Present: Marlene Laurence, Maureen McCormack, Doug Morton, Susan Moskal, Shabiran Rahman, Susan Routliffe (Chair and Recorder), Jackie Stapleton, Linda Teather
Absent: Wish Leonard
The minutes of the November 28 meeting were accepted with changes.
Susan will draft an email message to let those participating in the roving pilot project know that on Monday ISM members will distribute the evaluation form. The message will be sent on Friday, December 15.
We began to review the status of the recommendations included in the Report. As noted in the October 24 minutes, recommendations 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and 1.5 have been addressed through the establishment of the Systems Liaison Working Group (aka Doug and Maureen). Linda noted that Chris Gray finds that communication with ISR on matters associated with CD ROMs is much improved because of the Working Group. Shabiran noted that she recently had an example of excellent customer service when she needed assistance from Systems to upgrade her computer. The assistance was prompt and thorough.
During this meeting, the following recommendations were commented on.
1.4 Encourage staff to distinguish clearly between requests for information about possibilities and and requests for specific action.This recommendation can best be acted on as opportunities arise to raise awareness. Linda noted that Systems staff are trying to ask more questions to so that they can determine whether a request is for something specific or for information about possibilities. Maureen noted that as requests go through her, as a member of the Systems Liaison Working Group, she also does some probing to be sure about the nature of the request.
1.6 Establish a method for identifying Library-wide requests for Systems support and for establishing priorities for ISR requests within the context of all requests.
The Library Managers Group, i.e. LBPC and department or unit heads, has begun to meet monthly and would be an appropriate forum for discussion of this recommendation.
1.7 Do not allow "squeaky wheels" to set or alter priorities.
This seems to be less of an issue than it was when the report was being written. The high level of frustration on the part of both ISR and Systems staff seems to have diminished —perhaps/probably because things are now being handled more effectively.
1.8 Determine a way to let all Library staff know what requests have been submitted to Systems and what priority has been assigned to each of the requests.
Discussion about a way to address this recommendation will follow discussion about 1.6.
2.1 Determine the level of need for Systems support at time when it is not currently offered, i.e. weekday noon hours, evenings and weekends, and investigate ways of meeting the need.
When the Report was being written there was a perceived need for additional support. However, the number of actual requests, as indicated on reference desk statistics form, does not confirm a need for additional support.
2.2 Pursue opportunities for obtaining additional Systems support staff.
For the spring 2000 term, Systems hired a co-op student to work full-time and for the fall fall term they hired one full-time and one part-time work-study student. A co-op student will be hired again for the winter 2001 term, and perhaps a part-time work-study student as well.
2.3 Develop an understanding among staff that requests for support from Systems should be submitted as far in advance as possible.
This recommendation can be best addressed by finding opportunities to raise awareness. Such an opportunity occurred in August when John Thompson issued instructions about use of the FLEX Lab and included the need to allow two weeks for requests to add software to computers in the Lab.
Status of the remaining recommendations will be reviewed at a future meeting. During that meeting we’ll also discuss the Systems Liaison Working Group’s suggestions for ways in which ISR can establish priorities for requests.
Next meeting: December 12, Davis