Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

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.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "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."— Presentation transcript:

1 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

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) 1. a quantity, expression, etc., obtained by calculation 2. something that happens as a consequence; outcome 3. 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.eduself@virginia.edu Donna Tolson dtolson@virginia.edudtolson@virginia.edu UVA Library BSC website http://www.lib.virginia.edu/bsc/ http://www.lib.virginia.edu/bsc/


Download ppt "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."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google