Understanding User Needs in Information Consolidation: A Targeted Approach

A library can hold thousands of accurate, valuable documents and still fail the people it serves. The reason is simple: information that is not shaped for its intended reader rarely gets used. This is the central insight behind information consolidation, the practice of evaluating, condensing, and reorganizing scattered information into reliable, usable forms. But consolidation cannot begin with documents. It must begin with people. Before an information professional decides what to include, how much to condense, and which format to use, they must first answer one question: who is this for? Studying users is therefore not a preliminary step in consolidation work. It is the foundation on which everything else rests.

Why knowing your audience matters 🔗

Information consolidation was developed specifically to overcome the barriers that prevent people from using information effectively. The growth of published material has outpaced anyone’s ability to read and absorb it, and most users simply do not have the time, training, or access to sift through raw documents. Consolidation responds by evaluating and compressing relevant documents to give defined user groups concise, reliable information in a usable form. The phrase “defined user groups” is the key. Consolidation is not general-purpose summarising. It is targeted work aimed at a known audience.

This is why the international guidance on the subject treats user analysis as a core competency. A widely used training handbook on information consolidation lists, among its main objectives, the need to survey the characteristics of users, study methods for user studies, and tailor products for different audiences ranging from professionals and policy makers down to community groups and the general public. Without that understanding, an information professional is guessing. They might produce a technically excellent report that a farmer cannot read, or a simplified leaflet that a senior researcher finds useless. The same body of facts can succeed or fail entirely depending on whether it matches the reader.

Put plainly, the value of a consolidated product is not measured by how much information it contains. It is measured by how well it fits the person receiving it. A user study is how that fit is achieved.

Types of user groups 🔗

Users are not a single undifferentiated mass. They differ in their education, their purpose for seeking information, the depth of detail they need, and the formats they can work with. Recognising these differences is the first analytical task in consolidation.

The classic three-level grouping 🔗

A broadly accepted classification divides information users into three main categories: researchers; practitioners and technicians; and managers, planners, and decision-makers. Each group wants something different from the same subject. A researcher studying soil chemistry wants exhaustive data, methodology, and references. A practitioner such as an agricultural officer wants practical, applicable guidance stripped of theory. A policy maker wants the headline findings and their implications, presented quickly so a decision can be made.

This grouping aligns closely with how consolidation handbooks describe their target audiences. The same training framework distinguishes products meant for professionals and policy makers; technicians, workers, and intermediaries; and community groups for mass or popular use. Notice that the divisions are based on what people do with information, not merely on who they are.

Grassroots and community-level users 🔗

At the other end of the spectrum from the specialist researcher is the grassroots user: the farmer, the artisan, the rural entrepreneur, the neo-literate citizen. These users are central to why information consolidation became important in developing economies in the first place. The international discussions that shaped the field placed strong emphasis on linking consolidation products to extension services in agriculture and health, so that the information would actually be applied in the field. A farmer does not need a journal article on a new wheat variety. They need to know what to plant, when, and how, in a form they can act on.

Institutional user communities 🔗

Within formal settings, user communities are often well defined, which makes them easier to study. One analysis of an academic environment identified three distinct user groups, administrative staff, teaching staff, and students, and found that while each group organised information in a relatively consistent way internally, the three groups differed from one another, with teaching and administrative staff resembling each other more than they resembled students. The practical lesson is that even people sharing the same building and the same broad subject can have meaningfully different information structures in their minds. Designing one product for all of them would shortchange each.

Challenges in serving different user groups 🔗

Once you accept that users differ, the difficulties of serving them become clear. These challenges are not minor inconveniences; they often determine whether a consolidation effort succeeds or fails.

Education and subject expertise. A product written at the right level for a postgraduate researcher will overwhelm a school-leaver, and a product pitched for a beginner will frustrate an expert. The consolidator must calibrate vocabulary, assumed background knowledge, and depth of detail to a specific group. This is why a single subject often needs to be repackaged several times for several audiences.

Literacy and language. In a country with many languages and varying literacy levels, written text is not always the answer. The framing of consolidation work has long recognised a service priority that includes illiterates and neo-literates alongside children and other groups with special needs. For users with limited literacy, audio, video, pictorial guides, and face-to-face demonstration may carry information far more effectively than a printed handbook. Choosing the wrong medium can make even excellent content invisible.

Accessibility and connectivity. Physical and digital reach remains uneven, especially in rural areas. Studies of grassroots agricultural services note that limited digital and physical connectivity in remote areas reduces farmers’ access to knowledge services. A brilliant mobile app is worthless to someone without a reliable network or a smartphone. Consolidation work therefore has to consider not just the content and format but the channel through which the user will realistically receive it.

Cost and perceived value. There is also a long-observed tension around willingness to pay. Research on repackaging notes that users often place relatively low value on receiving information and resist fees placed on library services, while many professionals are not fully equipped to deliver the complete range of repackaging services. This means consolidators frequently work under budget pressure for an audience that expects the output to be free.

Extension services and user studies 🔗

So how do information professionals actually find out what different groups need? The answer combines two practices: extension services that carry information to users, and user studies that systematically gather data about those users.

What user studies are and how they work 🔗

A user study is a systematic investigation into the behaviours, needs, preferences, and challenges of the people who use a service. The methods fall into recognisable categories. Quantitative approaches collect numerical data through surveys, questionnaires, usage statistics, and transaction logs, while qualitative approaches gather richer descriptive data through interviews, focus groups, observation, and think-aloud sessions that reveal the reasons behind behaviour. Many studies combine the two for a fuller picture.

The point of all this is not data for its own sake. User studies give libraries empirical evidence to justify decisions and to identify gaps in service rather than relying on assumptions or tradition. For a consolidator, this evidence answers the practical questions: what subjects matter to this group, at what level of detail, and in what form?

A structured process for identifying needs 🔗

Identifying needs is harder than it sounds, partly because users themselves often cannot articulate what they need. A methodology presented at an international library conference noted that the field has long struggled because the methods used in many studies were inadequate for uncovering users’ real needs, which are difficult to discover, measure, and classify. The recommended approach is to study the subject area and the user together, then carefully analyse the gathered data to distil the actual needs from the stated ones. Crucially, identifying a need and satisfying it are two separate tasks, and a good methodology helps with both.

Extension services as the delivery arm 🔗

Extension services are the channels that take consolidated information to users who would not otherwise reach a library, and they also function as listening posts that feed information back about user needs. The agricultural extension network offers the clearest example. Krishi Vigyan Kendras, established under the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, operate at the district level and provide farm advisories using ICT and other media, conduct frontline demonstrations, and link the research system with the extension system and farmers. Their methods are deliberately matched to grassroots users: learning by doing, on-farm demonstration, and direct interaction rather than dense text.

These services also adapt their formats to the connectivity challenge. Extension systems increasingly use farmer portals and Kisan Call Centres to connect with users at the grassroots level, layering telephone and online channels on top of in-person work so that users with different access can all be reached. The interaction between the service and the user is exactly what gives the consolidator the knowledge to package information well next time.

Examples of tailored information products 🔗

The clearest proof that user study matters is seen in how the format of a product changes for different audiences while the underlying subject stays the same. Consolidation produces a recognised range of products, including handbooks, newsletters, state-of-the-art reports, trend reports, and technical digests. Each suits a different reader.

Consider a single subject, such as a new pest-resistant crop variety, repackaged for the three classic user levels:

For researchers, a state-of-the-art report or technical digest that surveys the full body of evidence, cites sources, and presents detailed data. The goal is completeness and verifiability.

For practitioners and technicians, a handbook or advisory note that translates findings into applicable steps, with the theory removed and the practical guidance foregrounded. The goal is usability in the field.

For policy makers, a concise trend report or briefing that highlights the key findings and their implications, allowing a decision to be made quickly. The goal is clarity and brevity.

For grassroots and community users, a pictorial leaflet, a radio message, a short video, or a live demonstration that conveys the essential action in an accessible medium. The goal is comprehension regardless of literacy.

The willingness to change the medium itself, not just the wording, reflects how seriously the field takes accessibility. Some libraries have even experimented with newer formats to reach younger users, such as repackaging information through augmented reality applications to make it accessible to students on a wider scale. Whether the chosen tool is a printed digest or an AR app, the decision flows from the same source: an understanding of who the user is and how they can best receive information.

This is the through-line connecting every part of consolidation work. The selection of materials, the degree of condensation, the language, and the format are all downstream of one upstream decision: knowing your user. Repackaging without that knowledge is simply reformatting. Repackaging with it is genuine service.

What do you think? If you had to repackage the same piece of health information for a doctor, a community health worker, and a rural family with limited literacy, what would change in each version, and what would stay the same? And which is harder for an information professional to get right, identifying what a user truly needs, or actually delivering it in a form they can use?

References

1. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0306457386900099
2. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED296728
3. https://www.lisquiz.com/2025/09/information-users-and-their-information.html
4. https://www.studocu.com/in/document/mahatma-gandhi-university/library-science/unit-6-library-science/66723744
5. https://www.academia.edu/39935759/Information_Analysis_Consolidation_and_Repackaging_IACR_An_Overview
6. https://www.nextias.com/blog/krishi-vigyan-kendra-kvk/
7. https://lisstudymaterials.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/dlis402_information_analysis_and_repackaging.pdf
8. https://www.lisedunetwork.com/user-study-in-library/
9. https://origin-archive.ifla.org/IV/ifla62/62-devf.htm
10. https://kvk.icar.gov.in/aboutkvk.aspx
11. https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/agricultural-extension-services/
12. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/36443950-information-analysis-consolidation-and-repackaging
13. https://www.emerald.com/idd/article/52/1/39/1228715/Information-consolidation-and-repackaging-for