The Information Services Management Committee (ISMC) has undertaken a review of the relationship between the Information Services and Resources Department (ISR) and the Systems Department. Because the relationship between the two departments has not been as dynamic as members of both departments would like, the review was undertaken to find ways of improving co-operation, trust, respect, and understanding in order to optimize the effectiveness, efficiency, and timeliness of services provided to our users.
As background for the review, and to enable people to speak freely, Linda Teather (the Systems representative on ISMC) met with all members of the Systems Department to develop a list of their concerns, and ISMC met twice without Linda’s presence to develop a list of ISR concerns. Linda then joined subsequent meetings during which the two lists were compared and similarities and differences were identified. A comprehensive list of concerns was then organized into categories and discussions began to focus on what might be done to address each of the concerns.
During the review it became clear that developing effective ways to communicate with each other is pivotal to strengthening the relationship between Systems and ISR. Improved communication is needed in the context of particular activities and projects whose eventual purpose is user service.
ISMC identified four principal areas that need changes:
As reflected in the following recommendations, the need to improve communications was a recurring theme in discussions about each of the four areas.
Background
During ISMC's discussions it became clear that ISR staff do not know how the Systems department assigns priority to requests for support or what the priorities are once they have been established. This is a source of frustration because people do not know how their requests fit in with others or when those requests will be filled. At the same time, it became clear that ISR does not have a systematic, department-wide method for collecting and discussing requests in order to establish what priority each request has for the department before submitting requests to Systems. As a result, ISR requests are submitted by individuals who each see their requests as high priority and who become frustrated when they aren't necessarily treated as such. As a further result, no individual or committee in ISR has a comprehensive picture of what the department is expecting Systems to do on its behalf at any point in time.
When a request is received, Systems tries to solicit sufficient information to understand the urgency of the request and assign it a priority level. Each request is integrated with requests received from other Library departments, as well as computing infrastructure projects originating in Systems which are required to keep the Library's staff and public computer systems running effectively. A target start and end date is also assigned, based on the availability of resources (staff, hardware and software) to complete the task and the demands of competing requests.
Before a priority and target date can be assigned, any or all of the following may be required: further research and/or consultation with the requester or with Systems experts, confirming the progress on other items in the work queue, estimating the time and expertise required to complete the work, evaluating the impact on other requests requiring the same staff member's attention, evaluating the impact on staff and public users. Systems also tries to batch requests into logical groupings when this will make action on multiple requests more efficient.
Setting priorities is a dynamic process. Each new request can require the re-assessment of other items awaiting attention, since receipt of a new high-priority request will require adjustment of others.
In this environment, there is room for new procedures that will lead to less frustration for the ISR department as a whole (and the users its serves), for individuals who understandably want to see their specific needs met as quickly as possible, and for Systems staff who sometimes feel that they are expected to do the impossible.
Recommendations for establishing priorities
1.1. Clarify what types of requests are appropriately submitted directly to Systems by individuals and what types need broader discussion within the department before they are submitted. (Systems and ISR)
1.2 Determine the level or levels of priority that will generally be assigned to requests submitted directly by individuals. (Systems and ISR)
1.3 Develop a process within ISR for collecting, discussing, and assigning departmental priority to requests requiring broader discussion. (ISR)
1.4 Encourage staff to distinguish clearly between requests for information about possibilities and requests for specific action. (Systems and ISR)
1.5 Develop procedures for submitting requests requiring broader discussion to Systems and for letting all members of ISR know what requests, with what level of priority, have been submitted. (Systems and ISR)
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. (departmental managers including those from Systems and ISR)
1.7 Do not allow "squeaky wheels" to set or alter priorities. (Systems and ISR)
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. (departmental managers including those from Systems and ISR)
Background
During the review, the importance of timely response to requests for Systems support was emphasized. ISR staff were quick to point out that Help Desk response time for requests flagged as urgent or high priority is much improved over the last year and is now quite good. They also noted that previous problems associated with TRELLIS, ERL and ILL have been resolved effectively and that public printing and personal workstations are working quite well.
There is, however, a concern that lower priority requests seem to linger without attention and that higher priority requests are not always attended to as quickly as desired, to the detriment of our users.
Addressing some of the issues associated with priorities should help to ensure that work is done in a timely way. There are, however, some additional things that might also be done to improve timeliness.
Recommendations for ensuring that work is done in a timely way
2.1 Determine the level of need for Systems support at times when it is not currently offered, i.e. weekday noon hours, evenings and weekends, and investigate ways of meeting the need. (ISR)
2.2 Pursue opportunities for obtaining additional Systems support staff. (Systems)
2.3 Develop an understanding among staff that requests for support from Systems should be submitted as far in advance as possible. (Systems and ISR)
2.4 For each request, simple or complex, establish a reasonable time frame within which the work will be completed. (Systems and ISR)
2.5 Advise the requestor of any delay as soon as it’s clear that there will be a delay, and explain the reasons for the delay. (Systems)
2.6 Establish a time frame within which a requestor may inquire about a request that has not been acted on and about which there has been no feedback. (Systems and ISR)
2.7 Regularly review backlogged requests (including lower priority Help Desk requests) to ensure that none are forgotten and that timely feedback is provided for all outstanding requests. (Systems)
2.8 Develop a log of problems reported to Systems by staff on duty at each of the information services desks; keep the log at the information services desk so that staff coming on duty know what has been reported. (ISR)
2.9 Ensure that installations are complete, tested, and operating appropriately before being made available to users. (Systems and ISR)
Background
Staff in ISR and Systems both identified a lack of clarity about the roles and responsibilities of individuals in the other department as an obstacle to working together effectively. Both departments have recently restructured and some job descriptions have been revised. These changes can make it difficult for individuals from one department to know whom to contact about what in the other. Independent of recent changes, there has also been some long-term uncertainty about responsibilities. There are, for example, concerns about conflicting, but unspoken, differences in expectations about who is responsible for problem solving. ISR staff may expect Systems to assume primary responsibility for resolving a problem, while sensing that Systems expects them to assume a greater role in understanding what led to the problem and how to resolve the similar problems in future. At the same time, Systems staff may be frustrated by apparent resistance on the part of ISR staff to take a more active role in problem solving.
The following recommendations are intended to strengthen each department's understanding of the other and to enhance communication and other elements of the working relationship.
Recommendations
3.1 Find ways to enable staff to better understand the organizational structure of each department. (Systems and ISR)
3.2 Develop and publish a list of contacts within each department.(Systems and ISR)
3.3 Assign specific contact people for major projects. (Systems and ISR)
3.4 When appropriate, use project management techniques as a means of identifying who will be responsible for the various elements of joint projects, who might be affected, who needs to be consulted, and who needs to be informed. (Systems and ISR)
3.5 Develop guidelines to ensure that staff from both Systems and ISR understand where responsibility lies. This applies particularly to activities for which responsibility has not been clearly defined and about which Systems and ISR may have different expectations. (Systems and ISR)
3.6 Prior to the installation of new application software, determine who will be responsible for installation, testing, training, use, and maintenance. (Systems and ISR)
Background
During initial discussions about training, members of ISMC were quick to note that the Outlook training sessions developed and delivered for all Library staff were exceptionally well done. There are, however, concerns about one-on-one training, especially when that training occurs in the context of resolving a specific problem. Staff feel that they are frequently given too much information and/or that the information is at a technical level beyond their understanding or their interest.
Other concerns associated are that there may be too few Systems staff trained to handle particular matters; help desk procedures are open to misunderstanding; and training needs are not always identified far enough in advance to allow proper preparation.
Recommendations
4.1 Identify the need for training on new applications or installations in sufficient time for training to take place before staff must work with the application or installation (particularly critical for public use applications and installations which staff will have to explain to the public). (Systems and ISR)
4.2 Find ways to help Systems staff enhance their ability to assess the needs for staff who require one-on-one assistance and to provide the appropriate level of information or instruction. (Systems)
4.3 Find ways to help ISR staff better understand the role that they are to play in maintaining their workstations. (Systems and ISR)
4.4 Help ISR staff how to better understand help desk procedures and effectively access the service. (Systems)
4.5 As appropriate, continue to cross-train staff within Systems. (Systems)
The following general conclusions emerged through the discussions:
Members of ISMC gained a better understanding of and respect for the roles and responsibilities of staff in both departments, the complexities of each department and the pressures and constraints that each department works under.
It is important to share what Committee members have gained with all members of the ISR and Systems departments.
Improving the relationship will require adjustments on the part of staff within both departments.
Because Systems works with and on behalf of all library units, many of the recommendations have implications for the entire Library.
Adjustments that Systems makes in accordance with this report’s recommendations will usually apply library-wide, not just to ISR.
This report is only the beginning of the work necessary to establish and sustain a more dynamic relationship between ISR and Systems. Ways of moving forward on the recommendations have yet to be determined, but we expect that ad hoc groups will be established to consider questions and strategies associated with implementation of specific recommendations.
Work has already been done to address some concerns identified during ISMC’s discussions; for example, backlogged help desk requests were reviewed and cleared and a data base with information with information about the status of CD-ROMs has been created.
When considering how to move forward on the recommendations, we must avoid establishing cumbersome procedures. There is a need to focus on maximizing flexibility and using staff time to get the job done efficiently and effectively - we should not become bogged down in process or in activities such as the preparation of documentation when it is of only marginal value.
While responsibility for carrying out most of the recommendations in this report lies with the ISR and Systems departments, in some cases successful implementation will involve other people and bodies as well, including senior Library management, and people in other departments of the Library.
This report will now be presented to other Library staff. At a meeting on April 28, members of ISMC who are also in the ISR department will discuss the report with members of ISR to ensure an understanding of the recommendations and to respond to any questions and concerns that the department may have. On May 2, Linda Teather will similarly discuss the report with members of Systems. ISMC considered a joint meeting for this initial discussion but decided to start with separate meetings and to consider the need for a joint meeting later.
Because the development of this report has been referred to in ISMC minutes, which are distributed to all Library staff, and because some of the recommendations will have Library-wide implications, an electronic copy of the report will be issued to all staff for their awareness. In addition, a meeting with department heads and unit managers will be scheduled, particularly for discussion of those recommendations that have direct implications for them.
Once the report is out and the recommendations are generally understood, ISMC will consider what needs to be done to begin implementation of the recommendations.