Faculty, staff, and students participated in the 2016 IT TechQual+ Biennial Survey. The survey is designed to capture the user perspective on information technology (IT) services and quality at WashU.
Survey Results Summary
Invitations to participate in the survey were sent to a random sampling of 3,776 members of the WashU Community. Overall, 984 people participated in the survey: 254 faculty, 597 staff, and 95 students.
TechQual+ advises the exclusion of outlier data and therefore outlier data is omitted in this report. TechQual+ defines outlier data as observations that are numerically distant from other cases and have the potential to result in misleading results.
Analysis of the effectiveness of technology service by role (students, staff, and faculty), yielded the following conclusions:
- Having an Internet service that operates reliably.
- Having an Internet service that provides adequate capacity or speed.
- Receiving communications regarding technology services that I can understand.
- Having an Internet service that provides adequate Wi-Fi coverage.
- Having adequate cellular (or mobile) coverage throughout campus.
- Having technology services that allow me to collaborate effectively with others.
- Having systems that provide timely access to data that informs decision-making.
- Getting timely resolution of technology problems that I am experiencing.
- Technology support staff who have the knowledge to answer my questions.
- Getting access to training or other self-help information that increases my effectiveness with technology.
- How easy is it to login to the services I need?
- Faculty felt the strongest about the perceived service level being less than the minimum service level in all areas except one—having an Internet service that provides adequate capacity of speed.
- The minimum service level faculty and staff are willing to accept is much higher than the level accepted by students.
- Faculty were the most dissatisfied with the perceived service level while students were the most satisfied with the current perceived service level.
- Faculty, staff, and students all have very similar desired service levels (rated 8.04 – 8.8).
- The perceived service level being provided is less than the desired service level in all 15 areas
The core TechQual+ survey consists of multiple IT service outcomes (15) grouped together into distinct core commitments expected by faculty, students, and staff. These core commitments for this survey were designed to assess these categories of IT service outcomes:
>Connectivity and Access- Tell us about your ability to access technology services through the Internet.
>Technology and Collaboration Services- Tell us about the quality of Web sites, online services, and technologies for collaboration.
>Support and Training- Tell us about your experiences with those supporting your use of technology services.
Each of these core commitments includes separate questions that refer specifically to IT service outcomes on the Washington University in St. Louis campus corresponding to each core commitment. For each question, respondents are asked to rate the service dimension in three ways based on a rating scale (1 is lowest, 9 is highest). Respondents are requested to indicate their minimum service level expectation, desired service level expectation, and perceived service performance for each question:
Minimum Service Level Expectation – the number that represents the minimum level of service that the respondent finds acceptable. If a respondent has minimal expectations for the statement, his or her rating is typically closer to the lower end of the rating scale. If the respondent has higher expectations, the rating is typically closer to the higher end of the rating scale.
Desired Service Level Expectation – the number that represents the level of service that the respondent personally wants. The respondent selects a rating that represents the level of services he or she desires.
Perceived Service Performance – the number that represents the level of service that the respondent believes is currently provided. This rating is typically considered in light of the minimum and desired ratings that were previously selected. Generally speaking, this rating typically falls between the minimum and desired service level ratings. However, if the respondent feels that the actual performance is below the minimum service levels, the rating is equal to or below their minimum service level rating. If the respondent feels that the actual performance exceeds the desired expectations, the rating is typically equal to or greater than the desired service level rating.
Zone of Tolerance: For each type of service, expectations are measured as a range as opposed to a single, scaled point. The range between end users’ minimum expectations and desired expectations constitutes what is known as the “zone of tolerance.”
Service Adequacy Gap Score: The range between end users’ minimum expectations and current perceived service level constitutes what is known as the “service adequacy gap score.” This score is computed by subtracting the minimum level of service score from the perceived level of service score. A positive number indicates the extent that perceived service levels exceeds end users minimum expectations, a negative number indicates a gap between the perceived performance and minimum expectations.
Incomplete Surveys: The data contained in this report includes cases where the respondent completed an individual item but did not complete the survey in its entirety.
Suggestions: When the perceived rating is below the minimum level of service, the end user is provided the opportunity to make suggestions on how the quality of this service can be improved. While these responses remain subjective, they can be useful in planning strategies to improve service quality over the long term