Date: August 21^st 2009

Present: Jas Dhillon, Paul Trimmer, Nick Hull, Sumaiya Khaku, Stephen Lamb, Angela Roxburgh

Apologies: Malcolm Days, Anne Roberts, Alison Foden

Welcome

JD welcomed SB Members.

SB members introduced themselves.

Presentation

JD and PT presented a 'Background to IT 'services', the role of the 'Service Board' and current membership. They then provided context for the Service Board Service with information on the history of the service, an overview of its current functions and examples of the metrics used to manage and measure performance of the service.

Points for Approval

• Current Service Board (SB) Membership

The current SB membership was approved.

• Service Desk Metrics
  

Discussion of current metrics and how these provide an insight into demand and performance of the service. Noted that both Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction were represented in terms of Key Performance Indicators (as per standard industry best practice) and qualitative feedback.

Following the discussion, current metrics approved as useful to the SB in understanding the service. SB members agreed that the balance between these was important i.e. attempts to increase the 1st level fix would impact on response times and vice versa and that the current ratio appeared to be the optimum balance.

• Service Board Meetings

Agreed that SD SB meetings should take place twice a year in January and in August. Critical changes to the service will be communicated through the year and additional meetings organised as necessary should further information and discussion be required for Service Board approval.

Agreed that the next meeting would be in the new year 2010, dates to be circulated nearer the time.

Action: JD to organise.

Points for Discussion

• What is the optimum balance from a customer perspective (see presention for metrics)

As previously, SB agreed current balance was appropriate.

Discussion regarding single point of contact and the impact of this on the service. SB suggested that SPOC, whilst desirable, was not essential if this was at the expense of the response times and 1st point of contact resolutions which were seen as more beneficial to the customer.

Noted that there should not be a specified limit on the length of time that a customer can have contact with a member of the SD (via 'phone or otherwise). Also several comments to commend the SD team on patience and understanding. SL noted that a scripted response would be unhelpful and that the current methods employed by the SD team were excellent and took into account the real requirements of the customer.

Noted by SB that customer choice is essential with regards to contact methods and that these should not be linked directly to demand (i.e. number of calls received by each method). Particular customer groups have different preferences and each method provides different benefits. SK noted that drop-in service was particularly valuable to student customers who often have complex requirements that can only provided by face to face support - and that this is often their preferred contact method.

Questions /AOB

• Motion tabled by SL, who suggested an additional academic member might be appropriate. SB agreed.

Action: JD to identify and invite suitable additional member.

• JD asked if the current format for the agenda was suitable. SB agreed.

JD thanked the SB members for attending and offered to show them around the SD functional areas.