The University Library.

slide1

Alma: a driver for organisational change

Alison Little – Alma Project Manager

Lynn Sykes – Head of Customer Services

The University of Sheffield Library

The University Library.

slide2

Agenda

• Our background.• Why review?• Our approach to review.• Two case studies.• Summary.

The University Library.

slide3

The University of Sheffield

• Russell Group University;• Over 25,000 students;• 6,000 faculty and staff;• Academic departments across 5

faculties.

The University Library.

slide4

The Library.• Member of RLUK;• Operates from 5 physical sites;• Emphasis on “Library Everywhere”;• 180 members of Library staff, 7

teams;• Alma implementation June 2013;• Alma implementation project began

2011;• Process review project began 2011.

The University Library.

slide5

Why review?

Incr

ease

Focus on service development, Ability to convert resources,

Value, Capability to deliver strategic

priorities.

Reduce

Complexity, Duplication of effort, Waste of resources.

The University Library.

slide6

Several drivers for review

Our organisation, purpose

and priorities

Changing customer demand

New/improved

technologies

External influences

The University Library.

slide7

Our review project• Project launched November 2011;• Ongoing …. and a long way to go;• Core project group involvement from 6 members

of Library Management Group;• ALL Library staff identified as stakeholders;• Early 2012, the University established a Process

Improvement Unit.

The University Library.

slide8

Our underlying principles. Our processes will maximise value, in terms of

customer needs, costs and time.

They will use the system to its best advantage for dealing with straightforward transactional functions. Automated workflows will focus on the majority of transactions and will undertake proactive monitoring to bring staff attention to exceptions and areas where decisions are required. People will add value, make judgements and manage risk. • Use the system to its best advantage;• Focus automatic workflows on the majority and provide

additional people input on the exceptions;• Allow people to add value, make judgements and manage risk.

The University Library.

slide9

Our underlying principles. Our processes will focus on overall workflows.

Instead of concentrating on task and team based processes, they will take a trigger to delivery approach. This will prevent interruption and avoid duplication of work. This approach will optimise transparency and trust amongst those staff involved in the various stages of the workflow, it will also simplify the management of workflows and improve performance in overall delivery to the customer.• Avoid duplication of work and “add ons”;• Prevent interruption between stages of the workflow;• Optimise transparency of actions to related staff;• Be based on trust between individuals working on different

areas of the workflow.

The University Library.

slide10

Our underlying principles.Our processes will be responsive to customer

needs.

They will be future proof and under ongoing review. Processes capable of flexibility can be driven by continuous service improvement, enabling responsiveness to both our customers’ needs and to the changing external environment. • Driven by continuous service improvement;• Reviewed on an ongoing basis;• Responsive to the environment in which we work.

The University Library.

slide11

Our Approach• Early 2012 “Library Training Hour” session to Library staff

• Myself and colleague from Process Improvement Unit• Prior to any events• Prior to any widespread understanding of Alma• Feedback very mixed

• Early 2013 “Library Training Hour” session to Library staff• Myself, a fellow facilitator and other Library colleagues• After some events had taken place• After additional localised review• More widespread understanding of Alma• Feedback much more positive

The University Library.

slide12

Our Approach• Events (1-2 days) with stakeholders;• 2 facilitators for each session;• Working through of current situation;

• Staff reported this as very useful!• Recording problems and “good ideas”;• Working through the ideal scenario;• Working through a realistic scenario;• Recording actions and a follow up meeting;• Re-reviewing, as necessary.

The University Library.

slide13

Case study 1 - Materials Funds Review, May 2012.

• Changed the way we pay for journal “big deals” • Over £1.2m, now paid from 1 fund – previously paid from

49 funds;• Now pay 1 line for an invoice – previously 1 line per

journal title.

• Feedback from participants:• Valuable use of time;• Positive exchange of ideas and understanding of other

stakeholders involvement;• Perceived barriers understood.

The University Library.

slide14

Case study 1 - Materials Funds Review, further progress

• Document supply – changes as a direct result of the functionality of Alma• Previously 46 different document supply funds;• Previously cost recorded for each transaction

on the system;• Moved to (trial) 1 document supply fund;• 1 payment per invoice from the British Library.

The University Library.

slide15

Case study 2 – Library overdues and invoices, November 2012.Existing situation: • Responsibility to renew the item with the patron;• No distinction between items required by another

patron and non-requested items;• Dynamic nature of loans could lead to confusion

for patrons.

The University Library.

slide16

Process Review• Wide range of staff involvement• Mapped existing workflow• Highlighted areas of inefficiency• Mapped future workflow

The University Library.

slide17

Existing workflowPatron borrows a book

2 days before due date

Sent to all patrons

Pre-over due letter

1st over due when 1day overdue

1st overdue

To allow for days grace 2nd overdue 7

days after first2nd overdue

Automatic via email

3rd overdue 7 days after second

Shelves checked by staff

3rd overdue

Pro-forma 14 days after 3rd overdue

Shelves checked by staff and book prices found

Pro-forma invoice

Invoice 14 days after pro-forma

Book removed from account

Invoice

The University Library.

slide18

Main areas of inefficiency

• Overdues/fines for non requested items• Series of overdues• Proforma invoices/Invoices• Confusing patron blocks

• Emphasis on patron to manage account

The University Library.

slide19

What happened next?

We waited for Alma ....

…and then re-reviewed

The University Library.

slide20

New workflowPatron borrows a book

Is it requested?

Paton weekly borrowing activity email

Lost item notification

Lost item bill patron invoiced

Pre overdue 2 days before due date

Book due email on due date

Yes

No

After 35 days

After 42 days

The University Library.

slide21

Benefits realised by Alma

• Automatic renewal of non requested items

• Weekly borrowing activity statement• Fines now only on requested items

However…..

The University Library.

slide22

Hoped for future benefits

• Further integration with University Finance system;

• Capability to add book prices to lost item bill.

The University Library.

slide23

Summary.

• A process review is a good thing!• Start early but expect to revisit• A re-review is also a good thing!• Benefits gained from all our reviews

The University Library.

slide24

Questions?