Docstoc

Slide 1 - UA Libraries Intranet

Document Sample
Slide 1 - UA Libraries Intranet Powered By Docstoc
					report to the library
           02.03.04
                    Members / Charge

 Finding Information in a New Landscape is composed of:


                  •Marianne Stowell Bracke
                  •Michael Brewer
                  •Robyn Huff-Eibl
                  •Dan Lee
                  •Robert Mitchell
                  •Michael Ray
 In short, we have been charged to assess the effectiveness of our
Information & Referral services and, if necessary, make recommendations
to improve those services, while reducing costs.
See our full charge at:
http://www.library.arizona.edu/library/teams/finl/charge.pdf
     Communication: How We Got Your
               Feedback
 The Bulletin Board
        • Current Poll: “How do you think customers like virtual
        reference?”
        • Current “Provocative” Question: “What would be the
        consequence of staffing all library information and referral
        service desks with only student workers and providing in-depth
        service only on-line or by appointment? What would be the
        advantages?”
 Visits to SET, SST, UST, Spec Coll, Libratory, Team Y & MAT
 Modified our survey based on feedback from teams
 Validated our I & R Process Model with service sites
      Assessment: What We’re Doing &
           Where We’re Doing it
 We have begun implementing 3 data gathering projects:
    1. “Action-Focused” customer survey for each service site
    2. Logging of type of questions at IC Desk, SEL & all MAT sites
    3. Cost study [salaries & wages] for I & R services
             Customer Survey for Action

 Our survey is focused on ACTION, rather than satisfaction
 Survey was tested with students and then piloted in the IC, late in the
  Fall semester
 FINL is working with each site to create an appropriate survey for their
  individual needs
 Survey will be conducted in both online and print format for most sites.
 We encourage the library to give us feedback, and to focus their
  attention primarily on our APPROACHES to assessment, rather than
  any preliminary results.
 http://www.library.arizona.edu/library/teams/finl/surveyintro.shtml
        Satisfaction Surveys Fail 5 Ways
    From “Survey for Action, Not Satisfaction” by John Cravenho and Bill Sandvig, Quality Progress, March 2003




     High Cost
     Complicated Analysis
     Limited Customer Follow-up
     Poor Field Acceptance of Results – Winners/Losers
     Weak Link Between Action and Satisfaction

The assessment we are piloting is called a strategic
  Customer-driven Action Process (CAP)
      Customer-driven Action Process
 Satisfaction is a result, not the goal, of CAP
 The CAP identifies, prioritizes and recommends issues needing
  system-wide action.
 These recommendations are not based on internal perception; they
  are based on the clear voice of customers.
 The CAP identifies and targets specific needs for specific
  customers.
 Different locations are not pitted-against each other in a battle for
  the best result.
 Each location or team wins by completing actions to resolve
  specific issues for specific customers
                         CAP DESIGN
    Focuses customer input on approximately 20-25 key
     characteristics specific to each location.
    It takes less than five minutes to complete the simple 1-sided
     paper survey or the on-line instrument that begins the process.
    The survey asks customers three things about the 25
     characteristics:
    1.   What are the five most important characteristics to you?
    2.   Identify up to five items the organization does best
    3.   Identify up to five areas the organization must improve.


    The FINL survey characteristics are guided by our process model,
     and are customized for diverse sites.
                   Logging Questions

 In mid-January, we piloted logging questions asked at service points at
  the IC desk, the SEL reference desk & at all MAT sites
 We plan to log questions at each service site for a week, beginning on
  February 16
 We hope to get a better sense of the kinds of questions asked at each
  service site and the level of expertise needed to appropriately respond
  to these questions
           Current Situation Cost Study

 We are collecting salary/wage data [for Jan/2004] for personnel
  involved with any of the I & R service sites or services
 We will use this data to ascertain per hour and per transaction costs
  for each of our I & R services/desks [Service desks, Chat, Email
  reference & Type III reference] for Fall semester 2003
 Some of the activities we will be taking into consideration for this study
  are:
    •   Time spent hiring & training student workers
    •   Time spent scheduling desks/services & trading shifts
    •   Administrative support for service desks
 Timeline: By the Next Report on April 6,
             We Will Have:
 Surveyed customers at each service desk (Feb 9-22)
 Logged questions at each reference or information desk (Feb 16-22)
 Completed current state cost study and begun analyzing the data (Feb
  23)
 Led a discussion at the February 17 All IS meeting on the relevance &
  use of Type I, Type II & Type III terminology.
 Held a dialogue with the Library on March 9 to check-in with the
  Library and to get more feedback on our continuing data collection and
  other projects.
                   How You Can Help:

 Give us feedback – EARLY & OFTEN!
 Make appropriate data available to us
 We’ll need some help with data entry. We hope to use IS team
  Admins, but if anyone else has an interest and/or willingness to help
  out, please let us know!
Questions?

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:1
posted:8/23/2011
language:English
pages:13