Data, Performance, Quality & Value

335 views
232 views

Published on

Presentation from a seminar delivered to library managers at University of the Arts, London, 14 February 2013.

Published in: Education, Business, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
335
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
11
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Developed in 2008Arose from the Information Needs of a World Class University group/reportWide consultation with groups across the University including students, academic staff, support staff Produced a five year strategy – 2008-2013£1.5m of Capital funding was provided by the University to kickstart the initiativeIdentifies approximately 40 lines of action, grouped into the following programmes:Information and Communication SystemsPortals & Access SystemsContent and Knowledge AssetsIT InfrastructurePoliciesSpacesEnablers
  • Looking at the two University surveys, these are the Library results for the improvement agenda we put in place after the first surveyWhat you are looking for is red (new score) inside the blue, because these are negative opinionsAs you can see, most things improved except Senior Manager communication, and career and development plan remained stubbornly unchanged despite a 100% involvement in the appraisal process
  • Using a similar methodology, what has got worse since 2008 that was not on the agenda, but which maybe should be now …We’ve selected mainly items where the blue is not inside the red, that is opinion has worsenedThis looks like senior manager items, feedback and dealing with poor performance (it should be noted these are commonly poor scores across the University)
  • Digitisation projects – such as cause papers, White Rose online repository, e-key texts, EARL
  • Data, Performance, Quality & Value

    1. 1. Data, Performance, Quality & Value University of the Arts, London Thursday 14th February 2013 Happy St Valentine’s Day!
    2. 2. PERFORMANCE QUESTIONS Discussion
    3. 3. Ten PM Questions (1) 1. What is performance for you? 2. Who are you accountable to? 3. How do you account to them? 4. How do you balance different accounts? 5. What information is produced to help manage?
    4. 4. Ten Questions (2) 6. Is it helpful? 7. Who are your competitors? 8. How do you demonstrate competitiveness? 9. What about PIs in the digital future? 10. What are you going to do about all this?
    5. 5. Summary • Performance • Concepts & Frameworks • Quality • Value • A Case: University of York
    6. 6. PERFORMANCE AND MEASUREMENT Performance
    7. 7. What is performance? “Carrying things through in due form” Concise Oxford Dictionary
    8. 8. PM in the Library Context ‘Qualitative measures are about telling the story of how good your library is’ ‘This cannot be done with anecdotes ... statistics is the plural of anecdotes’ ‘Don’t mistake the finger for the moon’ Zen Saying Van House, N.
    9. 9. Changing context: cross pressures • Political imperatives & changing values • Accountability and advocacy to parent institution • Accountability to customers • Competition • Library boundaries, decision support, strategic change • Staff measures
    10. 10. UK academic approaches to performance • Quality Assurance eg Audit, AQE, ISOs • Traditional patterns of Peer Review eg RAE/REF, AQE • Batteries of Performance Indicators eg HESA, SCONUL, NSS? • Quality Culture eg IIP, CSE, LibQUAL+, TQM, NSS?
    11. 11. Terminology • Measurements single measures • Surrogates indirect measures • Indicators combined ratios • Statistics numerical counts • Evaluation broader assessment • Standards defined level • Targets intended level
    12. 12. Before starting ... • what business are you in? • what are you trying to achieve? – objectives – targets • within what constraints do you operate? • how will you judge success? • how will you be judged on success? • how is the library structured? • how is control exercised? • who are your customers and what do they want?
    13. 13. Accountability? • Personal reporting • Structural reporting eg Committees • Published reporting • Financial accounting • Library internal • Wider external
    14. 14. FRAMEWORKS Performance
    15. 15. Possible Approaches to PM • Orr (1973) • Lancour (1951) • Cullen (1997) • Critical Success Factors • Cost of quality • Frameworks
    16. 16. Some frameworks • Critical success factors • The Balanced scorecard • EFQM • Quality maturity models • A Value scorecard
    17. 17. Performance indicators arising? • Orr – ‘goodness’- activity or impact • Lancour – Storehouse/service/educational function • Cullen – values (inputs vs outputs) – focus (internal vs external) – purpose (weak vs strong resolve)
    18. 18. Library as a system • Library as a physical system • Library as a collection • Library as an information gateway • Library as “adding value” to teaching, learning, research and …
    19. 19. Balancing stakeholders • Abbott – three stakeholders • EQF Business Excellence Model – Nine assessment criteria • Balanced Scorecard (Kaplan & Norton) – Four stakeholder perspectives for strategy
    20. 20. Stakeholder differences • Paymaster Maximum economy • Library User Maximum effectiveness • Manager economy, effectiveness, efficiency in balance
    21. 21. Conceptual models (Abbott) • Simple Inputs - Outputs - Outcomes • Complex Add Environment and Impact
    22. 22. EFQM (2003). Introducing Excellence. Brussels: EFQM. Available at: http://www.efqm.org [Accessed 30 March 2005] Leadership People Processes Key Performance Results Policy & Strategy Partnerships & Resources People Results Customer Results Society Results Innovation and Learning Enablers Results
    23. 23. The Balanced Scorecard • Financial measures for paymasters • Customer measures for users • Process measures for managers • Learning & growth measures (staff?)
    24. 24. Balanced Scorecard
    25. 25. Financial measures • Unit costs? • Expenditure breakdowns? • Economy measures? • Market-based measures? • Performance targets?
    26. 26. User Measures? • Satisfaction surveys • Designed improvement surveys • Benchmarking • Customer care • ‘Mystery shopper’ • SERVQUAL • Process times
    27. 27. Staff Measures? • Leadership model and penetration • Leadership audit • Departmental indicators • Staff appraisal & development systems • Team performance • Cultural analysis • Time management; key result areas
    28. 28. Data? Academic: • SCONUL statistics • HELMS statistics • Library MIS • Local MIS
    29. 29. Criteria for PIs • relevance • helpfulness • validity • reliability • practicality • durability? • comparability?
    30. 30. Competitors Benchmarking • Process or service? • Competitors & Partners? • Measures? • Collecting & Sharing • Improving
    31. 31. QUALITY Measures driven by customer expectations
    32. 32. Some definitions of Quality • Customer Focus • Meeting & exceeding customer requirements • Fitness for purpose • Zero defects • Culture change • Continuous improvement
    33. 33. Customer Expectations - Quality ‘For all quality management systems customer satisfaction is the central concern.’ ‘only customers judge quality’ ‘Service quality is ultimately where the customer says it is...’ ‘Service quality consists of a bundle of experiences weighted by customer expectations’
    34. 34. TQM Model (Tenner & DeToro) Customer Focus Process Improvement Total Involvement leading to Continuous Improvement
    35. 35. Customer Focus • Identify Customers • Understand Expectations • Understand Customers • Benchmarking
    36. 36. Process Improvement • Key Processes • Steps to Performance Improvement • Measure Performance
    37. 37. Quality Chain Quality is a continuous process that can be broken anywhere in the chain of : acquisition-organisation-dissemination By making people aware of how their actions help or hinder the goal of satisfying customer requirements, quality library services motivate their employees and suppliers to deliver quality consistently
    38. 38. Total Involvement • Leadership • Empowered Workforce • Supplier Quality
    39. 39. Zeithaml, Parasuraman & Berry Service Quality is different to Product Quality: • Heterogeneous • More difficult to measure • Only customers judge quality
    40. 40. 5 Dimensions - SERVQUAL factors Tangibles Reliability Responsiveness Assurance - trust and confidence Empathy - caring and individualised attention
    41. 41. Service Gaps • Not knowing what the customer wants • Knowing but not designing the service to provide it • Not delivering what’s designed • Not matching the communication to the service
    42. 42. TQM: Tenner & DeToro • Faster • Better • Cheaper
    43. 43. Bill Gates • Firmness • Commodity • Delight
    44. 44. Kano Map • Basis • Performance • Surprise
    45. 45. Capability Maturity Model Ad Hoc Repeatable Defined Managed Continuous 1 2 3 4 5 Continuous Improvement, innovative ideas Detailed measures, controlled Integrated Process Basic processes, repeated success Initial, ad hoc
    46. 46. VALUE MEASUREMENT Performance
    47. 47. RIN Report on academic library challenges “ … there is a strong feeling among senior librarians that they have failed effectively to communicate the value of their services [and]…in rigorously demonstrating the value of their activities” “The focus of performance indicators up to now has tended to be on inputs and outputs … rather than addressing the much harder issues relating to impact and value. … we believe it is essential that more work is done to analyse the relationships between library activities … and learning and research outcomes … .”
    48. 48. The distinction between Quality and Value R. H. Orr. (1973). MEASURING THE GOODNESS OF LIBRARY SERVICES: A GENERAL FRAMEWORK FOR CONSIDERING QUANTITATIVE MEASURES. Journal of Documentation. 29 (3), p318.
    49. 49. Recent work on impact & value • SCONUL/LIRG Impact initiative (2003-05) • SCONUL VAMP initiative (2005-) • 8th Northumbria paper (2009) • IMLS LibVALUE project (2010-) • ACRL‟s „Value of academic libraries‟ (2010) • 3rd LAC paper (2010) see Library Quarterly • Neal‟s “polemic” and return to “virtues” (2011)
    50. 50. The Arguments (see Library Quarterly) • Cross-pressures and failure to prove worth • Worth is about value (and impact) • The value sought is transcendent • Library assessment has been about (mainly) quality rather than value • Value is linked to values • Values provide the key and route to proof of worth
    51. 51. The Transcendent Library The transcendent library is one in which the value can be judged beyond immediate needs and demands, through contribution to less concrete aspects of institutional or societal intent
    52. 52. Values and Value measurement • Value measurement must be linked to values • Value measures cannot be chosen until the values set is agreed • Institutional values statements are one current key source for considering value
    53. 53. Unmeasured assets? Petros A. Kostagiolas & Stefanos Asonitis. (2009). Intangible assets for academic libraries. Library Management. 30 (6/7), p425.
    54. 54. A Value Scorecard • Relationship & reputation capital • Organisational capital – Tangible assets and resources – Intangible and meta-assets • Library virtue – Impact and social capital • Library momentum
    55. 55. The Value Scorecard Dimension 1: Relational Capital • Competitive position capital – Reputation – Reach • Relational capital – External relationship development – Internal institutional relationship development
    56. 56. The Value Scorecard Dimension 2: Library Capital • Tangible capital – Collections – Environments – Services • Intangible capital – Intangible assets formed around the above (meta- assets) – Organizational capital – Human capital
    57. 57. The Value Scorecard Dimension 3: Library Virtue • Social Capital developed beyond the Library – Contribution to research – Contribution to learning – Contribution to employability – Contribution to professional and vocational intent – Contribution to inclusivity – Contribution to other common goods
    58. 58. The Value Scorecard Dimension 4: Library Momentum • Capital saved or gained by progress – Capital assets developed early – Facilitation of research capital – Facilitation of learning capital – Facilitation of quality – Capital saved by sustainability
    59. 59. Comparison with Balanced Scorecard • Financial – broadened to capital development of all kinds • Process – broadened to capital development intent • Customer – beyond immediate satisfaction • Learning – fundamental to human capital development but requires focus on intent
    60. 60. CASE: UNIVERSITY OF YORK Performance
    61. 61. Scale comparators (SCONUL data) Total institutional expenditure (£) FTE academic staff FTE students Total annual visits Total staff expenditure (£) Total gross library expenditur e (£) Library grant as % of total university exp. Total library expenditur e per FTE student Informatio n provision exp. per FTE student Total loans per FTE student Article downloads per FTE student Staff exp. as a % of total library exp. NSS % Agree Mean Score LEIC 259,942,000 1,529 14,318 1,420,809 2,327,197 6,238,246 2.3 436 236 58 172 37.3 89% 4.4 STRA 227,481,000 1,216 17,047 759,545 2,685,858 6,278,781 2.7 368 184 21 93 42.8 89% 4.3 SALF 188,214,000 837 17,602 924,389 3,208,357 6,315,504 3.3 359 141 36 68 50.8 77% 4.0 ARTS 204,481,000 828 18,908 1,371,157 4,717,563 6,333,439 2.8 335 46 49 9 74.5 84% 4.2 ULST 190,067,000 1,464 20,076 1,439,419 3,165,226 6,418,762 3.3 320 157 18 77 49.3 88% 4.3 ABDN 214,454,000 1,289 13,116 1,107,053 2,895,100 6,440,626 2.7 491 227 25 128 45.0 86% 4.3 YORK 252,668,000 1,328 14,348 374,576 3,283,060 6,513,386 2.4 454 180 59 177 50.4 82% 4.1 UWE 208,472,000 1,200 24,877 n/k 3,663,051 6,563,546 3.1 264 103 24 90 55.8 86% 4.2 SHU 231,301,000 1,557 28,703 1,706,122 3,339,751 6,825,323 2.9 238 104 51 71 48.9 87% 4.2 DHAM 253,543,000 1,392 14,725 1,003,494 3,052,996 7,148,487 2.6 485 248 56 176 42.7 84% 4.2
    62. 62. One Director’s perspective … • Articulating the value proposition • Translating what we understand about changing need into strategies and plans • The transformation and sustenance of our services into a different social, technological and economic future • To demonstrate that our value proposition encompasses a contribution that transcends narrow and local assumptions about the library’s role
    63. 63. The University of York • Founded 1963 • UK top ten; RAE 8th; World 81st; 94 Group; WUN • 14,000 students • >30 departments in humanities, social sciences, science • Campus growth • Collegiate and inclusive
    64. 64. York Distinctiveness “growth [and] preservation of community” “global competitiveness and ranking” “inclusive…decision-making” “residential, campus-based university” “agility and responsiveness” “judicious, cautious, …but slow” “capability and capacity” “competition making significant & increasing investments in information systems & services”
    65. 65. • Founded 1963 • UK top 15; RAE 8th; World 103rd; Russell Group; WUN; White Rose • 15,265 students • >30 departments in humanities, social sciences, science • Campus growth – Heslington East • Collegiate and inclusive The University
    66. 66. • > 1m items • >120 staff • Archives extensive & unique • Developing digital library expertise • JB Morrell Library 1960s, refurbished 2009-2012 • Now part of a broader Information Directorate The University Library
    67. 67. Borthwick & Burton • Borthwick Institute for Archives founded in 1952 as a forerunner of the University • Raymond Burton Library for Humanities Research opened in 2003 • Archives moves from its city centre location to an extension to the Raymond Burton Library in 2005 and incorporated as Library & Archives
    68. 68. Branch Libraries & beyond • York Minster: the oldest and largest Cathedral Library in the country – Operated under a unique partnership between the Dean & Chapter and the University of York • King’s Manor Library – Both Grade One listed locations • Associations with – The Railway Museum – Yorkshire Country House partnership – York Museums Trust
    69. 69. • Directorate reorganised in 2010/11 • Harry Fairhurst ‘commons’ type building opened Easter 2011 – ‘Joined up’ services – Range of staff beyond Information Information Directorate
    70. 70. Library Finance • Staff (50%) – Numbers 150; 90 fte – Cost £3.2m • Content (40%) – Books £0.4m – Serials £2.3m • Other (10%) £0.4m – Income (£0.4m), capital (£25m+) & new fees (£0.7m)
    71. 71. The Library & Archives • > 1m items • >100 staff • Traditional divisions • Archives extensive & unique • Developing digital library expertise • Director of Library & Archives 2007: Director of Information 2009
    72. 72. Proposed Critical Success Factors 1. We must meet information needs 2. We need sufficient resource to achieve aspirations 3. We must inspire and enable innovation 4. We need to engage the University community 5. We must align with University plans 6. We must manage risk and comply with regulation
    73. 73. Information Strategy diagram Infrastructure, Content and Knowledge Assets Information Flow Student Experience Research Staff Capability and Culture Understanding, Engagement and Performance
    74. 74. The Information Strategy
    75. 75. Senior Staff Structure: focus on strategy
    76. 76. An outcome driven strategy: content 1. An array of information resources which matches requirements and competitors 2. Better availability of core material for teaching 3. The capability to create and build digital special collections as required 4. An increasing volume of digital information for teaching, research and administration 5. The ability to offer, manipulate, store and preserve media in all relevant formats 6. The capability to embed the right content into teaching programmes 7. Users and stakeholders engaged with helping select what is required 8. Effective collection, management and distribution of the University’s knowledge assets
    77. 77. A narrative of momentum?
    78. 78. Agenda 2007- • Overturning history – International standard and measurement tools • Building a new management culture • Building a new measurement culture • Creating digital transformation • Developing partnerships and alliances • Achieving environmental transformation
    79. 79. ARL ESP Program Recommendations 2008 1. Practices and procedures for assessment 1. Assessment group and leadership 2. Training 3. Culture 2. An Assessment plan 3. Culture promotion 1. From budget to real costs 2. From regulation to user perspective 3. From risk aversion to „why not?‟
    80. 80. ESP Recommendations 2 4. Processes review 1. Classification system 2. Acquisition process review 5. LibQUAL+ results follow-up 6. Review collection development and liaison 7. Seek areas of collaboration between Library and the Archives
    81. 81. NSS: IT, Library and Learning Resource Satisfaction Percentage of people responding “mostly agree” or “definitely agree” to questions
    82. 82. Library Survey: Trends
    83. 83. Zones of Tolerance
    84. 84. Comparison across user groups
    85. 85. Library Survey Questions Affect of Service • AS-1 Library staff who instill confidence in users • AS-2 Giving users individual attention • AS-3 Library staff who are consistently courteous • AS-4 Readiness to respond to users’ enquiries • AS-5 Library staff who have the knowledge to answer user questions • AS-6 Library staff who deal with users in a caring fashion • AS-7 Library staff who understand the needs of their users • AS-8 Willingness to help users • AS-9 Dependability in handling users’ service problems
    86. 86. Library Survey Questions Library as Place • LP-1 Library space that inspires study and learning • LP-2 Quiet space for individual work • LP-3 A comfortable and inviting location • LP-4 A haven for study, learning, or research • LP-5 Space for group learning and group study
    87. 87. Library Survey Questions Information Control • IC-1 Making electronic resources accessible from my home or office • IC-2 A library Web site enabling me to locate information on my own • IC-3 The printed library materials I need for my work • IC-4 The electronic information resources I need • IC-5 Modern equipment that lets me easily access needed information • IC-6 Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to find things on my own • IC-7 Making information easily accessible for independent use • IC-8 Print and/or electronic journal collections I require for my work
    88. 88. Library Survey: Trends 2004 2008
    89. 89. Library Survey: Trends 2009 2010
    90. 90. Library Survey: Trends 2011 2012
    91. 91. Results 2012: Overall
    92. 92. Results 2012: Library Staff
    93. 93. 2012: Economics
    94. 94. 2012: Education
    95. 95. 2012: Law
    96. 96. 2012: Management
    97. 97. 2012: Politics
    98. 98. 2012: Sociology
    99. 99. 2012: Social Policy & Social Work
    100. 100. Library Survey: E-resource comments • The more books available electronically, the better, though being able to make copies of key texts at a reasonable price is a decent alternative. • For York Science Park residents it would be ideal if we could offer them access to all Library services and electronic journals. It would be fantastic if this could be offered as part of the value of being on the science park and involved with the University of York. • The things that matter by far the most to me in my research work are electronic access to journal articles and a good ILL service. • I use the electronic access facilities extensively - often to access publishers web sites via Shibbolith login
    101. 101. Library Survey: E-resource comments • The personal service is great, however i would like to see more electronic sources (especially key texts) and a more consistent web-search service • The system of accessing online journals and electronic resources from the library website is too long and complicated. I don't want the library website to be opening several tabs to reach one page, it would be good if this could be made neater. • Electronic access to journals is by far the most important service for me. • Electronic resources (particularly the ability to access PDF journals from my campus accommodation or from home) are very important to me. I really appreciate the ability to get certain books online.
    102. 102. Library Survey: Sample Comments • The library has a great service, I just wish sometimes there were more places to sit and work. (Female UG) • Please make audiovisual lending longer, or without the next day 11am deadline. (Male UG) • There is hardly room for improvement after the refurbishment. The extra space and staff are ideally suited to a wide rang of needs. (Female UG)
    103. 103. Library Survey: Sample Comments • Wider range and depth of books required. (Male UG) • Very happy with the way the library is run, although needs more study space, especially noticeable during the exam period. (Female UG) • I think there should be enough of the recommended books on our reading list so students don't have to rush for them or return them a day after the requested for them. (Female PG)
    104. 104. Library Survey: Sample Comments • The new loans system is on the whole good but the problem with requesting a book having it for 1 day and then having to bring it back is huge… (Female PG) • The flexible loans system is not working for library users. I am finding it very difficult to access the resources I need for the length of time required. (Female UG) • The new system of book loans/returns works very well. It would be good to get more than one reminder to return the book, especially if it's past the time it's supposed to be returned by. (Female UG)
    105. 105. Library Survey: Sample Comments • The library is a haven for study for me. If I need to focus on my work away from any distractions then the library is where I go. (Male UG) • Thank you very much for your excellent service. (Female Academic)
    106. 106. Library Survey: And not forgetting… • …Please put CS texts on a lower floor, replace with a subject that has a more physically fit cohort! (Male UG)
    107. 107. Recent Archives Comments • @UoYBorthwick Happy 2013 to The Borthwick #York Home to wonderful #Yorkshire records for #FamilyHistory and much more. Hope visit very soon. [Twitter] • Been enjoying my research into Rowntree's at @UoYBorthwick. • Very helpful and encouraging [Comments Card]
    108. 108. Recent initiatives • Process review • 24/7/362 • Loans review & fines • Induction & marketing • Collection profiling • Student experience & morebooks • Staff surveys and culture • Programme office & assessment librarian
    109. 109. SPEC Kit 303 The key difference between assessment activities in North America and the UK & Ireland is the focus on web performance in the former and survey activity in the latter; otherwise the range of performance measurement related activities are very similar in both the range and type of activities undertaken. However there is now a clear trend in North America towards the appointment of Assessment Librarians and latterly these have been at increasingly higher levels in the structure.
    110. 110. Collection Profiling
    111. 111. Collection Profiling
    112. 112. Collection Profiling
    113. 113. GSA Feedback on Induction “I found the presenter of the sessions engaging and professional”
    114. 114. Stakeholder perceptions
    115. 115. Balanced Scorecard
    116. 116. Balanced scorecard perspectives Relate each to Strategy outcomes: • Customer • Financial • Processes • Learning & Growth
    117. 117. Data and the Balanced Scorecard “Our statistics [are] currently like an unmade jigsaw which has pieces missing, and a few pieces which have crept in from another puzzle” “Our stats, once we use them in a meaningful fashion, will [only] give us an incomplete picture of our activity and we’ll have various bits left over which we don’t need to make the picture whole” Liz Waller, Head of Information Services, University of York
    118. 118. Service Catalogue • Currently in progress across the Directorate • Defining services we offer • Allows us to market services and measure performance more effectively
    119. 119. Customer Service Excellence • UK standard for Customer Service (formerly Charter Mark) • Embedding in 2013 • All activities of the Directorate to be included
    120. 120. Staff culture & leadership • What do we need to be to achieve our strategy? • Define the desirable culture – Narratives, Structures and Paradigm • Define an action plan to achieve it – Include the main priorities • What do you need to do personally to ‘become the change’ and model it to staff
    121. 121. SUMMARY • People measurement • University Survey results 2008-2011 • Director’s staff meetings 2011-12 • Values and excellence • ClimateQUAL Results & comparisons • Actions arising
    122. 122. The basic assumption “… staff perceptions have been identified through Capita’s research as being linked directly to the quality of services provided by staff within organisations." University of York Staff Survey , 2008
    123. 123. The Engagement hierarchy
    124. 124. Comparison of areas requiring improvement in 2008: where are we now? 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Departmental Senior Managers communicate effectively with staff Line managers motivate staff to give their best Too many approvals are needed for routine decisions Staff find their Performance Review useful Performance Review made staff feel that their work is valued Staff have agreed a Personal and Career Development plan Satisfaction with office accommodation Comfortable working environment Staff believe that change has a positive impact Staff believe that things will improve as a result of the survey 2008 - negative response 2011 - negative response
    125. 125. Comparison of areas requiring improvement in 2011: where were we 3 years ago? 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% My manager provides me with regular, constructive feedback on my performance My line manager deals with poor performance effectively I am involved in decisions at work that affect me Too many approvals are needed for routine decisions Staff have agreed a Personal and Career Development plan I am kept well informed about matters affecting me I am confident that my views, ideas and suggestions are taken seriously Departmental Senior Managers communicate effectively with staff Senior Managers consult staff before making changes that affect them Senior Managers lead the department well Senior Managers appear to work well as a team Learning and development opportunities help me to develop my career Senior Managers consider the impact on staff when changes are made 2011 - negative response 2008 - negative response
    126. 126. THE CLIMATEQUAL SURVEY • All staff encouraged and allowed time to complete web-based survey during their working day • Confidentiality is of paramount concern • Approximately 150 questions about the library as a whole, teams and individuals • Plus free text comment box • 30 – 60 minutes long • Available for 3 weeks
    127. 127. SURVEY QUESTION CATEGORIES Question Categories Sample Question Diversity “The race of a team member does NOT affect how much attention is paid to their opinions” Customer Service “Library employees have the job knowledge and skills required to deliver superior quality work and service” Teamwork “This organisation provides a clear understanding of the purpose of teams” Continual Learning “Co-workers are able to provide reliable information about ways to improve job performance” Leadership “My immediate supervisor has excellent interpersonal skills” Innovation “Co-workers tell each other about other new information that can be used to increase job performance” Justice “Do the rewards in your division reflect the effort that division members put into their work” Psychological Safety “As an employee in this library one is able to bring up problems and tough issues”
    128. 128. Participation • Suggested every four years – Time for culture shift • 30 North American libraries – Some now twice • 4 Sconul libraries – Leicester – University of the West of England – Nottingham Trent
    129. 129. RESPONSE • 119 out of 125 Library and Archive Staff responded (95%) • 47 comments received (40%)
    130. 130. Climates (9) • Diversity – Demographic & Equality • Justice – Reward fairness • Leadership – Supervisory level • Teamwork • Continual learning • Deep Diversity – values difference – standardisation • Innovation • Psychological safety – Free opinion sharing • Customer Service
    131. 131. Attitudes (7) • Job satisfaction • Commitment • Citizenship • Withdrawal • Task engagement • Empowerment • Conflict – Task – Interpersonal
    132. 132. York Results vs UK and US Mean 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Climate for Continual Learning Climate for Customer Service Climate for Deep… Climate for Deep Diversity, Valuing… Climate for Racial Diversity Climate for Gender Diversity Climate for Diversity of Ranks Climate for Sexual Orientation… Co-worker Support for Innovation Distributive Justice Procedureal Justice Interpersonal Justice Informational Justice Climate for Psychological Safety Climate for Teamwork, Benefit of… Climate for Teamwork, Structural… Job Satisfaction Leader-Member Relationship Quality Authentic Leadership Organizational Citizenship Behaviors Organizational Commitment Organizational Withdrawal Team Psychological Empowerment Task Engagement Interpersonal Conflict Task Conflict York UK Mean US Mean
    133. 133. University of York vs UK and US Mean: Percentage Agreement 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Distributive Justice Procedureal Justice Interpersonal Justice Informational Justice Leader-Member Relationship Quality Authentic Leadership Climate for Deep… Climate for Deep Diversity, Valuing… Climate for Racial Diversity Climate for Gender Diversity Climate for Diversity of Ranks Climate for Sexual Orientation… Co-worker Support for Innovation Climate for Continual Learning Climate for Teamwork, Benefit of… Climate for Teamwork, Structural… Climate for Customer Service Climate for Psychological Safety Job Satisfaction Organizational Commitment Organizational Citizenship Behaviors Organizational Withdrawal Team Psychological Empowerment Task Engagement Interpersonal Conflict Task Conflict York UK Mean US Mean
    134. 134. ClimateQUAL comments, 2012 “ … the library is a great place to work … supportive of personal development. It is one of the best organisations I have worked for in terms of support, fairness and working conditions” “ I feel that the recent award won by the library was a hollow victory … we speak of excellence and values … I believe this has been earned at the expense of staff”
    135. 135. Key agenda issues • Customer service climate – Policy and orientation • Teamwork & leadership – Job design, method and behaviours • Empowerment & innovation – Permission and practice • Recognition and communication – Up, down, sideways
    136. 136. A people value scorecard Enablers (4 ‘C’s) – Capacity • Minus confounders – Absence, turnover – Capability • Raw & growth • Critical mass – Climate of Affect • Engagement • Empowerment – Culture of momentum • Programme capability • Maturity Outcome proofs – Market fit • Sustainability • Market related impact – Strategic fit (over time) • Quality & Improvement • New product development – Contribution to • Productivity • Creativity – Competitive impact • Service development • Reputational investment
    137. 137. The measurement of digital transformation?
    138. 138. Measuring the impact of partnerships and alliances?
    139. 139. Measuring building Return on Investment?
    140. 140. International comparison • Joint initiative with the U of Wyoming to: – Draw on the sabbatical of a senior staff member – Replicate the study across both institutions – Focus on value and/or impact around • New building use • Help and advice • Discovery • Mobile use • Information literacy
    141. 141. Transforming the environment “Love the environment in the new building, especially some places really … feel comfortable “ LibQUAL+ Comment 2011
    142. 142. Competing values in learning? “The new Harry Fairhurst building is great but I really don't think sofas and beanbags are conducive to effective studying! It's fun to see people lying sprawled all over the floor though.” LibQUAL+ Comment 2011
    143. 143. The outcome? “It really makes me want to learn” Student Comment 2011
    144. 144. Transcendent contributions to … • The student experience • Research impact • Reputation • Internationalisation • Financial sustainability • Society
    145. 145. QUESTIONS?
    146. 146. Stakeholder Power Exercise University of the Arts London
    147. 147. Objectives • To develop the idea of academic library stakeholders as customers and clients • To consider the role of stakeholders in relation to the library • To analyse the influence of different stakeholder groups • To consider actions to balance stakeholder power, and apply these to evidence gathering
    148. 148. Timings 1055-1100 Theory 1100-1145 Group work (including coffee) 1145-1200 Plenary presentation (5’ per group) & brief discussion
    149. 149. Stakeholders represent interests from the most individual to the most global ‘The objectives of an organisation ... should always be compatible with the requirements of society’ ‘an organization operates within the community and may directly serve it; this may require a broad conception of the term customer’ British Standards, TQM
    150. 150. Stakeholder viewpoint ‘without this ... some groups with disproportionate influence, or a history of use of the service, could dominate service receipt and hence attract an unfair share of the available resources’ Brophy & Coulling
    151. 151. Coalition approach 1. To identify all significant constituencies or stakeholders 2. To determine what each of these is seeking to achieve from its membership of the coalition 3. To interpret those aims in terms of the Library’s overall mission and objectives 4. To suggest ways of assessing the degree of success of the Library in meeting such aims
    152. 152. Exercise: Stakeholder Matrix List all the groups who have a stake in the success of your organisation (and therefore library). Include a list of users from any market segmentation analysis. Assign to each of these groups a rating of: their power to influence your library - high or low their interest in doing so - high or low Plot the result on the power/interest matrix
    153. 153. Exercise: Stakeholder Matrix What does that mean for your perception of customers and clients? What are you going to do about it? What effect does this have on your plans for measurement & assessment the library? What other management actions does your analysis suggest? Does this affect your concept of library brand and ideas for marketing?
    154. 154. Stakeholder Power Matrix POWER INTEREST High Low HighLow
    155. 155. Possible Stakeholders (Brophy) • Students • Academic Staff • University support staff • library managers • library support staff • university managers • the government • society: internationally, nationally, region ally, locally • international research communities • posterity
    156. 156. Constituencies • the most successful organisations are those that can use their stakeholders to support their interests • different stakeholders have different ideas of quality

    ×