Slide 1 - UA Libraries Intranet

Document Sample
Slide 1 - UA Libraries Intranet Powered By Docstoc
					report to the library
                    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:
     Communication: How We Got Your
 The Bulletin Board
        • Current Poll: “How do you think customers like virtual
        • 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
 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.
        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
 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
    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
    •   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
 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!

Shared By: