The University Library Plan implement review and improve

The University Library. Plan, implement, review and improve Heather Thrift, Associate Director Lynn Sykes, Head of Customer Services

The University Library. Agenda • Where we started from • Why we chose to do what we did • Where we are now • Lessons learned 24/08/2011 © The University of Sheffield

The University Library. Where we started from • National Student Survey (NSS) 2005 • Participated in Lib. QUAL+® 2004 • University of Sheffield commissioned its first student satisfaction survey from The Oxford Research Agency (TORA) 2004 24/08/2011 © The University of Sheffield

The University Library. Lib. QUAL+® • Results broadly in line with other SCONUL participants in 2004 • Highlighted issues around • Library as place • Information control 24/08/2011 © The University of Sheffield

The University Library. Core Questions Summary 24/08/2011 © The University of Sheffield

The University Library. Student satisfaction survey 2004 • Overall satisfaction with Library Services in 2004 was 69% 24/08/2011 © The University of Sheffield

The University Library. Overall Satisfaction % Very/ fairly dissatisfied TOTAL (1587) 16 % Very/ fairly dissatisfied 24/08/2011 © The University of Sheffield % Very/ fairly satisfied 13 15 % Neither/nor 57 12 % Fairly/very satisfied 69

The University Library. 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 24/08/2011 © The University of Sheffield

1 st/ 2 nd Choice of Possible Improvements 65 25 22 21 12 12 10 9 5 3 3 2 1 Base: (Those asked: 1662) 24/08/2011 © The University of Sheffield %

The University Library. 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 24/08/2011 © The University of Sheffield

The University Library. 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 24/08/2011 © The University of Sheffield

The University Library. 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 24/08/2011 © The University of Sheffield

The University Library. 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 24/08/2011 © The University of Sheffield

The University Library. Circulation Review CASE STUDY 24/08/2011 © The University of Sheffield

The University Library. What we wanted for students • Consistent, easy to use, easy to understand 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 24/08/2011 © The University of Sheffield

The University Library. Plan Improve Implement Review 24/08/2011 © The University of Sheffield

The University Library. 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 24/08/2011 © The University of Sheffield

The University Library. 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 24/08/2011 © The University of Sheffield

The University Library. Plan Improve Implement Review • Pilot at single site 2005/06 • Pilot at all sites 2006/07 24/08/2011 © The University of Sheffield

The University Library. Plan Improve Implement Review • Before the recommendations • After the first pilot • After the system-wide pilot 24/08/2011 © The University of Sheffield

The University Library. 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 24/08/2011 © The University of Sheffield

The University Library. 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 on Mc. Niff, J. (2010) Action research for professional development 24/08/2011 © The University of Sheffield

The University Library. Improve Lending Service Think again Check and monitor Simplify loan periods Try it out, have a pilot 24/08/2011 © The University of Sheffield

The University Library. Improve Lending Service Think again Improve reservations service Check and monitor Try it out, have a pilot 24/08/2011 © The University of Sheffield

The University Library. Reservations Project • Project group set up in September 2008 • Tasked with looking creatively at how to improve item delivery times • Used the same methodology 24/08/2011 © The University of Sheffield

The University Library. 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 24/08/2011 © The University of Sheffield

The University Library. Implementation • Had to pilot at all sites • Immediate issues to deal with • Reviewed part-way through and made changes to the pilot 24/08/2011 © The University of Sheffield

The University Library. 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 24/08/2011 © The University of Sheffield

The University Library. 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 24/08/2011 © The University of Sheffield

The University Library. Improve Lending Service Think again Loan period determined by demand Check and monitor Try it out, have a pilot 24/08/2011 © The University of Sheffield

The University Library. 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 24/08/2011 © The University of Sheffield

The University Library. 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 24/08/2011 © The University of Sheffield

The University Library. 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 24/08/2011 © The University of Sheffield

The University Library. Where we are now • Student satisfaction 89% in 2009 • Improved percentage very satisfied 24/08/2011 © The University of Sheffield

The University Library. Overall Satisfaction 2009 % Very/ fairly dissatisfied TOTAL (3506) 6 % Very/ fairly dissatisfied 24/08/2011 © The University of Sheffield % Very/ fairly satisfied 5 5 % Neither/nor 50 39 % Fairly/very satisfied 89

The University Library. Overall Satisfaction 2004 % Very/ fairly dissatisfied TOTAL (1587) 16 % Very/ fairly dissatisfied 24/08/2011 © The University of Sheffield % Very/ fairly satisfied 13 15 % Neither/nor 57 12 % Fairly/very satisfied 69

The University Library. Where we are now • Student satisfaction 89% in 2009 with improved percentage of very satisfied • NSS 91% in 2011 24/08/2011 © The University of Sheffield

Local/National Survey Results % Satisfied 100% 90% 80% SSS NSS 70% 60% 50% 2004 2005 2006 24/08/2011 © The University of Sheffield 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

The University Library. 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 24/08/2011 © The University of Sheffield

The University Library. Lessons learned • • • Engage with a wide a range of stakeholders Consult, consult and gather evidence Resistance comes from unexpected places Service level agreements are important Helpful methodologies • Small project management • Action research 24/08/2011 © The University of Sheffield

The University Library. 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 24/08/2011 © The University of Sheffield

The University Library. Bibliography • Watson, M. (2002) Managing Smaller Projects: a practical guide. 2 nd ed. Great Britain: Project Manager Today Publications • Mc. Niff, J. (2010) Action research for professional development: concise advice for new (and experienced) action researchers. Poole: September Books 24/08/2011 © The University of Sheffield