Whats Going On With IS Assessment

1
Whats Going On With IS Assessment?

• Information Services Assessment Council
• February 8, 2007

2
Information Services Assessment Council

• Jill Glaser, Darrell McNamara, Holly Mercer, Bill
  Myers (chair), Ryan Papesh, Thelma Simons, John
  Stratton, Mandy Swygart-Hobaugh, James Tumlinson,
  Sherry Umscheid
• ISAC's purpose is to enable evidence-based
  decision-making by fostering and supporting a
  culture of assessment -- an ongoing process in
  which services, resources and performance are
  measured against the expectations of users, and
  improvements are made to satisfy user needs
  effectively and efficiently.
• evidence in action

3
Information Services Plan

• Goal 8 Assessment
• Enable decision-making based on evidence derived
  from determining user perceptions/expectations
  and measuring service performance and resource
  delivery
• Objectives
• Develop an IS-wide assessment plan with clearly
  defined goals, objectives, benchmarks, and
  support
• Identify priority assessment activities in
  collaboration with Information Services
  leadership and staff
• Determine content needs and level of satisfaction
  with delivery of technology
• Evaluate use and value of content presently
  provided
• Determine a priority list of content and suitable
  technology for delivery of that content
• Provide IS Assessment Council support (direct
  and/or advisory) for identified priorities

4
Information Services Plan

• Assure that results of assessment inform
  plans/priorities/marketing efforts and daily
  activities so they become actionable outcomes
• Conduct at least four staff development
  activities on assessment practices, methods and
  outcomes
• Regularly report assessment results to the IS
  staff, stakeholders, users and the broader
  University (academic and administrative)
  community
• Maintain an accessible and functional archive of
  assessment activities and results, including what
  improvements are being made based on assessment
• Evaluate assessment program effectiveness and
  identify resources needed for program
  advancement.

5
Information Services Planning Council

• Membership includes Deans, Senior Vice Provost,
  Vice Provosts, Edwards Campus Vice Chancellor,
  Research Center Directors, Chairs of ACTC, Senate
  Library Committee and Technology Partners,
  Student Government Representatives
• ISPC provides a means for stakeholder feedback on
  issues relating to the overall planning for
  campus-wide information services on the Lawrence
  campus.
• Provide information regarding future directions
  for technology (KU environment and beyond) by
• Identifying the possibilities/opportunities
• Identifying the challenges
• Recommending strategic plans of action

6
Information Services Planning Council

• Provide leadership/advice in maximizing KUs
  technology investments by
• Improving visibility of services/resources
  available
• Improving communication concerning same
• Improving transparency of organizational
  structure and function
• Improving transparency of prioritizing and
  decision-making
• Assuring coordination of systems/services, and
  assisting units/departments in avoiding
  unnecessary duplication and redundancy

7
Information Services Planning Council

• Assuring that needs of primary stakeholders are
  addressed instruction, research, administration
• Identifying invisible developers, early
  adopters and others who are advancing technology
  applications/uses that might be
  modeled/replicated by others
• Creating and facilitating opportunities for
  collaboration and innovation

8
Classroom Instructional Technology

• Reviewed and evaluated the current status of
  technology-enhanced classrooms on the Lawrence
  campus
• identified equipment and application tools to
  support teaching and learning in those
  environments
• explored models for providing staff support to
  those classrooms
• defined three distinct levels of
  technology-capability to apply to all classrooms
• Working group members included Dan Bernstein,
  Center for Teaching Excellence, and Susan Zvacek,
  Instructional Development Support, as well as
  IS staff Travis Berkley, Bill Myers, Beth Warner
  and Rose Winters.

9
Online Advising Tool

• Conducted seven focused conversations with
  faculty and staff five on the Lawrence campus,
  and one each on the Medical Center and Edwards
  campusesto identify the tasks such a tool should
  enable users to perform and identify the types of
  information the tool should make accessible to
  users.
• Online advising tool working group, chaired by
  Julie Loats and including representatives from a
  variety of academic departments and academic
  support units, will submit recommendations to
  guide the development/selection of a
  comprehensive tool by the end of March
• Some initial implementation expected to begin in
  fall 2007.

10
LibQUAL 2006 Analysis

• 2006 comparison with other ARL libraries (39)
• Comparison with 2003 results
• User group
• Discipline
• Relative importance of sub-dimensions and
  questions
• Affect of Service
• Information Control
• Library as Place

11
LibQUAL

• http//www.libqual.org/

12
LibQUAL 2006 Comparisons with ARL Peers

• Thirty-nine ARLs (30,000 respondents) include
• Arizona
• Arizona State
• Colorado
• Houston
• Indiana
• Iowa
• Ohio State
• Pittsburgh
• Southern California
• Texas
• Texas AM
• Virginia
• Wisconsin

13
LibQUAL 2006 Comparisons with ARL Peers

• KU ARLs (39) Dif.
• Affect of Service
• Overall 6.84 7.07 (.23)
• Undergraduate 6.73 6.91 (.18)
• Graduate 6.99 7.1 (.02)
• Faculty 6.61 7.26 (.65)

14
LibQUAL 2006 Comparisons with ARL Peers

• KU ARLs (39) Dif.
• Information Control
• Overall 7.02 7.11 (.09)
• Undergraduate 7.12 7.11 .01
• Graduate 7.14 7.15 (.01)
• Faculty 6.69 7.05 (.36)

15
LibQUAL 2006 Comparisons with ARL Peers

• KU ARLs (39) Dif.
• Library as Place
• Overall 6.53 6.61 (.08)
• Undergraduates 6.85 6.87 (.02)
• Graduates 6.6 6.47 .13
• Faculty 5.82 6.33 (.51)

16
Higher Education TechQual

• http//www.techqual.org/
• http//www.techqual.org/techqual.sys/help/

17
Focus Areas

• Connectivity, Access
• End User Experience
• Administrative Systems, Online Processes
• Campus Website, Web Publishing
• Research Computing
• Shared Governance Inclusive Planning
• Instructional Support Classroom Media
• ??????

18
Wired, Wireless Networking and Online Access to
Resources

• When it comes to. . .
• Having adequate capacity (speed, bandwidth) on
  the wired network
• Having adequate capacity (speed, bandwidth) on
  the wireless network
• Having wireless network coverage that covers all
  the areas in which I work and learn
• Having access to critical campus resources from
  off-campus (at home, traveling)
• Getting the training or support required to best
  take advantage of computing resources

19
Helpdesk, Support, Training and the End User
Experience

• When it comes to. . .
• Helpdesk staff who are willing to help and
  instill confidence in users
• Helpdesk staff who are consistently courteous and
  ready and willing to respond to my request for
  assistance
• Having my request assigned to the person who
  could best provide me with assistance
• Helpdesk staff who really understand the problems
  I am experiencing
• Having my helpdesk request resolved in a
  satisfactory amount of time

20
Other IS Assessment Related Activities

• Technology Services Updates
• Libraries service desks
• IT help desks
• Web-based online feedback (comments
  suggestions)

21
Information Services Assessment Council

• http//www.informationservices.ku.edu/assessment

22
Communication

• ISAC meetings (2nd and 4th Tuesdays, 9am,
  Anschutz)
• Web site
• Info Matters
• Monthly presentations (2nd Thursday, 1030am,
  Comp Ctr)
• ISAC visits to regular meetings throughout IS

23
Questions Comments

• What other assessments?
• What further presentations/education?
• What other communication?

24
(No Transcript)