OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT FOR MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET

Executive Summary SOURCE User Survey Results April 2006

Purpose:

A project evaluation subgroup was established and charged with assessing student, faculty, and staff satisfaction with the System of University Reservations and Calendar of Events (SOURCE), which went live in July of 2005. The SOURCE is a web based campus-wide class and event space management software that unifies all users (faculty, staff and students) to submit requests for spaces for both academic and extracurricular activities on a single database. The purpose of the assessment was to document both the implementation and success of the system, as well as to collect specific information for its continued improvement.

Subgroup Members:

Sarah Collie, Assistant Vice President, Office of the Vice President for Management & Budget Lea Moore, Process Simplification Coordinator, Office of the Vice President for Management and Budget Chris Husser, Student Involvement Coordinator, Newcomb Hall Mark Leonida, Associate Director, Intramural Recreational Sports Sean Jenkins, Doctoral Intern, Office of the Vice President for Management and Budget

Instrument Description and Administration:

The subgroup surveyed a representative sample of the SOURCE user population and identified main categories to guide the development of questions. The survey consisted of twenty-four questions within three sections: (I.) User Characteristics, (II.) System Features, and (III.) Overall Evaluation. (See Appendix A)

Before the final survey was administered to a sample population, three of the most frequent users were asked to test the survey to ensure readability and ease of use. In addition, the R25/SOURCE implementation team reviewed the final survey before it was distributed.

The survey sample was taken from the 1300 registered SOURCE users as of January 2006. Of these 1300 users, 57% were students and 43% were faculty/staff. The survey sample was representative of this larger SOURCE user population. From the top 10% of SOURCE frequent users, a sample of 139 users were requested to participate in the survey.

The survey was administered on-line and participation was optional. An email was sent requesting feedback on their experience using the SOURCE, explaining the purpose of the survey, and to inform participants the results would be used to further system improvements. Participants were ensured their participation was strictly confidential and results would only be reported in the aggregate. Seventy-nine of the 139 SOURCE users (51 students and 28 faculty/staff) completed the survey, yielding an overall response rate of 57%.

Analysis and Results:

Questions were presented in closed and open response formats. Closed response items were analyzed by frequency and percentage; Open response items were analyzed in terms of thematic content. Additionally, a one way analysis of variance was run to examine any statistically significant differences between the respondent groups: students, student representatives, faculty/staff. Below is a summary of significant findings.  When requesting space, 35.5% identified themselves as either faculty/staff and 64.5% as a student or student organization representative.

Process Simplification –Resource 25/SOURCE Executive Summary Page 1  95% of respondents consulted the SOURCE to view other University events between 1 to 3 times per week.  75.4% of respondents reported checking the availability of a space in the system before submitting a space request.  72.2% of respondents requested academic classroom spaces most often.  94.8% of respondents indicated the SOURCE was either sometimes effective or effective most of the time when requesting a specific space.  66.2% of respondents indicated they received a response from a scheduler to confirm or deny their request within 48 hours of their request.  74% of respondents indicated their event needs (space capacity, resources, etc.) are met by utilizing the SOURCE most of the time.  57.1% of respondents indicated the SOURCE was easier to use when compared with methods used prior to the SOURCE.  17% of the respondents were not satisfied with the scheduler’s follow up to initial request.  33.8% of the respondents reported, on average, it takes a scheduler three or more days to process and confirm/deny their request.  When asked how satisfied the respondent has been with the follow up features on the SOURCE, 17 out of 79 users answered the question with 13 reporting poor customer service.  When asked what they liked least about the SOURCE, 31.1% of respondents commented on inconsistent and slow follow-up by the scheduler; 18.2% responded that the system loaded too slowly.  28.9% of respondents indicated customer service and system speed need to be improved to meet their space request needs.  The ANOVA revealed that, other than the responses to two questions, (requesting space and the amount of time it takes for a scheduler to process and either confirm or deny the request), there were no statistically significant differences between group responses (faculty, staff, students, and student organization representatives). o There was a significant difference between groups in regard to requesting space using the grid (# 7g of the survey). In this instance, faculty used this means to request a space significantly more often than students and staff. o There was a significant difference between groups in regard to the amount of time it takes for a scheduler to process and either confirm or deny the request. Faculty and staff reported hearing back from schedulers significantly faster than student organization representatives.

Recommendations:

The full survey results have been shared with the current SOURCE stabilization team. This team will develop a specific plan to achieve and measure continued system improvements. Based on the full survey results, below is a list of broad recommendations for improved SOURCE scheduling processes.

1. Increase system flexibility o Improve primary webpage to reduce page loading time o Increased visibility of available search features o Create an option for a user to request more than one space o Review options to show a space as “tentative” when on hold or pending approval o Modify language for clarity on the automatic system response sent to the requestor “confirming” their request to “request received/processing”.

2. Decrease response time between scheduler and requestor when approving, denying, or requesting more information.

3. Provide contact information for schedulers in a visible location on the website.

4. Provide consistent, equitable, and helpful customer service.

Process Simplification –SOURCE User Survey Results Executive Summary Page 2 Process Simplification –SOURCE User Survey Results Executive Summary Page 3