Clothes may disguise a fool, but his voice will give him away: The challenge of smart service delivery for off-campus clients Deidre Lowe, A/Associate Librarian (Information Access) Sandra Jeffries, Manager Client Services September 2004

Overview  Smart service model - components - application to USQ  DocEx implementation

Smart Service?  Environment – understanding of features  Clients – understanding & meeting of needs  Resourcing – effective & sustainable in terms of staff/processes/systems

Environment - Remote Learning & Teaching  Increasing reliance on technology – content, access, delivery, interaction  Increasing competition  Client demands for more flexible approaches  Hybrid delivery

Clients USQ Profile - 80% (20,000) off-campus students Off-campus segment:  30% (6,000) off-shore  75% over 25 years of age  > 50% rural/geographically isolated

Client Surveys 2004  Library Services – focus groups & telephone interviews  Rodski 2003  USQ’s e-Systems – focus groups & telephone interviews 2002  Library Website – focus groups  Rodski

Wish List  Clear web pages  Simple interfaces to databases  Everything in one place  eBooks for all texts & recommended readings  Fast response times  Human help  Quotes not just references

Resourcing  Staff – Off-Campus Services Section  Processes – Work process reviews  Systems - DocEx

DocEx  VDX software  Formerly known as “LIDDAS”  Launched as “DocEx” at USQ  USQ focussed on document delivery to off campus students – not ILL initially  Expansion will include ILL and federated searching

Key Benefits of DocEx  Authentication is tied to USQ LDAP system  User database is easily populated and updated from PeopleSoft  It searches across USQ catalogue for easy placement of pre-populated requests  Active links to catalogued electronic resources are displayed  Students can track progress of their requests  Scanned documents can be delivered online

Demonstration

Preliminary Outcomes  Accessibility of library materials is dramatically improved for off-campus users  Turnaround time shortened  Look and feel of the system sits comfortably with other Library systems  Good uptake despite a “soft launch” approach

Resourcing Issues  Significant learning curve for staff  Challenges such as: –differences between staff and student screens –system terminology –workflow changes –system problems  Highlights –automatic notifications –scanning –user feedback

User Feedback  New system “wonderful”  Eliminates many steps  Saves time  Working beautifully  Linking with catalogue “is beaut”  “Absolutely brilliant”  Scanned document received “immediately”  “User-friendly and saves much typing”

What We’ve Learned  The Good: –Sometimes a “leap of faith” pays dividends –Staff comfort levels evolve  The Bad: –No system is perfect –Dependent interoperability between systems can make life very interesting  The UGLY: –Thorough project planning and testing is paramount in reducing everyone’s stress levels

Future Plans  Rollout of ILL functionality (S1, 2005)  Expansion to include sub-set of significant electronic resources via federated search  Willing to explore all options that will enable us to work smarter and provide smarter systems with the ultimate goal of providing Smart Service for our Clients