1. 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

2. The University Library. slide2 Agenda Our background. Why review? Our approach to review. Two case studies. Summary.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. The University Library. slide5 Why review? Increase Focus on service development, Ability to convert resources, Value, Capability to deliver strategic priorities. Reduce Complexity, Duplication of effort, Waste of resources.

6. The University Library. slide6 Several drivers for review Our organisation, purpose and priorities Changing customer demand New/improved technologies External influences

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. The University Library. slide16 Process Review Wide range of staff involvement Mapped existing workflow Highlighted areas of inefficiency Mapped future workflow

17. The University Library. slide17 Existing workflow Patron borrows a book 2 days before due date Sent to all patrons Pre-over due letter 1 st over due when 1day overdue 1 st overdue To allow for days grace 2 nd overdue 7 days after first 2 nd overdue Automatic via email 3 rd overdue 7 days after second Shelves checked by staff 3 rd overdue Pro-forma 14 days after 3 rd overdue Shelves checked by staff and book prices found Pro-forma invoice Invoice 14 days after pro-forma Book removed from account Invoice

18. 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

19. The University Library. slide19 What happened next? We waited for Alma.... …and then re-reviewed

20. The University Library. slide20 New workflow Patron 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

21. 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…..

22. The University Library. slide22 Hoped for future benefits Further integration with University Finance system; Capability to add book prices to lost item bill.

23. 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

24. The University Library. slide24 Questions?