1 / 25

Five Years of Keeping Score What are the Results?

Five Years of Keeping Score What are the Results?. Jim Self Donna Tolson University of Virginia Library ALA Annual Conference Washington DC June 23, 2007. The BSC at the U.Va. Library. Implemented in 2001 Results tallied FY02 through FY06 Completing metrics for FY08

brendanf
Télécharger la présentation

Five Years of Keeping Score What are the Results?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Five Years of Keeping ScoreWhat are the Results? Jim Self Donna Tolson University of Virginia Library ALA Annual Conference Washington DC June 23, 2007

  2. The BSC at the U.Va. Library • Implemented in 2001 • Results tallied FY02 through FY06 • Completing metrics for FY08 • Will tally FY07 in July and August • A work in progress

  3. re· sult (noun) • a quantity, expression, etc., obtained by calculation • something that happens as a consequence; outcome • often, a desirable or beneficial consequence, outcome, or effect

  4. A few examples of results …

  5. Process improvement…Identifying and dissecting shortfalls

  6. Metric U.4.B: Turnaround time for user requests • Target1: 75% of user requests for new books should be filled within 7 days. • Target2: 50% of user requests for new books should be filled within 7 days. • Result FY06: Target1. • 79% filled within 7 days.

  7. Metric VII: Turnaround time for user requests • Target1: 90% of user requests for new books should be filled within 7 days. • Target2: 80% of user requests for new books should be filled within 7 days. • Result FY03: Target not met. • 17% filled within 7 days.

  8. Accountability…Institutionalizing customer feedback

  9. Metric U.1.A: Overall rating in student and faculty surveys • Target1: An average score of at least 4.00 (out of 5.00) from each of the major constituencies. • Target2: A score of at least 3.90. FY06 Result: Target1 • Graduate students 4.08 • Undergraduates 4.11

  10. Metric I.3.B.Staff Survey Rating of Internal Customer Service • Target1: A composite rating of at least 4.00, with no unit rated below 3.50. • Target2: A composite rating of 3.50, with no unit below 3.00. • Result FY05: Target1. • Composite score of 4.09. Individual unit ranged from 3.52 to 4.57.

  11. Examining priorities

  12. Metric F.2.A: Unit Cost of Electronic Serial Use • Target1: There should be no increase in unit cost each year. • Target2: Less than 5% annual increase in unit cost. • Result FY03-FY05: Target1. • Result FY06: Target not met. • 8.8% increase ($2.10 vs. $1.93)

  13. Gaining resources

  14. Metric F.1.B. Library spending compared to University expenditures • Target1: : The University Library will account for at least 2.50% of the University’s academic division expenditures. • Target2: : The Library will account for at least 2.25% of expenditures. • Result FY06: Target1. • 2.57% ($25.2M of $972M)

  15. Metric F.1.C.Amount of unrestricted development receipts. • Target1: Increase unrestricted (or minimally restricted) giving by 10% each year. • Target2: Increase of 5% per year. • Result FY06: Target1. • FY06 unrestricted receipts were $774,000; target was $374,000.

  16. Metric L.2.C.Compare staff salaries to peer groups. • Target1: Library faculty salaries should rank in the top 40% of salaries at ARL libraries. • Target2: Rank in top 50%. • Result FY06: Target1. • Ranked 33 of 113. (Top 28%)

  17. A few examples of results (def. 3)…

  18. Core Questions • User Perspective • How well is the library meeting user needs? • Internal Processes • Do the library’s processes function efficiently? • Finance • How well are the library’s finances managed? • Learning and Growth • Is the library well positioned for the future?

  19. Scorecard structure • Four perspectives force development of measures in several areas • Development and collection processes lead to participation across organization • Participation leads to more widespread awareness and interest from staff

  20. Scorecard structure Results: • a more balanced picture of the Library • more involvement and acceptance among staff

  21. Tool for communication • Perspectives connect library data to universal organizational goals • Translates “library lingo” into management priorities

  22. Tool for communication Results: • Resonates with all staff regardless of specialization • VERY useful when communicating with those outside organization

  23. Private sector spin on public service organization • Encourages focus on less obvious areas of a public organization • Still unusual in academia and government

  24. Private sector spin on public service organization Results: • Encourages Library to “think” like a business • Interest is growing – you may start a trend!

  25. Thank you! • Jim Self self@virginia.edu • Donna Tolson dtolson@virginia.edu • UVA Library BSC websitehttp://www.lib.virginia.edu/bsc/

More Related