Tags » LIS Administration

We discussed next steps regarding the recent Manager Training workshops, and proposed some topics to suggest to Sheila Andrus for quarterly or other refresher workshops, including:

• prioritization: using the urgent/important Covey grid to learn how to map out priorities and manage workload
• how to develop and assess SMART goals
• giving feedback
• manager to staff
• staff to manager
• peer to peer
• third party
• effective meetings

We talked about implementing the DiSC evaluation given at the management training for all LIS staff.

• Dan Frostman (leader), Joe Durante, Joe Antonioli, Sheila Andrus, and Joseph Watson will develop a proposal
• We need a charge
• We need a timeline

We also suggested that information from the training be disseminated to staff, and that  managers should take an hour with their work groups to review the topics covered. If they so choose, they can use Dan’s presentation, and then discuss how that went at the next managers meeting (slides at http://prezi.com/adylam68cjey/dans-take-on-management-training/).

Key concepts from management training:

• ladder of inference
• circle of concern and circle of influence
• Covey prioritization grid (important/urgent, etc.)
• aligned organization
• DiSC profiles
• 4 key activities of a manager: communicate, provide feedback, coach, delegate
• performance management cycle
• feedback
• delegation
• situational leadership
• SMART Goals
• “waterfall” communications
• running effective Meetings
• teams

Thanks for reading

Terry & Doreen

Present:  Ian Burke, David Ludwig, Jim Stuart, Joe Durante, Pij Slater, Terry Simpkins, Mary Backus, Chris Norris, Peggy Fischel, Joseph Watson, Rebekah Irwin, Jess Isler, Dan Frostman, Rachel Manning, Petar Mitrevski and Doreen Bernier

We discussed the LIS Values.  Mary asked “as a management team, are they useful to your work?  Do you use them?”  We agreed that our values could be useful for departments, but they need to be integrated more into our everyday environment.  It appears that they are currently not accessed often by workgroup leaders.  Workgroup leaders should remind staff of these values yearly and this could be a useful tool during evaluations.  Managers should also offer positive feedback throughout the year.  We should consider possibly incorporating these values into the monthly employee awards.  No revision to this document is needed at this time.

We talked some about the mechanics of the staffing plan

• If you have any questions about iGreenTree, contact either Heather Stafford in HR or Carol Peddie.
• As we make plans to bring in candidates for open positions, we should begin by preparing a list of search committee members.  These members should talk with HR to find out what is appropriate to ask candidates and what is not.
• Search committees should save all notes and documentation and give them to HR after the process is completed.
• All resumes and documentation pertaining to candidates are considered confidential.  Please shred any leftover materials.

Chris mentioned the most important column in the Roadmap Project Directory needing updates is the status column.  He also mentioned that it is also possible to import MS Project into Roadmap, but only 1 project at a time.  If you have a lot of projects to import, please ask Chris for assistance.  Roadmap also has an export feature and exporting to Excel is the easiest.

Everyone has updated their goals (thank you!).  Mike will be preparing a blog post updating the college community on our accomplishments.  It was suggested that goals be added to workgroup agendas to get people talking about them.  Talk to your AD if you should have any questions.

The annual evaluation process begins in January, with all evaluations being due to HR by March 31.  HR is preparing a new evaluation form this year, which will be distributed shortly.  The merit raise quota from last year is not being continued this year, but you can still nominate staff for bonuses.  The next Manager training session is January 18th.

We discussed whether the optional all LIS meetings should be monthly instead of every two weeks, and held on a different day than Friday.  Some topic suggestions:

• Building library collections
• Sustaining analog laptops in classrooms
• Service points
• Sophos

We discussed team workloads, specifically how we can help workgroup leaders prioritize their regular work and requests for team work.  Some team members don’t have “cycles” in their work to allow them to handle the work of their teams during low periods.  Team members are interested in doing the work, but they can’t find the time to set aside regular work.  Because of the current staffing levels in some areas, there is little “extra” time to devote to team work.  Should a process be in place where team members can be rotated?  This topic should be continued at another Managers meeting.

Thanks for reading

Terry & Doreen

Please note: having started out swimmingly by posting manager’s notes soon after our the November 2011 meeting where we promised to routinely post notes — mea culpa — I promptly forgot to add this to my list of weekly tasks.  So, following this will be posts containing notes through our April 2012 meeting, at which point I’ll be caught up and can be more timely with this in the future.  Thanks for your tolerance.

Present: Joe Durante, David Ludwig, Chris Norris, Peggy Fischel, Mary Backus, Joe Antonioli, Jim Stuart, Mike Roy, Dan Frostman, Petar Mitrevski, Terry Simpkins, Carrie Macfarlane, Rachel Manning, Rebekah Irwin, Ian Burke, Shel Sax, Carol Peddie, Doreen Bernier

Mike Roy requested that everyone should post updates to the Area 51.5 (manager’s) site prior to our meetings to facilitate sharing.  Joe Antonioli create a go link: go/area515

Mike, Dave, and Carol discussed the the Banner migration process this weekend. Banner read-only, pre-production would be available.  Status emails would be sent out to the campus all weekend during the migration process.  Time entry on Tuesday 12/13 should not be affected.

Mary Backus walked us through a presentation on Service Level Agreements (SLAs).  The draft agreement was prepared to address the User Services Goal to establish and publish SLAs for every service point within User Services as a guide for staff, student workers, and campus customers to clearly understand our response and expected time frames.

Mary described each priority and service level (see below) included in the proposed agreement along with the following timeline.  She also displayed a draft chart of possible steps and time frames for resolving sticky issues.  This will be refined as conversations with the various affected workgroups occur.

Priorities
Priority 1 (highest)

• Affects a class in session or about to begin
• All or a significant portion of Middlebury cannot communicate either via telephone or email
• Financial systems are down
• An administrative or academic building loses network connectivity
• There is a safety threat and the alert system is down
• A critical service is down for many people

Priority 2

• Service is down for a few people, but an important deadline is looming
• Student(s) cannot easily do their academic work in locations other than the classroom
• An individual charged with performing a critical portion of college business is unable to access a service

Priority 3

• Requests for services and support that come through expected channels with expected

response time expectations

• Service is down for a few people with no important deadline looming
• A portion of services is unavailable in a specific location unrelated to classroom instruction

Priority 4

• One or more individuals are inconvenienced, but there is a work around so that they can continue with their work.
• Non-academic issue that is a direct result of a user not following documented advice and procedures
• Request for services or support from a non-college group.

Service Levels

• Level 1 – Highest level of support – fastest response
• Level 2 – Best effort – slower response and no guarantee of resolution
• Level 3 – Offer advice or documentation, but no active response

Timeline

• Develop worksheets and supporting documentation for workgroups.
• Outreach to our partners to be completed by: December 15, 2011
• SLA drafts reviewed and accepted by participating groups: March, 31 2012
• SLAs published and communicated to LIS and campus constituents: April 30, 2012
• Determine Management Process for Escalations, Measurement and Reassessing agreements
• Develop tools to manage the process
• Outreach to customers
• Publishing results

Thanks for reading
Terry & Doreen

Manager’s Meeting Notes, Dec. 8, 2011
Present: Joe Durante, David Ludwig, Chris Norris, Peggy Fischel, Mary Backus, Joe Antonioli, Jim Stuart, Mike Roy, Dan Frostman, Petar Mitrevski, Terry Simpkins, Carrie Macfarlane, Rachel Manning, Rebekah Irwin, Ian Burke, Shel Sax, Carol Peddie, Doreen Bernier

Mike Roy requested that everyone should post updates to the Area 51.5 (manager’s) site prior to our meetings to facilitate sharing.  Joe Antonioli create a go link: go/area515

Mike, Dave, and Carol discussed the the Banner migration process this weekend. Banner read-only, pre-production would be available.  Status emails would be sent out to the campus all weekend during the migration process.  Time entry on Tuesday 12/13 should not be affected.

Mary Backus walked us through a presentation on Service Level Agreements (SLAs).  The draft agreement was prepared to address the User Services Goal to establish and publish SLAs for every service point within User Services as a guide for staff, student workers, and campus customers to clearly understand our response and expected time frames.

Mary described each priority and service level (see below) included in the proposed agreement along with the following timeline.  She also displayed a draft chart of possible steps and time frames for resolving sticky issues.  This will be refined as conversations with the various affected workgroups occur.

Priorities
Priority 1 (highest)

• Affects a class in session or about to begin
• All or a significant portion of Middlebury cannot communicate either via telephone or email
• Financial systems are down
• An administrative or academic building loses network connectivity
• There is a safety threat and the alert system is down
• A critical service is down for many people

Priority 2

• Service is down for a few people, but an important deadline is looming
• Student(s) cannot easily do their academic work in locations other than the classroom
• An individual charged with performing a critical portion of college business is unable to access a service

Priority 3

• Requests for services and support that come through expected channels with expected

response time expectations

• Service is down for a few people with no important deadline looming
• A portion of services is unavailable in a specific location unrelated to classroom instruction

Priority 4

• One or more individuals are inconvenienced, but there is a work around so that they can continue with their work.
• Non-academic issue that is a direct result of a user not following documented advice and procedures
• Request for services or support from a non-college group.

Service Levels

• Level 1 – Highest level of support – fastest response
• Level 2 – Best effort – slower response and no guarantee of resolution
• Level 3 – Offer advice or documentation, but no active response

Timeline

• Develop worksheets and supporting documentation for workgroups.
• Outreach to our partners to be completed by: December 15, 2011
• SLA drafts reviewed and accepted by participating groups: March, 31 2012
• SLAs published and communicated to LIS and campus constituents: April 30, 2012
• Determine Management Process for Escalations, Measurement and Reassessing agreements
• Develop tools to manage the process
• Outreach to customers
• Publishing results

Thanks for reading
Terry & Doreen