The University
Library.
Alma: a driver for organisational
change
Alison Little – Alma Project Manager
Lynn Sykes – Head of Customer Services
The University of Sheffield Library
slide1
The University
Library.
Agenda
• Our background.
• Why review?
• Our approach to review.
• Two case studies.
• Summary.
slide2
The University
Library.
The University of Sheffield
• Russell Group University;
• Over 25,000 students;
• 6,000 faculty and staff;
• Academic departments across 5 faculties.
slide3
The University
Library.
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.
slide4
The University
Library.
Focus on service development,
Ability to convert resources,
Value,
Capability to deliver strategic priorities.
Complexity,
Duplication of effort,
Waste of resources.
Reduce
Increase
Why review?
slide5
The University
Library.
Several drivers for review
New/improved
technologies
Changing
customer
demand
External
influences
Our
organisation,
purpose and
priorities
slide6
The University
Library.
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.
slide7
The University
Library.
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.
slide8
The University
Library.
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.
slide9
The University
Library.
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.
slide10
The University
Library.
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
slide11
The University
Library.
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.
slide12
The University
Library.
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.
slide13
The University
Library.
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.
slide14
The University
Library.
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.
slide15
The University
Library.
Process Review
• Wide range of staff involvement
• Mapped existing workflow
• Highlighted areas of inefficiency
• Mapped future workflow
slide16
The University
Library.
Existing workflow
Patron
borrows a
book
Pre-over
due letter
To allow for
days grace
2 days
before due
date
1st over due
when 1day
overdue
Invoice
Shelves
checked by
staff and
book prices
found
Sent to
all
patrons
1st
overdue
Shelves
checked
by staff
Automatic
via email
Invoice 14 days
after pro-forma
Pro-forma 14
days after 3rd
overdue
3rd overdue 7
days after
second
2nd overdue 7
days after first
Book
removed
from
account
Pro-forma
invoice
3rd overdue
2nd
overdue
slide17
The University
Library.
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
slide18
The University
Library.
What happened next?
We waited for Alma ....
…and then re-reviewed
slide19
The University
Library.
New workflow
Patron
borrows a
book
Is it
requested?
No
Yes
Pre overdue 2 days
before due date
Book due email on
due date
Paton weekly
borrowing activity
email
After 35 days
Lost item notification
After 42 days
Lost item bill patron
invoiced
slide20
The University
Library.
Benefits realised by Alma
• Automatic renewal of non requested items
• Weekly borrowing activity statement
• Fines now only on requested items
However…..
slide21
The University
Library.
Hoped for future benefits
• Further integration with University Finance
system;
• Capability to add book prices to lost item bill.
slide22
The University
Library.
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
slide23
The University
Library.
Questions?
slide24