1 / 43

Plan, implement, review and improve

Plan, implement, review and improve. Heather Thrift, Associate Director Lynn Sykes, Head of Customer Services. Agenda. Where we started from Why we chose to do what we did What we did Where we are now Lessons learned. Where we started from. National Student Survey (NSS) 2005

branxton
Download Presentation

Plan, implement, review and improve

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Plan, implement, review and improve Heather Thrift, Associate DirectorLynn Sykes, Head of Customer Services

  2. Agenda • Where we started from • Why we chose to do what we did • What we did • Where we are now • Lessons learned © The University of Sheffield

  3. Where we started from • National Student Survey (NSS) 2005 • Participated in LibQUAL+® 2004 • University of Sheffield commissioned its first student satisfaction survey from The Oxford Research Agency (TORA) 2004 © The University of Sheffield

  4. LibQUAL+® • Results broadly in line with other SCONUL participants in 2004 • Highlighted issues around • Library as place • Information control © The University of Sheffield

  5. Core Questions Summary © The University of Sheffield

  6. Student satisfaction survey 2004 • Overall satisfaction with Library Services in 2004 was 69% © The University of Sheffield

  7. Overall Satisfaction % Very/ fairly dissatisfied % Very/ fairly satisfied TOTAL (1587) 16 69 15 % Very/ fairly dissatisfied % Neither/nor % Fairly/very satisfied © The University of Sheffield

  8. Student satisfaction survey 2004 • Overall satisfaction with Library Services in 2004 was 69% • Provide more copies of key textbooks was the most asked for improvement © The University of Sheffield

  9. 65 1st/ 2nd Choice of Possible Improvements 25 22 21 12 12 10 9 5 3 3 2 1 % Base: (Those asked: 1662) © The University of Sheffield

  10. What students wanted • More books! • Have the book for as long as they need it • More photocopiers • More electronic resources • Services delivered to where they were © The University of Sheffield

  11. Response • More money not necessarily the solution • New Partnership for learning and teaching • Regular meetings with Directors of Learning and Teaching at Department and Faculty level • ‘Library Toolkit’ • Service Level Agreement (SLA) • Circulation review © The University of Sheffield

  12. Drivers for circulation review • Self-service issue and return introduced 2001 • Information Commons • Designed to be 24/7 • Longer opening hours than service hours • 24/7 piloted at exam time in summer 2005 • Complexity of existing loan periods not suited to 24/7 self-service environment © The University of Sheffield

  13. National Student Survey 2005 • Three questions for learning resources • One of these relates to library services • The library resources and services are good enough for my needs • 62% agreed with this statement in 2005 © The University of Sheffield

  14. Circulation Review Case study © The University of Sheffield

  15. What we wanted for students • Consistent, easy to use, easy to understand and well documented circulation policy • Would work well in 24/7 self-service environment • Efficient reservations service • Achieve better balance between needs of traditional and non-traditional users © The University of Sheffield

  16. © The University of Sheffield

  17. Circulation Review Project • Project group set up in December 2004 • Included Student Union Education Officer • Library User Group consulted at every stage • Surveyed students in April 2005 about their attitude to current lending policies © The University of Sheffield

  18. Plan • Improve • Implement Plan • Review • Standard loan dependent on borrower type • Short loan of 2 days • Library use only copies of high demand items • No recalls unless exceptional circumstances • Fines on all overdue items • Removed some renewal restrictions © The University of Sheffield

  19. Plan • Improve • Implement Implement • Review • Pilot at single site 2005/06 • Pilot at all sites 2006/07 © The University of Sheffield

  20. Plan • Improve • Implement Review • Review • Before the recommendations • After the first pilot • After the system-wide pilot © The University of Sheffield

  21. Plan • Improve • Implement Improve • Review • Reservations service not working well enough to support new loan periods • KPIs showed that reservations service was not meeting SLA targets for time taken to supply items © The University of Sheffield

  22. Reflect on an aspect you want to do something about • Think again • Check and monitor • Imagine a new way forward • Try it out, have a pilot • Model based onMcNiff, J. (2010) Action research for professional development © The University of Sheffield

  23. Improve Lending Service • Think again • Check and monitor • Simplify loan periods • Try it out, have a pilot © The University of Sheffield

  24. Improve Lending Service • Think again • Check and monitor • Improve reservations service • Try it out, have a pilot © The University of Sheffield

  25. Reservations Project • Project group set up in September 2008 • Tasked with looking creatively at how to improve item delivery times • Used the same methodology © The University of Sheffield

  26. Recommendations • Allow online reservation of all items, including not on loan copies • Allow selection of site for collection • Staff to search for not on loan items • Reservations sent to other sites if site for collection could not supply • Missing items identified © The University of Sheffield

  27. Implementation • Had to pilot at all sites • Immediate issues to deal with • Reviewed part-way through and made changes to the pilot © The University of Sheffield

  28. Survey feedback • 88% said they got the book within a week • 93% said that speed of availability was more important that being able to choose collection site • 90% of comments were positive and ranged from OK/Good to “Wow!!” • LMS statistics backed up the survey • 79% requests satisfied within 1 week • 93% requests satisfied within 2 weeks © The University of Sheffield

  29. Post-implementation issues • Short loans much more likely to satisfy reservations • Borrowers with longer loans more likely to be able to renew • Higher fines on the late return of short loan • Short loan only in demand for a few weeks of the year © The University of Sheffield

  30. Improve Lending Service • Think again • Check and monitor • Loan period determined by demand • Try it out, have a pilot © The University of Sheffield

  31. Lending Services Review 2009 • Same methodology • Variable Dynamic Loan™ devised • Piloted at all sites during the academic year 2009/10 • End of pilot year, surveyed students again © The University of Sheffield

  32. Survey Results • 90% said new loans were an improvement • 81% agreed that unlimited renewals were an improvement • 75% said that held shelf period was about right • 67% said that normal loans were about right • 52% said that reserved loans were about right • 40% said that fines were about right with 56% saying that they were too high © The University of Sheffield

  33. Benefits • Simplicity easy to communicate, and easy to understand • No more books, but the books we have get to where they need to be quicker • Developed better relationships with stakeholders • Library staff able to think more creatively • Staff dealing with less conflict so can spend more time on adding value • Student satisfaction greatly improved © The University of Sheffield

  34. Where we are now • Student satisfaction 89% in 2009 • Improved percentage very satisfied © The University of Sheffield

  35. Overall Satisfaction 2009 % Very/ fairly dissatisfied % Very/ fairly satisfied TOTAL (3506) 6 89 5 % Very/ fairly dissatisfied % Neither/nor % Fairly/very satisfied © The University of Sheffield

  36. Overall Satisfaction 2004 % Very/ fairly dissatisfied % Very/ fairly satisfied TOTAL (1587) 16 69 15 % Very/ fairly dissatisfied % Neither/nor % Fairly/very satisfied © The University of Sheffield

  37. Where we are now • Student satisfaction 89% in 2009 with improved percentage of very satisfied • NSS 91% in 2011 © The University of Sheffield

  38. Local/National Survey Results © The University of Sheffield

  39. Where we are now • Student satisfaction 89% in 2009 with improved percentage of very satisfied • NSS 91% in 2011 • Times Higher Education Student Experience Survey • No. 1 in 2010 • No. 1 (shared with Oxford University) in 2011 © The University of Sheffield

  40. Lessons learned • Engage with a wide a range of stakeholders • Consult, consult, consult and gather evidence • Resistance comes from unexpected places • Service level agreements are important • Helpful methodologies • Small project management • Action research © The University of Sheffield

  41. Where next • University student satisfaction survey bi-annually • Re-configured existing post so 60% of time spent on quality and feedback • Process mapping methodologies • LMS supplier • ‘LEAN’ • Major review of procedures to implement new unified resource born cloud based LMS © The University of Sheffield

  42. Bibliography • Watson, M. (2002) Managing Smaller Projects: a practical guide. 2nd ed. Great Britain: Project Manager Today Publications • McNiff, J. (2010) Action research for professional development: concise advice for new (and experienced) action researchers. Poole: September Books © The University of Sheffield

  43. Questions? © The University of Sheffield

More Related