LIBRARY PUBLIC SERVICE REVIEW REPORT

Transcription

1 LIBRARY PUBLIC SERVICE REVIEW REPORT A NEW VISION FOR PUBLIC SERVICES AT THE WATERLOO CAMPUS LIBRARY Peter Genzinger, Julia Hendry, Patti Metzger, Joanne Oud, Julie Schnurr, Jade Squire 1

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Executive summary 3 2. Background 5 3. Review process 5 4. Where we are now What is working well What is working less well 6 5. Project goals 7 6. Our vision: customer service excellence Service excellence: our main goal Public service vision statement 8 7. How do we provide excellent customer service? Create a service culture Create service standards Simplify existing services Main physical service points Other physical service points Staffed service points Unstaffed service points Virtual services Reference Other virtual services Policies & problem resolution Make more effective use of staff Staff & librarians Self-service Students Provide more consistent services Staff roles Functions & cross-training Configuration of positions Coordination Schedule Training Formal training Informal learning Service hours & availability Make services more visible & responsive Service visibility Responsive services Implementation & timeline Timeline Implementation Costs Appendices 27 2

3 Appendix A: Public Service Review Group mandate 27 Appendix B: Sample customer service standards 28 Appendix C: Literature review summary & bibliography 31 Appendix D: List of recommendations EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In the Library s 2011 external review, reviewers recommended that we examine our model for delivering public services. However, no detailed suggestions were made about how changes might be accomplished, and many areas relating to public services were not mentioned in the review at all. A Public Service Review Group was formed to gather information and make recommendations about possible changes to our existing public service model. The group found that many aspects of our Library public services are working well. In feedback sessions, staff identified a strong service ethics and positive team spirit as public service strengths. In the Library s 2010 LibQual survey results, students commented favorably on our helpful and knowledgeable staff. However, problems with the current model of public services have also been identified. Use of our public services has gone down more than 20% in the past three years. The reviewers commented that our lack of standards make it difficult to assess service quality. Staff commented that our staff are not used as effectively as they could be, that students are confused by multiple desks and service options, and that our services are not consistent. Based on what isn t working well now, the group identified some major goals for improving the Library s public services. These include making services simpler and more consistent, making our services more visible and increasing their use, integrating mechanisms to identify user needs, and making more effective use of existing staff. These goals formed the basis for evaluating options and models for proposed changes to public services, and for making decisions about which options would work best for the Library. The foundation of the Public Service Review Group s recommendation is a shift towards excellence in public services. We have a strong public service foundation to build on, and with appropriate support structures and focused effort, we can realistically hope to deliver outstanding service. The group created a vision statement (see p. 8) that outlines our goal of achieving service excellence. A number of recommendations outline a strategy for achieving this vision over time. First, we recommend creating a set of service standards that set out what service we promise to deliver in concrete terms. Standards help clarify what we mean by excellent service and how we deliver it, ensure more service consistency, and are helpful in training and performance appraisals. 3

4 Another recommendation is to simplify our services wherever possible to make them easier to use. We currently have an unmanageable number of service points, which are difficult for us to staff and causes confusion for students. We need to reduce the number of service points. Specifically, we recommend: 1. Merging the Circulation and Information desks, and staffing the merged desk with cross-trained Access Services and Reference Associates, along with a strong librarian referral system and librarian backup for difficult questions. 2. Merging specialized service points (e.g. Archives & Music Ensemble) 3. Reducing or eliminating unstaffed service points (e.g. GDC, Digital Studio) and merging them where possible into regular services In addition, we recommend reviewing our existing public service policies with the goal of simplifying them. Current policies have built up over time and are complex. Organizations with high service ratings tend to have simple policies and empower staff to resolve problems that fall outside the policies using their discretion. While reducing the number of our physical service points, we recommend expanding our virtual services and self-service options. The Library s main use, as pointed out in the external review, is through its online presence, and we need to find ways to connect with our online users more effectively. We should also implement more self-service options for routine tasks, freeing staff to focus on more complex public service interactions that better use their skills. Examples include making self-check machines more prominent and directing people to them, and placing materials currently on closed shelving behind the Circulation desk, such as reserves, ILL, and holds, on open shelves for users to retrieve themselves. To implement these recommendations successfully, we will need to reconfigure Access Service Associate & Reference Associate positions. We recommend that back-end processing work, done now by Access Service Associates at the desk, be separated from public service duties so people on the desk are focused on serving users. Half of each position would ideally be focused on public services, and half on other specifically assigned responsibilities, creating more differentiation among Access Service positions than currently exists. We will also need to investigate new or expanded librarian liaison roles, and create a solid training program to ensure that staff have the skills and knowledge they need. Our target date for implementation of recommended changes is September Implementation would be coordinated by the Public Service Review Group, with the help of a number of small task groups assigned to investigate and implement various recommendations like training, policy review, and physical changes. 4

5 2. BACKGROUND In the Laurier Library s 2011 external review, detailed suggestions for changes to some areas of the Library were recommended. However, only two major recommendations were made for public services: 1. Examine our model for delivering reference services 2. Consider merging the Information and Circulation desks and removing librarians from the desk so they could focus on other activities No suggestions were made about how these might be accomplished, and many areas relating to public services were not mentioned in the review at all. The Public Service Review Group was formed in February 2012 to address this gap. The group s membership consists of: Two members from Access Services: Patti Metzger and Jade Squire Two members from Reference: Peter Genzinger and Julie Schnurr One member from Archives & Special Collections: Julia Hendry Associate University Librarian for Teaching & Learning: Joanne Oud (chair) The group was asked to do a more comprehensive review and analysis of public services at the Waterloo Campus library than the external reviewers did, and to make recommendations about possible improvements to the Library s public service model based on that analysis. As part of this process, the group was asked to look at the recommendations for public services made in the external review and decide whether or not they made sense for the Library to implement. 3. REVIEW PROCESS The Public Service Review Group went through an extensive process of information gathering to help with its analysis, which included: Literature reviews on: a. Current trends & issues in academic library public services b. Factors involved with the delivery of excellent customer service c. Trends and models for delivering virtual services Investigation of models for customer service delivery, both in libraries and in non-library settings (e.g. Starbucks) Site visits to other libraries, including Brock, McMaster, University of Toronto-Mississauga, and Markham Public Library, as well as discussions with other libraries (e.g. Guelph, Western, Calgary) Staff consultations & feedback sessions on: a. What is working well and isn t working well now b. What excellent customer service means Analysis of statistics for public service desks 5

6 User perceptions of our service from existing survey data (e.g. LibQual, which has a substantial section on public service quality) Overview of existing tasks and responsibilities for current Access Services Assistants and Reference Associates Identifying the numerous public service points that currently exist 4. WHERE WE ARE NOW 4.1 WHAT IS WORKING WELL Overall, the Library is providing good service. Our users, external reviewers, and public services staff agree that there are many positive aspects to the Library s current public service. Feedback from users in the most recent LibQual survey (2010) show consistently courteous employees and employees instilling confidence in users as among the Library s top three areas of excellence. Our LibQual scores for service consistently meet the minimum expectations of library users, are comparable to those at other OCUL libraries, and are significantly better than scores at Brock and Windsor, the universities closest to us in size and staffing. 1 In the external review, users were pleased with the helpfulness of staff in the Library, 2 and reviewers felt that the Library has many dedicated librarians and staff members who aspire to provide a high level of library service, especially praising the competence and professionalism of staff-level employees. 3 Feedback from public services staff during open sessions held May 31, 2012 indicated a positive team spirit, experienced and knowledgeable staff, and a strong service ethic as some of our main strengths. This strong service ethic and desire to help users was brought home to the Public Service Review Group by staff s readiness to participate in feedback sessions and discussions, suggest ideas for service improvements, and consider changes, even when those changes were likely to impact their jobs. 4.2 WHAT IS WORKING LESS WELL Despite positive feedback on our public service, there are signs that our current service model needs to be reviewed. Our users have identified some issues with our public services. In the 2010 LibQual survey, mean scores for nearly all service quality dimensions were lower than they were in Service quality met expectations for most students but didn t exceed expectations in any area. Faculty rated our service lower than students did, and found that the Library fell short of their expectations in two major areas, employees who have the knowledge to answer user questions and employees who understand the needs of their users. Laurier s overall service satisfaction scores are lower than the Canadian average. In addition, the difference in 1 LibQual 2010 report for Wilfrid Laurier University Library; LibQual+ Result Report, Eun-ha Hong, November Peer Reviewers External Review Report, June 2011, p R2 Consulting External Review Report, November 2011, p. 9. 6

7 scores between 2007 and 2010 indicate that patrons have increased their expectations of service quality 4 and suggest that we have not kept pace with their expectations. External reviewers pointed out that the lack of standards or minimum expectations for public service, along with the lack of performance appraisals, make it difficult to ensure service quality and consistency or to implement improvements to service. 5 Our service usage has been steadily declining. In our analysis, over the past three years, charges at the Circulation Desk have decreased by 17% as patrons continue to use more electronic resources. Over the same period, the number of questions asked at the Information Desk declined by 11%. This decline has been happening while our student population is increasing. When calculated per student, our print circulation has declined by 26% and the number of Information Desk questions has declined by 21% over the past 3 years. If these trends continue, it will be difficult to justify the current configuration and staffing of these services. Finally, public service staff identified a number of problems with our current service during staff feedback sessions held May 31. Major issues arising from these sessions include: a. Lack of staffing: we have trouble staffing our desks and service points, and are stretched thin. b. Ineffective use of staff: staff are not being used as effectively as they could be. c. Patron confusion: patrons have too many options, and are often confused about where they should go for what. Sometimes they are bounced from desk to desk before finding the right spot to ask their question. d. Service points: our physical service desks are physically imposing and unwelcoming; their location and placement is not ideal. e. Policies: our policies have evolved over the years and become overly complex, which can cause confusion and frustration for both staff and patron. f. Inconsistency: we can t always offer consistent service. This may be due to inconsistent or inadequate staff training, different services/desks being available at different times, inconsistency in services offered from person to person (e.g. librarian liaison/outreach), or adequate permissions not being available to streamline some tasks and avoid referrals. g. Insufficient marketing: patrons are generally unaware of our basic services. h. Poor communication: our public service departments don t communicate well with each other. i. Self-service: we don t have many self-service options, and those we have don t always work reliably. 5. PROJECT GOALS Based on what isn t working well, the group identified some major goals for improving the Library s public services: 1. Move from good service to excellent service 2. Make services simpler and easier for people to use 4 LibQual+ Result Report, Eun-ha Hong, November R2 Consulting External Review Report, November 2011, p

8 3. Provide more consistent service 4. Make services more visible and increase their use 5. Integrate mechanisms to identify user needs, evaluate how our services meet them, and make changes as needed 6. Make more effective use of existing staff These goals formed the basis for evaluating options and models for proposed changes to public services, and for making decisions about which options would work best for the Library. 6. OUR VISION: SERVICE EXCELLENCE 6.1 SERVICE EXCELLENCE: OUR MAIN GOAL During our discussions, the review group was gradually inspired with the conviction that the Laurier Library can provide truly excellent service. In other areas, the Library has limits in what it can hope to achieve. In five years, we are not likely to have a truly outstanding building, or research collections that compete with Harvard. The same limits don t apply to achieving outstanding customer service. We already have a foundation to build on: a knowledgeable, experienced, service-oriented staff with the desire to serve our patrons well. With appropriate support structures and focused effort, we can realistically aspire to deliver truly outstanding customer service. Laurier has traditionally been known for its sense of community and focus on student needs. Focusing on excellent customer service would help us contribute to the university s goals and priorities. It could also help us distinguish ourselves both on campus and in the larger Canadian library community for our service quality. With this goal as our main priority, we have created a vision statement that outlines what we aspire to and how we want others to see us. The rest of this report outlines our proposals for how to achieve this vision over time. 6.2 PUBLIC SERVICE VISION STATEMENT Our Vision Excellent customer service is the Library s top priority, and our service is the best in Canada. The quality of our service makes us central to the academic work of our students, faculty, and researchers. Our service, both in-person and virtual, is: Seamless Friendly Responsive Non-judgmental and unbiased 8

9 Effective Accessible Our service is sustained through a culture that encourages and rewards service excellence, and by our knowledgeable, well-trained staff who are empowered to deliver outstanding service and to resolve problems. 7. HOW DO WE PROVIDE EXCELLENT SERVICE? 7.1 CREATE A SERVICE CULTURE Business researchers have identified a number of attributes shared by organizations who offer excellent service (see Appendix C): Service-oriented staff: staff who have a customer-focused attitude Service standards: a clear, formal, written set of customer service expectations and standards Training: regular, ongoing staff training & support for skills development Listening to customers: mechanisms for actively seeking customer views and understanding customer needs & expectations Continuous improvement: service quality is monitored, and there are mechanisms for analyzing data and acting on findings to make improvements Staff empowerment: policies are simple and flexible, and staff are allowed to use their discretion in meeting customer needs & dealing with problems outside those policies When these factors are present, excellent service tends to be a priority, and is integrated into an organization s goals, planning processes, hiring, training, and systems for evaluating and rewarding staff. In short, excellent service tends to be present in organizations where there is a culture of service excellence. The Laurier Library can make great strides in creating a culture of service excellence by implementing the recommendations that follow. 7.2 CREATE SERVICE STANDARDS Service standards describe the level of service that customers can expect. They are a set of formal, written commitments that an organization makes to its customers and promises to deliver when offering a service. Standards let customers know what they can expect from a service. They lead to greater service consistency, and act as benchmarks to evaluate service quality. Service standards are fairly new to North American academic libraries, but have been much more common in public libraries and in academic libraries in other countries. See Appendix B for some examples. 9

10 Recommendation 1: Develop a set of service standards that defines clearly what excellent service means for us, and how we know when we have achieved it. Standards should also define patron and staff expectations for timeliness and responsiveness, e.g. we guarantee that all will be answered within one business day. Once developed, the standards should be used as a basis for training, service assessment, and staff performance evaluation. 7.3 SIMPLIFY EXISTING SERVICES MAIN PHYSICAL SERVICE POINTS Our main physical service points at the Waterloo Campus library are the Circulation Desk and the Information Desk. The external review recommended that we consider merging these two desks. We wanted to examine all possible options, so did a literature review and several site visits to other libraries in order to identify different models for offering public services in academic libraries. We identified the following models in current use at academic libraries: MODEL DESCRIPTION EXAMPLE INTEGRATED MODEL Circulation and reference functions are done at the same desk, with cross-trained staff who can offer either service In some, librarians are on the desk but with reduced hours; in others, librarians are not on the desk but there is a strong referral system TIERED MODEL Circulation and basic reference functions are done at the same desk, with cross trained staff, and there is a consultation area during the day for more advanced reference questions Librarians staff the consultation area, not the desk Sometimes students staff the first-level desk and refer questions to staff/librarians at a consultation area CONSULTATION Circulation desk remains; physical reference desk is MODEL eliminated, replaced by either: o In-office consultations: people are scheduled for reference duty in their offices instead of a desk o Online consultations: when users ask reference questions at the desk, they are directed to a computer which connects to online chat reference service and/or a research appointment form CO-LOCATION MODEL Circulation & reference functions are at the same desk, but not integrated. Staff offer service in one or the other, and are not cross-trained. SEPARATE MODEL Circulation & reference functions are located at separate desks and staffed by separate staff Most common existing model in academic libraries & Laurier s existing model McMaster, U of Calgary, U of Alberta Brandeis, Georgia Tech, Ryerson Dickinson College (inoffice), Western (online) See Naismith 2004 Many academic libraries 10

11 We evaluated the models using the project goals identified in a previous section as criteria. We felt that the simplest model for users, with the most potential for service consistency, visibility, and effective use of staff, was the integrated service model: circulation and reference offered at the same desk by cross-trained staff who can help patrons with either function. Other models presented logistical issues with staffing, or did not offer the desired simplicity and consistency of service for patrons. We already use this model at our Social Work library, so can benefit from some in-house experience and expertise in how it works. McMaster implemented a similar model in 2009 and has found it works well for their patrons. It has reduced confusion and referrals between desks, and staff have found that once patrons know that the blended desk is the place to ask all types of questions they often start with a circulation question but continue on and ask a reference question, or vice versa. Having a blended service point allows for a more seamless service for students. Recommendation 2: Adopt the integrated service model, and blend circulation and reference functions at a single service point as originally suggested by the external review OTHER PHYSICAL SERVICE POINTS STAFFED SERVICE POINTS The Library currently has two physical service points for specialized collections: Archives & Special Collections and the Music Ensemble/Slides room. Both these areas have limited staffing and therefore have difficulty keeping their service points open. In general, we recommend having fewer physical service points in the Library. Merging service points for these areas would simplify service for patrons, and would help address staffing issues in both areas. Staff could be cross-trained to provide basic-level assistance in each area. Recommendation 3: Merge service points for Archives & Special Collections and Music Ensemble/Slides. Archives & Special Collections has a service point in the basement that is separated from the main public areas of the Library. Moving the service point to a more prominent location that is better integrated into the other public service areas of the Library would help improve its visibility and use, and provide a less intimidating service experience for users than the current location. The new service point will need to have a lockable room with a service desk and reading area for patrons to use materials on site. Collections could stay in a less public location, since they are closed-stacks collections that tend to be retrieved on request in both areas rather than browsed. Until a relocation of public service areas could happen, a merged service point could be temporarily accommodated in Archives & Special Collections, with the music ensemble and slides collection in another location. Recommendation 4: Locate the merged specialized collections service point in a more public and visible location away from the basement. 11

12 Recommendation 5: Eventually, merge the collections as well as service points, and repurpose the space on the 4th floor. A review of the music ensemble and slides collections should happen as part of this process, to determine what is available online and what might be moved to the stacks or weeded UNSTAFFED SERVICE POINTS A number of specialized service points are currently unstaffed, including the Geospatial & Data Centre (GDC), the Digital Studio, and the Education Resource Room. These areas have inconsistent or nonexistent staffing, creating service barriers and frustrations for patrons. Merging specialized collections into general collections and removing specialized computer areas would reduce frustration and confusion for both users and staff. The Library has already started to streamline in some cases. The GDC computers contained unique software when the area was created. This software is now available on all computers available in university computer labs, including the Library, so people no longer need to use the GDC space for the initial purpose for which it was intended. Similarly, inexpensive or free online multimedia software could be installed on Library public computers, rather than just on the computers in the Digital Studio. These functions have become more mainstream over the years, and we need to rethink the usefulness of having separate physical spaces for them. We will also need to examine donor agreements for these spaces and have conversations with donors about any possible changes. Recommendation 6: Eliminate unstaffed specialized service points wherever possible, and merge them into more general areas to simplify and improve service VIRTUAL SERVICES REFERENCE Increasingly, our patrons experience of the Library is through our online presence. In response to this shift, the external review recommended increasing our online services. Our major online service point at present is our chat reference service, which allows patrons to get immediate help while they are working online from wherever they are. Use of this service is steady or growing, while questions at the Information Desk are declining. Given the shift towards online Library use, we agree with the reviewers that we need to focus more on our online help service. Our chat reference service has not had the same level of staffing devoted to it as our in-person reference service, partly because more questions are still asked at the Information Desk. Service has not been entirely consistent: we sometimes have shifts unstaffed if a replacement can t be found. Chat reference is available during the day on weekdays, and we don t have the ability to expand our hours to include evenings and weekends with our current staffing model. The profile of questions asked on chat reference is similar to those asked at the Information Desk: 85% of questions are directional or at a basic level (level 1 or 2). 12

13 If we have cross-trained staff who offer both traditional reference and circulation services at a blended physical service point, we should have a similar service model for our online service point. Questions about fines and accounts, for example, are common in chat reference and currently need to be referred. These types of Access Services questions should be dealt with directly in future by cross-trained staff, without needing to refer patrons. Recommendation 7: Expand the scope of chat reference services to include matters currently dealt with by Access Services. More consistent and expanded hours would improve the service and allow us to reach more users. Expanded hours can be achieved in a number of ways. We recommend that in future everyone staffing the blended service point be scheduled for regular chat reference shifts. Further, we should experiment with having chat reference shifts combined with physical desk shifts at less busy times, such as early mornings, evenings, and weekends. This would require staff who are devoted exclusively to public service functions while at the desk. If successful, it would allow us to expand chat service hours significantly. Recommendation 8: Expand chat reference hours so they are more consistent with our in-person service hours. If this experiment is not successful, another option for expanded chat reference hours is the AskON cooperative virtual reference service from OCUL. However, there are significant disadvantages to using this service over staffing the service locally: 1. AskOn does not have a blended service model, so does not address Access Services issues the way we could locally. 2. AskON has a relatively high annual cost. 3. The AskON service philosophy is also not a good match for the types of questions we receive. AskON emphasizes in-depth reference questions, but the large majority of Laurier questions only require quick answers or need local knowledge to answer. The service requires patrons to fill in a form before using the service, which would likely deter many people with a quick or directional question from continuing. One option would be a partial adoption of AskON, where we offer our own service at the busiest times and use AskON at other times. Another, which would cost about the same as joining AskON, would be to hire part time staff to staff chat service during evenings and weekends at busy times of the term. Studies have found that the most effective ways to promote chat reference services are word-of-mouth, collaboration with other departments, and embedding the service prominently into spaces where users are discovering sources on the web site. We already promote our service in all these ways, but need to investigate other options for formal and word-of-mouth marketing. These should include placing the chat widget in more areas of the web site and in places like MyLearningSpace where students do their coursework, as well as more effort to introduce and demonstrate the service during in-person reference and instruction transactions. Recommendation 9: Promote chat reference services more explicitly. On an ongoing basis, we need to be aware of research and best practices in offering chat reference training as knowledge and experience with online service delivery models in libraries increases. We also need to have an 13

14 ongoing training program so that staff are aware of best practices, have a clear understanding of what approaches to take for different types of questions, and can keep up to date with changes in technology and user needs. Recommendation 10: Establish a skills-building program to ensure consistent, user-focused services. In the past, it has been difficult to track chat reference questions. Our new chat reference software allows better reporting and tracking. We need to investigate these capabilities, and if needed find ways to get more information about our users so we can better assess our service. We should also investigate other options, such as whether we can determine where chat transactions originate from, that will help us with better placement on the web site. Recommendation 11: Do more tracking and assessment of our online service. We see two major possibilities for enhancing our online service at present. Our new LibraryH3lp chat reference software has a text messaging option. This would allow users to text questions to us from their mobile phones, which we would answer through the LibraryH3lp interface. In addition, software like LibAnswers would allow us to create an interactive FAQ/knowledgebase on our web site where users can search for answers to commonly asked questions. This service is popular at University of Toronto, where the most common questions (e.g. how do I find a thesis) get many hits. A similar commonly asked questions blog has been implemented at Western. It provides an option for quick online help when chat reference is not available, and has also been popular with users. Services like these would provide additional options for users to get help online and through mobile devices, and we recommend investigating their feasibility and implementing them where possible. Recommendation 12: Implement enhancements or additions to our current chat reference service OTHER VIRTUAL SERVICES The Library offers many well-used virtual services already, such as loan renewals and hold requests. However, other virtual services are possible. These include online fine payments, sending patron notifications via text message through Voyager, online payment for printing, and using online forms to set up access for groups like alumni, high school students and community borrowers. In addition, use of mobile devices is increasing, and our current services should be evaluated to see how we can make them mobile-friendly. Recommendation 13: Proactively investigate and implement additional virtual services we can offer. Recommendation 14: Investigate moving current services to mobile-friendly versions POLICIES & PROBLEM RESOLUTION Academic libraries tend to have many policies, which accumulate over time to deal with specific situations and issues. The idea behind these policies is to provide standard and consistent responses when offering service. 14

15 Consistency is an important component of good customer service. However, one of the major criteria for customer service satisfaction is flexibility, or willingness to deviate from the rules to meet specific customer needs. Too many rules and policies can make service providers look inflexible, which leads to unhappy patrons. 6 Organizations with excellent customer service tend to have fewer and simpler policies. Instead, they allow staff to deal with situations and solve problems as they arise. One extreme example is Nordstrom s, the highest rated department store in the U.S. for customer satisfaction for many years. They have something called the Nordstrom Rule Book, a wallet-sized card for staff that reads Use your good judgment in all situations. There will be no additional rules. 7 The University of Windsor has recently simplified policies at the Circulation Desk and allowed staff more leeway to deal with problems or unusual situations; the change has increased their customer service ratings. Libraries need a balance between consistency and flexibility to meet patron needs. They also need to ensure that policies reflect user needs. Markham Public Library has recently done an overhaul of their policies with the aim of simplifying wherever possible. When reviewing each policy, they asked: what does this policy say about us? What impression does it give our users about us? Recommendation 15: Review and streamline current public service policies. Recommendation 16: Empower staff to deal with issues as they arise and solve most problems on the spot rather than referring. 7.4 MAKE MORE EFFECTIVE USE OF STAFF STAFF & LIBRARIANS The external reviewers recommended that a blended service desk be staffed by cross-trained staff associates. This recommendation makes sense given the breakdown of questions on the Information Desk in the past 3 years: % of Total Level Description Example Questions 51.5% 1 Directional or equipment assistance What floor is this book on? Help with printing/photocopying 37% 2 Basic reference Find call number for a specific book title Help locate course reserves 11% 3 Complex reference Need to find books/articles for a paper on 6 C. Surprenant & M. Solomon, (1987) Predictability and personalization in the service encounter, Journal of Marketing 51(2), p R. Kopelman.(2012). Interpreting the success of Zappos.com, Four Seasons, and Nordstrom : customer centricity is but one-third of the job. Global Business and Organizational Excellence, 31(5), p

16 medieval religious art 0.5% 4 Specialized reference Requires specialized subject knowledge to answer; usually these questions are referred Over 88% of questions at the Information Desk are at a basic reference level or lower. These questions could be easily handled by cross-trained staff. Questions at this level are already handled at the Circulation Desk, including directional help and assistance with course reserves and finding book titles or call numbers. Staff could be trained to answer many level 3 questions and refer others to librarians. Our public service staff is capable and professional and could handle the majority of questions at the main service points. Given the breakdown of questions, it does not appear to be the most effective use of staff to have librarians at the Information Desk. As recommended by external reviewers, librarians could be more effectively used in other ways, such as increased outreach efforts to faculty. Faculty tend not to come into the Library building as often as students, and they were the group most unhappy with the quality of Library service in the most recent LibQual surveys. If we hope to provide excellent customer service, we need to focus more on faculty needs than we have in the past, which could be more effectively done if librarians could devote more time to developing services and initiatives that target faculty research and teaching needs. Librarians would still have reference responsibilities. We anticipate more referrals from the desk if librarians are not present. In addition, we need to advertise our Book a Librarian service for individual appointments more heavily. When we advertised the service on the main web page last fall, we had a substantial increase in appointments, which indicates an interest in this service. In this model, librarians would deal with more complex questions that used their subject knowledge more effectively, and would deal with more students in their offices. In addition, librarians would need to be available to support staff working on the desk, especially during the initial implementation phase. Some ideas for how this could work include using our chat reference system as an internal back chat channel, where staff on the desk can ask for guidance for challenging questions from librarians who are in their offices, or find out who is available for an immediate referral. We suggest an informal backup system where librarians who are available in their offices sign into the back chat system. We also suggest that, at least initially, librarians keep their current evening shifts and be available in their offices for staff back chat support and for referrals during the evenings. Librarians will still be offering public service, and will need to be part of the overall public service standards. An effective system of referrals and appointments is key to the successful functioning of a blended service point. We will need to determine standards for referral and appointment timelines so users know what they can expect, and make sure that librarians are available for individual appointments. At McMaster, a blended service model was implemented in 2009, but a shortage of librarians has led to the inability of the librarian referral and appointment system to provide adequate follow-up, and has also led to user dissatisfaction with service quality. Currently, our referral model from the desk depends on the user. The user is given a business card for the librarian, and is expected to make the contact. A more proactive referral system would improve service quality. We recommend an online form for each referral that the associate at the desk fills out with the user s contact information, along with information about the question and what has already been done to help answer it. This 16

17 form would be automatically ed to the appropriate librarian, who would contact the user rather than waiting for the user to make the contact. This would also give the librarian information about the user s needs, which would help with advance preparation. As part of our service standards, we would need to agree on timelines so users know when they can expect an appointment once they are referred. Recommendation 17: Staff the blended service point with cross-trained staff associates and gradually remove librarians from the desk to focus on faculty outreach and more specialized reference appointments Recommendation 18: Have librarians available for staff support using an informal back chat system Recommendation 19: Develop a referral and appointment system that includes proactively contacting users and setting service standards that define how soon users can expect an appointment SELF-SERVICE Some functions currently done at the desks should be shifted to self-service options to free staff time for more complex user interactions at a blended service desk. These include: 1. Make better use of self-check machines. Students are used to using self-check machines in public libraries. In discussions with other libraries, we found that some have redirected 25-60% of their circulation traffic to self-check machines, compared to 5% at the Laurier Library This is accomplished by locating machines in prominent locations, ideally near the desk in case users run into problems. Staff at the desk still check out books, but mention self-check machines to users or give them bookmarks or flyers with information about the availability of self-check. Our self-check unit needs to have a proper cabinet, a better sign, and some better instructions. We should also purchase a second self-check unit. 2. Place holds and ILL pickups on open shelving. This is a trend in a number of libraries, including University of Calgary, which has a substantial holds area since 75% of their collections are stored off-site. 3. Place print reserves on open shelving. We should look at use of the print reserve collection, and make sure we do as much as possible electronically. Remaining print reserves would ideally be on open shelving located in a semi-enclosed area with a photocopier/scanner and some place for people to read, to discourage people from removing items and leaving them elsewhere in the building. Placing reserves on open shelving has been done successfully in a number of libraries, including University of Calgary. 4. Allow users to pay fines online. This would free staff time at the desk and would be a service enhancement. 5. Allow online self-registration for unique groups now done manually. These include high school students, alumni, community borrowers, and visiting faculty. 6. Create a standalone print and copy area to better serve needs of users by locating all printing, copying, and related functions (e.g. staplers, supplies) in one area. 17

18 In future, we should continue to look for ways to increase self-service options for users. Examples include allowing students to update their own account information (e.g. change of address), having a touch-screen panel for directions near the entrance and elevators, and having check-out done using mobile devices. As we move proactively to self-service options, we need to recognize that self-service is part of our service model. If we hope to achieve service excellence, our self-service options need to function effectively. Our current self-check unit has had recurring technical problems. We need to commit to making it a priority to fix and prevent these problems to maintain service quality. We recognize that many current staff functions could be streamlined, self-service would work more effectively, and more self-service options would be possible if our collection was tagged with RFID. Functions like book charging and discharging, sorting, and inventory control would be much more efficient with RFID. Costs for RFID conversion have come down considerably over the last few years, and we strongly endorse making RFID conversion a priority. Recommendation 20: Relocate self-check to a prominent location and actively encourage users to use it Recommendation 21: Put holds and reserves on open shelving Recommendation 22: Allow users to self-register and pay fines online Recommendation 23: Recognize that self-service is a key part of our service model, and commit to maintaining these services at a high level Recommendation 24: Investigate the possibility of converting our collection to RFID to enable better self-service options and streamline staff workflows STUDENT EMPLOYEES The external review recommended more effective use of students. We see several possibilities for using students in a blended service model: 1. Basic circulation processing work now done by staff: at a blended service point staff would not be doing processing work while on the desk as currently done at the Circulation Desk. Some additional students could be used for some of this work, such as discharging books. 2. Basic help at the blended service desk: during busy times, students could be used at the desk to provide basic-level help for users, including: o Basic-level technical help such as printing & photocopying, and circulation assistance such as book check-out, assistance with self-check, and going to the stacks with users to help them find books or directing them to appropriate floors for various call numbers. o Doing triage, for example if there is a line pulling out people who need books checked out & doing this for them or directing them to the self-service options 18

19 3. Recognize student shelvers as public service staff: at Markham Public Library they have recognized that student shelvers are working in a public area, are seen as employees, and should be treated as front-line staff. Student shelvers should be trained on basic public service, so they can help people with basic directional questions in the stacks and have the knowledge to refer appropriately to the desk. Identifying these students visibly as public service staff would improve service and make shelving jobs more meaningful for students. Recommendation 25: Use students to do basic, directional, and technical help at the desk, and train student shelvers to help people find things in the stacks If using students in these additional ways proves successful, we recommend investigating other possibilities for using students in public services. Other libraries, and particularly Learning Commons, have used students in a wide variety of ways. In the long term, we could consider having students do proactive roving within the building, for example, using mobile devices to help answer basic directional questions and bringing people to the desk for more difficult questions. Recommendation 26: Investigate other possible uses for students in public service. Using students effectively requires staff time and proper support structures. Making more use of students will require devoting more resources to managing students effectively than we devote now. We will need to develop clearly defined roles & expectations for students and supervisors, make sure staff and students both have a clear idea of these roles, provide good initial and ongoing training for students, have appropriate structures in place for effective supervision, and provide training and support for supervisors on how to supervise effectively and what the role of supervisor involves. Recommendation 27: Create proper structures and skills for hiring, training and supervision to facilitate student employee success. 7.5 PROVIDE MORE CONSISTENT SERVICES STAFF ROLES FUNCTIONS & CROSS TRAINING When considering what staff roles would be in a blended service model, we looked at the current tasks, functions and roles of the existing Reference Associate (RA) and Access Services Assistant (ASA) positions. The positions have a number of things in common. These include: being the first point of contact for users, working with scheduled desk shifts, answering directional and basic information questions, including booking group study rooms, checking student accounts, placing holds and recalls, searching known titles in the online catalogue, identifying course reserves, and giving a basic introduction to the Library s web site and common starting points, troubleshooting printer and photocopier problems, answering the phone, filling the printer with paper, stocking supplies, opening and closing the desk, handling small amounts of cash and reporting technical problems, and making referrals when the need arises. 19

20 However, there are also a number of functions that are unique to each position: Position Reference Associates Unique Functions Answering 3 rd level reference questions using library resources Teaching search strategies to users Access Services Assistants Regular learning & development of skills in new library resources, use of databases, including training sessions, professional development talks, and informal self-directed learning Give tours, staff information tables, attend orientation sessions on behalf of the Library Provide help with more technical questions such as wireless access, MS Word/Excel, MyLearningSpace, downloading pdfs, saving to memory sticks, OneCard for printing/copying Charging and discharging all circulating items (books, music items, media, reserves materials, ILL, holds etc.) Creating, accessing, updating, and adjusting patron accounts (e.g. fines) At a blended service desk, all staff would need to be able to provide basic service to users in each of these currently unique functions. As part of our service standards, we would need to define what level of service in each area staff would be expected to provide. Recommendation 28: Cross-train all staff to provide service to users in major functions currently performed at each service desk CONFIGURATION OF POSITIONS Currently, RAs don t have other assigned duties to do while they are at the desk, but people do bring other work to do on the desk when it is not busy. While they are at the desk, ASAs work on pulling, sorting and reshelving reserve items, sorting discharged books on sorting shelves, loading carts, working with TUG deliveries, sorting holds, repairing books, re-labelling and changing the status of books if it is not busy. Doing other work at the desk is efficient, but leads to situations where students feel we are too busy to approach, or feel apologetic for interrupting. We recommend separating other work from front-end customer service work, so people scheduled on the desk are focused on serving users. This could involve redefining some positions to focus on back-end processing work exclusively with no public service component, or hiring more students as discussed above. Recommendation 29: Separate back-end functions from front-end customer service work, so people scheduled on the desk focus only on serving users. Both positions have assigned work to do when away from the desk, but RA roles are more clearly defined. Most RA positions are half in reference and half in another department, with another specific defined role in their non-reference half. ASAs tend to share functions rather than have specifically defined roles when away from 20

21 the desk. They are responsible for processing and receiving shipments from Brantford campus as well as processing and receiving TUG deliveries, running Cognos reports, looking for Holds in the stacks, and checking the book chute. We recommend reconfiguring all public service staff positions to work more like RA positions do now. Half the position would be devoted to public service activities, including desk time and maintaining public service knowledge and skills. The other half should include clearly defined responsibilities for specific functions like reserves, fines, ILL or accounts. If people have defined areas of responsibility, they can develop more expertise and be given more authority to follow through on all parts of a task. This change would mean that ASA positions should be more differentiated from each other than they are now, and that tasks such as holds would be assigned to someone rather than being distributed as they are now. This work could also be assigned to staff member(s) who do not have a public service component to their job(s). ASAs do not currently have a desk or computer. An adequate work area, including a desk area and computer for each person, will be required when positions are reconfigured so that people can complete their off-desk tasks. Recommendation 30: Reconfigure public service positions so that half of each position focuses on public service, and half on assigned work while off the desk. Recommendation 31: Make off-desk roles and responsibilities specific and clearly defined. Recommendation 32: All staff should have a computer & desk COORDINATION In a blended service model, our current departmental structure may not make as much sense as it does now. All desk staff will ideally feel part of a single public service team rather than separate public service units. As part of our larger review of the Library s organizational structure, we need to consider what departmental configuration would best fit with a blended service model. However departments are structured in the future, we see a need for two coordinator or manager roles. One would be for public service functions, and one for the back-end processing functions currently done by Access Services Assistants. The people in these roles would be responsible for coordinating daily operations in each area, training staff and students, troubleshooting, communication, scheduling, and filling in for emergencies. These positions would need the authority to direct the functions in each area, manage and coordinate staff to keep operations working well. These roles are not necessarily extra positions, but could be created as a result of reconfiguring current departments and positions. Recommendation 33: Reconsider current departmental structures. Recommendation 34: Create two roles to coordinate public service/desk and Access Services processing(backend) functions SCHEDULE 21

22 Our group did a mock fall/winter desk schedule for a blended service desk staffed by associates to check how feasible it would be to move to this model. Actual desk scheduling will need to be worked out, and we are not sure what it will look like. For this test, however, we used a schedule with shifts up to 2 hours long rather than the longer Circulation Desk shifts. We assumed: day staff would work until 6pm and weekend days on rotation. This is the norm for ASAs now, but we recognize that it is a change for RAs, who usually work until 4:30 and don t work on weekends. evenings during the week and on weekends would continue to be staffed by the Access Services staff who normally work those shifts; the evening staff would be cross-trained like other staff to provide blended service the desk would be staffed with 2 people during busier hours, and 1 person during quiet hours such as early morning chat shifts would be combined with desk shifts during quiet hours and during the evenings (as outlined in the virtual services section), and staffed separately during busier hours staff scheduled at the desk would only have public service responsibilities while at the desk, and would not be responsible for the kind of back-end functions that Access Services staff currently perform while at the desk. Using these assumptions, we have just enough staff to manage a blended service point, but little flexibility for illnesses or vacations. We would need all our current public service staff available for shifts, and some backup options for emergencies. This could happen in a number of ways. We could experiment with having one person and a student (as outlined in the student section above) on the desk at some times of the day or term, or investigate the option of having other staff contribute occasional shifts. Recommendation 35: Create a desk schedule similar to the current Information Desk, with shorter shifts. Recommendation 36: Have day staff work between 8am and 6pm and weekend days on rotation; maintain current arrangements for evening staff in Access Services and cross-train them. Recommendation 37: Investigate options for scheduling flexibility and emergency back-up TRAINING FORMAL TRAINING Good initial and ongoing training will be critical for a move to a blended service model to succeed. Staff need support to learn new skills. McMaster successfully used an intensive training program over 6 months that combined in-class sessions, homework assignments to practice new skills, discussion, and shadowing at the desk. The University of Calgary also had an initial mentoring approach, pairing one person from Access Services and one from Reference at the desk until people were comfortable dealing with new areas. These best practices from libraries who have successfully implemented a blended service model should be used to develop a training program for staff. 22

23 The initial training program will require a significant time commitment, and people will need to have time away from the desk to participate. We will need to investigate options for keeping the desks staffed during this period. Once initial training has been done, regular ongoing training will be needed to ensure staff knowledge keeps pace with changes. Although we currently do have mechanisms for staff training in public services, the kind of training required for a blended service model is on a much greater scale. This needs to be formally planned and structured, and training needs to be regularized and assigned as a part of someone s job. We recommend that the coordinator position discussed above be responsible for training in public services. Recommendation 38: Create a formal training program for initial and ongoing staff skill development, and make training a formal part of a coordinator role INFORMAL LEARNING Apart from formal training, we need better mechanisms for staff discussion and knowledge sharing on an informal basis. Other libraries have developed a staff knowledgebase/faq or online discussion forum where staff can easily share information on common or difficult questions or recurring assignments. This kind of knowledgebase would be helpful for training and orientation of new staff as well as information sharing. Recommendation 39: Investigate creating mechanisms for staff to communicate and share knowledge informally, such as a discussion forum or knowledgebase SERVICE HOURS & AVAILABILITY One major goal of this project is to increase consistency of service hours and increase service availability. Currently, research assistance has more limited hours than circulation assistance does, and online chat reference services are more limited than in-person reference services. A blended service model with crosstrained staff as outlined above will mean that research services are available all the hours the desk is staffed. Implementing increased online chat service hours as discussed above would also increase the availability of this service. 7.6 MAKE SERVICES MORE VISIBLE & RESPONSIVE SERVICE VISIBILITY One major issue we face is that many of our users are unaware of our services. One goal of this project is to increase awareness and use of our services. As mentioned already, both our circulation and reference statistics 23

24 have been continuously declining over the past few years, especially when measured against an increase in student numbers. We hope that implementing recommendations about blending service desks, focusing librarian efforts more on outreach, and extending virtual services will help. However, to truly increase our services we need to do much more than we currently do to make users know about what services we offer and how those services can help them. We have hired a Communications Officer, who will provide expertise in how to approach a larger-scale marketing effort. However, this initiative is important enough that we recommend public service marketing also be assigned to someone as a regular part of their job, potentially the public service coordinator role discussed above. This person would be responsible for working with the Communications Officer to ensure better awareness of our services on campus. Recommendation 40: Put much more effort into publicizing our public services than we do now RESPONSIVE SERVICES One of the keys to excellent customer service is responsiveness to user needs. Being responsive to customer needs is not possible without: formal mechanisms for soliciting user feedback and understanding user needs evaluation of service quality, usually based on service standards or benchmarks mechanisms for continuous improvement: analyzing user needs and service feedback and making changes to services based on findings The Library has some existing mechanisms, such as LibQual, for evaluating service quality and gathering user feedback. We need to focus more on these parts of our service to ensure that we continue to meet and exceed user needs. Recommendation 41: Improve mechanisms for understanding user needs, evaluating service quality, and making changes based on findings. 8. IMPLEMENTATION & TIMELINE 8.1 TIMELINE This report recommends major changes to our current public service model. We recognize that these changes will take substantial work to implement, and therefore will require commitment from management to prioritize the time needed. We also recognize that there will be a number of issues to work though during implementation, including differences in departmental cultures between Access Services and Reference, differences in staff background and skills, changes to staff job descriptions, and ensuring ongoing operations during the transition period during intensive staff training. 24

25 The recommended target date for implementation is September McMaster took a year to implement their blended service model in a similar environment, and we feel that this time frame is feasible. One major factor is the cost and scheduling of the required physical changes. 8.2 IMPLEMENTATION To meet this target, we need to start implementation in September We recommend that the Public Service Review Group, originally tasked with both recommendations and implementation, serve as a coordinating group for the implementation process and facilitate broad staff involvement in the creation of service standards. Smaller task groups would work out implementation details for specific issues. These groups should consist of 2-3 people each, with a representative of the Public Service Review Group on each task group as a liaison. The smaller groups should involve staff who will work on the blended desk wherever possible, and should coordinate involvement and feedback from other staff, librarians, or users as needed. Recommended task groups include: a. Policy review: reviewing and simplifying policies where appropriate b. Training: training should be planned in the fall 2012, and begin January through the summer The training group will need to consider how to train all staff, including evening and weekend staff, and consider the best approaches to implementation. One option is a phased approach, where librarians observe or participate on the desk to support reference questions but their shifts are gradually phased out. c. Physical changes: planning physical changes needed for implementation, including reorganizing the floor, moving some resources to self-serve open shelving, finding staff work areas, and redesigning a service desk that meets new needs and is less imposing to users. d. Self service: planning for implementation of self-service options. We could begin by making self-check more prominent and directing users there as a trial for a term to see what issues arise. e. Virtual services: investigation of virtual service options. f. Assessment: we will need to assess the changes in our service model to see how it works and make changes if needed. To do this, we need to decide what we need to assess, do measurements now, and set up mechanisms to measure them again after the changes. g. Librarian roles: another group is coordinating a review of liaison librarian roles. This group or another task group should look into librarian roles in the new model, including referrals and office appointments through the Book a Librarian Service. Our recommended changes will require changes to the job descriptions for all public services staff, but especially for Access Services Assistants. We need to begin to discuss these changes with Human Resources and work with the staff who will be affected to ensure that the process happens smoothly. We realize that for some staff not all of the recommended changes will be welcome, and we need to work to identify and address staff concerns. 25

26 9. COSTS Implementing recommended changes will cost money. It is difficult to determine exact costs, but major cost areas include: Upgraded staff positions: we anticipate that public service Access Services positions will have a higher grade level assigned after changes are implemented, since Reference Associates are currently at a higher grade level (minimum grade 6). In addition, there are possible costs for upgrading positions to manager/coordinator positions. Student help: Access Services already hires some student help at the desk, so some student positions will just be converted; however, we do anticipate the need for some additional student positions for work at the desk, as outlined above, and for retrieval of items at a merged service point for specialized collections. Physical changes: the greatest cost item will be construction. We will need to work with Physical Resources to plan changes needed to implement a blended service model. These involve a new service desk, relocating and possibly purchasing self-check units, relocating reserves and holds to open shelves, and reconfiguring a staff work area. Depending on options chosen, physical changes could be substantial. A phased approach may be possible. 26

27 APPENDICES APPENDIX A: PUBLIC SERVICE REVIEW GROUP MANDATE PUBLIC SERVICES REVIEW STEERING GROUP Scope: to review existing public services to consider options for redesigning our service model, as recommended in the external review. Deals with Waterloo Campus services; multicampus issues will be dealt with separately. Mandate: to organize/facilitate the review process, involve and gather input from staff and users, gather information, evaluate options, make decisions about what model to implement, and coordinate implementation. Membership: Peter Genzinger, Julia Hendry, Patti Metzger, Joanne Oud (chair), Julie Schnurr, Jade Squire Timelines: Jan 2012-Aug 2013 STEERING GROUP RESPONSIBILITIES Phase 1: Information Gathering & Decision Making: Jan-June 2012 Map current service Identify service strengths & weaknesses Identify options Make recommendations for changes to current service models Phase 2: Implementation: July 2012-Aug 2013 Create an implementation plan; goal is to have the new service model in place (at least in part) by Sept 2013 Identify decisions needed for implementation (e.g. physical setup, training, policies, budget) and create ways to address each (e.g. creating small task groups) Coordinate implementation & hand off to the people/groups who will coordinate operations 27

28 APPENDIX B: SAMPLE SERVICE STANDARDS UNIVERSITY OF HUDDERSFIELD: LIBRARY AND COMPUTING CENTRE CHARTER Customer Satisfaction We will... How do we know we ve done it? 1. Train our staff to provide a professional, friendly, efficient service Provide customer support person Rotas for service points (4 subject floors, to person by telephone and online Helpdesk and Subject Enquiries desk for 7 days a week during termtime evenings and weekends) Maintain our Customer Service Continued holding of Customer Service Excellence Award Excellence award. (Evaluated every year) 2. Acknowledge those waiting for our attention and try to avoid long queues Aim to ensure nobody has to queue for more than 5 minutes to receive service Student helpers roving queues to divert to self service Stopwatch monitoring during sample weeks. Perception question during CLS survey 3. Promote equal opportunities, be fair to all customers and staff and responsive to the needs of all our customers Customers with disabilities have access to the full range of services, and the support to enable them to do so. Provide training on equal opportunities for all staff Named support person in the LCC who logs support. All staff have undertaken the University Equal Opportunities training Staff development logs 4. Publicise our range of services, regulations and opening times and keep you informed of any changes to these. Current publicity displayed within the library, on our website and throughout the University Campus Publicity Champions for each area of the library designated, monitoring Posters and Plasma screens. Regular updates posted on subject team blogs. Twitter feeds to plasma screens etc. Reported by Subject Librarians at Student Panels. 5. Listen to your comments, respond to your complaints and 95% of comments will be responded to in one normal QuestionPoint Records, Team mailboxes, PT Express, Student IT mailbox, Archives 28

29 learn from them working day. Comments cards available on each floor Shaping your library boards on each floor with publicly available feedback. and University Centres mailboxes. Monitored during Sampling weeks* Boards updated regularly. SALT LAKE COUNTY LIBRARY CUSTOMER SERVICE STANDARDS Service Oriented We deliver exceptional service to both internal and external customers by placing the customer first, actively listening to their requests and concerns, and following up to ensure appropriate outcomes are reached. We deliver Service Oriented Customer Service when: We are attentive and approachable We watch for customers who need help We identify the needs of customers We smile and make eye contact We use appropriate body language (not defensive) We listen to entire questions/concerns We use language our customers can understand We walk customers to their destinations Empowered We have the power to give customers the best customer service possible. We have the trust and support of supervisors to solve issues. We offer Empowered Customer Service when: We have the ability to make decisions We have authority to seek options to resolve customers problems We attend and participate in training to stay informed and current We resolve customers concern and problems as quickly as possible We value the opinions and perspectives of staff Responsible We take the initiative to go the extra mile by satisfactorily completing all tasks in a timely manner and following through with customer needs. We provide Responsible Customer Service when: We demonstrate a respectful attitude to our customers We are accountable for resolving all process problems constructively and efficiently We communicate effectively through active listening and follow up questions We strive to understand our customers perspectives to be sure their needs are met We follow through with customers to resolve issues thoroughly and in a timely manner 29

30 We provide updates to our customers on issues not yet resolved Values Driven We support and practice the Library Bill of Rights, County and Library policies and procedures in the service of our customers. We demonstrate Values Driven Customer Service when: We are good stewards of public money and resources We provide the same quality of service regardless of age, race or gender We provide access to materials without undue or unwarranted censorship We apply our Policies and guidelines equally to customers and staff We don t grant ourselves more rights than our customers Informed We understand the many services Salt Lake County provides and we apply the "no wrong door" approach. We deliver Informed Customer Service by: We stay up to date by regularly reading our e mail and the Staff Portal We are familiar with both the county and library websites We ask questions We refer customers to other agencies or departments as appropriate We understand library policies and where to find them Courteous Courteous We are courteous to all internal and external customers, treating everyone with respectful, unbiased attention. We provide Courteous Customer Service when: We use please, thank you and you re welcome with internal and external customers We excuse ourselves when we are in someone s space We are on time We conduct our personal interactions away from the public We tell our coworkers when we arrive and leave the building We answer all calls with our name and location We use library voices We greet everyone We respond to all informational requests objectively and without bias We use vocabulary appropriate to the situation We are aware of cultural differences and create understanding with our customers 30

31 APPENDIX C: LITERATURE REVIEW SUMMARIES & BIBLIOGRAPHY OF WORKS CONSULTED PUBLIC SERVICE MODELS & TRENDS TRENDS Integration of reference & circulation desks into single service points (though there don t seem to be a lot out there) Move toward self-service (e.g. self-check, reserves on open shelves) Increasing use of online reference (e.g. searchable FAQ with large databank of common questions and answers, more resources devoted to chat reference, text reference service, services through Facebook/social media, virtual research consultations through learning management systems, creating virtual learning communities) Move to learning commons (integration with IT, Learning Services both physical & online) Proactive reference models going to the user instead of waiting for them to come to us (e.g. walking around in-building with ipads, librarians embedded in course management systems, having AskUs prominently located everywhere on computers/in resources) Using students at the desk Decreasing use/removal of librarians from the desk reconceptualizing the role of the reference librarian (more outreach, virtual services, instruction, subject specialization, embedding in courses) Reference assessment Increasing user participation in planning and assessment ( move from assuming to asking ) SERVICE MODELS MODEL DESCRIPTION EXAMPLE INTEGRATED MODEL Circulation and reference functions are done at the same desk, with cross-trained staff who can offer either service McMaster, U of Calgary, U of Alberta In some, librarians are on the desk but with reduced hours; in others, librarians are not on the desk but there is a strong referral system TIERED MODEL Circulation and basic reference functions are done at the same desk, with cross trained staff, and there is a consultation area during the day for more advanced reference questions Librarians staff the consultation area, not the desk CONSULTATION MODEL Circulation desk remains; physical reference desk is eliminated, replaced by either: o In-office consultations: people are scheduled for reference duty in their Brandeis, Georgia Tech Dickinson College (in-office), Western (online) 31

32 offices instead of a desk o Online consultations: when users ask reference questions at the desk, they are directed to a computer which connects to online chat reference service and/or a research appointment form CO-LOCATION MODEL Circulation & reference functions are at the same desk, but not integrated. Staff offer service in one or the other, and are not crosstrained. SEPARATE MODEL Circulation & reference functions are located at separate desks and staffed by separate staff Most common existing model in academic libraries & Laurier s existing model Many academic libraries Note: any of these models may/may not include: students at the desk, especially for basic/it/equipment questions. Pluses: students may be more comfortable approaching/asking questions of their peers. Minuses: possible inconsistencies in service, students harder to recruit/train/manage. redirection of some circ traffic to self-serve models strong referral system proactive reference: e.g. roaming within the building (done by staff or students) BIBLIOGRAPHY Aguilar, P., Keating, K., Schadl, S., & Van Reenen, J. (2011). Reference as outreach: meeting users where they are. Journal of Library Administration, 51(4), Alexander, L., Blumenthal, J., Downing, K., MacAdam, B., Rana, G. K., Reiman-Sendi, K. (2011). Mlibrary: Concepts for redefining reference. Journal of Library Administration, 51(4), Anello, K., & Bonfield, B. (2007). Providing reference service in our sleep: using a FAQ database to guide users to the right sources. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 46(3), Bracke, M. S., Brewer, M., Huff-Eibl, R., & Lee, D. R. (2007). Finding information in a new landscape: developing new service and staffing models for mediated information services. College & Research Libraries, 68(3), Bracke, M. S., & Chinnaswamy, S. (2008). Evolution of reference: a new service model for science and engineering libraries. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship, 53 32

33 Bugg, K. L., & Odom, R. Y. (2009). Extreme makeover reference edition: Restructuring reference services at the Robert W. Woodruff Library, Atlanta University Center. The Reference Librarian, 50(2), Burke, L. (2008). Models of reference services in Australian academic libraries. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 40(4), Carlin, A. (2007). Success, failure, innovation and uncertainty in changing times : a selective bibliography of literature on reference services since the 1980s. Reference Librarian, 48(2), Carlson, S. (2007). Are reference desks dying out? librarians struggle to redefine â and in some cases eliminate â the venerable institution. Reference Librarian, 48(2), Crane, J., & Pavy, J. A. (2008). One-stop shopping : merging service points in a university library. 4(1), Davidson, S., & Mikkelsen, S. (2009). Desk bound no more: reference services at a new research university library. The Reference Librarian, 50(4), Dempsey, M. (2011). Blending the trends: a holistic approach to reference services. Public Services Quarterly, 7(1-2), Foster, N. F. (2007). Mommy model of service. In N. F. Foster, & S. Gibbons (Eds.), Studying students : the undergraduate research project at the University of Rochester (pp ). Chicago: Association of College & Research Libraries. Johnson, K., Jennings, S., & Hisle, S. (2011). Ending the turf war: circulation, reference, and instruction on one team. Journal of Access Services, 8(3), Kennedy, S. (2011). Farewell to the reference librarian. Journal of Library Administration, 51(4), Kesselman, M. a., & Watstein, S. B. (2009). Creating opportunities: embedded librarians. Journal of Library Administration, 49(4), Massey-Burzio, V. (1998). From the other side of the reference desk: a focus group study. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 24(3), Mathews, B. (2007). Moving beyond the reference desk : being where users need us. Reference Librarian, 48(2), Mitchell, M. S., Comer, C. H., Starkey, J. M., & Francis, E. a. (2011). Paradigm shift in reference services at the Oberlin College Library: a case study. Journal of Library Administration, 51(4), Murphy, B., Peterson, R. A., Isenburg, M. V., Berney, E., James, R., & Rodriguez, M. (2008). Revolution at the library service desk. Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 27(4), Naismith, R. (2004). Combining circulation and reference functions at one desk. Journal of Access Services 2(3),

34 O'Gorman, J., & Trott, B. (2009). What will become of reference in academic and public libraries? Journal of Library Administration, 49(4), Rudin, P. (2008). No fixed address: the evolution of outreach library services on university campuses. The Reference Librarian, 49(1), Ryan, S. M. (2008). Reference transactions analysis: The cost-effectiveness of staffing a traditional academic reference desk. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 34(5), Stoffle, C. J., Leeder, K., & Sykes-, G. (2008). Bridging the gap : Wherever you are, the library. Journal of Library Administration, 48(1), Strong, G. E. (2006). If we change it will they come? Reference Services Review, 34(3), Tyckoson, D. a. (2011). Issues and trends in the management of reference services: a historical perspective. Journal of Library Administration, 51(3), Wang, B., & Henson, B. (2011). Change is coming : A combined services area project. Science & Technology Libraries, 30(1), CUSTOMER SERVICE QUALITY LITERATURE REVIEW SUMMARY Creating a culture of service excellence: what factors are involved? Factor Service standards Good staff Training Listening to customers Continuous improvement Empowerment Teamwork Integration Awareness Description Need a set of customer service expectations and standards that are clear and understood by everyone Need to hire & select staff who fit the job; can train for skills but not attitudes Need regular, ongoing training & support for skills development Need to actively seek customer views using a variety of mechanisms, seek to understand customer needs & expectations Service quality is monitored & evaluated regularly, and mechanisms are in place for acting on data & making improvements Need simple and flexible policies and procedures that allow employees to be flexible and to use their discretion in meeting customer needs & dealing with problems Need good teamwork & staff communication Customer service is integrated into goals, planning, employee evaluations & rewards, hiring, training Customer service is a regular item of discussion 34

35 Main elements of good service Rank Factor Description Top ranked Attentiveness/helpfulness Willingness to serve; impression of interest in the customer factors Care Concern, sympathy and patience (mentioned by Competence Skill, expertise, and professionalism of employees multiple studies) Courtesy Politeness, respect Communication Clarity, accuracy of employee communication; ability to listen to and understand the customer Effectiveness of problem resolution Includes how customer complaints/problems, service glitches/problems are dealt with Flexibility Willingness/ability to change to suit the needs of the customer, deal with unusual requests/circumstances Medium ranked factors Aesthetics Pleasant appearance of physical service environment & materials Functionality How well the service fits their needs/delivers Reliability Reliability and consistency Responsiveness Speed & timeliness of service delivery Security Safety & security of customer; includes confidentiality Commitment Perceived pride, satisfaction, diligence of employees Friendliness Cheerfulness, welcoming attitude, approachability Integrity Fairness and trust Lower ranked factors Availability Availability of service, e.g. # of staff, time spent with each customer, service hours Cleanliness/tidiness Neat and clean appearance of physical surroundings Access physical approachability of service location, ease & clarity of finding & using the service Elements of good service: other issues When determining service quality, customers value interactions with employees, how the service functions to meet their needs, and perceived value of the service. Physical elements of the service (e.g. access, aesthetics) are far less important. Customers value both consistency and personalization, but there is a tension between the two. Employees need to find a balance. Excellence means meeting or exceeding customer expectations. Researchers have found that many service result from one of the following gaps: o between the customer s expectations of the service & staff perceptions of those expectations (not enough customer feedback) o between service quality specifications & service as it is delivered (doesn t meet established standards) o between service as it is delivered & how we advertise it (doesn t live up to promises) 35

36 One of the main tools used to measure service quality is called ServQual. ServQual notes that one aspect of service quality is adequate marketing: making sure customers are aware of the services offered. If people don t have a good understanding of services, it can result in service problems. Marketing should be considered a part of a service, not an add-on. BIBLIOGRAPHY Bartley, B., Gomibuchi, S., & Mann, R. (2007). Best practices in achieving a customer-focused culture. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 14(4), Ford, R. C., Brown, S. W., & Heaton, C. P. (2001). Delivering excellent service: lessons from the best firms. California Management Review, 44, Hogan, J., Hogan, R., & Busch, C. M. (1984). How to measure service orientation. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(1), Horwitz, F. M., & Neville, M. a. (1996). Organization design for service excellence: a review of the literature. Human Resource Management, 35(4), Jo, M., Booms, B. H., Tetreault, M. S., & Bitner, M. J. (1990). Service encounter : diagnosing favorable and unfavorable incidents. Journal of Marketing, 54(1), Johnston, R. (1995). The determinants of service quality : satisfiers and dissatisfiers. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 6(5), Jones, C. R. (2004). A scorecard for service excellence. Measuring Business Excellence, 8(4), Kline, J. (2001). How quality award-winning governments handle customer service. Journal of Organizational Excellence, 20(3), Kopelman, R., Chiou, A., Lipani, L., & Zhu, Z. (2012). Interpreting the success of Zappos.com, Four Seasons, and Nordstrom : customer centricity is but one-third of the job. Global Business and Organizational Excellence, 31(5), Ladhari, R. (2009). A review of twenty years of SERVQUAL research. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 1(2), Scott, G. (2001). Customer satisfaction: six strategies for continuous improvement. Journal of Healthcare Management, 46(2), Sureshchandar, G. S., & Rajendran, C. (2001). Customer perceptions of service quality: a critique. Total Quality Management, 12(1), Ueno, A. (2010). What are the fundamental features supporting service quality? Journal of Services Marketing, 24(1),

37 APPENDIX D: SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendation Page 1 Develop a set of service standards that defines clearly what excellent service means for us, 10 and how we know when we have achieved it. Standards should also define patron and staff expectations for timeliness and responsiveness, e.g. we guarantee that all will be answered within one business day. Once developed, the standards should be used as a basis for training, service assessment, and staff performance evaluation. 2 Adopt the integrated service model, and blend circulation and reference functions at a single 11 service point as originally suggested by the external review. 3 Merge service points for Archives & Special Collections and Music Ensemble/Slides Locate the merged specialized collections service point in a more public and visible location 11 away from the basement. 5 Eventually, merge the collections as well as service points, and repurpose the space on the 12 4th floor. A review of the music ensemble and slides collections should happen as part of this process, to determine what is available online and what might be moved to the stacks or weeded. 6 Eliminate unstaffed specialized service points wherever possible, and merge them into more 12 general areas to simplify and improve service. 7 Expand the scope of chat reference services to include matters currently dealt with by 13 Access Services 8 Expand chat reference hours so they are more consistent with our in-person service hours Promote chat reference services more explicitly Establish a skills-building program to ensure consistent, user-focused services Do more tracking and assessment of our online service Implement enhancements or additions to our current chat reference service Proactively investigate and implement additional virtual services we can offer Investigate moving current services to mobile-friendly versions Review and streamline current public service policies Empower staff to deal with issues as they arise and solve most problems on the spot rather 15 than referring. 17 Staff the blended service point with cross-trained staff associates and gradually remove 17 librarians from the desk to focus on faculty outreach and more specialized reference appointments 18 Have librarians available for staff support using an informal back chat system Develop a referral and appointment system that includes proactively contacting users and 17 setting service standards that define how soon users can expect an appointment 20 Relocate self-check to a prominent location and actively encourage users to use it Put holds and reserves on open shelving Allow users to self-register and pay fines online Recognize that self-service is a key part of our service model, and commit to maintaining 18 these services at a high level 24 Investigate the possibility of converting our collection to RFID to enable better self-service 18 options and streamline staff workflows 25 Use students to do basic, directional, and technical help at the desk, and train student 19 shelvers to help people find things in the stacks 26 Investigate other possible uses for students in public service

38 27 Create proper structures and skills for hiring, training and supervision to facilitate student 19 employee success 28 Cross-train all staff to provide service to users in major functions currently performed at 20 each service desk. 29 Separate back-end functions from front-end customer service work, so people scheduled on 20 the desk focus only on serving users. 30 Reconfigure public service positions so that half of each position focuses on public service, 21 and half on assigned work while off the desk. 31 Make off-desk roles and responsibilities specific and clearly defined All staff should have a computer & desk Reconsider current departmental structures Create two roles to coordinate public service/desk and Access Services processing(back-end) 21 functions. 35 Create a desk schedule similar to the current Information Desk, with shorter shifts Have day staff work between 8am and 6pm and weekend days on rotation; maintain current 22 arrangements for evening staff in Access Services and cross-train them. 37 Investigate options for scheduling flexibility and emergency back-up Create a formal training program for initial and ongoing staff skill development, and make 23 training a formal part of a coordinator role 39 Investigate creating mechanisms for staff to communicate and share knowledge informally, 23 such as a discussion forum or knowledgebase. 40 Put much more effort into publicizing our public services than we do now Improve mechanisms for understanding user needs, evaluating service quality, and making changes based on findings