Skip to main content Skip to navigation

IT Services ITS Intranet

Minutes - Service Board March 2010

Date: March 5th 2010

Present: Jas Dhillon, Paul Trimmer,  Sumaiya Khaku, Angela Roxburgh, Anne Roberts, Alison Foden

Apologies: Malcolm Days, Stephen Lamb, Nick Hull, Rachel Cohen


Welcome

JD welcomed Service Desk Service Board Members.

SB members introduced themselves.

From Previous SD Meeting

Noted that RC has agreed to join the Service Board as the additional Academic / Faculty member.

Presentation

  • Service Desk Metrics

JD and PT presented the 6 monthly Service Metrics (August 09 to January 10) to the board.  Noted that SDS had achieved its Service Level Targets and also that these SLTs are the internationally agreed standards for Service Desks as recommended by the Service Desk Institute.

Action: AR requested a link be provided to the SDI standards for Service Desks as it relates to the Service Performance Indicators.

http://www.sdi-europe.com/international-standards/

AR requested further information relating to how we gather Customer Feedback.  Advised that feedback is gathered by contacting a random sample of contacts who have recently logged a call with the Service Desk and using a simple qualitative method for assessing satisfaction level with the overall handling of their call.

AF noted that some departments (specifically the Arts Centre) have a broader requirement than others and may ask questions that are 'out-of-scope'.

    Points for Discussion

    • Customer requirements

    Discussion on how to understand the customer requirements for the Service Desk Service at a more specific level than the current "Satisfaction" survey allows. 

    Noted that customers provide additional feedback which can be useful in identifying aspects of a call that they found particularly valuable - "speed call was dealt with", "patient and helpful", "easy-to-understand", "technically competent".

    ARox commented on software support as a difficult area - some software is very specific and no ITS person can have detailed knowledge of all software, and this can cause disappointment.  She also noted that the Training Team can provide one-to-one training for specific software (as compared to the the Service Desk, which focuses on resolving incidents for a wide range of software).

    AR noted that customers may not be aware of the scope of support offered and so may be disappointed if their personal expectations are not met.

    JD asked if IT Services should publish more detail for what is supported (and to what extent)? AR suggested that customers are unlikely to check before contacting the SD.  It was suggested that the ITS Newsletter could be used to publicise the software support element of the SD / Training Teams.  

    Noted that if SD does not try to understand customer requirements on an ongoing basis, then these requirements may change without being noticed. JD asked what recommendations the board has for managing this.

    It was recommended that we use some of the following feedback mechanisms to identify what would encourage people to use the service; 

    • Targetted emails to customer groups
    • 'Interview' visitors to the drop-in service
    • Directed questions to a randomised sample of customers (who may or may not not have used the Service Desk Service)
    • Extend use of current feedback emails to a larger sample size
    • 'you say - we say' board / web page
       
    • Service Accessibility

    Questions raised by JD around service visibility and accessibility - focussing on the drop-in service

    Item from AR - Use of floor walkers in the Library

    AR provided statistics for Library Floorwalkers - 3718 enquiries, 465 were referrals to Service Desk / IT Services (Term 1) and 164 enquiries, 40 to SD (Term 2) i.e. 12.5 - 25% respectively.  Floorwalkers also offering "check it out" sessions relating to Library Services and gave Library tours to visitors. 

    It was suggested that the SD could enhance its profile by offering similar services relating to IT support.

    ARox suggested that the Training Team could assist SD with some aspects of this such as Drop-in sessions for Software Support.

    JD noted that SD does not have funding for additional casual staff and permanent staff are already allocated to functions within the SD.  However, it may be possible to utilise start of year volunteers (a recent introduction for 09/10 as part of the ResNet support service for the start of term) as floorwalkers - dependant on availability.

    Noted by SK that the SD was still 'out of the way' and the use of additional signs and floorwalkers to direct people to the service would be beneficial at key times (such as the start of year). JD asked SK if the SU could assist with marketing the service through direct emailing to their members, posters in the SU etc.  SK advised no real mechanism for this requirement in the SU.

    Further suggestions included:

    • Pop-up on student workstations during login to advertise SD (ARox)
    • Flyer to all students (SK)
    • 'Credit card booklet' for people to carry round with them (ARox)

    Noted funding not available currently for additional printing etc. beyond current Service Desk leaflets.

    Action: JD to investigate feasibility of providing floorwalkers as an additonal service, and to liaise with Anne Roberts to market this service in the Library (if it goes ahead).  Meeting between SD, Training and Library to be arranged if required.

    • AOB

    Noted service enhancement - use of Remote Tool for the Call Centre function; enhanced monitoring facility for the Back Office.

    Dates for next board meeting to be confirmed.