1. ILM Level 5.02: Managing Improvement Rutland Building, 17 th February 2014 Dr Graham Walton, Head of Planning and Resources, Loughborough University Library  Overall aim is to explore how Customer Services Excellence (CSE) and Investors in People (IIP) used in Library to improve quality  Customer Services Excellence – what it is, what Library did and what resulted  Investors in People – Going for Gold - what it is, what Library did and what resulted  Reflections on positive and ‘challenging’ aspects of CSE and IIP

2. CSE is focusing on organization's customers

3. Customer Services Excellence: what it is http://www.customerserviceexcellence.uk.com/  “The Government wants services for all that are efficient, effective, excellent, equitable and empowering – with the citizen always and everywhere at the heart of service provision…Customer Service Excellence was developed to offer services a practical tool for driving customer-focused change within their organisation”  Customer Service Excellence is designed to operate on three distinct levels: driver of continuous improvement, skills development tool and as an independent validation of achievement.

4. Work needed for CSE accreditation  Provide evidence to show the Library meets 57 criteria under the following broad headings: 1.Customer Insight 2.Leadership, policy and culture 3.Information and access 4.Delivery 5.Timeliness and quality of service  Host assessor for two days and set up meetings with customers to allow judgement to me made  Have follow up meeting one year later to show progress made on areas of concern

5. Example of findings showing levels of compliance Criterion Sub- Criterion Element Non Compliant Partial Compliance Compliant Compliance Plus 11.11.1.1 X 1.1.2 X 1.1.3 X 1.21.2.1 X 1.2.2 X 1.2.3 X 1.31.3.1 X 1.3.2 X 1.3.3 X 1.3.4 X 1.3.5 X

6. How the compliance is shown Compliance Plus. Element 1.1.1.: You have an in-depth understanding of your current and potential customer groups based on recent and reliable information Partial Compliance. Element 1.3.4. You set challenging and stretching targets for customer satisfaction and your levels are improving Element 1.3.5. You have made positive changes to services as a result of analysing customer experience, including improved customer journeys Areas for continuous development. Element 1.1.1 Consider how to, more accurately, know about the number of non-student users.

7. Outcome of CSE accreditation Of the 57 detailed criteria, the Library was considered to be Compliance Plus in 5 elements, where we had performed in an ‘innovative, market leading way’. Our assessor, David Melton, stated in his report: “The commitment of the management team, and the whole staff, to deliver the best possible service to all users is totally apparent. The continuing amount of customer-led improvements is impressive... and that customer service is at the heart of everything they do.”

8. CSE identified compliance plus areas: The areas where the Library was compliant plus were:  Element 1.1.1 You have an in depth understanding of the characteristics of your current and potential customer groups based on current and reliable information  Element 2.2.1 Your corporate commitment of putting the customer a the heart of service delivery  Element 2.1.6 You empower and encourage all employees to actively promote and participate in the customer-focused service culture of your organisation  Element 2.2.1 You can demonstrate your commitment to developing and delivering customer focused services through your recruitment, training and development policies for staff  Element 2.2.2 Your staff are polite and friendly to customers and have an understanding of customer needs

9. CSE identified non compliance and areas for continuous development Non compliance  Element 1.3.4. You need to publicise KPIs and the results on web pages and inform students of your success.  Element 1.3.5.: You will need to map customer journeys before this element can become fully compliant.  Element 3.2.2.: Students have not received or understood elements of the information described in the text.  Element 3.2.4.: Customers views on the accuracy of information vary, which leads to partial, compliance here.  Element 3.3.3. The lack of electricity sockets mean that students do not find the library to be a comfortable place to work.  Element 4.2.2.: There were complaints from the focus groups about some elements of service not being delivered, as promised.  Element 5.2.1. Students are not fully aware of your KPIs or Mystery shopper results Areas for continuous development.  Element 1.1.1 Consider how to, more accurately, know about the number of  Element 3.2.1Students’ views in focus group sessions do not prove that they fully approve of the ways in which they receive information, such as the results of surveys.  You should consider providing written evidence for the 1st Year CCR, that you review your complaints procedure, and publish the results of the process.  As part of their remit, the CS Group will be tasked with reviewing our complaints procedure and the feedback we have been given.

10. CUSTOMER SERVICE EXCELLENCE ONTINUOUS COMPLIANCE REPORT for LOUGHBOROUGH UNIVERSITY LIBRARY SERVICES : 31 st October 2013  “As a result of the implementation of a thorough action plan (Progress on Action Plan) the University Library have addressed all 7 Partial Compliances from the Initial Assessment to the extent that all have now been removed”

11. IIP is focusing on organization's staff

12. Investors in People : what it is and what Library did (Internal looking at staff) http://www.investorsinpeople.co.uk/Pages/Home.aspx  “Investors in People specialises in transforming business performance through people. Our mission is to help you achieve the results you want by focusing all our work on your business objectives, and acting as a critical friend so that you maintain continuous improvement.”  Evidence gathered through interviews held with around 30 out of 85 staff where focus is 10 broad areas (can be subdivided into c. 200 requirements)  IIP awarded in 2004, 2007, 2010 and 2013

13. Broad areas for IIP (with c 160 sub headings) 1.Business strategy2. Learning and Development strategy 3. People management strategy4. Leadership and Management strategy 5. Management effectiveness6. Recognition and reward 7. Involvement and engagement8. Learning and Development 9. Performance and measurement10. Continuous improvement.

14. IiP levels of accreditation  Standard award is 39 requirements  Standard plus 26 additional evidence requirements or more will be recognised as Investors in People Bronze.  The Standard plus 76 additional evidence requirements or more will be recognised as Investors in People Silver.  The Standard plus 126 additional evidence requirements or more will be recognised as Investors in People Gold.

15. In 2013, Library decided to go for gold in IiP re- accreditation: why?  Continuous improvement – need to build upon Bronze award from 2010  Opportunity to raise profile within in University (fits in with principle of ‘Building Excellence’)  To provide reassurance and evidence that we are doing OK in a year (2012) that was noticeable for its HR challenges!

16. Investors in People Gold assessment  Accreditor was in Library 30 th April and 1 st May 2013  Interviewed all Library Team Leaders individually for an hour  Met with HR and Staff Development colleagues: THANKS  Met with 15 other Library staff  Awarded gold: Total number of evidence requirements met was 178 (need 165 minimum)

17. Performance of Library against IIP framework (bronze) 12345678910111213141515 161718192021222324252627282929 1√√√√√√ √ √ √ 2√√√√√√√√√ √√√X √√ 3√√√√√ √√ √ √√ √√ √ √√ √ X√ 4√√√ 5√√√√ 6√√√ 7√√√ 8√√√√ √ √√√X 9√√√√√√√ 10√√√√√ √

18. Performance of Library against IIP framework (gold)

19. Continuous improvement areas identified from IIP assessment

20. Benefits in accreditation  Identify areas that can be further improved and developed  Provide external confirmation/ validation about quality  Opportunity to raise profile/ market within wider University  Process of going through accreditation can lead to positive side effects  IIP and CSE moving to developing on-going dialogue with Library  Addresses peer pressure (most university libraries are going for CSE)

21. ‘Challenges’ in accreditation  Costs (£600 per day plus administration)  Workload in collating CSE evidence and organising visits  Monitoring actions recommended by accreditor  Ensuring there is colleague buy-in  Risks when no control over who is being interviewed  Dealing with recommendations when they are sensitive and difficult to implement or when you do not agree with them!  When you have Gold, where do you go?