|
The Vice Provost for Academic Services and Technology (VPAST) asked the Computing and Information Technology Advisory Council (CITAC) to survey K-State information technology. The purpose was to determine the satisfaction level, current needs, and future needs of K-State information technology (IT) users.
The Chair of CITAC at the time of the request was Dean Brice Hobrock. He decided to conduct the survey rather than passing the responsibility on to the next Chair. It was determined no one person/unit in the KSU Libraries had the needed time to address the survey properly. After consideration, Dean Hobrock hired a staff member to conduct the survey and other special projects. Several small group meetings were held and initial suggestions were made regarding who and what to ask, and how to proceed.
The decision to narrow the survey to include only university users was quickly made. The scope of the survey was directed toward university IT services provided to all types of university users. Five user groups were selected: Undergraduate students, Graduate students, Faculty, Unclassified/Professionals and Classified employees. It was also decided to have an “Open Survey” available on both the Manhattan and Salina campuses. Later, for analysis purposes the five groups were narrowed to students, faculty, and support staff.
It was very hard to qualify and summarize information technology services. After visiting with several people and small groups about how to gather the needed data it was decided to use the SERVQUAL survey structure. The SERVQUAL survey structure provided a way to evaluate the data as to importance and satisfaction, and provide results to make conclusions and recommendations. This survey is used in both the business and academic world to determine satisfaction levels so that preliminary conclusions and recommendations can be made.
The next step was to begin with the known IT departments and list their tasks. Each department provided a list of the tasks/services they performed. (See Appendix A.) Responses were soon arriving – some had small, specific lists and others were longer lists, broken into smaller pieces. A generic list of services was defined by the author and narrowed to include only those services available to all university users. In addition, several specific areas were included: Help Desk, Equipment, Infrastructure, Student Information System, Software, Communication, Online Course Management System, and Technology Classrooms.
The survey had three parts. The first part asked users to rate the importance of the selected services in any organization. Six options were provided for response: Important, Somewhat important, Neutral, Somewhat unimportant, Unimportant, Not applicable/Don’t use. The second part determined the user satisfaction of the same selected services at K-State. Six options were provided for response: Satisfactory, Somewhat satisfactory, Neutral, Somewhat unsatisfactory, Unsatisfactory, and Not applicable/Don’t Use. Part three was added to the SERVQUAL mode and was comprised of demographic and open-ended questions. The first question was to obtain current needs, the second question was to obtain future needs, and the third asked the question, “If you talked to the Vice Provost for Academic Service and Technology what would you like to say about K-State information technology?”
The decision had already been made to use the university survey system developed by the Division of Continuing Education (DCE) and integrate the SERVQUAL structure. The university survey system is a web-based system that allows the user to click on a link or an icon and be automatically transferred to the survey. The user is asked to answer the questions with a click or by typing a short response and to submit their responses. The responses are gathered electronically. The gathered responses are ready for exporting into a file to be analyzed.
A draft copy of the survey was made available to about 70 people for input and suggestions. It was e-mailed, with the link to click, to the CITAC members, Faculty Senate’s Committee on Technology, as well as selected faculty members, administrators, undergraduate students, graduate students, classified employees, and unclassified/professionals. Feedback was received from each group. The comments and suggestions were very helpful and were integrated into the final survey.
The K-State Information Technology Satisfaction Survey was made available to the randomly selected groups about 1:00 a.m. on April 2, 2002, and there were responses made before 8:00 a.m. that morning. Following the response rate on the first day was exciting because some of the groups response rates were close to 12% with the lowest just above 4%. Daily % response rate was recorded each day and charts are included later in the report. A reminder note was sent out at 1:00 a.m. April 12, and the jump in response rates is evident on the charts. The survey was closed May 4, at approximately 1:00 a.m.
The university survey system made gathering the data an easy task. After the survey closed, the electronic results were exported into an Excel format and given to the Office of Planning and Analysis for statistical analysis. The results were tabulated using only responses that 1) indicated that the category was important and also 2) indicated a degree of satisfaction. The responses identified as “not applicable” were not included in those graphs showing percentage rates of satisfaction. Charts of responses (broken down by user category) are available for these categories:
The university survey system has the capability of allowing responders to enter short answers in response to the option “Other.” Appendix F contains the “Other” responses returned for “Primary affiliation with K-State”, “Where do you access technology” and “Which university computing labs do use.” The survey system also has the capability for short “Open-ended questions.” Appendix G contains a summary of the questions: Current needs, future needs, and what would you say to the vice provost. Approximately 25 to 30% had comments.
The reports the university survey system automatically generate are included in Appendix H. This appendix has: the sort survey listing page and the entire survey with percentage rates for each question by group. Appendix I contains all of the unedited comments from the open-ended questions about current and future needs, and the comments to the vice provost.
People are generally satisfied with the K-State information technology services provided. The majority of the survey population uses IT on a daily basis. It was interesting that a few people who said they didn’t use IT, were in fact using IT to answer the survey. This illustrates the different meanings people have or attach to technology vocabulary.
The results of where people use IT on campus was predictable. Students use the InfoCommons, residence halls, and university computing labs. The use of the university computing labs is evenly distributed. The faculty and support staff indicate use of their desk computer in their work space. A high rate of usage from home (off-campus) was reported by all three user groups.
The need for increased bandwidth was shown in the difference between the importance of the infrastructure and the level of satisfaction. All users responded with a high level of importance and a much lower level of satisfaction.
Users, especially students, expressed the desire for more wireless connectivity. Currently, more than one type of wireless connectivity exists on campus. Now would be a good time to implement a standard wireless card for the university, before further expansion of the technology. Current providers of wireless access should be involved as well as departments planning wireless access in the future. The perception of wireless coverage on campus would be greatly enhanced if users could access all wireless systems with one card.
The use of software was divided between two types of users. The first group is those who use it as a function of doing their jobs. The software is transparent to these users and they are satisfied if it works. The second groups of users are very much into software and use it at higher levels of sophistication. Both groups should be considered when deciding to upgrade or implement new software. Both groups approve software availability and the accessibility.
People disagreed with the proposal of doing nothing about spamming. The agreement responses to “making a reasonable attempt to limit spamming was 74.1%.” The respondents varied in their answers to the question of making an all out effort to limits spamming regardless of the cost. These responses indicated a higher proportion want some spamming protection, at a low to moderate cost, and without undo restrictions on users.
Responses to the suggestion to change the domain name to k-state.edu were divided. About 20% of the people did not know how it would affect them. If the goal of administration is to switch to k-state.edu for the university domain name, more and better marketing methods needs to be used. Domain name change champions should clearly state the reasons behind the desired change and how it would better advance the university. Let the users know how it will affect them. With the above information, communicate and educate the university community with the positive aspects of the change, how it will affect individual users, and why the change should be made. People who are informed about change and the affect it will have, are better able to embrace change.
Awareness of the online course management system and helping faculty make better online presentations of class material is needed. Many seem unaware of the availability of online course management for their classes, whether on campus or at a distance. This is a valuable tool and too few faculty are using it. Many responded an average satisfaction level to the question “enhances their classroom presentations.” This indicates they are not using the system to the fullest to enhance their classroom presentations, do not know how to use it, or still do not think it is necessary to change. An awareness program should be developed and implemented to educate faculty and support staff on the importance of the online course management tool, teach them how to use it, and help them understand the importance of better online course material presentation in their classes.
Continue developing the online management system, K-State Online, by the DCE development department, and the iTAC department. These departments are vital in the education and support of the faculty. The recently announced combination of the incorporation of the DCE development group and Telecommunications management into iTAC’s management is highly desirable. It will ensure that implemented projects will be successful. The development of a media center in iTAC in the near future is very important. In addition to the support and resources available in iTAC, the staff of KSU Libraries can provide many more resources/services.
Everyone placed a high level of importance on information technology services. The faculty had the highest level of Not applicable/Don’t use, with the support staff having the lowest level. Students were highly satisfied with most categories except: communications (all three areas) and off-campus access. The faculty level of satisfaction was moderate to high except in: modern up-to-date equipment, online submission of grades (this option is not currently available), availability of online course management system for their own use, and enhancement of online presentation of course materials. Support staff had moderate levels of satisfaction. It was high for Help Desk and low for K-State Online and Technology Classrooms.
Far fewer people answer the open-ended questions. Only a few made comments rather than the hundreds in the tabulated data. The items that had a higher level of significance from multiple comments follow. The expressed needs are increases in the bandwidth, better maintenance of equipment in university computing labs, better off campus access, consistent upgrades of software and hardware across the campus, more online journals and better accessibility, and the availability of wireless access for students.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Increase bandwidth.
Increase wireless access, especially for students.
Improve off-campus access and off-campus access to university resources to include KSU Libraries.
The entire campus should have a minimum standard of hardware and software. A core package of hardware and software should be designated for central support. User input and participation should be an important part of the minimum standard definition.
Make the need for software upgrades a part of the overall campus agenda and include it in the technology proposal for the replacement cycle for technology equipment. Do not forget to consider the two different types of users.
Using the above standards for decision making, write a proposal for a campus-wide replacement cycle for technology equipment and software, and implement it. Maintain a minimum university standard of equipment for faculty and support staff. Incoming students and the university computing labs already have a specified minimum standard.
Limit SPAM at minimal expense. Be reasonable when implementing, without undue restrictions to the user. Users should have input, be included and participate in the limitation desired and in decisions on implementation.
Address the domain name change carefully. Educate the entire university community on the issues, why should this change be made, how will it affect the university as a whole, and how will it affect individual users. Many do not understand the need for change.
Develop a strategy to improve awareness of the online course management system, K-State Online and market it to all teaching faculty. This should include instructions for faculty on how to make better online classroom presentations. It should be implemented with the cooperation and integration of multiple departments, DCE, ECC, iTAC, etc.
updated 7/24/2002 by D.A. Rintoul
