Notes 12/13
We made a lot of progress today and got a few things decided upon.
Decision's made
(note that all decisions made are subject to change as we go along in the process)
- transcripts will be reviewed quarterly to start
- 3-5 transcripts will be picked per quarter as winners
- we will use a simple criteria to note what sessions have gone above and beyond the standard service expectations
- the group will review transcripts that have been submitted to them.
Next steps
- the liaisons will decide how they would like to submit transcripts (at liaisons meeting 12/14)
12/17 update: The liaisons agreed that it would be easiest to do it within QuestionPoint while they’re already looking at the transcript. We can do this by 1) having them refer the session to a fake institution or 2) having them add a “nomination” descriptive code. These methods need to be tested to verify they are as helpful as we think, without messing up any stats, etc., but we always want to keep an eye to making it easy for chatting librarians to nominate their own sessions (which is why I’m leaning towards a descriptive code).
-
the group will decide
- the final categories/rubric
- how they will recognize/reward their colleagues
- should we have categories of winners or just announce the people and transcripts who "won" for that quarter?
- promotion of this team needs to happen - and promotion of the "self nomination"
- deadlines need to be set for this first round
The rubric so far
please edit this page or use the comments to wordsmith the category titles and the descriptions of things that fall into each category
- Personal Connection
- Creative Problem Solving
- Above and Beyond the Answer
- Process Inclusion and Education
Comments
Rewards for Best Chats
I think it will be hard to reward librarians with anything meaningful. There is no money to be had. Even posting their name to the Maryland AskUsNow site will only be seen by librarians holding forth in Chat. Is there enough money for a simple certificate? One that can be designed and easily printed?
Team name: Star Hunters
I like the theme of "hunting for stars". How about calling our team "star hunters"? I don't see the need to include the word 'librarian', because it should be obvious by implication and context that the team is searching for 'star librarians'.
Team Name and Methods
Sorry to go back to square one but it hit me after our chat with everyone that perhaps the name of the team needs to be tweeked just a bit. I hadn't thought about it much because a rose by any other name....but really WE are not the Rockstars---we are hunting for them! So perhaps we should be the Rockstar Hunters or some such---but as I said, this isn't really of top importance to me.
I also am wondering about the self nomination---am really not a fan! Could this just add extra transcripts for us to go through? If I do a spectacular job on a question shouldn't my liason pick that up and nominate me? Will all AUN folks be fully aware of the parameters that we have set or will they think that "Golly! THAT was a fun one! Think I'll send it in!"?
Thanks for listening!
Edie White
I agree with Edie about the name...
How about Stellar Transcript Review Team? Stellar Transcript Reviewers? Something that clarifies our role...
I support the self-nomination. Librarians need to be encouraged to brag a little more! What if it is a really great transaction that just gets overlooked by the Liaison? That's no reason it shouldn't be considered for recognition. I don't think we will be overwhelmed with self-nominations, but if we are we could rescind this option down the road.
-Cameron
Yes- let's talk about the
Yes- let's talk about the name! what do you guys think?
also- the plan is to make everyone aware of what we're doing and how we're doing it so that they can participate and nominate and self nominate away!
i'm hoping that the nominations will mostly come through the liaisons BUT the way we're doing it is that if someone self-nominates, it won't create a second (duplicate) record for us to look at. that said, is self nomination something we want?
Group- what do you think?
Name of the Group
Further comment seemed necessary. I thought we were giving the name to the winners of the best CHATS.
If it's "us" we're naming, what about AUN Chat Panel? We're more of a "panel" than stars.
Or perhaps:
"The A+ Chat Panel"?
or, the "Best Chats Panel"
or , "Star Chats Panel".
Okay. that's it.
re: (Rock Stars) Group Name
Don't know if I've missed the boat on this one. I still am not fond of the Rock Star moniker. Just seems totally irrelevant to the group. What about AUN Chat Champs?
Okay, agreed - *we* are not
Okay, agreed - *we* are not the rockstars, but the librarians we are going to be celebrating are. i like "Stellar Transcript Teview Team" or STRT (start?!) :-D
But i think we can all agree that our winners are the "rockstar librarians," yes?
self nomination i think will happen very rarely, but we can address that as needed. nothing we do is set in stone, we can change whatever isn't working later down the line but we just need to get started.
Patricia
I guess self-nomination is okay-really, how many do we think would self nominate?
To avoid having duplicates nominations from the liasons the librarian in question can inform their liason if they are self nominating. They'd have to be awfully confident of the session.
Customers also can rate the session in the survey. Do liasons automatically look at sessions that get excellent ratings?
the review process isn't
the review process isn't standardized to the n'th degree. all librarians get surveys and are to review 20 sessions of their customers and 20 sessions of their librarians a week at least. how they choose to utilize surveys in the review process is currently up to them.
Self Nomination
I think we should try it. I suspect most librarians won't do this too often and if someone abuses it, that'll be obvious.
the different nomination options
There are a few ways that we can do the nomination process. Below are the pros and cons to all the options presented at the liaison meeting in december. The descriptive codes are the best way, but some kinks need to be worked out in QP before we can use this option.
Descriptive Codes
+ can be easily done during review by a liasison
+ can be easily done by a chatting librarian who is self nominating
+ allows transcript to stay within the originating institution
+ descriptive code tallys stay in institution's reports
+ doesn't increase referral statistics
+ sessions need to be scrubbed anyway
- only admins have access to the descriptive code report (okay because they have to be scrubbed anyway)
- the code shows up multiple times in the report (per institution) - julie's checking with QP on this
-/+ chatting librarians would see their sessions and know they were nominated
Referring to the Sandbox account
+ easily referred by liaison doing review
+ easily grabbed and scrubbed by J&C for team
+/- can give anyone on the rockstar team access (but sessions need to be scrubbed first)
- can't be done at chat level for easy self nominations by chatting librarians
- will increase referral statistics
Webform
+ easy for J&C to grab sessions and scrub for the team.
- people would need to keep it open while doing review or chatting probably resulting in low usage
- no way to track this in QP
+ can automatically email people that the nomination has occurred.