Episode 66: Technological Advancement at University Presses

For university presses of all sizes, technology adoption is a constant necessity—yet the process can feel daunting, confusing, and even disruptive. Jana Faust (University of Nebraska Press) and Rachel Lee (UCANR) join the podcast to share their insights on technology adoption and change management.

Rachel Lee is Director of Publishing at University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources (https://ucanr.edu), where she leads a dedicated team that publishes California Agriculture journal, books, and open access publications showcasing ANR’s research and extension work. Outside the office, she enjoys trail running, biking, and exploring new destinations. anrpublications.org

Jana Faust is the Manager of Digital Assets and IT at the University of Nebraska Press, where she leads initiatives in publishing technology. She manages projects ranging from ebook remediation to ensure compliance with the European Accessibility Act, to system implementations that improve transparency and efficiency across departments. In her spare time, Jana likes to read, knit, and crochet. nebraskapress.unl.edu

Joshua Tallent

Welcome to the BookSmarts Podcast, where we talk about publishing data and technologies, and send you away with insights that will help you sell more books. I’m your host, Joshua Tallent. This month on the BookSmarts Podcast, I have the pleasure of having two guests, which is very uncommon for me. So, I’m very happy to welcome both Rachel Lee and Jana Faust with me on the program. Rachel is the director of publishing at University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources, or UC ANR, and she leads a dedicated team that publishes journals, books, and open-access materials. Jana is the manager of digital assets and IT at the University of Nebraska Press, where she leads initiatives in publishing technology. I’ve known Jana—man, I don’t remember when I first met you, years and years ago—and Rachel, I feel like we go far back as well, even though I don’t think I actually met you until a couple of years ago, but it’s great to have you both on the program. Thank you so much for coming and joining me. Thank you. Thank you. All right, so today we want to talk about university presses. This episode is going live in June, the same month as the Association of University Presses meeting—the AU Presses meeting—and we wanted to take the opportunity to chat about technology innovation and technology adoption in the university press market. Since both of you are using Firebrand’s title management solutions in different ways, and you’re at different types of presses with different approaches, sizes, and needs, we wanted to take the opportunity to talk about how different university presses can think about and engage with technology adoption, and what you’re currently doing. So, I’m going to start with Jana. Jana, you’ve been using a robust title management and workflow solution for many years. What was the most challenging part? If you think back to the implementation and getting the team on board—that’s a major system—and maybe you can think of other systems you’ve implemented since then. How did you work through those challenging issues of implementing systems change within the organization?

Jana Faust

Well, I think the biggest challenge was getting everybody on board, right? I mean, isn’t that kind of always the biggest challenge? And I think, you know, the technology—I think if you have the right partner, the technology has a solution, it’s been done before, it’s been implemented before—but the people are more of a wildcard. So, we did tons of communication. We worked very hard on transparency from the beginning of the process. When we were making our decisions, we were very transparent with all of the staff about who we were looking at, what products we were considering, and how we felt about them. We went through a formal RFP process, but we made that as transparent to the staff as possible, because I think buy-in had to come from the top. We had to have our director very much in favor of the project, which we did, and then it has to trickle down to managers and all the staff in order for it to be successful. So, we spent a lot of time talking to the staff and meeting with the different departments. Folks from Firebrand came on-site, met with every department, and answered all of their questions. One of the things that was most useful and stood out to me with Firebrand, compared to some of the other vendors we talked to at the time, was that Firebrand really understood publishing. So, I think that put people at ease, because they could ask their publishing-specific questions in their own publishing language and get satisfactory answers.

Joshua Tallent

Yeah, that’s obviously very important when you’re talking about technology—finding solutions that work within the publishing ecosystem, which may be a little different than generic systems, but also having that ability to have the conversation and use the internal language. So, Rachel, you guys recently implemented title management, and you were preparing your staff for that change. You’ve been looking forward to finding and using new technology for a little while. What about you? Looking at that, as Jana said, the biggest issue is always staff change. How did you deal with that? Did you run into any specific resistance or anybody feeling overwhelmed? How did you handle that transition for your team?

Rachel Lee

Well, I think the most important thing for my team was that—you know, I’ve been with UC ANR for three and a half years—I joined at a point where change was really necessary. I think we were having that classic growth problem of wanting to have a better track on what we were publishing and where, and wanting to expand our sales, but dealing with a small patchwork of software. For instance, we were using Airtable to track publications, and we had a storefront where the software was obsolete. So, I think the team knew that change was coming, and I think the biggest advantage was being able to say, “Well, we’re not going to be using four systems anymore; we’re just going to be using one.” There was an issue with sort of technical know-how, so I really did most of the legwork of getting stuff out of the old systems, cleaning up the data, getting it imported, and doing most of that foundational work. Then, even though it’s a huge system that does a lot of things, I talked to the team about their specific roles: “Well, you’re a designer, so you only deal with schedules, so you’ll be dealing with that part,” and “You do marketing, so you’ll be dealing with the marketing side of it.” Helping them understand that they didn’t need to grasp the entirety of the system right away—that they could just interact with it at certain touchpoints—made it a lot easier to get going.

Joshua Tallent

Yeah, that’s good. Every change that you implement at a press is going to take time, and it’s going to be in multiple stages. You’re going to do things differently for different teams, so it’s good to have that knowledge going in. Not everybody is going to be an expert in this tool, but they need to be able to do what they need to do to get their job done on a daily basis, feel comfortable with that part of the application, and then expand their usage wherever necessary in the future. So, Jana, when you were doing this implementation, what’s a small win that you feel was able to help make a big difference in the daily operations there at Nebraska?

Jana Faust

Well, I was really concerned about our folks in acquisitions, because a lot of the initial data entry was going to fall on them. What we talked about at the time was that individual workflows were obviously going to change, because basically everybody had their own Access database before this, or so it seemed. They were used to having an interface that was built specifically for them and their position, so they just did their thing, and it was very siloed. So, we discussed the fact that things were going to change, and they might be entering more information and doing more data entry than they were used to doing, but it would benefit the press as a whole. The benefit is for the whole press and the whole system, not just individuals. They took on that task of being at the forefront, entering a lot of the data, and cleaning it up as the acquisition progresses, and they did it very well.

Joshua Tallent

Yeah, that’s good, and that’s important. Digital data entry is one of the most important pieces of any project, especially when you’re thinking about the ongoing impact of that over time. If it’s done badly at the beginning, it can have a massive impact later. So, that’s really good that the team was willing to step in, take that on, and run with it. I’m assuming, since they’ve been doing it for a while now, it’s like second nature?

Jana Faust

Yep, it is second nature. They really didn’t have a lot of resistance toward it, which kind of surprised me. They took it on willingly, they understood the bigger picture, and it worked out quite well.

Joshua Tallent

Yeah, and Rachel, that can be hard sometimes when you get into a new system and the team is like, “Well, maybe I like my old way. I like my old Access database or Airtable,” or whatever it was. So, once a new tool has been set up, how have you been working with your team to keep building on that instead of letting everything slip back into old spreadsheets and old habits?

Rachel Lee

As I joked to you when I saw you last, I just completely retired everything else, so they didn’t really have a choice! But I think it’s a balance. When we meet as a group, let’s open up title management and go through the schedules together. At the same time, I recognize that one of our editors still liked to have his notes in his own place, and that system worked for him, but as a group, we all needed to see what everyone else was doing. Having those meetings where you say, “Okay, let’s open title management up and see where we are with this,” was one thing. The other thing is that we now use it to drive one of our websites and our retail site, and it’s also going to be driving our new open-access site. Having it sit at the heart of all your operations—which is the great thing that title management does—means that you’re really well-bedded into everything going forward. Once the website went live, people were like, “Oh, okay, this is what it does.” Working with a new fulfillment vendor, Books International, whom we now partner with, our ONIX feed goes to them, whereas before we didn’t even have an ONIX feed. Once it’s up and running, people can see the various ways that it influences the work you’re trying to do, and I think that was very helpful. I joke and say it’s kind of “one ring to rule them all,” but that’s probably not a great analogy; maybe it’s more of a Swiss Army knife. For a small organization, it really sits at the heart of everything that we do. Once it was up and running, people could see how it affected everything we did, and it became a much more viable proposition.

Joshua Tallent

Yeah, you know, Jana, when you’re dealing with these questions like implementing new systems—and even thinking beyond the title management implementation—you’re in charge of all of the technology implementations that you do at Nebraska. How do you balance long-term strategic needs with immediate operational pressures? You’re evaluating some sort of new tool, maybe even exploring AI or other things like that right now in this changing ecosystem. How do you balance those two things—the strategic need with the immediate operational need?

Jana Faust

Well, I think balance is the key. For example, with AI, we’re sort of dipping our toes in, and a few of us are experimenting a little bit. One of the things I remind myself is that not every new technology needs to be adopted immediately. I get excited about the new shiny thing, you know? So I have to remember to approach it carefully, usually in pilots and phases. Sometimes we decide we’re going to hold off and see what other people do, see how they solve a problem or implement a new technology, so that we don’t have to reinvent the wheel, so to speak. Speaking of AU Presses, I rely heavily on our peers there. I use UP Commons, and I also rely on BISG to find out what other people are doing and how they’re solving these problems, so that we’re not out there all on our own.

Joshua Tallent

Yeah, that’s important too, because in the publishing world writ large, we are actually not a very big community, right? We are more integrated in many ways than companies that manufacture other kinds of goods. I doubt there are very many chair makers or cup makers out there that are in a trade organization just for their specific trade that gives them this kind of collaborative capability. As an industry, it gives us a lot of capability to maintain connections, learn from each other, and build off the knowledge of other people. So it’s great that you’re involved in both of those organizations, because they help keep the industry connected, keep communication clear, keep the information flowing, and help us all move forward together. So, Rachel, when you’re prioritizing technology enhancements—I know you’ve been with the press for three years, and I guess title management light was the biggest change as an organization—but thinking forward as you grow and try to expand your use, how do you prioritize technology enhancements when time, money, and staff resources are limited? What are some of the things you do to evaluate the next technology enhancement you might make?

Rachel Lee

Well, it’s an interesting question, because now that we’ve got title management up and running and we want to do more with our publishing, I’m recognizing that there’s only so much I can and should be doing myself. One of the important things I’ve done as I’ve evaluated this department’s needs is realize that I do need a metadata manager, and that it shouldn’t be my job to handle this. Making sure that your metadata is clean, that it’s being appropriately reviewed, and that you’re discoverable in all of your venues is a significant investment. I sell that into the organization as something that increases the reach and prestige of the work we do here, while also enabling us to be financially sustainable by reaching more retail venues. When I’m advocating for more resourcing or thinking about where we need to go, those are the two principles I use to sell what I do to the organization. I talk to my immediate boss and I say, “Well, the great thing about metadata is it’s really important, but it’s also not very interesting.” When you say our metadata needs to be cleaned up, everyone’s eyes kind of glaze over, so you have to talk about what you can do with it and how that reflects back on the organization. Publishing technology is great now because it levels the playing field, enabling really small players like my department to be in the same venues where the big players are. That’s another key way of selling further enhancements. But as I said, we’ve reached the point where I’m limited in what I can continue to do myself, so prioritizing staffing to support that is probably the biggest next step for me.

Joshua Tallent

Yeah, I like that a lot, and that actually makes me want to go completely off-script from our pre-canned questions here. I really appreciate that approach, because in the university press world, you’re obviously operating within the context of a larger university system. Sometimes there are procurement rules, and some university presses are under another department, inside the library, or connected in some other way. You’ve got these other stakeholders who need to buy into the work that you’re doing, and it’s hard because publishing is its own unique thing that the larger university may not fully understand. I am curious, Rachel, you mentioned using the sales and reach benefits of metadata enhancement to get the university interested in investing, whether it’s in new technology or a new position. What other kinds of arguments do you find are helpful? If you were talking to another university press, what have you found to be the most effective ways of selling technology improvements or process enhancements up the chain to show the value that a publishing house brings to the larger university system? I’ll ask both of you that question, so either one of you can answer.

Rachel Lee

I think, honestly, the best thing has been showing them our new website and saying, “This is how the metadata is fed out, and this is how it drives our website.” It’s all a bit of “sizzle, not sausage.” I make the pitch that agriculture is a huge driver of the economy in this state, and the UC system is one of the most prestigious public universities, so we really should be doing a better job of getting our research out there. How do we do that? Metadata and systems like title management are the route to achieve it. It’s less about the system itself and more about what it does. I use that analogy because I’m a small publishing department within a bigger organization with other priorities, which is very different from being in a traditional university press or another type of publisher where everyone is pulling in the same direction and understands the business. People here don’t really understand the backend; they understand books and final products, so you need to advocate in a way that makes sense to them rather than just describing the technical work you’re doing.

Jana Faust

Yeah, I agree that being an advocate for our own press is very important. We are within another department as part of the University of Nebraska, and it’s important to tie these things to revenue or efficiency— those arguments seem to work well. Also, our marketing department sends out an email every week highlighting all of the awards and reviews that we’ve gotten in the past week. Our director started sharing that with the Vice Chancellor, and they are really impressed by the work we do and the recognition we get that they might not otherwise know about.

Joshua Tallent

Yeah, and systems help do that, right? Having not only people systems, where everyone follows established processes, but also tools that help you aggregate that data, create reports, and visualize metrics. That’s where technology can really be helpful for any press, regardless of size or type—being able to see things in a way that you wouldn’t be able to see them yourself, and aggregating information to help other people see the value you’re bringing to the table. I really appreciate that. Okay, thinking about university press publishing and technology enhancements, is there anything else where you think, “Man, I just have to tell people this is the thing you should remember or do”? Anything else on your minds that you want to bring up?

Rachel Lee

Well, now that I’m over the hump of retiring the old technology, I’m starting to think about where our content will be in the future and how title management can facilitate that. I feel like all we ever do is talk about AI, but having ONIX and a title management database is vital for increasing the discoverability of content. If you have a website where someone can just download a PDF, you have to realize that behavior is changing. People are putting prompts into a chatbot, and it’s spewing out whatever resources it finds without making any distinction about the quality of the research. There are enough examples out there right now showing how easily people can be led astray. So, how is my content being represented in those systems? How do we establish what I think are called “trust markers”? How do we indicate that our peer-reviewed information is better than something random found in a dusty corner of the internet? How do the systems that we have support that different type of discoverability? I do not have the answer; I just have a lot of questions. I’m just thinking about where our feeds are supposed to be and how clean our metadata needs to be going forward so that it continues to be discoverable. When I have a quiet minute, I’ll start to think about how we can address that better, but it already feels like it’s running away from me, at least in terms of my current understanding of how it all works.

Joshua Tallent

Yeah, I totally understand that. I feel like everything is moving at warp speed right now and constantly changing. But your point is well made: university presses have a very unique opportunity because so much of their output is nonfiction, peer-reviewed, and connected to scholarly work. It’s exactly the kind of content that is desperately needed in the world. Because of your unique position, you can be a much more trustworthy and authoritative source than other publishers, like fiction publishers, who don’t necessarily have that same type of authority structure. I’m going to wax non-eloquently about the value of publishing in general, but I do think university presses are in a unique position to be that trusted source. Figuring out how to adapt to changes in discoverability, how your sources and content are used, and how open access fits in are all critical things for university presses to be thinking about right now as the landscape shifts. I’m glad to hear that you are both thinking about how to make an impact in this changing AI landscape. Thank you both for joining the podcast this month. I really appreciate your insights. I’m going to share some links in the show notes for anybody who wants to follow your work online or reach out with questions. It was really great to have you. Thanks for coming on the show. Thanks a lot, Joshua. Thank you, I appreciated the conversation and I learned a lot from Jana as well. Well, that’s it for this episode of the BookSmarts Podcast. If you like what you’ve heard, or if you have thoughts or questions about the show, you can reach out to joshua@firebrandtech.com. We really appreciate it when you share the podcast with your colleagues as well. You can follow us on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, and everywhere else you listen to podcasts. Thanks for joining us and getting smarter about your books.