in der Praxis erkennbar sind. Ferner werden Perspektiven und Potenziale für die zukünftige Entwicklung in diesem Bereich aufgezeigt.
  4. Tappenbeck, I.; Wittich, A.; Gäde, M.: Fit für die Vermittlung von Informationskompetenz? : Anforderungen an die Qualifikation von Teaching Librarians in bibliothekarischen Studiengängen und Ausbildungseinrichtungen (2017) 0.00 
    0.0016411545 = product of:
  0.024617316 = sum of:
    0.024617316 = weight(_text_:und in 3729) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024617316 = score(doc=3729,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06422601 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.38329202 = fieldWeight in 3729, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3729)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    Der Beitrag stellt zunächst die Ergebnisse einer Auswertung von Stellenanzeigen aus der Mailingliste InetBib vor, die zeigt, dass die Nachfrage nach Absolventinnen und Absolventen bibliothekarischer Studiengänge mit einer Qualifikation für den Aufgabenbereich der Vermittlung von Informationskompetenz seit dem Jahr 2000 signifikant gestiegen ist. Ergänzend hierzu präsentieren die Autorinnen die Ergebnisse einer Befragung unter Vertreterinnen und Vertretern der bibliothekarischen Berufspraxis zu im Bereich der Vermittlung von Informationskompetenz geforderten Kompetenzen und deren Gewichtung innerhalb der verschiedenen Qualifikationsstufen.
    Footnote
    Beitrag innerhalb eines Themenschwerpunktes zur Informationskompetenz aus, der in Zusammenarbeit mit der Gemeinsamen Kommission Informationskompetenz des VDB und des dbv entstanden ist.
  5. Matylonek, J.C.; Ottow, C.; Reese, T.: Organizing ready reference and administrative information with the reference desk manager (2001) 0.00 
    6.5447245E-4 = product of:
  0.009817086 = sum of:
    0.009817086 = product of:
      0.019634172 = sum of:
        0.019634172 = weight(_text_:information in 1156) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019634172 = score(doc=1156,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.38596505 = fieldWeight in 1156, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1156)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    Non-academic questions regarding special services, phone numbers, web-sites, library policies, current procedures, technical notices, and other pertinent local institutional information are often asked at the academic library reference desk. These frequent and urgent information requests require tools and resources to answer efficiently. Although ready reference collections at the desk provide a tool for academic information, specialized local information resources are more difficult to create and maintain. As reference desk responsibilities become increasingly complex and communication becomes more problematic, a web database to collect and manage this non-academic, local information can be very useful. At the Oregon State University, librarians in the Reference Services Management group created a custom-designed web-log bulletin board to deal with this non-academic, local information. The resulting database provides reference librarians a one-stop location for the information and makes it easier for them to update the information, via email, as conditions, procedures, and information needs change in their busy, highly computerized information commons.
  6. Kenney, A.R.; McGovern, N.Y.; Martinez, I.T.; Heidig, L.J.: Google meets eBay : what academic librarians can learn from alternative information providers (2003) 0.00 
    3.2223997E-4 = product of:
  0.004833599 = sum of:
    0.004833599 = product of:
      0.009667198 = sum of:
        0.009667198 = weight(_text_:information in 1200) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009667198 = score(doc=1200,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.19003606 = fieldWeight in 1200, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1200)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    In April 2002, the dominant Internet search engine, GoogleT, introduced a beta version of its expert service, Google Answers, with little fanfare. Almost immediately the buzz within the information community focused on implications for reference librarians. Google had already been lauded as the cheaper and faster alternative for finding information, and declining reference statistics and Online Public Access Catalog (OPAC) use in academic libraries had been attributed in part to its popularity. One estimate suggests that the Google search engine handles more questions in a day and a half than all the libraries in the country provide in a year. Indeed, Craig Silverstein, Google's Director of Technology, indicated that the raison d'être for the search engine was to "seem as smart as a reference librarian," even as he acknowledged that this goal was "hundreds of years away". Bill Arms had reached a similar conclusion regarding the more nuanced reference functions in a thought-provoking article in this journal on automating digital libraries. But with the launch of Google Answers, the power of "brute force computing" and simple algorithms could be combined with human intelligence to represent a market-driven alternative to library reference services. Google Answers is part of a much larger trend to provide networked reference assistance. Expert services have sprung up in both the commercial and non-profit sector. Libraries too have responded to the Web, providing a suite of services through the virtual reference desk (VRD) movement, from email reference to chat reference to collaborative services that span the globe. As the Internet's content continues to grow and deepen - encompassing over 40 million web sites - it has been met by a groundswell of services to find and filter information. These services include an extensive range from free to fee-based, cost-recovery to for-profit, and library providers to other information providers - both new and traditional. As academic libraries look towards the future in a dynamic and competitive information landscape, what implications do these services have for their programs, and what can be learned from them to improve library offerings? This paper presents the results of a modest study conducted by Cornell University Library (CUL) to compare and contrast its digital reference services with those of Google Answers. The study provided an opportunity for librarians to shift their focus from fearing the impact of Google, as usurper of the library's role and diluter of the academic experience, to gaining insights into how Google's approach to service development and delivery has made it so attractive.
  7. Lavoie, B.; Henry, G.; Dempsey, L.: ¬A service framework for libraries (2006) 0.00 
    2.6104422E-4 = product of:
  0.003915663 = sum of:
    0.003915663 = product of:
      0.007831326 = sum of:
        0.007831326 = weight(_text_:information in 1175) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007831326 = score(doc=1175,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.1539468 = fieldWeight in 1175, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1175)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    Much progress has been made in aligning library services with changing (and increasingly digital and networked) research and learning environments. At times, however, this progress has been uneven, fragmented, and reactive. As libraries continue to engage with an ever-shifting information landscape, it is apparent that their efforts would be facilitated by a shared view of how library services should be organized and surfaced in these new settings and contexts. Recent discussions in a variety of areas underscore this point: * Institutional repositories: what is the role of the library in collecting, managing, and preserving institutional scholarly output, and what services should be offered to faculty and students in this regard? * Metasearch: how can the fragmented pieces of library collections be brought together to simplify and improve the search experience of the user? * E-learning and course management systems: how can library services be lifted out of traditional library environments and inserted into the emerging workflows of "e-scholars" and "e-learners"? * Exposing library collections to search engines: how can libraries surface their collections in the general Web search environment, and how can users be provisioned with better tools to navigate an increasingly complex information landscape? In each case, there is as yet no shared picture of the library to bring to bear on these questions; there is little consensus on the specific library services that should be expected in these environments, how they should be organized, and how they should be presented.
    Libraries have not been idle in the face of the changes re-shaping their environments: in fact, much work is underway and major advances have already been achieved. But these efforts lack a unifying framework, a means for libraries, as a community, to gather the strands of individual projects and weave them into a cohesive whole. A framework of this kind would help in articulating collective expectations, assessing progress, and identifying critical gaps. As the information landscape continually shifts and changes, a framework would promote the design and implementation of flexible, interoperable library systems that can respond more quickly to the needs of libraries in serving their constituents. It will provide a port of entry for organizations outside the library domain, and help them understand the critical points of contact between their services and those of libraries. Perhaps most importantly, a framework would assist libraries in strategic planning. It would provide a tool to help them establish priorities, guide investment, and anticipate future needs in uncertain environments. It was in this context, and in recognition of efforts already underway to align library services with emerging information environments, that the Digital Library Federation (DLF) in 2005 sponsored the formation of the Service Framework Group (SFG) [1] to consider a more systematic, community-based approach to aligning the functions of libraries with increasing automation in fulfilling the needs of information environments. The SFG seeks to understand and model the research library in today's environment, by developing a framework within which the services offered by libraries, represented both as business logic and computer processes, can be understood in relation to other parts of the institutional and external information landscape. This framework will help research institutions plan wisely for providing the services needed to meet the current and emerging information needs of their constituents. A service framework is a tool for documenting a shared view of library services in changing environments; communicating it among libraries and others, and applying it to best advantage in meeting library goals. It is a means of focusing attention and organizing discussion. It is not, however, a substitute for innovation and creativity. It does not supply the answers, but facilitates the process by which answers are sought, found, and applied. This paper discusses the SFG's vision of a service framework for libraries, its approach to developing the framework, and the group's work agenda going forward.
  8. Cohen, S.; Fereira, J.; Horne, A.; Kibbee, B.; Mistlebauer, H.; Smith, A.: MyLibrary : personalized electronic services in the Cornell University Library (2000) 0.00 
    1.8604532E-4 = product of:
  0.0027906797 = sum of:
    0.0027906797 = product of:
      0.0055813594 = sum of:
        0.0055813594 = weight(_text_:information in 1232) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0055813594 = score(doc=1232,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.10971737 = fieldWeight in 1232, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1232)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    Library users who are Web users expect customization and interactivity. MyLibrary is a Cornell University Library initiative to provide numerous personalized library services to Cornell University students, faculty, and staff. Currently, it consists of MyLinks, a tool for collecting and organizing resources for private use by a patron, and MyUpdates, a tool to help scholars stay informed of new resources provided by the library. This article provides an overview of the MyLibrary project, explains the rationale for the development of the service in the library, briefly discusses the hardware and software used for the service, and suggests some of the directions for future developments of the MyLibrary system. MyYahoo!, MyCNN, MyBookmarks, MyThis and MyThat. Internet users have demanded a personal face to the World Wide Web, and Web portals and information providers have responded. Why not MyLibrary? The Library and Information Technology Association (LITA) has defined MyLibrary-like services as the number one trend "worth keeping an eye on". "Library users who are Web users, a growing group," the experts agree, "expect customization, interactivity, and customer support. Approaches that are library-focused instead of user-focused will be increasingly irrelevant." In response to the needs of web-savvy patrons, the Cornell University Library (CUL) implemented a MyLibrary service this year, making finding and using library resources easier than ever. MyLibrary is an "umbrella" service for two new products: MyLinks and MyUpdates. Other products are in development. MyLibrary's MyLinks is a tool for collecting and organizing resources for private use by a patron. These resources may or may not be "official" Cornell University Library resources. Our patrons best understand this service as a "traveling set of bookmarks". Most patrons of the library use a variety of machines to access Internet resources. For example, you may have a computer at home and one at work. Why should you create your bookmarks twice, or carry around a diskette containing your bookmarks? Students who rely on lab computers never know which machine they will use next. With MyLinks, a patron's favorite sites are just a click away from any machine.

Authors

Years

Languages

Themes