Upload
lilian-sutton
View
213
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The University Library.
slide1
Alma: a driver for organisational change
Alison Little – Alma Project Manager
Lynn Sykes – Head of Customer Services
The University of Sheffield Library
The University Library.
slide2
Agenda
• Our background.• Why review?• Our approach to review.• Two case studies.• Summary.
The University Library.
slide3
The University of Sheffield
• Russell Group University;• Over 25,000 students;• 6,000 faculty and staff;• Academic departments across 5
faculties.
The University Library.
slide4
The Library.• Member of RLUK;• Operates from 5 physical sites;• Emphasis on “Library Everywhere”;• 180 members of Library staff, 7
teams;• Alma implementation June 2013;• Alma implementation project began
2011;• Process review project began 2011.
The University Library.
slide5
Why review?
Incr
ease
Focus on service development, Ability to convert resources,
Value, Capability to deliver strategic
priorities.
Reduce
Complexity, Duplication of effort, Waste of resources.
The University Library.
slide6
Several drivers for review
Our organisation, purpose
and priorities
Changing customer demand
New/improved
technologies
External influences
The University Library.
slide7
Our review project• Project launched November 2011;• Ongoing …. and a long way to go;• Core project group involvement from 6 members
of Library Management Group;• ALL Library staff identified as stakeholders;• Early 2012, the University established a Process
Improvement Unit.
The University Library.
slide8
Our underlying principles. Our processes will maximise value, in terms of
customer needs, costs and time.
They will use the system to its best advantage for dealing with straightforward transactional functions. Automated workflows will focus on the majority of transactions and will undertake proactive monitoring to bring staff attention to exceptions and areas where decisions are required. People will add value, make judgements and manage risk. • Use the system to its best advantage;• Focus automatic workflows on the majority and provide
additional people input on the exceptions;• Allow people to add value, make judgements and manage risk.
The University Library.
slide9
Our underlying principles. Our processes will focus on overall workflows.
Instead of concentrating on task and team based processes, they will take a trigger to delivery approach. This will prevent interruption and avoid duplication of work. This approach will optimise transparency and trust amongst those staff involved in the various stages of the workflow, it will also simplify the management of workflows and improve performance in overall delivery to the customer.• Avoid duplication of work and “add ons”;• Prevent interruption between stages of the workflow;• Optimise transparency of actions to related staff;• Be based on trust between individuals working on different
areas of the workflow.
The University Library.
slide10
Our underlying principles.Our processes will be responsive to customer
needs.
They will be future proof and under ongoing review. Processes capable of flexibility can be driven by continuous service improvement, enabling responsiveness to both our customers’ needs and to the changing external environment. • Driven by continuous service improvement;• Reviewed on an ongoing basis;• Responsive to the environment in which we work.
The University Library.
slide11
Our Approach• Early 2012 “Library Training Hour” session to Library staff
• Myself and colleague from Process Improvement Unit• Prior to any events• Prior to any widespread understanding of Alma• Feedback very mixed
• Early 2013 “Library Training Hour” session to Library staff• Myself, a fellow facilitator and other Library colleagues• After some events had taken place• After additional localised review• More widespread understanding of Alma• Feedback much more positive
The University Library.
slide12
Our Approach• Events (1-2 days) with stakeholders;• 2 facilitators for each session;• Working through of current situation;
• Staff reported this as very useful!• Recording problems and “good ideas”;• Working through the ideal scenario;• Working through a realistic scenario;• Recording actions and a follow up meeting;• Re-reviewing, as necessary.
The University Library.
slide13
Case study 1 - Materials Funds Review, May 2012.
• Changed the way we pay for journal “big deals” • Over £1.2m, now paid from 1 fund – previously paid from
49 funds;• Now pay 1 line for an invoice – previously 1 line per
journal title.
• Feedback from participants:• Valuable use of time;• Positive exchange of ideas and understanding of other
stakeholders involvement;• Perceived barriers understood.
The University Library.
slide14
Case study 1 - Materials Funds Review, further progress
• Document supply – changes as a direct result of the functionality of Alma• Previously 46 different document supply funds;• Previously cost recorded for each transaction
on the system;• Moved to (trial) 1 document supply fund;• 1 payment per invoice from the British Library.
The University Library.
slide15
Case study 2 – Library overdues and invoices, November 2012.Existing situation: • Responsibility to renew the item with the patron;• No distinction between items required by another
patron and non-requested items;• Dynamic nature of loans could lead to confusion
for patrons.
The University Library.
slide16
Process Review• Wide range of staff involvement• Mapped existing workflow• Highlighted areas of inefficiency• Mapped future workflow
The University Library.
slide17
Existing workflowPatron borrows a book
2 days before due date
Sent to all patrons
Pre-over due letter
1st over due when 1day overdue
1st overdue
To allow for days grace 2nd overdue 7
days after first2nd overdue
Automatic via email
3rd overdue 7 days after second
Shelves checked by staff
3rd overdue
Pro-forma 14 days after 3rd overdue
Shelves checked by staff and book prices found
Pro-forma invoice
Invoice 14 days after pro-forma
Book removed from account
Invoice
The University Library.
slide18
Main areas of inefficiency
• Overdues/fines for non requested items• Series of overdues• Proforma invoices/Invoices• Confusing patron blocks
• Emphasis on patron to manage account
The University Library.
slide19
What happened next?
We waited for Alma ....
…and then re-reviewed
The University Library.
slide20
New workflowPatron borrows a book
Is it requested?
Paton weekly borrowing activity email
Lost item notification
Lost item bill patron invoiced
Pre overdue 2 days before due date
Book due email on due date
Yes
No
After 35 days
After 42 days
The University Library.
slide21
Benefits realised by Alma
• Automatic renewal of non requested items
• Weekly borrowing activity statement• Fines now only on requested items
However…..
The University Library.
slide22
Hoped for future benefits
• Further integration with University Finance system;
• Capability to add book prices to lost item bill.
The University Library.
slide23
Summary.
• A process review is a good thing!• Start early but expect to revisit• A re-review is also a good thing!• Benefits gained from all our reviews
The University Library.
slide24
Questions?