CUL - Main Content

As of Friday, 12 March, 25 responses have been tallied. Averages below represent scores from these 25 responses.

1. On a scale of 1 to 5, indicate how useful each of the following aspects of today's program was:

Scale:

1 - Not at All
2 - To a Small Extent
3 - To a Moderate Extent
4 - To a Great Extent
5 - To a Very Great Extent
N/A - Not Applicable

A. General Session - Keynote Speaker
Average Score: 3.66

B. Breakout Groups

Library Open Spaces (19 attendees)
Average Score: 3.47

Electronic Services and E-Reserves (16 attendees)
Average Score: 3.94

Customer Service and Quality Control (18 attendees)
Average Score: 3.94

C. Opportunity to meet colleagues
Average Score: 4.22

D. Opportunity to learn practices at other institutions
Average Score: 4.48

E. Facilities and Logistics
Average Score: 4.35

2. Do you think it worthwhile for this group to convene again to discuss common Access Services issues?

Yes (# of responses): 25
No (# of responses): 0

3. If you answered "Yes" to Question 2 above, would your institution be interested in hosting the next Symposium?

Yes (# of institutions): 5
No (# of institutions): 2
Unsure (# of institutions): 2

4. If you answered "Yes" or "Unsure" to Question 3 above, please indicate your institution and a contact person below.

Information gathered for planners' use.

5. In your opinion, what worked well at today's program?

Space and Facilities. Refreshments and adequate breaks to meet others. Well facilitated programs.

Wonderful program. Ample time for networking.

Logistics and content were excellent. This was wonderful.

Opportunity to network.

The E-Services and E-Reserves discussion was well-attended and vocal. It could have served as a conference topic for an entire weekend. Clearly more discussion is needed about these topics. It would be useful for the Ivies to develop Best Practices for these topics.

Hearing what peer institutions are doing. Meeting peers who perform the same me. Matching names with faces.

Small group discussion. Facilitators and recorders were very good. Opportunity to hear of new services.

The schedule allowed adequate time to meet other colleagues and share ideas.

Meeting colleagues, learning about their innovations and solutions to problems.

I thought it was extremely beneficial to see how the peer institutions handled these topics and was surprised to see how common our concerns and issues were.

Customer service.

Having facilitator/recorder. Break-outs to hear from and talk to colleagues. Food and beverages.

Sharing ideas- finding out about services being offered by other institutions.

Large sessions, keynote intro.

Small group sessions, good speakers, good representation.

Timing and breaks were good—the program flowed very well. Thank you—I feel that this was a very useful event and I got a lot out of it.

Variety of the group, good site.

Breakout sessions good, although the amount of time devoted to each was generally too long—a first! Facilitators really had to pull responses from attendees, not sure why; perhaps the classroom style hindered a looser, more open approach to speaking out, Great food.

Great facility meeting rooms. The day was well-paced.

Open discussion of topics.

Small groups, a variety of institutions participating.

The break-out groups. The ability to listen to concerns and practices at the other institutions. This is a great forum to listen and share opinions.

Colleagues having a chance to network.

Networking and sharing current/future practices.

Moderated discussions worked well to keep groups on track and keep all involved.

6. In your opinion, what would you have improved about today's program?

Some of the topics discussed are not "hot issues" anymore such as coffee shops. Better Definitions needed and agreed upon beforehand such as service-what does it mean? Also breakout rooms too hot. No coat racks.

In break-out groups it was alreay set-up what questions we would discuss and we stayed mostly on that topic. It might be better to poll the group to set an agenda on what the most important topics are.

It may have been the sessions I attended (and facilitated!), but the topics didn't seem to yield as much discussion as I'd hoped.

Breakout sessions good although the amount of time denoted to each was generally too long-a first! Facilitators really had to pull responses from attendees. Not sure why-perhaps the classroom style hindered a more open approach to speak out. A cocktail session would be a great wrap-up. More time to chat, meet others, exchange ideas, etc.

Coat racks would have been a nice touch. Better ventilation in small breakout rooms.

Larger rooms, a bit more structure/leadership to group sessions to move conversations on to key topics. E-mail request to participants in advance to develop key issues/concerns.

Needed discussions about summaries. Issues came up from the other sessions which could have been discussed together. I missed the keynote wrap up and a final send off from a very knowledgable source.

Done very well.

Shorter breakout sessions (1 1/2 hours).

Trying to cover more of the topics intsead of focusing on one part such a E-Reserves or add a smaller group to discuss the other topics i.e. patron empowerment...

Perhaps poll the attendants to see which topics, if any, were of greatest concern. For example a seminar strictly on copyright would have been very useful, instead we used a majority of our time discussing that and never got to hear about the other "electronic" issues which was fantastic for me (since its very relevant) but may have been not as useful to people who weren't involved w/ copyright.

While sessions too short last time, may be too long or too broad this time.

Larger rooms for discussion. Organized lunch so that there is time for discussion. Offering additional dis. groups alternatives perhaps staff training/retention in A.S.

Sessions were 30 mintues too long. Some issues weren't clearly defined prior to discussion so people spent time figuring out the topic. EX:"service"

I'm not sure how the discussion topics were chosen, but the sessions tended to lump lots of things together. I would have preferred more focused sessions organized around pressing problems. The open spaces session seemed long and had a hard time getting going.

Breakout groups could have easily been 30 minutes shorter. More time to network with colleagues. Opportunity for each institution to report 3/4 access services issues upon which they are focusing their energy/attention.

Microphones?

More info at the security/info desk by main entrance-(rude staff). Add privileges as a topic for next time.

More information about security/sign-in (e.g. not having to sign back in after lunch-rude security). More information about local/available computer kiosks (to check e-mail). Map and info about immediately local resturants.

In a few spots in the opening remarks the collective participants were referred to as librarians. While I am accustomed to being thought of as a librarian by patrons, I would think people working in libraries realize all employees are not librarians.

Shorten end program.