plan implement review and improve n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Plan, implement, review and improve PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Plan, implement, review and improve

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 43
branxton

Plan, implement, review and improve - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

95 Views
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. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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