Report on Communications Working Group Survey

(Presented by Vicki Sipe at the Library Assembly Meeting August 25, 2009 for the Communications Working Group)

In February 2009 the Communications Working Group sent out an e-mail invitation to the Kuhn list asking staff members to answer a questionnaire posted to Survey Monkey.  The survey focused on various aspects of Library communications.  We allowed a two week time period for participation before compiling responses.  The intent of the group was to use the survey responses to provide some of the focus for our work. 

The survey consisted of 4 open ended questions, 5 measures that were to be rated on a 5 point scale of effectiveness, and a 5 item checklist of tools used to access Library information.  Nineteen staff members filled out the questionnaire.  Several opportunities for other comments were provided.  This report attempts to group responses to questions into groups and doesn't generally include quotations.  We have not used these responses as a measure of anything in particular, but more as a guide as to how some people feel about some things.  

The Survey
1.     What, in your opinion, now works well in the communication process in the Library?
Responses tended to fall into related groups.  About half of the respondents mentioned person-to-person, one-on-one, word-of-mouth and conversations with individuals as working well.   Just slightly fewer respondents included Library Assembly meetings, and some offered suggestions for improvement (which are included in answers to question 4).  E-mail and the Kuhn list appeared in as many responses as Library Assembly.  Department meetings and the wiki were each mentioned in a handful of responses.  It is notable that only a few responses said that very little communication worked well in the library.  Most responses were brief, several consisting of a few words. 

2.     What, in your opinion, does not work well in the communication process in the Library?
Responses tended to be longer than for the other questions, some running to many sentences.  About half of respondents mentioned interdepartmental communication.  This was seen as causing problems for cross departmental projects.  Also mentioned was that poor communication between departments led to actions of one department having a negative impact on another department.   Just slightly fewer respondents mentioned the difficulty in finding information: not sure where to look for what, difficulty in using I drive and wiki.  About the same number of respondents mentioned the sharing of information: pockets of knowledge and disparities in who knows what. 

3.     What information do you need to be successful in your work that you wish was more readily available?
Mentioned most frequently was the need for documentation: record of past decisions and changes in procedures or policies.  One comment specifically mentioned being able to find a record of decisions and actions reported via e-mail. The need for more interdepartmental communication was mentioned almost as frequently: changes in one department affecting another department, duplication of effort caused by lack of communication between departments and groups, and the desire to know what professional knowledge might be available in another department.  Several respondents felt it would be helpful to know who was responsible or in charge of what.   
   
4.     What two or three changes could be made that would result in a significant improvement in communication?
Suggestions concerning Library Assembly: increased attendance by librarians and department heads, better prepared department reports, reports from all departments, more complete reporting from all working groups, and report from LEC.
Suggestions concerning Working Groups: form more working groups around projects (institutional repository, outreach, digital projects), more complete reporting by working groups at Library Assembly, more use of wiki for reporting by working groups.
Suggestions concerning LEC: notify staff (e-mail, rss feed) when LEC minutes are posted, post minutes in a timely manner, an LEC wiki page with charge and membership, LEC agendas posted or sent out to staff before meetings allowing input to supervisors, regular LEC report at Library Assembly.
Suggestions concerning departments: reports from all departments at Library Assembly, departmental meetings for discussion and information sharing, list of who does what in each department, list of which problems go to which person in each department.
Suggestions concerning interdepartmental communications: share more information between departments, more collaboration between departments on projects.
Suggestions concerning wiki: post minutes (of all kinds) on wiki, more training on how to use the wiki, establish guidelines for committees and working groups on what to put on their wiki, a wiki based newsletter so that all could contribute, increase/encourage use of the wiki, get all committees/working groups on the wiki.

5.     How effective are the following measures at promoting communication within the Library?
The 5 measures rated were: Library Assembly, Departmental Meetings, Meeting Minutes, LEC (minutes, agendas and reports), and the Confluence Wiki.

All 5 measures had their highest rating as Effective.  The Confluence Wiki received the lowest Effective rating with 31% of participants rating it as Effective.  Meeting Minutes (generally) received the highest Effective rating with 68% of participants rating these as Effective.
6.    How do you currently receive/access Library information?  (Check all that apply)

All of the participants use e-mail to receive/access Library information.  The lowest rating went to Library Blog (news and events) at 26% of participants using it.  Prepared by Vicki Sipe for the Communications Working Group (Aug. 19, 2009)