1. Copyright statement Copyright David Consiglio, Pattie Orr, Carol Peddie, Patricia Schoknecht, Douglas West, and Andrew White, 2006. This work is the intellectual property of the authors. Permission is granted for this material to be shared for non-commercial, educational purposes, provided that this copyright statement appears on the reproduced materials and notice is given that the copying is by permission of the authors. To disseminate otherwise or to republish requires written permission from the authors.

2. Measuring for Soup: The MISO Survey David Consiglio Pattie Orr Carol Peddie Patricia Schoknecht Douglas West Andrew White Educause - October, 2006

3. What is MISO? Merged Information Services Organizations Survey “The Bryn Mawr Survey” A web-based quantitative survey designed to measure use and effectiveness for students, faculty, and staff of the services and resources of merged library and computing units

4. Survey Timeline  V1.0 – developed by Bryn Mawr College  Discussed at a CLIR meeting with CIOs of other merged schools  V2.0 – developed by team of 5 schools  Fall, 2005 (5 schools); Spring, 2006 (14 schools)  Another cohort of schools in spring 2007  Longitudinal data will be the most powerful  Many of the original schools to participate again in Spring, 2008

5. Survey Participants Developer schools Middlebury College Mills College Mitchell College Mt. Holyoke College Rhodes College The University of the South University of Richmond Wagner College (non-merged) Wellesley College Wheaton College (MA) Barnard College Bates College Beloit College Brandeis University Bryn Mawr College Bucknell College Connecticut College Dickinson College Earlham College Kenyon College

6. Survey Questions  Three instruments developed  Faculty  Staff  Students  Three question categories  Core  Optional  Local

7. Survey Logistics  Full population of faculty and staff  Sample 700 students (based on similar size populations)  Confidential but not anonymous  IRB approval required  Information Sharing Agreement required

8. Responses per Institution (25 th -75 th percentile) MeanRate (%) Faculty137 56 (105-156) (50-64) Staff 168 51 (116-205) (44-60) Students228 32 (162-270) (22-38)

9. What Tools Do People Use?

10. Tools – Academic Purposes

11. Tools – Work Purposes

12. Student Tools

13. Importance How important are these services to you? 1 = Not important 2 = Somewhat important 3 = Important 4 = Very important X = Not applicable

14. Importance Faculty StudentsStaff ERP X X X Access to online resources/off campus X X X Computing help desk X X Library website X X Library catalog X X Library databases X X Library circulation X X Library reference X X Interlibrary loan X Technology in classrooms X Support for technology in classrooms X Instructional technology support X On-campus computer labs X Wireless on campus X Course management system X Online course reserves X

15. Importance Faculty Students Staff Library catalog 1 3 Access online res/off-campus 2 3 Library databases 3 4 Library circulation 4 Technology in classrooms 5 On-campus computer labs 1 ERP 2 2 Wireless on campus5 Computing help desk 1

16. Satisfaction How dissatisfied or satisfied are you with these services? 1 = Dissatisfied 2 = Somewhat dissatisfied 3 = Somewhat satisfied 4 = Satisfied X = Not applicable

17. Satisfaction Faculty Students Staff Service 54 64 54 % of variability in ratings of satisfaction that can be explained by the service being rated

18. Satisfaction Rank* [# of items] Faculty StaffStudents Library 9.2 [11] 9.0 [8] 8.6 [9] Telephone 15.5 [2] 18.2 [2] 16.5 [3] Computing 26.2 [16] 20.9 [16] 18.4 [8] Network 27.9 [7] 25.6 [7] 23.4 [7] Instructional 28.9 [5] 28.2 [2] 14.5 [2] ERP 36.8 [3] 26.5 [3] 10.0 [1] *Lower rank = higher satisfaction

19. How Informed Are You? 1 = not inform, 2 = sw inform, 3 = inform, 4 = v. inform Faculty Staff Students Library service 2.76 2.24 2.55 Technol service 2.52 2.34 2.36 System downtime 2.80 2.29 2.94 Privacy 2.22 2.08 2.06 Virus/Spyware 2.25 2.29 2.18 Information 2.13 2.16 2.07 security

20. Knowing Whom to Contact 1 = disagree, 2 = sw disagree, 3 = sw agree, 4 = agree Faculty Staff Library needs 3.68 3.58 (3.63-3.76) (3.49-3.66) Instructional 3.36 technology (3.25-3.48) Desktop 3.34 3.48 support (3.23-3.41) (3.43-3.61) ERP needs 2.95 3.42 (2.75-3.11) (3.27-3.55)

21. Input into Decisions 1 = dissatis, 2 = sw dissatis, 3 = sw satis, 4 = satis FacultyStaff Students Library 3.18 3.313.05 (3.05-3.29) (3.21-3.39) (2.97-3.15) Computing 2.96 3.123.01 (2.81-3.14) (2.97-3.26) (2.95-3.10)

22. Interest in Learning 1 = not interest; 2 = sw interest; 3 = interest; 4 = v interest Faculty Staff Students Interest 1.86 2.04 2.14 # of items20 20 18

23. Skill Level and Interest in Learning Low High Interest in Learning Skill Level Emergent/Specialized Audio/Video Database Graphics Math/Statistics Spatial analysis Web authoring Classrm technol Common Email Search engines Spreadsheet Word processing Backing up data

24. Skill Level and Interest in Learning Low High Interest in Learning Skill Level Common Powerpoint – Faculty/Students Voicemail - Staff Zero Powerpoint – Staff Voicemail – Faculty/Students

25. Skill Level and Interest in Learning ERP, Online catalog, OS Low High Interest in Learning Skill Level Common - Students Zero - Faculty Specialized - Staff

26. Skill Level and Interest in Learning Low High Interest in Learning Skill Level Emergent/Specialized CMS – Faculty/Staff IM – Faculty Library DBs - Staff Zero CMS - Students IM – Staff/Students Library DBs – Faculty/Students

27. Learning Methods and Skill Level Correlation Coefficients

28. What does this survey say about merged computing and library organizations?  The surveyed schools are doing a good job of meeting the needs of their populations  The items that are important to faculty and students revolve around digital information access  Not as much as it could since we don’t yet have a comparable population of non-merged schools

29. Want to Learn More?  http://misosurvey.org  Send Inquiries to: surveyinfo@misosurvey.orgsurveyinfo@