SPEC Kit 327: Reconfiguring Service Delivery · 59
Significant resistance from faculty and graduate students, who value close proximity of librarians and library collections
plans had to be presented and refined multiple times in order to satisfy concerns of key constituencies.
Some people really dislike having to juggle in-person and online chat reference. It has increased how busy some service
points are which makes the work more stressful at times. This may not always be a good fit for some staff but should
be taken into consideration in any future hiring activities. Chat questions do not always roll over to the national queue
as expected and lead to extended wait times. We have to constantly monitor whether the software is operating as
expected since we are working as part of a consortium of users of the software we don’t always have direct control
of the settings and/or direct access to information about how it is really working (as compared to how it should work).
Some liaisons/librarians miss the direct contact of the reference desk and the ability to learn about user needs through
these interactions.
Staff resistance to changed duties even though developed and recognized their particular strengths in providing
accurate and timely service to our broad user constituencies.
The new model for the service desk, where reference is provided on call, has required many adjustments. Staff and
librarians had valued the relationships they developed by working side by side together. Now, librarians and staff are in
different departments, or different locations, with less opportunity for interacting with one another, making it hard to
maintain relationships.
There was a lot of push back from ed school faculty and students. This was not unexpected, but the reaction was
underestimated. It would have helped to have had more input and buy-in from students. Working out new workflows
for ILL and returned books was a challenge. Physically moving the collection, updating catalog records, removing
ownership stickers, etc., in a very short time was a challenge.
Training. Consistency of service level.
Visibility of new service point from across the room (hard to see from a distance). Difference in service philosophies
between partners.
We expected some challenges given the enormity of the project. We are still working to refine our processes at the
service desk given the great amount of traffic we now see at this one service point. We are exploring models for a fast
check-in lane or a temporary check-in lane for equipment and room keys to help reduce lines during peak hours. Other
unexpected issues include increased noise levels near service desk (we knew there would be noise but surprised at how
high the levels can be at times when coffee shop is busy shouting out drink orders!) and difficulty in monitoring what
leaves the building/security gate monitoring (redesign did not include attention to location of security gates–desk is no
longer within ideal placement of doors to adequately attend when alarm goes off).
If you want to describe a second service reconfiguration, please continue to the next screen. If
not, please click here then click the Next button below to jump to the Anticipated Additions,
Closures, Consolidations, or Other Reconfigurations section of the survey.
Only one service reconfiguration to describe. N=31
Significant resistance from faculty and graduate students, who value close proximity of librarians and library collections
plans had to be presented and refined multiple times in order to satisfy concerns of key constituencies.
Some people really dislike having to juggle in-person and online chat reference. It has increased how busy some service
points are which makes the work more stressful at times. This may not always be a good fit for some staff but should
be taken into consideration in any future hiring activities. Chat questions do not always roll over to the national queue
as expected and lead to extended wait times. We have to constantly monitor whether the software is operating as
expected since we are working as part of a consortium of users of the software we don’t always have direct control
of the settings and/or direct access to information about how it is really working (as compared to how it should work).
Some liaisons/librarians miss the direct contact of the reference desk and the ability to learn about user needs through
these interactions.
Staff resistance to changed duties even though developed and recognized their particular strengths in providing
accurate and timely service to our broad user constituencies.
The new model for the service desk, where reference is provided on call, has required many adjustments. Staff and
librarians had valued the relationships they developed by working side by side together. Now, librarians and staff are in
different departments, or different locations, with less opportunity for interacting with one another, making it hard to
maintain relationships.
There was a lot of push back from ed school faculty and students. This was not unexpected, but the reaction was
underestimated. It would have helped to have had more input and buy-in from students. Working out new workflows
for ILL and returned books was a challenge. Physically moving the collection, updating catalog records, removing
ownership stickers, etc., in a very short time was a challenge.
Training. Consistency of service level.
Visibility of new service point from across the room (hard to see from a distance). Difference in service philosophies
between partners.
We expected some challenges given the enormity of the project. We are still working to refine our processes at the
service desk given the great amount of traffic we now see at this one service point. We are exploring models for a fast
check-in lane or a temporary check-in lane for equipment and room keys to help reduce lines during peak hours. Other
unexpected issues include increased noise levels near service desk (we knew there would be noise but surprised at how
high the levels can be at times when coffee shop is busy shouting out drink orders!) and difficulty in monitoring what
leaves the building/security gate monitoring (redesign did not include attention to location of security gates–desk is no
longer within ideal placement of doors to adequately attend when alarm goes off).
If you want to describe a second service reconfiguration, please continue to the next screen. If
not, please click here then click the Next button below to jump to the Anticipated Additions,
Closures, Consolidations, or Other Reconfigurations section of the survey.
Only one service reconfiguration to describe. N=31
