Mike Roy shared early results of the staff survey showing improvements from last year in every area.

Preparations for the Dalai Lama visit were briefly discussed.

Mary reviewed the process for selecting a new incident tracking system (we currently use HEAT) for LIS.  Two finalists were selected,  Parature and Web Helpdesk.  Parature is a hosted solution while Web Helpdesk, after recently having been acquired by Solarwinds, Inc., no longer offers hosting services.  After analysis, Parature was eliminated because they could not find enthusiastically positive reviews of the product.  For a hosting solution with Web Heldesk, a third-party service, Loop1, will be selling hosting for Web Helpdesk.  Cost and impact are being investigated.  Other tidbits from the discussion:

• Dan and Mary also agreed to be application co-administrators.
• A kickoff meeting to analyze how support will flow through the organization and to prepare an implementation plan will be organized soon.
• Jim Stuart asked if departments outside of LIS would also utilize this new ticketing system?  Would it be prudent to look at it in a larger campus wide context?  Mary stated that this was only being looked at for LIS and if it went campus-wide, someone other than LIS would need to organize and budget for it.
• Web Helpdesk will not hold concurrent licensing.  Individual licenses will be needed for staff to use this product. She asked managers to give Dan names of students and other staff who may need access.
• Mike noted that workgroups will be involved in these conversations, and staff should try to find time in our schedules to dedicate to this project within the next 3 -5 months.
• We also recognized the need for Service Level Agreements to be incorporated into any new ticketing system we implement.
• Finally, Mary also asked the workgroups to let Dan know if they have a specific set of data that they want to have tracked.

LIS has launched the LIS Tech Partners group, comprised of LIS staff and department tech leads (i.e. those staff charged with providing tech services to other departments on campus.

Mike created an online form for managers to describe how things went with the startup of the Fall semester.  What went well and what didn’t?

• One of the themes extracted from the results was on Printing.  Suggestions were made to either have a staff member available to assist with printing problems or to develop a  troubleshooting video to assist students.
• Jim Stuart asked why is there still so much printing?  Should there be more of a campaign to promote electronic submissions?   We still have students that prefer to study in print and a conservative faculty.
• Joe Antonioli noted that communications between workgroups seemed better this year.
• Because the pool of student help at the beginning of the year is so small, should we find temporary help to assist with fall semester?  Mary noted that Circulation has a pool of subs who can be trained and to contact Dan if temporary student help is needed.
• There were fewer course data fixes this year.  Data from Banner seemed to be more accurate than in years past.
• Was everyone aware that student workers had not been paid? Student employment said that it  could take them up to 3 weeks to manually enter authorization forms into the system.  We should confirm mid-August next year to make sure the students will get paid in a timely fashion.
• Next year at the July Manager’s meeting, we should discuss the school year startup.  This should also be reviewed in May for Language Schools.
• Petar commented on communications – we should integrate the  ticketing system with events scheduling to assist with venue and event time changes.
• Petar also mentioned that we need more time for classroom tech upgrades

Mike led a conversation about the next phase of staffing requests by indicating we currently have 4 open positions.  Through a voting process, managers believe they need 8 new positions.  He asked managers to be thoughtful in analyzing their staffing needs, and be cognizant of the costs associated with increasing staff resources.  We agreed the managers and ADs need to gather info from workgroup leaders and hold another open meting and discuss ideas.  ADs would then use their next retreat to prepare the phase 2 staffing plan to present to SRC.

Joe Antonioli noted that on August 31st Segue was officially decommissioned.  Woohoo!

Thanks for reading, Terry & Doreen

Pij led the managers through a discussion about the Education and Training Team’s recommendation to include new language in all LIS job descriptions, indicating what technology skills are expected for all LIS staff members.  The Education & Training team recommends adding the following general phrase to all LIS job descriptions in the section labeled “Other”:

Demonstrate proficiency in general computing skills, such as e-mail, word processing, and use of web-based applications and resources.

Ability to operate in a networked computer environment, including the appropriate use of file storage, understanding security best practices, and a willingness and ability to develop new competencies.

Pij explained that this contains only the “minimum” requirements for LIS staff positions. For current staff members who do not maintain the skills set by these minimum requirements, educational opportunities will be made available, should your current position require them.

This topic will be discussed at the next All LIS Staff meeting.

Joe Antonioli presented the following plan created by the Communications Taskforce.  He described the basic survey and information gathering process.
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/12o26-W5h-1zQCu3w3aYjyGNyVlBy2XPERYDc3Mx8Zek/edit  This will also be presented to staff at the next All LIS Staff meeting.

Thanks for reading,

Terry and Doreen

Pij Slater presented the Education and Training Team’s Orientation Checklist for New LIS Staff for discussion.  Some suggestions for inclusion or revision were:

• Expand the list of “systems” to include all in current use (i.e., Millenium, Subsplus, Heat, Hyperion, etc.
• Information on locating documents in Middfiles
• Reserving library rooms
• Information map (“What info is where” — Middfiles v. Googledocs v. wiki)
• Shift the information security section above BannerWeb
• Include information on keys and card access
• Ordering supplies
• Garbage and recycling
• Information on printing/copying for office and personal use
• Management of personal Drupal profiles (Main directory & workgroup page)
• BannerWeb overview (not covered by H/R in their orientation sessions)
• Add mission statement to document
• Under platforms – add portal
• Portal customization – add link
• Various web platforms (Joe Antonioli will provide this information)
• Be sure to define abbreviations for those who might not understand them

The managers also discussed the idea of presenting this at an LIS all-staff meeting,  possibly as an exercise where staff would actually go through the checklist document in detail.  Managers also felt that this should be discussed on the workgroup level.  Finally, we talked a bit about maintaining the document.  Who will do this and how will be kept up to date?  Should this be made into an “LIS portal?”

Next steps will include:

• Pij (or the Team) will make changes and incorporate the group’s suggestions
• Redistribute to the managers
• Joe A. will consult with the Web Team about maintaining this in Drupal vs. Wiki (Ed & Training Team prefers a Drupal page for easier formatting, with links to the underlying content on wiki or elswhere.)
• Present at All Staff meeting

Mike then led a discussion of a number of ideas to improve “how we do our work” that we generated several meetings ago.  These ideas include:

• Topics from management training
• Effective meetings
• Prioritization
• Effective communication
• Feedback
• Planning and decision making
• Delegation
• DiSC
• Shared values: trust, respect (this item was moved up on the list because of importance)

• Consolidate places to find and share information – Mike asked for volunteers to work on this, and Ian Burke, Chris Norris, Terry Simpkins, David Ludwig, Pij Slater, Joe Durante, and Joe Antonioli were foolish enough to suddenly blink, twitch, scratch themselves, or otherwise attract Mike’s attention.  Therefore, this group will meet to develop make recommendations regarding internal communication once we have a charge.
• SLAs and ticketing system
• Policy summit and policy overrides (this should be done AFTER the SLA process is complete.  Consider handbook update schedule.  Carol Peddie will work on this, possibly in June)
• Focus on technical training

Other ideas that are worth pursuing but potentially more complex to implement include:

• Team assessment: new charges, membership, protocols
• 360 reviews for managers (do not do this during the annual evaluation time)
• Career ladders
• Adding staff
• Values – have we articulated the right values for LIS and how do we hold people accountable to them.  Mike will present values at an All-Staff meeting for discussion, but it should also be discussed on an area/workgroup level.

Thanks for reading,
Terry & Doreen

• 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

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

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

1. We reviewed and added to the ‘what’s new this fall’ document. (See http://sites.middlebury.edu/lis/2011/09/08/what%E2%80%99s-new-or-will-be-new-this-fall/ )
2. We reviewed the process for goal setting. All workgroup and team leaders will post their goals to the LIS strategic planning site by October 1. In addition, they will update their FY11 goals with a final status update by October 1. This year, we will check in on the status of goals on a quarterly basis.
3. Mike talked about the theme for the year: the 4 Ss. They are simple, secure, stable, and sustainable. While we gear up for a more ambitious campus-wide technology planning that will start in the next year, this year we want to focus our attention on making what we have simpler for our users, more secure, more stable, and sustainable. While this theme will inform our approach, it is worth noting that we will no doubt also take on new projects that arise naturally either from these themes, or from demands from our campus partners.
4. Chris Norris gave a tutorial on the latest version of the project directory. The new directory is using a platform called Roadmap. We have agreed that going forward, all LIS projects will be listed in the project directory.

1. Goal Setting Process

Mary Backus led a discussion on the goal setting process for LIS. Her presentation is available at http://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dg3d3j83_10ck44mfgj . Milestones for the process are: Area and Team Goals due at end of July. Workgroup goals due at end of August. Individual goals reworked to fit into this new framework at end of September. Area and workgroup goals to be vetted by FLAC and SLAC in time for budget development process.

2. LIS Focus Document

Mike Roy shared a draft of the LIS Focus document that is revised on a quarterly basis. The document is open for comments on the LIS Blog at http://sites.middlebury.edu/lis/2010/07/14/updated-lis-focus-document-draft/ .

2. Discuss annual planning calendar (see http://sites.middlebury.edu/lis/2010/05/19/annual-planning-calendar/ )

3. Brainstorm ideas for how to orient new staff members to LIS (we’ll post the list of ideas to the blog after the meeting)