Using MISO Results to Improve Library and IT Services (271910255)

8/20/2019 Using MISO Results to Improve Library and IT Services (271910255)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/using-miso-results-to-improve-library-and-it-services-271910255 1/25

{

Interpreting, Editing, andCommunicating MISOSurvey Results

Fred Folmer

Research & Instruction Librarian / Special Projects Coordinator, Connecticut College

This presentation leaves copyright of the content to the presenter. Unless otherwise noted in the materials,uploaded content carries the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license, whichgrants usage to the general public with the stipulated criteria.



Quantitative Web-based survey helping

libraries/technology organizations in highereducation evaluate their services Stands for Measuring Information ServiceOutcomes

Nonprofit survey provider, based at Bryn Mawr

College In 2014, approximately 40 institutionsparticipated

What is MISO?



Asks about satisfaction with, and importance of,numerous services provided by libraries and

information technology organizations Rates service providers on whether they areresponsive, reliable, knowledgeable and friendly.

Asks how well informed respondents feel aboutvarious topics

Asks what skills respondents would beinterested in learning

Students: what devices owned; whether they’reused for academic or personal purposes

What does MISO measure?



Lots of data! Different results for different populations Longitudinal, comparative

Sifting through it Communication issues, especially within a

merged organization

Questions/issues to be

explored



Top 10, Satisfaction,

Faculty,2014



Top 10, Importance,

Faculty,2014



Before drawing a conclusion or getting toofar, it’s wise to: Look at the actual numbers — are technumbers really problematic, or are they justlower than library numbers? By how much?

Consider some of the differences betweentechnical support services and library services.

This is especially true in a mergedorganization.

Take all of this in prior to communicatingconclusions.

Conclusions?



Respondents could rate satisfaction of servicesas “Dissatisfied” (1), “somewhat dissatisfied”(2), “somewhat satisfied” (3) or “satisfied” (4)

More than 98 percent of the services received a

mean satisfaction of 3, or at least “somewhatsatisfied,” from all constituencies: faculty, staffand students

Very high levels of satisfaction



Respondents asked to consider whether they

thought staff in various IS areas (archives,circulation, reference, instr. tech., computer support,phone support, IT Service Desk) were: Responsive Reliable Knowledgeable Friendly

Some differences among areas, but majority agree.

Overall perceptions of staff werevery positive



Student perceptions ofreference staff



Student perceptions of ITService Desk staff



What we communicated:All staff areas received average scoreof more than 3 out of 4 (or

“somewhat agree”) that criteria weremet,across all respondent populations.

Overall perceptions of staff(cont’d.)



Comparing satisfaction

withimportance



Relatively high importance/relatively low

satisfaction quadrant, faculty



Use past results for longitudinal data Do-it-yourself MISO’s results (has advantages anddisadvantages)

Combinations of results from different

questions in the survey MISO’s tool to compare results with otherinstitutions

Combinations of all the above!

Other ways to discern patterns



Among faculty, mean satisfaction with wireless

performance improved over 2012 by 3.38percent

Among students, mean satisfaction withwireless performance improved over 2012 by6.84 percent

Among staff, mean satisfaction for the ITService desk improved by 11.67 percent

Several areas of tech serviceimprovement over time



OVER TIME:Faculty and students rated importance of digitalimage collections higher than in 2012. Faculty mean score increased 9.21 percent Student mean score increased 9.28 percent

CROSS-INSTITUTIONAL:Faculty and students mean scores for importance of

digital images were higher than those of peerinstitutions. Faculty means of 2.62 versus 2.3, respectively Student means of 2.59 versus 2.23

Increased importance for digitalimage collections



Faculty, staff and students named information security as

an area about which they felt least informed. Respondentswho said they felt either “not informed” or only“somewhat informed” included:

71.19 percent of faculty

70.39 percent of staff 74.83 percent of students

Several indicators point towardinformation security awarenessas an area for attention



Other related categories, about whichmajorities of respondents said they wereeither “not informed” or “somewhatinformed”: Computer viruses and spyware Technology-related privacy issues Data backup

Information securityawareness, cont’d.



42 percent of students and 39 percent of staffsaid they never back up their data.

The most common answer for those who backup their data was “once or twice” a semester.

Majorities either “interested” or “veryinterested” in learning more about data backup:

57.69 percent of students 60.59 percent of staff 64.41 percent of faculty

Data backup also possiblyan area for attention



CURRENT QUESTIONS:Majorities interested in learning more about: Technology in meeting spaces/classrooms Our learning platform (Moodle)

OVER TIME: 11.62 percent increase over 2012 in faculty interest inclassroom technology

ACROSS INSTITUTIONS:Higher mean scores than peer group in: Interest in learning about Moodle Importance of instructional technology support Interest in learning about technology in meeting spacesand classrooms

Greater faculty interest in

instructionaltechnology



Issued preliminary report to IS Committee(made up of faculty and selected IS staff) Issued similar report to leadership team oflibrary and IT directors

Some items (printing services, wireless)

incorporated into strategic goals for thefollowing year

Communication strategies, spring 2014



Issued revised/final report to IS staff at all-ISmeeting “Good news,” trends

Final report to IS Committee; detailed reports

on website

Communication strategies, fall 2015


http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/using-miso-results-to-improve-library-and-it-services-271910255 24/25VP wrote column for newsletter



Be thorough when interpretingnumbers Don’t just settle for a first impression

Be prudent about what’s shared

and with whomLook for trends and aggregations

Communication tips

Documents

Using MISO Results to Improve Library and IT Services (271910255)