Five Years of Keeping Score What are the Results?
25
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
description
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 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Transcript of Five Years of Keeping Score What are the Results?
Five Years of Keeping Score
What are the Results?
Jim Self
Donna TolsonUniversity 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 Will tally FY07 in July and August A work in progress
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
A few examples of results …
Process improvement…Identifying and dissecting shortfalls
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.
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.
Accountability…Institutionalizing customer feedback
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
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.
Examining priorities
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)
Gaining resources
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)
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.
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%)
A few examples of results (def. 3)…
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?
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
Scorecard structure
Results: a more balanced picture of the Library more involvement and acceptance among
staff
Tool for communication
Perspectives connect library data to universal organizational goals
Translates “library lingo” into management priorities
Tool for communication
Results: Resonates with all staff regardless of
specialization VERY useful when communicating with
those outside organization
Private sector spin on public service organization
Encourages focus on less obvious areas of a public organization
Still unusual in academia and government
Private sector spin on public service organization
Results: Encourages Library to “think” like a
business Interest is growing – you may start a trend!
Thank you!
Jim Self [email protected]
Donna Tolson [email protected]
UVA Library BSC website
http://www.lib.virginia.edu/bsc/
