2017 techqual+ it survey report - s3.wp.wsu.edu · pdf file2017 techqual+ it survey report ......

Washington State University Spokane

2017 TECHQUAL+IT SURVEY REPORT

JULY 2017

Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................................... 32017 TechQual+ Survey Questions ................................................................................................................................... 4Respondent Population Charts .......................................................................................................................................... 5

Survey Review1. Connectivity and Access ............................................................................................................................................... 72. Technology and Collaboration .................................................................................................................................... 113. Support and Training .................................................................................................................................................. 154. Blackboard and Instructional Technologies .................................................................................................................. 195. Research Resources for Faculty .................................................................................................................................... 236. Computer Labs for Students ....................................................................................................................................... 277. Videoconferencing for Faculty and Staff ...................................................................................................................... 31 Additional Questions Visualized 2017 Technology Expectations ................................................................................................................................. 34

2017 Top Technology Focus ..................................................................................................................................... 352017 Top Three Most Helpful IT Services .................................................................................................................. 362017 Top Three IT Services Needing Improvement ................................................................................................... 372017 Training Preferences for Faculty and Staff ......................................................................................................... 38

AppendicesAppendix A: Survey Data ................................................................................................................................................ 39

All Respondents ........................................................................................................................................................ 40All Students .............................................................................................................................................................. 42All Faculty ................................................................................................................................................................. 43All Staff ..................................................................................................................................................................... 45

Appendix B: Service Level Analysis Charts ....................................................................................................................... 47Service Adequacy Gap Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 48Superiority Gap Analysis ........................................................................................................................................... 50Minimum and Desired Service Level Rankings .......................................................................................................... 52Service Adequacy Gap by Gender ............................................................................................................................. 54

Appendix C: Top Three Response Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 57Appendix D: Comment Analysis ...................................................................................................................................... 59

Students ................................................................................................................................................................... 60Faculty ..................................................................................................................................................................... 64Staff ......................................................................................................................................................................... 69

TABLE OF CONTENTS

WSU Spokane 2017 TechQual+ Survey Report

To improve the technological experience at WSU Spokane, gain useful feedback, and gauge perceptions, WSU Spokane Information Technology Services utilized the standardized technology survey designed by the Higher Education TechQual+ Project for the third consecutive year (www.TechQual.org).

In 2017, 10% of students, 21% of faculty, and 42% of staff responded to the survey. A total of 421 comments and 2,173 responses were provided to help lend context, depth, and perceptions to the survey regarding the strengths, challenges, and opportunities ahead for WSU Spokane ITS. Similar to past years, the results of the 2017 survey provide a strong indicator for setting technology priorities and planning initiatives.

Based on the findings of focus groups at participating institutions nationwide, the TechQual+ Project has articulated a set of generalizable IT service outcomes that are expected of IT organizations by students, faculty, and staff within higher education. The TechQual+ core survey analyzes 13 items designed to measure the performance of three core commitments. For each question, respondents are asked to indicate their minimum service level expectation, desired service level expectation, and perceived service level. In addition, WSU Spokane added 10 questions grouped into 4 campus-specific service areas to create 7 categories of IT service.

• Connectivity and Access

• Technology and Collaboration Services

• Support and Training

• Blackboard and Instructional Technology

• Research Resources

• Computer Labs

• Videoconferencing Services

With three years of TechQual+ survey experience, Spokane IT is excited to present the 2017 results in a new and easier-to-understand format focused on the 7 service categories comparing the results by students, faculty, and staff including the following:

• Highlights offers a quick glance at the results

• Service Expectations displays the range of expectations and how they are being met

• 3-Year Service Adequacy Gap Trends show year-to-year progress and changing expectations

• Comment Analysis summarizes major feedback themes with a sampling of comments

Highlights of the 2017 Survey

• 358 members of the WSU Spokane community started the survey; 117 students, 66 faculty, and 97 staff completed it.

• 421 comments were submitted containing over 500 feedback topics and suggestions.

• 54% of services exceeded minimum expectations.

• Overall, 7 of the 13 standard TechQual+ IT services exceeded minimum expectations.

• Respondents reported a 94% customer satisfaction rate with regard to IT technical support.

• Given the option to improve one service on campus, 30% of the respondents chose Wi-Fi access and speed, including reliability in classrooms, slowness of speed during times of high traffic, and visitor login processes.

• Speed and reliability of Wi-Fi during times of high traffic or in areas around buildings is a prominent frustration for WSU Spokane users.

• Inadequate cellular coverage is a high frustration point for students, faculty, and staff. Basements, faculty offices, and labs were reported as the greatest problem areas.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


Connectivity & Access1. Having an Internet service that operates reliably.2. Having an Internet service that provides adequate

capacity or speed.3. Having an Internet service that provides adequate Wi-Fi

coverage.4. Having adequate cellular (or mobile) coverage

throughout campus.

Technology and Collaboration Services5. Having Web sites and online services that are easy to

use.6. Having online services that enhance the teaching and

learning experience.7. Having technology services that allow me to collabo-

rate effectively with others.8. Having systems that provide timely access to data that

informs decision-making.9. The availability of classrooms or meeting spaces with

technology that enhances the teaching and learning experience.

Support and Training10. Getting timely resolution of technology problems that I

am experiencing.11. Technology support staff who have the knowledge to

answer my questions.12. Receiving communications regarding technology ser-

vices that I can understand.13. Getting access to training or other self-help information

that increases my effectiveness with technology.

Other Important Information Technology Services14. Having information and access to new and useful in-

structional technologies or methods. 15. Having an effective, intuitive, and reliable Learning

Management System (Blackboard). 16. Getting timely and helpful support for Blackboard (the

WSU learning management system).

Research Resources for Faculty17. Having access to high speed computing for research. 18. Having internet speed/capacity specifically in terms of

research needs. 19. Having data storage space used specifically for research

data.

Computer Labs20. Availability and hours for open computer lab (SAC311). 21. Having a positive environment (cleanliness, noise, tem-

perature, etc.) for the open computer lab (SAC311).

Videoconferencing22. Availability of classrooms or meeting spaces with video-

conferencing technology. 23. Getting timely and helpful support for videoconferenc-

ing technology in classrooms or meeting spaces.

Additional Questions24. What one issue would you choose as the top priority

for WSU Spokane IT in 2017? 25. What type of training suits you best when learning

technology applications available at WSU (such as: Skype for Business, OneDrive, or Blackboard)?

26. WSU provides training on technology applications (such as: Skype for Business, OneDrive, or Blackboard). What is the best way to advertise these training oppor-tunities to you?

27. Tell us three (3) WSU Spokane IT services that need improvement and why?

28. Tell us three (3) WSU Spokane IT services that you find helpful and why?


2017 TechQual+ Survey Questions

Highlights of the 2017 Survey (continued)

• Many users reported annoyance with the current room scheduling system.

• Many respondends cited issues with the WSU Spokane and MyWSU website navigation, ease of use, and availability of information.

• Users reported being largely satisfied with ITS support staff and the levels of support available. They also requested more self-help resources.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (continued)

University Role (Self-reported)All survey participants are asked to self report their role, gender, and age group.

Response Rates (WSU Spokane Classification)These are the numbers of participants invited to participate in the survey as classified by the University

Gender (Self-reported)All survey participants are asked to self report their role, gender, and age group.

Pop (N) # Attempted # Complete Response Rate

2015 2016 2017 2015 2016 2017 2015 2016 2017 2015 2016 2017

Faculty 328 341 448 93 79 92 78 68 79 28% 23% 21%

Staff 263 289 306 132 130 128 114 110 102 50% 45% 42%

Student 1355 1475 1419 147 136 138 117 106 104 11% 9% 10%

Totals 1946 2105 2173 372 245 358 309 284 284 19% 16% 16%

# Attempted # Complete Completion Rate

2015 2016 2017 2015 2016 2017 2015 2016 2017

Faculty 94 77 77 81 68 66 86% 88% 85%

Staff 124 125 120 107 108 97 86% 86% 80%

Student 147 132 149 116 102 117 78% 77% 78%

Totals 372 345 358 309 284 284 83% 82% 79%


2015 2016 2017 2015 2016 2017 2015 2016 2017

Not Declared 68 64 56 55 52 43 80% 81% 76%

0-24 48 43 42 40 31 33 83% 72% 78%

25-34 100 105 106 73 80 80 73% 76% 75%

35-44 51 50 48 44 44 36 86% 88% 75%

45-54 4 36 52 38 33 44 90% 91% 84%

55 & ABOVE 63 47 54 59 44 48 93% 93% 88%

Totals 372 345 358 309 284 284 83% 82% 79%

RESPONDENT POPULATION CHARTS


2015 2016 2017 2015 2016 2017 2015 2016 2017

Female 232 113 232 186 100 189 80% 88% 81%

Male 119 214 102 104 173 83 87% 80% 81%

Not Declared 21 18 24 19 11 12 90% 61% 50%

Totals 372 345 358 309 284 284 83% 82% 79%

Age (Self-reported)All survey participants are asked to self report their role, gender, and age group.


1CONNECTIVITY

& ACCESS


CONNECTIVITY & ACCESS

Service Expectations• A reliable campus network (#1 for students and staff

and #2 for staff) continues to be highly important to all campus groups.

• Wi-Fi coverage ranked as the second highest level of service expected for students and faculty, while ade-quate internet capacity ranked as the second highest level of service expected for staff.

Service Gaps (perceived minus minimum)• Compared to 2016, questions in this category showed

signficant decline in adequacy for faculty.• Students and staff rated this category as meeting expec-

tations.• The largest decline came in the adequacy rating of

capacity and speed of internet service, which decreased 3.5% in rankings.

• Student perceptions of the Wi-Fi service have increased positively by 15%.

• Adequate cellular coverage remains an issue.• Cellular Coverage is ranked as an extreme pain point for

faculty, with a -1.16 adequacy gap.Needs/Wants Ranking

• Wi-Fi remains the most important issue to the WSU

Spokane community, with 19% of respondents select-ing it as the top priority for WSU Spokane IT in 2017.

• 28% of students rank Wi-Fi as the most important issue of 2017, which is nearly double of the next highest priority.

Pick 3: Services that are most helpful & need improvement (open-ended questions)

• For students, Wi-Fi remains to be the most helpful, and within the top three services that are in need of improvement.

• Faculty and Staff agree that reliable Wi-Fi must be a priority.

2017 Technology Focus Ranking (pick one)• 19% of all respondents cite Wi-Fi as the top priority and

16% chose information security as top priority.• 28% of students chose Wi-Fi as the top priority.• 22% of staff and 16% of faculty indicated information

security should be the top priority.Comments

• 92 total comments: 41 students, 23 faculty, and 28 from staff.

• Comments expressed the need for a reliable connection and for a connection that reaches all the way to the parking lots.

2017 Highlights

Service Expectations

• For each question, service expec-tations are measured as a range as opposed to a single, scaled point.

• The range between end users’ minimum service expectations (needs) and desired service expectations constitutes what is known as the “zone of toler-ance.”

• The Adequacy Gap range (min-imum desired level of service to perceived level of service) is also shown.

• This chart displays the end users’ range of service expectations and how they perceive those service expectations being met.

• It also compares service expec-tation levels between students, faculty, staff, and all.


Students Faculty Staff

All Adequacy Gap

1

Service Adequacy Gap — 3-Year TrendThe Service Adequacy Gap indicates the degree to which basic, minimum service levels are being met. It is computed by subtracting the minimum level of service score from the perceived level of service score. Points on the charts below that are above the zero line indicate a positive adequacy score, meaning that users are satisfied, though there is always room for improvement. Points that are below the zero line indicate dissatisfaction with the service.

CONNECTIVITY & ACCESS (continued)1

2015 2016 2017All 0.37 0.17 0.07Staff 0.52 0.09 0.39Faculty 0.18 0.18 -0.45Student 0.39 0.24 0.07

-1.6-1.4-1.2

-1-0.8-0.6-0.4-0.2

00.20.40.60.8

11.21.41.6

Adeq

uacy

Gap

Question #1: Having an Internet service that operates reliably

2015 2016 2017

All 0.4 0.34 0.23

Staff 0.37 0.27 0.5

Faculty 0.25 0.44 -0.32

Student 0.52 0.35 0.28

-1.8-1.6-1.4-1.2

-1-0.8-0.6-0.4-0.2

00.20.40.60.8

11.21.41.61.8

Ad

equa

cy G

ap

Question #2: Having an Internet service that provides adequate

capacity and speed

2015 2016 2017All 0.05 0.01 0Staff 0.01 0.09 0.34Faculty -0.19 -0.11 -0.85Student 0.24 0 0.15

-1-0.9-0.8-0.7-0.6-0.5-0.4-0.3-0.2-0.1

00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9

1

Question #3: Having an Internet service that provides adequate

Wi-Fi coverage

2015 2016 2017All -0.04 0.00 -0.05Staff -0.28 -0.13 0.34Faculty -0.16 -0.36 -1.02Student 0.25 0.36 0.18

-1.00-0.90-0.80-0.70-0.60-0.50-0.40-0.30-0.20-0.100.000.100.200.300.400.500.600.700.800.901.00

Question #4: Having adequate cellular or mobile coverage

throughout campus



All Adequacy Gap

Install Wi-Fi coverage in the Ignite NW building. I have none in my office.

- Faculty

Comment Analysis

• Wi-Fi often drops signal across campus.• Wi-Fi can be slow to connect in main buildings such as the

Student Academic Center and the Nursing Building.• There is a loss of Wi-Fi coverage around buildings and in

parking lots. • There is little to no Wi-Fi coverage in the Ignite Spokane

building.• SAC 20 receives infamously poor cellular reception.• Some expressed gaps in service at the beginning of

semesters.

• There is poor cell phone reception in the lower floors of buildings, especially the Nursing and Pharmacy buildings.

• There are dead zones in the library that lack both cellular reception and Wi-Fi signal.

• Some respondents cited improvement concerning cellular reception.

• Users of all major networks admitted to having issues.

Major Themes

Question 1Internet Reliability

Question 2Internet Capacity/Speed

Question 3Wi-Fi

Question 4Cellular Coverage

#Respondents

#Commenters

#Comments

#Respondents

#Commenters

#Comments

#Respondents

#Commenters

#Comments

#Respondents

#Commenters

#Comments

Students 116 12 13 116 4 4 116 11 11 115 12 13

Faculty 66 4 4 63 4 4 62 4 4 64 10 11

Staff 96 3 3 96 4 5 90 7 7 91 11 13

Totals 278 19 20 275 12 13 268 22 22 270 33 37

Comment Sampling

CONNECTIVITY & ACCESS (continued)1


“There are some areas of the buildings where cell service (Verizon) is hard to get.

PBS, SEWC, and some areas of SAC. Improvement would be nice although does

not impede my ability to do my job.” -Staff

“In certain areas of campus, we do not receive any mobile coverage such as SAC 20.” - Student

“I have been in 4 different offices within the College of Nursing and each have had different levels of Wi-Fi. The 4th floor north side had very poor Wi-Fi.” - Staff

“Basement of PBS was a big problem for

2 years, but WAY TO GO

KENNY now!” - Faculty

“(Wi-Fi reliability) Doesn’t work in certain parts of buildings and could have a wider range extended to parking lots.” - Student

Question 1Internet Reliability

Question 2Internet Capacity/Speed

Question 3Wi-Fi

Question 4Cellular Coverage

#Respondents

#Commenters

#Comments

#Respondents

#Commenters

#Comments

#Respondents

#Commenters

#Comments

#Respondents

#Commenters

#Comments

Students 116 12 13 116 4 4 116 11 11 115 12 13

Faculty 66 4 4 63 4 4 62 4 4 64 10 11

Staff 96 3 3 96 4 5 90 7 7 91 11 13

Totals 278 19 20 275 12 13 268 22 22 270 33 37

2TECHNOLOGY & COLLABORATION


TECHNOLOGY & COLLABORATION

Service Expectations• Having improved WSU Spokane websites is the third

highest priority for everyone.• Blackboard Support is the fourth highest priority.

Service Gaps (perceived minus minimum)• Compared to 2016, questions in this category showed

significant decline in adequacy for faculty, while percep-tions among staff ranked more positively than 2016.

• Students and staff rated this entire category as meeting expectations, though some questions declined from previous years.

• Availability of spaces with technology to enhance teach-ing and learning declined across the board, though only received a negative adequacy score by faculty.

Needs/Wants Ranking• Many respondents would like to see search results on

the WSU Spokane website to only show results for that campus, not Pullman or other WSU campuses.

• Many respondents suggested a switch to Canvas LMS

in response to Online services that enhance teaching/learning.


• For students, Online services that enhance teaching/learning has the potential to be very helpful, but ser-vices like the WSU Spokane website and Blackboard are too unintuitive and outdated to prove helpful.

2017 Technology Focus Ranking• 12% of faculty, 11% of staff, and 14% chose WSU

Spokane websites as the top priority for improvement in 2017.

Comments• Search and navigation functions on WSU website are

not intuitive, user-friendly, or accurate.• Many users would like to see more streamlined online

administrative services, and more support for collabora-tive services.

2017 Highlights


• For each question, ser-vice expectations are measured as a range as opposed to a single, scaled point.

• The range between end users’ minimum service expectations (needs) and desired service expectations constitutes what is known as the “zone of tolerance.”

• The Adequacy Gap range (minimum desired level of service to perceived level of service) is also shown.

• This chart displays the end users’ range of service expectations and how they perceive those service expecta-tions being met.

• It also compares ser-vice expectation levels between students, faculty, staff, and all.



All Adequacy Gap

2

Service Adequacy Gap — 3-Year TrendThe Service Adequacy Gap indicates the degree to which basic, minimum service levels are being met. It is computed by sub-tracting the minimum level of service score from the perceived level of service score. Points on the charts below that are above the zero line indicate a positive adequacy score, meaning that users are satisfied, though there is always room for improve-ment. Points that are below the zero line indicate dissatisfaction with the service.


All Adequacy Gap

2015 2016 2017Student 0.39 0.28 0.35Faculty -0.10 0.11 -0.97Staff -0.12 -0.08 0.04All 0.05 0.10 -0.07

-1.2

-1.0

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Question #5: Having Web sites and online services that are easy to use

TECHNOLOGY & COLLABORATION (continued)2

2015 2016 2017Student 0.44 0.46 0.28Faculty -0.53 -0.25 -0.97Staff 0.13 -0.06 0.2All 0.06 0.07 -0.03

-1.2

-1

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

Question #7: Having technology services that allow me to collaborate effectively with others

2015 2016 2017Student 0.31 0.39 0.16Faculty -0.30 -0.02 -0.81Staff 0.03 -0.56 -0.05All 0.04 -0.08 -0.12

-1.00

-0.80

-0.60

-0.40

-0.20

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

Question #8: Having systems that provide timely access to data that informs decision-making.

2015 2016 2017Student 0.24 0.34 0.18Faculty -0.93 -0.41 -1.46Staff 0.04 0.18 0.08All -0.14 0.08 -0.25

-1.6

-1.4

-1.2

-1

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Question #9: The availability of classrooms or meeting spaces with technology that enhances the teaching and

learning experience


2015 2016 2017Student 0.44 0.54 0.25Faculty -0.39 -0.32 -1.15Staff 0.45 0.05 0.35All 0.21 0.12 -0.1

-1.4

-1.2

-1

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

Question #6: Having online services that enhance the teaching and learning experience

Comment Analysis

• The search and navigation functions on the WSU Spokane website are not intuitive or very accurate in finding relevant results.

• Blackboard is difficult to use; many users suggest switching to Canvas as the primary Learning Management System for the University.

• AMS systems suffer after 5:00 PM.• There are still AMS issues with logging in, setting up micro-

phones, finding the correct volume, and the system being reliable.

• Though some users are experiencing issues, Skype for

Business is widely accepted as a great tool for collaboration, and many would like to see it in all classrooms.

• Entrada is clunky and not particularly helpful or insightful.• Financial systems on campus are outdated and will need

upgrades.• More study rooms and spaces for small groups are request-

ed.• Though technology is available in many classrooms, often-

times users don’t know how to operate the equipment.• R25 Room Viewer is slow and inefficient.

Major Themes

Question 5Easy to Use Web and Online

Services

Question 6Online Services that

Enhance Teaching/Learning

Question 7Collaborative Technology

Question 8Timely Access to Data for

Decision Making

Question 9Spaces with Technology to Enhance Teaching/Learning

#Respondents

#Commenters

#Comments

#Respondents

#Commenters

#Comments

#Respondents

#Commenters

#Comments

#Respondents

#Commenters

#Comments

#Respondents

#Commenters

#Comments

Students 113 7 8 109 9 11 112 12 12 100 7 8 114 14 19

Faculty 65 5 5 62 5 6 63 7 10 57 1 1 63 8 10

Staff 97 14 26 55 4 4 89 14 17 81 8 8 75 10 16

Totals 275 26 39 226 18 21 264 33 39 238 16 17 252 32 45

Comment Sampling

TECHNOLOGY & COLLABORATION (continued)2


“The WSU website is awful . I have to Google what I want and have that pull up what I need because the website is not user friendly whatsoever... ” - Student

“Blackboard is difficult to use, which is not an optimal program to use my time efficiently. It is easy for students to overlook required content on Blackboard, and to not be prepared when they come

to class.” - StaffBlackboard doesn’t seem to enhance the learning experi-ence, and I end up using email the most. - Faculty

“There are simply not many places for WSU Spokane students to study. We are all in health sciences over here and therefore require a lot of studying. We need more places to study.” - Student

“The technology is easy to use and works. Often the space I request is not available

so I have to make do in a different space or reschedule a different time. That is a coordination

challenge which is ok on occasion, but becomes prob-lematic when it happens often. I hope the campus has

additional classroom space in the plans.” - Staff

“The RealPresence software works fine, but the need for setup with

applicants/people outside of the WSU system causes difficulty. As such, the ability to utilize Skype for Business in

the workplace is necessary, such as utili-zation in the conference rooms.”

- Staff

3SUPPORT & TRAINING


SUPPORT & TRAINING

Service Expectations• Faculty have the highest of expectations for this cat-

egory, but perceive each question as falling short of expectations.

• Students have low expectations but perceive this cate-gory as doing quite well.

Service Gaps (perceived minus minimum)• Compared to the last few years, questions in this cate-

gory showed signficant decline in adequacy for faculty and students.

• Students and staff rated this category as meeting mini-mum service level expectations.

• Each question has scored negatively for faculty.Pick 3: Services that are most helpful & need improvement (open-ended questions)

• Respondents would like faster solutions to their techni-cal support questions.

2017 Technology Focus Ranking• A quarter of staff rank technical support as the most

prominent priority of 2017, while a very close 20% rank techincal training as most important.

• 16% of faculty rank technical training as the highest priority, while 12% of faculty rank technical support as the highest priority.

Training Preferences• 46% of faculty prefer group workshops, 43% prefer

videos, and 39% prefer individual one-to-one trainings.• 53% of staff prefer group workshops, 45% prefer vid-

eos, and 38% prefer individual one-to-one trainings.Comment Analysis

• 73 total comments: 25 from students, 19 from faculty, and 29 from staff.

• Respondents are generally happy with current technical support. They would like to see more training opportu-nities.

2017 Highlights




All Adequacy Gap

3

• For each question, ser-vice expectations are measured as a range as opposed to a single, scaled point.


• The Adequacy Gap range (minimum desired level of service to perceived level of service) is also shown.

• This chart displays the end users’ range of service expectations and how they perceive those service expecta-tions being met.

• It also compares ser-vice expectation levels between students, faculty, staff, and all.

2015 2016 2017Student 0.27 0.90 0.76Faculty 0.35 0.50 -0.38Staff 0.20 -0.01 0.30All 0.26 0.40 0.31

-0.80

-0.60

-0.40

-0.20

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

Question #13: Getting Access to training or other self-help information that increases my

effectiveness with technology

Service Adequacy Gap — 3-Year Trend

The Service Adequacy Gap indicates the degree to which basic, minimum service levels are being met. It is computed by subtracting the minimum level of service score from the perceived level of service score. Points on the charts below that are above the zero line indicate a positive adequacy score, meaning that users are satisfied, though there is always room for improvement. Points that are below the zero line indicate dissatisfaction with the service.


All Adequacy Gap

SUPPORT & TRAINING (continued)3


2015 2016 2017Student 0.45 0.62 0.55Faculty 0.03 0.52 -0.07Staff 0.35 0.33 0.67All 0.28 0.48 0.46

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Question #10: Getting timely resolution of technology problems that I am experiencing


-0.60

-0.40

-0.20

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

Question #12: Receiving communications regarding technology services that I can

understand


-1

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Question #11: Technology support staff who have the knowledge to answer my questions

Question 10Timely Resolution to Prob-

lems

Question 11Knowledgeable Support

Staff

Question 12Understandable Tech

Communication

Question 13Access to Training that Increases Effectiveness

#Respondents

#Commenters

#Comments

#Respondents

#Commenters

#Comments

#Respondents

#Commenters

#Comments

#Respondents

#Commenters

#Comments

Students 106 6 9 104 6 8 107 3 4 95 6 6

Faculty 61 4 5 63 5 6 65 3 3 61 7 7

Staff 96 3 4 96 6 8 94 6 7 91 13 18

Totals 263 13 18 263 17 22 266 12 14 247 26 31

Comment Analysis

• While training opportunities are available, some staff do not know how to access those sessions, while some believe the content is outdated.

• Some faculty and staff either do not have time for training, or the training is regularly scheduled at a time they’re not available.

• Getting accurate and timely resolution to issues can be a “hit or miss” scenario.

• Both students and faculty commented that support could be improved if the Spokane ITS department was entirely autonomous from Pullman.

• Self-help resources are highly requested from all groups.• Students would appreciate an IT person that worked week-

ends and late evenings for students.• People would like to hear more communications regarding

the strategic direction of IT services.

Major Themes

Comment Sampling

SUPPORT & TRAINING (continued)3


BLACKBOARD & INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGIES

“Often I do not bring my technology concerns/questions to staff because I am not sure if they are officially qualified for a particular situation (virus, new Windows 10 not working) or if we are

just hiring students with a slight knowledge in computer works.”

- Student

The tech people have been as help-ful and wonderful as they can be. This is not a people issue. It is a finance and logistical issue. When you don’t prioritize tech in the classroom, you fall behind. - Faculty

“I’m not sure where to access self-help resources.” - Staff

“Please switch to Canvas. More effective, more stream-

line, more user friendly. More everything compared to

Blackboard. - Student

“Training always occurs during clinical and teach-ing times during the sem-ster. I am unable to attend due to the times offered.”

- Faculty

Comment Sampling

4BLACKBOARD &

INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGIES


Blackboard & Instructional Technologies

Service Expectations• Having an effective, intuitive, and reliable learning

mangement system (Blackboard) ranked in the top five highest minimum service level scores for students and faculty.

• Neither group’s desired level of service is met.Service Gaps (perceived minus minimum)

• Though these questions haven’t been asked in previous years by WSU Spokane ITS and therefore cannot be compared to previous years, this category has nearly unanimous dissapproval.

• There is exactly a 1% difference for the adequacy score for students betweeen the absolute minimum and the percEIved service scope for Question 16.

• Students find all services to be at least adequate, except for having an effective, intuitive, and reliable LMS (Blackboard).

• Faculty ranked all three questions as being less than adequate.

• Having an effective, intuitive, and reliable LMS was the least adequate service overall according to faculty.

Pick 3: Services that are most helpful & need improvement (Open-ended questions)

• 23.64% of students rank Blackboard as the top service needing improvement.

• 8.33% of faculty rank Blackboard as one of the top three services needing improvement.

2017 Technology Focus Ranking• 15% of students, 9% of faculty, and 8% of overall re-

spondents chose Blackboard Support as the top priority for Spokane ITS in 2017.

Comments• 62 total comments: 42 students and 20 faculty.• Both students and faculty are frustrated with Blackboard

for being unintuitive, outdated, and unreliable.• There were very few users who were satisfied with

Blackboard.• A few respondents believe the issue in Blackboard lies

in how differently each professor approaches using the LMS.

• Many users suggested a switch to Canvas.

2017 Highlights

• For each question, service expectations are mea-sured as a range as opposed to a single, scaled point.

• The range between end users’ minimum service expectations (needs) and desired service expec-tations constitutes what is known as the “zone of tolerance.”

• The Adequacy Gap range (minimum desired lev-el of service to perceived level of service) is also shown. This chart displays the end users’ range of service expectations and how they perceive those service expectations being met.

• It also compares service expectation levels be-tween students, faculty, staff, and all.


4



All Adequacy Gap

Question 14Access to New & Useful

Instructional Technologies

Question 15Having an Effective, In-

tuitive, and Reliable LMS (Blackboard)

Question 16Timely & Helpful

Blackboard Support

#Respondents

#Commenters

#Comments

#Respondents

#Commenters

#Comments

#Respondents

#Commenters

#Comments

Students N/A N/A N/A 109 23 35 86 7 7

Faculty 57 5 6 47 9 12 44 2 2

Totals 57 5 6 156 31 47 130 9 9

• Both faculty and students expressed frustration and disdain for Blackboard.

• Many professors who use Blackboard do not have a consis-tent way of utilizing it, and it confuses students.

• The interface for Blackboard is outdated, unintuitive, unac-

cessible, and difficult to navigate.• Current technical support for Blackboard is either met with

glowing recommendations, or takes several days to get back to faculty and students.

• Several respondents prefer Canvas.

Comment Analysis

Major Themes

Service Adequacy Gap

Students Faculty AllSeries1 -0.51 -1.3 -0.75

-1.4

-1.2

-1

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

Question 15: Having an effective, intuitive, and reliable Learning Management

System (Blackboard)

The Service Adequacy Gap indicates the degree to which basic, minimum service levels are being met. It is computed by subtracting the minimum level of service score from the perceived level of service score. Points on the charts below that are above the zero line in-dicate a positive adequacy score, meaning that users are satisfied, though there is always room for improvement. Points that are below

the zero line indicate dissatisfaction with the service.

Students Faculty Staff All

BLACKBOARD & INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGIES (continued)4


FacultySeries1 -0.65

-0.7

-0.6

-0.5

-0.4

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0

Question 14: Having information and access to new and useful instructional

technologies and methods

Students Faculty AllSeries1 0.01 -0.5 -0.16

-0.6

-0.5

-0.4

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

Question 16: Getting timely and helpful support for Blackboard

Comment Sampling

BLACKBOARD & INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGIES (continued)4


“I would like EWU and WSU to resolve the Canvas/ Blackboard issue. SHS is a collaborative program and

using 2 systems is cumbersome for students and instructors. I use EWU’s Canvas. It would be great to have the

entire campus on one LMS.” - Faculty

“PLEASE IMPLEMENT CANVAS! I use Canvas with my joint classes with EWU professors for speech and hearing and Canvas is WAY more user-friendly than Blackboard. A lot of my WSU class-

mates and I agree!!!” - Student

“Blackboard works pretty well, but there is room for improvement.”

- Student

“The best way to improve this service is to get a new one. Blackboard is outdated, unintuitive, and difficult to navigate. Their mobile platforms don’t work, and make it nearly impossible to use Blackboard effectively on a phone. There are better alternatives. My last university made the switch to Canvas from Blackboard

while I was there and it was an easy transition for students and staff and is a more effective, intuitive platform with

mobile capabilities.” - Faculty

“More than once this semester, there was a

problem accessing the pre-class videos. Often I only

have a short window to view videos, etc. When the video is not accessible it prevents me from preparing for class.”

- Student

“Please switch to Canvas. More effective, more stream-

line, more user friendly. More everything compared to

Blackboard. - Student

“Blackboard interface for WSU Spokane looks like it was created in the 90’s and no one has updated it. It’s not intuitive compared to what I’ve used from my trans-

fer college. When I came to WSU they preached to their students about how innovative they are. Blackboard is the opposite of innovative and it takes forever to find

the material I need. I spend 10 minutes trying to find the material I need for class. It’s not intuitive for either the student or professor. It has been the biggest let-down

that I’ve experienced at WSU Spokane.” - Faculty

(In regards to Blackboard Support) “Usually very good, but sometimes

there are black holes when no one is available i.e. lunch time. Most facul-ty do not take lunch and it is a time

when we catch up.” - Faculty

5RESEARCH RESOURCES

FOR FACULTY


Research Resources for Faculty

Service Gaps (perceived minus minimum)• Faculty have approximately the same service expecta-

tions for each question.• Access to high speed computing for research had the

largest adequacy gap. A comment provided in the sur-vey that details worries of scheduling issues may provide insight.

• Internet speed/capacity for research needs had the lowest adequacy gap.

• This category had the least “pain” for service adequacy gaps.

• Self-identifying male faculty ranked access to data as being a greater problem than female faculty.

Comments• 4 total comments from faculty.• While respondents realize they have access to a large

amount of data storage, some prefer their own storage option.

• One respondent reported syncing issues with OneDrive.• One respondent reported worries with scheduling time

with the HPCC.

2017 Highlights

• For each question, service expectations are measured as a range as opposed to a single, scaled point.

• The range between end users’ minimum service expecta-tions (needs) and desired service expectations constitutes what is known as the “zone of tolerance.”

• The Adequacy Gap range (minimum desired level of ser-vice to perceived level of service) is also shown. This chart displays the end users’ range of service expectations and how they perceive those service expectations being met.

• It also compares service expectation levels between stu-dents, faculty, staff, and all.


Comment Sampling

5



All Adequacy Gap

Question 17Access to High Speed

Computing for Research

Question 18Internet Speed/Capacity for

Research Needs

Question 19Data Storage Space for

Research Data#

Respondents#

Commenters#

Comments#

Respondents#

Commenters#

Comments#

Respondents#

Commenters#

Comments

Faculty 57 1 1 47 0 0 44 3 3

Totals 57 1 1 47 0 0 44 3 3

• Faculty have access to many types of storage.• There are syncing issues within these storage options.• Our faculty use multiple hard drives.

• Faculty are aware of the HPCC, but worry that it will be difficult to schedule time to use it.

• Faculty would like to set up SQL server instances on a central server.

Comment AnalysisMajor Themes

Comment Sampling

RESEARCH RESOURCES FOR FACULTY (continued)5


“I would like to setup SQL server instances on a central server.

There should be a web interface to configure this instance according to my needs within a prescribed limit. It should be automatically

provisioned within minutes.” - Faculty

“I have data on multiple hard drives

and none backed up to a server.” - Faculty

(Regarding access to high speed comput-ing) ”Not a big deal yet. I am aware of HPCC services. Once I begin utilizing these resources, I fear that I will encounter scheduling and compute issues.” - Faculty

“While we have plenty of storage through OneDrive, I have

had several syncing issues.” - Faculty

COMPUTER LABSFOR STUDENTS


6COMPUTER LABSFOR STUDENTS


Computer Labs for Students

Service Expectations• Though students had low minimum service require-

ments for the computer labs, their desired level of service is quite high in comparison to other categories.

• Students’ desired level of service has not been met.Service Gaps (perceived minus minimum)

• Though these questions haven’t been asked in previous years by WSU Spokane ITS and therefore cannot be compared to previous years, this category has nearly unanimous approval quantitatively.

• Students find all services to be at least adequate.


• 1.82% of students chose printing capabilities in labs to be the top priority for 2017

Comments• 15 total comments from students.• Lab availability was mentioned frequently to extend the

hours of the computer lab.• Students noted the lab is not a quiet study environ-

ment.

2017 Highlights

• For each question, service expectations are measured as a range as opposed to a single, scaled point.

• The range between end users’ minimum service expecta-tions (needs) and desired service expectations constitutes what is known as the “zone of tolerance.”

• The Adequacy Gap range (minimum desired level of service to perceived level of service) is also shown. This chart dis-plays the end users’ range of service expectations and how they perceive those service expectations being met.

• It also compares service expectation levels between stu-dents, faculty, staff, and all.


6



All Adequacy Gap

Question 20Availability of Open

Computer Labs

Question 21Positive Computer Lab Environment

#Respondents

#Commenters

#Comments

#Respondents

#Commenters

#Comments

Student 57 10 11 47 5 5

Totals 57 10 11 47 5 5

Comment Sampling

Comment Analysis

• Students would like more availability of open computer labs.

• Several students suggested extending the hours of the computer lab to include evenings and weekends.

• Students would appreciate a quiet study environment.

• Respondents from the Yakima campus noted the lack of computer lab on their campus, and would like to see one implemented.

• Yakima-based respondents suggested adding printing options for students.

Major Themes

COMPUTER LABS FOR STUDENTS (continued)6


“I wish it was open till 12 am (midnight) Thursday,

Friday and Saturday.” - Student

“Having a positive envi-ronment is only as good as the availability — one cannot take advantage of it, if it is not available.”

- Student

“I DID NOT KNOW THIS EXISTED. Does this have 24 hour printing??????? That would be one thing that would be great.”

- Student

“I feel we should have the campus open later to students so they may hold study groups since we get out at 4 from class some days and are unable to stay in the building after five.” - Student

“It needs to be quieter.”

- Student

“Would be nice if hours were

broader.” - Student

VIDEOCONFERENCINGFOR FACULTY AND STAFF


7VIDEOCONFERENCING

FOR FACULTY AND STAFF


VIDEOCONFERENCING FOR FACULTY AND STAFF

Service Expectations• Both staff and faculty have high expectations for video-

conferencing and related support.• Neither group’s desired level of service is met.

Service Gaps (perceived minus minimum)• Though these questions have not been asked in previ-

ous years by WSU Spokane ITS and therefore cannot be compared to previous years, this category scored as inadequate by faculty.

• Staff, though ranking availability of spaces as adequate, found that support for videoconferencing to be inade-quate.

• Faculty ranked availability of spaces with videoconfer-encing technology as highly painful.


• 45.83% of faculty and 26.47% of staff voted video-conferencing/AMS as the service needing the most improvement.

• 12.50% of faculty and 11.43% of staff named video-conferencing/AMS as one of the top three most helpful IT Services.

Comments• 38 total comments: 11 from faculty, 27 from staff.• Availability of videoconferencing-enabled spaces was

mentioned frequently, along with recommendations to increase the amount of enabled spaces.

• Many noted that support for videoconferencing was neither timely nor helpful.

2017 Highlights

• For each question, service expectations are measured as a range as op-posed to a single, scaled point.


• The Adequacy Gap range (minimum desired level of service to perceived level of service) is also shown. This chart displays the end users’ range of service expectations and how they perceive those service expectations being met.

• It also compares service expectation levels between students, faculty, staff, and all.


7



All Adequacy Gap

Question 22Availability of Spaces with

Videoconferencing Technology

Question 23Timely & Helpful Support for

Videoconferencing#

Respondents#

Commenters#

Comments#

Respondents#

Commenters#

Comments

Faculty 61 6 6 62 5 5

Staff 80 10 11 84 8 16

Totals 141 16 17 146 13 21

Comment Analysis

• Both faculty and staff have noted a lack of spaces on campus with videoconferencing technology.

• Many respondents suggested increasing the amount of spac-es on campus with videoconferencing technology.

• Some respondents say they would rather use Skype for Business in lieu of booking a space with videoconferencing technology.

• Oftentimes, faculty and staff experience connection prob-lems moments before they need to utilize videoconferencing technology.

• Several respondents experienced a lack of support staff when problems occur.

• Respondents also cited a lack of knowledge by support staff regarding videoconferencing.

Major Themes

Comment Sampling

VIDEOCONFERENCING FOR FACULTY AND STAFF (continued)6


“With SAC147A and EWU auditorium no

longer set up for video technology, this has limited my ability

to find space .” - Staff

“Pretty much every meeting involving videoconferencing is delayed because of connection problems. We need a new videoconferencing system. The expense of new infrastructure could easily be recovered from the reduced need for staff support.” - Faculty

“While there are many classrooms with AMS capability, I often have to settle for rooms that are far across campus from my college, co-workers and students.” - Faculty

“IT staff generally are able to respond to requests for support in a timely manner. However, occasionally, the problem is not resolved in a timely manner.” - Faculty

“Seems as though these rooms are decreasing with this availability. It also appears IT staff are sometimes unsure as to how to fix prob-lems in these rooms when they occur.” - Staff

“Typically there is good response, but depends on

the time of day and staffing. Often, I’m told there is only one person on duty or

around to help so they will get there as soon as they can!” - Staff


2017 TECHNOLOGY EXPECTATIONS

For each core item in the survey, respondents were asked to rate a service on three dimensions: minimum expectation levels, desired service levels, and perceived service levels. To identify priority of service quality, the scores for minimum and desired services were ranked from highest to lowest. The charts below show key findings from the ranking of minimum expectation levels and desired service levels. See Appendix B for the full chart.


1. Having an Internet service that provides adequate Wi-Fi coverage. 7.61 (7.31)

2. Having an Internet service that operates reliably. 7.53 (7.07)

3. Having an Internet service that provides adequate capacity or speed. 7.48 (7.02)

4. Having an effective, intuitive, and reliable Learning Management System (Blackboard). 7.47 (N/A)

5. Technology support staff who have the knowl-edge to answer my questions. 7.42 (7.18)


2. Getting timely and helpful support for Blackboard (the WSU learning management system). 8.09 (N/A)


4. Getting timely and helpful support for videocon-ferencing technology in classrooms or meeting spaces. 8.03 (N/A)


1. Having an Internet service that operates reliably 7.84 (7.84)




5. Getting timely resolution of technology problems that I am experiencing. 7.32 (7.31)

Dropped from the Top 5Getting timely resolution of technology problems that I am experiencing. (3 to 8)

Having adequate cellular (or mobile) coverage throughout campus. (5 to 6)

Having an Internet service that provides adequate Wi-Fi coverage. (4 to 7)

Getting timely resolution of technology problems that I am experiencing. (5 to 7)

Having systems that provide timely access to data that informs decision-making. (4 to 9)

Having technology services that allow me to collabo-rate effectively with others. (5 to 10)

2017 Five Highest Minimum Service Level Scores(2016 ranking in parenthesis)

2017 Five Highest Desired Service Level Scores(2016 ranking in parenthesis)





4. Having an effective, intuitive, and reliable Learning Management System (Blackboard). 8.72 (N/A)




3. Having Web sites and online services that are easy to use. 8.86 (8.56)



Dropped from the Top 5Having adequate cellular (or mobile) coverage throughout campus. (4 to 9)

Having Web sites and online services that are easy to use. (5 to 8)

Having an Internet service that provides adequate capacity or speed. (3 to 6)

Having adequate cellular (or mobile) coverage throughout campus. (4 to 10)

Having systems that provide timely access to data that informs decision-making. (4 to 7)






What one issue would you choose as the top priority for WSU Spokane ITS in 2017?


2017 TOP TECHNOLOGY FOCUS

When asked to choose the top priority for Spokane IT in 2017, information security ranked in the top four for students, faculty, and staff. Technical support made it into the top three for faculty and staff, while Wi-Fi made it into the top three for students and faculty. The following results are from the WSU Spokane ITS TechQual+ questions asked of all self-identi-fied students, faculty, and staff.

2017 # % Rank

Wi-Fi 33 28% 1

Blackboard support 18 15% 2

WSU Spokane websites 17 14% 3

Information security 12 10% 4

Technical support 11 9% 5

Cellphone coverage 8 6% 6

Technology training 6 5% 7

Non-WSU computer and device support 5 4% 8

2017 # % Rank



Wi-Fi 10 15% 2






2017 # % Rank




Wi-Fi 11 11% 4





What one issue would you choose as the top priority for WSU Spokane ITS in 2017?

Stud

ents

Facu

lty

Staf

f


2017 TOP THREE MOST HELPFUL IT SERVICES

In an open-ended question, survey participants were asked which three WSU Spokakne ITS services are most helpful. There were a total of 107 respondents: 48 students, 24 faculty, and 35 staff.

Technical Support 60.42%

Wi-Fi 29.17%

Blackboard 10.42%

Blackboard Support 8.33%

Cellphone Coverage 6.25%

StudentsFive Most Helpful Services


Wi-Fi 12.50%

Blackboard Support 12.50%

Videoconf. & AMS 12.50%

Technology Training 8.33%

FacultyFive Most Helpful Services


Wi-Fi 20.00%


Classroom Technology 11.43%


StaffFive Most Helpful Services

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%

Student Faculty Staff

Chart of Most Helpful IT Services


2017 TOP THREE IT SERVICES NEEDING IMPROVEMENT

In an open-ended question, survey participants were asked which three WSU Spokane ITS services need improvement. There were a total of 113 respondents: 55 students, 24 faculty, and 34 staff. Find complete results in Appendix C (Page 48).

Wi-Fi 23.64%

Blackboard 23.64%


Internet Speed/Reliability 14.55%

Information Security 12.73%

StudentsFive Most Requested Improvements


WiFi 16.67%


Information Security 12.50%

Accessible Online Resources

8.33%

FacultyFive Most Requested Improvements



Tech. Communications 20.59%

Wi-Fi 14.71%


StaffFive Most Requested Improvements

Chart of Most Helpful IT Services

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

40.00%

45.00%

50.00%

Student Faculty Staff

Chart of IT Services Needing Improvement


2017 TRAINING PREFERENCES FOR FACULTY AND STAFF

What type of training suits you best when learning technology applications at WSU Spokane?

(Multiple Answer Question)

1. Group workshops 31 46%

2. Videos 29 43%

3. Individual one-to-one trainings 26 39%

4. Written tutorials 20 30%


2. Videos 44 45%



Facu

ltyFa

culty

1. Individual email 44 66%

2. Website announcements 17 25%

3. Weekly FYI or department news letters

16 24%

4. Signs around campus 6 9%

5. Recommendation from a super- visor or student advisor

5 7%

Staf

fSt

aff

1. Individual email 53 54%

2. Weekly FYI or department news letters

44 45%

3. Website announcements 33 34%

4. Recommendation from a super- visor or student advisor

16 16%

5.Signs around campus 9 9%

What is the best way to advertise technology training opportunities?(Multiple Answer Question)

APPENDIX ASURVEY DATA


2. Videos 44 45%



A


APPENDIX ASURVEY DATA

All Respondents(includes incomplete surveys)

Connectivity & Access

# Item Min Des Per Adeq Supr N

1 Having an Internet service that operates reliably. 7.81 8.85 7.90 0.09 -0.96 315

2 Having an Internet service that provides adequate capacity or speed. 7.70 8.80 7.91 .21 -0.90 307

3 Having an Internet service that provides adequate Wi-Fi coverage. 7.55 8.72 7.53 -0.02 -1.18 303

4 Having adequate cellular (or mobile) coverage throughout campus. 7.48 8.59 7.38 -0.10 -1.21 306


5 Having Web sites and online services that are easy to use. 7.24 8.59 7.16 -0.08 -1.42 291

6 Having online services that enhance the teaching and learning experience. 7.16 8.50 7.08 -0.09 -1.43 240

7 Having technology services that allow me to collaborate effectively with others. 7.13 8.43 7.13 0.00 -1.30 281

8 Having systems that provide timely access to data that informs decision making. 7.23 8.48 7.08 -0.14 -1.39 251

9The availability of classrooms or meeting spaces with technology that enhances the teaching/learn-ing experience.

7.32 8.55 7.07 -0.25 -1.48 267


10 Getting timely resolution of technology problems that I am experiencing. 7.41 8.72 7.88 0.47 -0.84 273

11 Technology support staff who have the knowledge to answer my questions. 7.61 8.76 8.01 0.40 -0.75 273

12 Receiving communications regarding technology services that I can understand. 7.15 8.43 7.65 0.50 -0.78 275

13Getting access to training or other self-help information that increases my effectiveness with technology.

6.73 8.11 7.03 0.30 -1.08 255


14Having information and access to new and useful instructional technologies or methods. Self- reported faculty only.

7.05 8.22 6.38 -0.67 -1.84 58

15Having an effective, intuitive, and reliable Learning Management System (Blackboard). Self-reported faculty, students only.

7.63 8.74 6.87 -0.77 -1.87 158

16Getting timely and helpful support for Blackboard (the WSU learning management system). Self- reported faculty, students only.

7.55 8.65 7.39 -0.16 -1.26 131

Legend: Min = Minimum Level of Service; Des = Desired Level of Service; Per = Perceived Service Quality; Adeq = Adequacy Gap Score (perceived - minimum); Supr = Superi-ority Gap Score (perceived - desired); N = Number of Observations

Technology & Collaboration Services

Support & Training

Blackboard & Instructional Technologyfor Faculty & Students


All Respondents (continued)(includes incomplete surveys)


17 Having access to high speed computing for research. Self-reported faculty only. 7.24 8.21 6.76 -0.47 -1.45 38

18 Having internet speed/capacity specifically in terms of research needs. Self-reported faculty only. 7.36 8.24 7.17 -0.19 -1.07 42

19 Having data storage space used specifically for research data. Self-reported faculty only. 7.40 8.33 7.12 -0.29 -1.21 42

Research Resourcesfor Faculty


20 Availability and hours for open computer labs. Self-reported students only. 6.45 7.88 7.12 0.67 -0.76 67

21Having a positive environment (cleanliness, noise, temperature, etc.) for the open computer lab (SAC 311). Self reported students only.

6.90 8.09 7.37 0.47 -0.72 68

Computer Labsfor Students

Videoconferencingfor Faculty and Staff


22Availability of classrooms and meeting spaces with videoconferencing technology. Self-reported faculty, staff only.

7.19 8.42 7.22 0.03 -1.20 142

23Getting timely and helpful support for videoconferencing technology in classrooms or meeting spaces. Self-reported faculty, staff only.

7.69 8.68 7.42 -0.27 -1.26 148



All Students(includes incomplete surveys)




2 Having an Internet service that provides adequate capacity or speed. 7.48 8.78 7.77 0.29 -1.02 125

3 Having an Internet service that provides adequate Wi-Fi coverage. 7.57 8.84 7.69 0.12 -1.16 128

4 Having adequate cellular (or mobile) coverage throughout campus. 7.43 8.56 7.55 0.12 -1.01 127


5 Having Web sites and online services that are easy to use. 7.02 8.55 7.35 0.33 -1.20 117

6 Having online services that enhance the teaching and learning experience. 7.02 8.50 7.28 0.26 -1.22 112


8 Having systems that provide timely access to data that informs decision making. 7.14 8.40 7.28 0.15 -1.12 102


7.10 8.47 7.30 0.20 -1.16 116






6.20 7.84 6.98 0.78 -0.86 96



0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0


7.47 8.72 6.95 -0.51 -1.76 109


7.27 8.58 7.28 0.01 -1.30 86


Support & Training



20 Availability and hours for open computer labs. Self-reported students only. 6.45 7.88 7.12 0.67 -0.76 67

21Having a positive environment (cleanliness, noise, temperature, etc.) for the open computer lab (SAC 311). Self reported students only.

6.90 8.09 7.37 0.47 -0.72 68

Computer Labsfor Students



All Faculty(includes incomplete surveys)



1 Having an Internet service that operates reliably. 8.28 8.91 7.85 -0.43 -1.05 75

2 Having an Internet service that provides adequate capacity or speed. 8.07 8.82 7.69 -0.38 -1.13 71

3 Having an Internet service that provides adequate Wi-Fi coverage. 7.99 8.86 7.06 -0.93 -1.80 71

4 Having adequate cellular (or mobile) coverage throughout campus. 7.95 8.74 6.78 -1.16 -1.96 73


5 Having Web sites and online services that are easy to use. 7.82 8.84 6.85 -0.97 -1.99 68

6 Having online services that enhance the teaching and learning experience. 7.71 8.69 6.58 -1.12 -2.11 65

7 Having technology services that allow me to collaborate effectively with others. 7.41 8.52 6.45 -0.95 -2.06 66



7.90 8.73 6.46 -1.43 -2.27 67


10 Getting timely resolution of technology problems that I am experiences 7.92 8.81 7.84 -0.08 -0.97 64

11 Technology support staff who have the knowledge to answer my questions. 8.03 8.88 7.83 -0.20 -1.05 66

12 Receiving communications regarding technology services that I can understand. 7.53 8.51 7.37 -0.16 -1.15 68

13Getting access to training or other self-help information that increases my effectiveness with tech-nology.

7.39 8.31 7.00 -0.39 -1.31 64



7.05 8.22 6.38 -0.67 -1.84 58


8.00 8.80 6.67 -1.33 2.12 49


8.09 8.78 7.60 -0.49 -1.18 45


Support & Training




All Faculty(includes incomplete surveys)


17 Having access to high speed computing for research. Self-reported faculty only. 7.24 8.21 6.76 -0.47 -1.45 38

18 Having internet speed/capacity specifically in terms of research needs. Self-reported faculty only. 7.36 8.24 7.17 -0.19 -1.07 42

19 Having data storage space used specifically for research data. Self-reported faculty only. 7.40 8.33 7.12 -0.29 -1.21 42

Research Resourcesfor Faculty




7.58 8.61 7.08 -0.50 -1.53 62


8.05 8.81 7.44 -0.61 -1.38 64



All Staff(includes incomplete surveys)




2 Having an Internet service that provides adequate capacity or speed. 7.69 8.81 8.17 0.48 -0.64 107

3 Having an Internet service that provides adequate Wi-Fi coverage. 7.23 8.49 7.63 0.40 -0.86 100

4 Having adequate cellular (or mobile) coverage throughout campus. 7.20 8.49 7.56 0.36 -0.93 102


5 Having Web sites and online services that are easy to use. 7.13 8.51 7.17 0.04 -1.34 101

6 Having online services that enhance the teaching and learning experience. 6.90 8.33 7.27 0.37 -1.07 60




7.16 8.54 7.23 0.06 -1.13 80






6.86 8.30 7.13 0.27 -1.17 92


Support & Training




6.89 8.28 7.33 0.44 -0.95 80


7.42 8.57 7.40 -0.01 -1.17 84



B


APPENDIX BSERVICE LEVEL ANALYSIS CHARTS

Cat

ego

ry#

Item

Stud

ents

NFa

cult

yN

Staf

fN

All

N

Co

nn

ecti

vity

an

d A

cces

s

1H

avin

g an

Inte

rnet

ser

vice

tha

t op

erat

es r

elia

bly.

0.10

128

-0.4

375

0.38

107

0.09

315

2H

avin

g an

Inte

rnet

ser

vice

tha

t p

rovi

des

adeq

uate

cap

acity

or

spee

d.0.

2912

5-0

.38

710.

4810

70.

2130

7

3H

avin

g an

Inte

rnet

ser

vice

tha

t p

rovi

des

adeq

uate

Wi-F

i cov

erag

e.0.

1212

8-0

.93

710.

4010

0-0

.02

303

4H

avin

g ad

equa

te c

ellu

lar

(or

mob

ile)

cove

rage

thr

ough

out

cam

pus

.0.

1212

7-1

.16

730.

3610

2-0

.10

306

Tech

no

log

y an

d

Co

llab

ora

tio

n S

ervi

ces

5H

avin

g w

ebsi

tes

and

onlin

e se

rvic

es t

hat

are

easy

to

use.

0.33

117

-0.9

768

0.04

101

-0.0

829

1

6H

avin

g on

line

serv

ices

tha

t en

hanc

e th

e te

achi

ng a

nd le

arni

ng e

xper

ienc

e.0.

2611

2-1

.12

650.

3760

-0.0

924

0

7H

avin

g te

chno

logy

ser

vice

s th

at a

llow

me

to c

olla

bora

te e

ffect

ivel

y w

ith o

ther

s.0.

2911

5-0

.95

660.

2595

0.00

281

8H

avin

g sy

stem

s th

at p

rovi

de t

imel

y ac

cess

to

data

tha

t in

form

s de

cisi

on m

akin

g.0.

1510

2-0

.88

60-0

.02

86-0

.14

251

9Th

e av

aila

bilit

y of

cla

ssro

oms

or m

eetin

g sp

aces

with

tec

hnol

ogy

that

enh

ance

s th

e te

achi

ng a

nd le

arni

ng

exp

erie

nce.

0.20

116

-1.4

367

0.06

80-0

.25

267

Sup

po

rt a

nd

Tra

inin

g

10G

ettin

g tim

ely

reso

lutio

n of

tec

hnol

ogy

pro

blem

s th

at I

am e

xper

ienc

ing.

0.56

107

-0.0

864

0.68

970.

4727

3

11Te

chno

logy

sup

por

t st

aff w

ho h

ave

the

know

eldg

e to

ans

wer

my

que

stio

ns.

0.62

105

-0.2

066

0.55

970.

4027

3

12Re

ceiv

ing

com

mun

icat

ions

reg

ardi

ng t

echn

olog

y se

rvic

es t

hat

I can

und

erst

and.

0.75

108

-0.1

668

0.63

950.

5027

5

13G

ettin

g ac

cess

to

trai

ning

or

othe

r se

lf-he

lp in

form

atio

n th

at in

crea

ses

my

effe

ctiv

enes

s w

ith t

echn

olog

y.0.

7896

-0.3

964

0.27

920.

3025

5

Co

lor

Leg

end

:Po

siti

ve>0

Mild

Pai

n0

to -

0.49

Hig

h P

ain

-0.5

to

-0.

99Ex

trem

e Pa

in1.

0

14H

avin

g in

form

atio

n an

d ac

cess

to

new

and

use

ful i

nstr

uctio

nal t

echn

olog

ies

or m

etho

ds. S

elf-

repo

rted

fa

culty

onl

y.-0

.67

58-0

.67

58

15H

avin

g an

effe

ctiv

e, in

tuiti

ve, a

nd r

elia

ble

Lear

ning

Man

agem

nt S

yste

m (

Blac

kboa

rd).

Sel

f-re

port

ed fa

culty

an

d st

uden

ts o

nly.

-0.5

110

9-1

.33

49-0

.77

158

16G

ettin

g tim

ely

and

help

ful s

upp

ort

for

Blac

kboa

rd (

the

WSU

lear

ning

man

agem

ent

syst

em. S

elf-

repo

rted

fa

culty

and

stu

dent

s on

ly.

0.01

86-0

.49

45-0

.16

131

17H

avin

g ac

cess

to

high

sp

eed

com

put

ing

for

rese

arch

. Sel

f-re

port

ed fa

culty

onl

y.-0

.47

38-0

.47

38

18H

avin

g in

tern

et s

pee

d/ca

pac

ity s

pec

ifica

lly in

ter

ms

of r

esea

rch

need

s. S

elf-

repo

rted

facu

lty o

nly.

-0.1

942

-0.1

942

19H

avin

g da

ta s

tora

ge s

pac

e us

ed s

pec

ifica

lly fo

r re

sear

ch d

ata.

Sel

f-re

port

ed fa

culty

onl

y.-0

.29

42-0

.29

42

20Av

aila

bilit

y an

d ho

urs

for

open

com

put

er la

bs. S

elf-

repo

rted

stu

dent

s on

ly.

0.67

670.

6767

21H

avin

g a

pos

itive

env

ironm

ent

(cle

anlin

ess,

noi

se, t

emp

erat

ure,

etc

.) fo

r th

e op

en c

omp

uter

lab

(SA

C

311)

. Sel

f-re

port

ed s

tude

nts

only

.0.

4768

0.47

68

22Av

aila

bilit

y of

cla

ssro

oms

and

mee

ting

spac

es w

ith v

ideo

conf

eren

ncin

g te

chno

logy

. Sel

f-re

port

ed fa

culty

an

d st

aff o

nly.

-0

.50

620.

4480

0.03

142

23G

ettin

g tim

ely

and

help

ful s

upp

ort

for

vide

ocon

fere

ncin

g te

chno

logy

in c

lass

room

s or

mee

ting

spac

es.

Self-

repo

rted

facu

lty a

nd s

taff

only

.-0

.61

64-0

.01

84-0

.27

148

Blackboard & Instructional Tech

Research Resources

Comp.Labs

Video-conf.

WSU

Sp

oka

ne

Tech

no

log

y

2017

– S

ervi

ce A

deq

uacy

Gap

An

alys

isC

omp

aris

on o

f the

Ade

qua

cy G

ap S

core

s (p

erce

ived

-min

imum

) fo

r St

uden

ts, F

acul

ty, a

nd S

taff


Stud

ents

Facu

lty

Staf

fA

ll

Cat

ego

ry#

Item

2017

2016

2015

2 yr

∆20

1720

1620

152

yr ∆

2017

2016

2015

2 yr

∆20

1720

1620

152

yr ∆

Co

nn

ecti

vity

an

d

Acc

ess

1H

avin

g an

Inte

rnet

ser

vice

tha

t op

erat

es r

elia

bly.

0.10

0.16

0.38

-0.2

8-0

.43

0.17

0.18

-0.2

50.

380.

130.

47-0

.09

0.09

0.15

0.36

-0.2

7

2H

avin

g an

Inte

rnet

ser

vice

tha

t p

rovi

des

adeq

uate

cap

acity

or

spee

d.0.

290.

300.

52-0

.23

-0.3

80.

420.

25-0

.13

0.48

0.30

0.35

0.13

0.21

0.32

0.38

-0.1

7

3H

avin

g an

Inte

rnet

ser

vice

tha

t p

rovi

des

adeq

uate

Wi-F

i cov

erag

e.0.

12-0

.01

0.24

-0.1

2-0

.93

-0.1

0-0

.19

-0.7

40.

400.

120.

070.

33-0

.02

0.01

0.06

-0.0

8

4H

avin

g ad

equa

te c

ellu

lar

(or

mob

ile)

cove

rage

thr

ough

out

cam

pus

.0.

120.

230.

28-0

.16

-1.1

6-0

.48

-0.1

5-1

.01

0.36

-0.1

5-0

.33

0.69

-0.1

0-0

.09

-0.0

4-0

.06

Tech

no

log

y an

d

Co

llab

ora

tio

n

Serv

ices

5H

avin

g w

ebsi

tes

and

onlin

e se

rvic

es t

hat

are

easy

to

use.

0.33

0.20

0.41

-0.0

8-0

.97

0.10

-0.1

1-0

.86

0.04

-0.0

8-0

.07

0.13

-0.0

80.

070.

07-0

.15

6H

avin

g on

line

serv

ices

tha

t en

hanc

e th

e te

achi

ng a

nd le

arni

ng e

xper

ienc

e.0.

260.

520.

44-0

.18

-1.1

2-0

.32

-0.3

8-0

.74

0.37

0.05

0.49

-0.1

2-0

.09

0.12

0.22

-0.2

7

7H

avin

g te

chno

logy

ser

vice

s th

at a

llow

me

to c

olla

bora

te e

ffect

ivel

y w

ith o

ther

s.0.

290.

460.

44-0

.15

-0.9

5-0

.28

-0.5

1-0

.44

0.25

-0.0

60.

180.

070.

000.

070.

08-0

.08

8H

avin

g sy

stem

s th

at p

rovi

de t

imel

y ac

cess

to

data

tha

t in

form

s de

cisi

on m

akin

g.0.

150.

390.

31-0

.16

-0.8

8-0

.02

-0.3

0-0

.58

-0.0

2-0

.56

0.02

0.0

-0.1

4-0

.07

0.04

-0.1

8

9Th

e av

aila

bilit

y of

cla

ssro

oms

or m

eetin

g sp

aces

with

tec

hnol

ogy

that

enh

ance

s th

e te

achi

ng a

nd le

arni

ng e

xper

ienc

e.0.

200.

350.

22-0

.02

-1.4

3-0

.28

-0.9

5-0

.48

0.06

0.18

0.10

-0.0

4-0

.25

0.07

-0.1

3-0

.12

Sup

po

rt a

nd

Tr

ain

ing

10G

ettin

g tim

ely

reso

lutio

n of

tec

hnol

ogy

pro

blem

s th

at I

am e

xper

ienc

ing.

0.56

0.62

0.44

0.12

-0.0

80.

390.

01-0

.09

0.68

0.33

0.35

0.33

0.47

0.45

0.27

0.20

11Te

chno

logy

sup

por

t st

aff w

ho h

ave

the

know

eldg

e to

ans

wer

my

que

stio

ns.

0.62

0.82

0.81

-0.1

9-0

.20

0.23

0.06

-0.2

60.

550.

040.

110.

440.

400.

360.

350.

05

12Re

ceiv

ing

com

mun

icat

ions

reg

ardi

ng t

echn

olog

y se

rvic

es t

hat

I can

und

erst

and.

0.75

1.04

0.69

-0.0

6-0

.16

0.52

0.15

-0.3

10.

630.

410.

350.

280.

500.

660.

410.

09

13G

ettin

g ac

cess

to

trai

ning

or

othe

r se

lf-he

lp in

form

atio

n th

at in

crea

ses

my

effe

ctiv

enes

s w

ith t

echn

olog

y.0.

780.

860.

28-0

.50

-0.3

90.

490.

28-0

.67

0.27

-0.0

10.

210.

060.

300.

390.

250.

05

2017

v. 2

016

v. 2

015

– Se

rvic

e A

deq

uacy

Gap

An

alys

isYe

ar-t

o-Ye

ar C

omp

aris

on o

f the

Ade

qua

cy G

ap S

core

s (p

erce

ived

-min

imum

) fo

r St

uden

ts, F

acul

ty, a

nd S

taff


Co

lor

Leg

end

:Po

siti

ve>0

Mild

Pai

n0

to -

0.49

Hig

h P

ain

-0.5

to

-0.

99Ex

trem

e Pa

in1.

0

Cat

ego

ry#

Item

Stud

ents

NFa

cult

yN

Staf

fN

All

N

Co

nn

ecti

vity

an

d A

cces

s

1H

avin

g an

Inte

rnet

ser

vice

tha

t op

erat

es r

elia

bly.

-1.2

512

8-1

.05

75-0

.58

107

-0.9

631

5

2H

avin

g an

Inte

rnet

ser

vice

tha

t p

rovi

des

adeq

uate

cap

acity

or

spee

d.-1

.02

125

-1.1

371

-0.6

410

7-0

.90

307

3H

avin

g an

Inte

rnet

ser

vice

tha

t p

rovi

des

adeq

uate

Wi-F

i cov

erag

e.-1

.16

128

-1.8

071

-0.8

610

0-1

.18

303

4H

avin

g ad

equa

te c

ellu

lar

(or

mob

ile)

cove

rage

thr

ough

out

cam

pus

.-1

.01

127

-1.9

673

0.93

102

-1.2

130

6

Tech

no

log

y an

d

Co

llab

ora

tio

n S

ervi

ces

5H

avin

g w

ebsi

tes

and

onlin

e se

rvic

es t

hat

are

easy

to

use.

-1.2

011

7-1

.99

68-1

.34

101

-1.4

229

1

6H

avin

g on

line

serv

ices

tha

t en

hanc

e th

e te

achi

ng a

nd le

arni

ng e

xper

ienc

e.-1

.22

112

-2.1

165

-1.0

760

-1.4

324

0

7H

avin

g te

chno

logy

ser

vice

s th

at a

llow

me

to c

olla

bora

te e

ffect

ivel

y w

ith o

ther

s.-1

.15

115

-2.0

666

-1.0

395

-1.3

028

1

8H

avin

g sy

stem

s th

at p

rovi

de t

imel

y ac

cess

to

data

tha

t in

form

s de

cisi

on m

akin

g.-1

.12

102

-1.8

560

-1.4

586

-1.3

925

1

9Th

e av

aila

bilit

y of

cla

ssro

oms

or m

eetin

g sp

aces

with

tec

hnol

ogy

that

enh

ance

s th

e te

achi

ng a

nd le

arni

ng

exp

erie

nce.

-1.1

611

6-2

.27

67-1

.13

80-1

.48

267

Sup

po

rt a

nd

Tra

inin

g

10G

ettin

g tim

ely

reso

lutio

n of

tec

hnol

ogy

pro

blem

s th

at I

am e

xper

ienc

ing.

-0.9

310

7-0

.97

64-0

.70

97-0

.84

273

11Te

chno

logy

sup

por

t st

aff w

ho h

ave

the

know

eldg

e to

ans

wer

my

que

stio

ns.

-0.6

710

5-1

.05

66-0

.67

97-0

.75

273

12Re

ceiv

ing

com

mun

icat

ions

reg

ardi

ng t

echn

olog

y se

rvic

es t

hat

I can

und

erst

and.

-0.6

410

8-1

.15

68-0

.72

95-0

.78

275

13G

ettin

g ac

cess

to

trai

ning

or

othe

r se

lf-he

lp in

form

atio

n th

at in

crea

ses

my

effe

ctiv

enes

s w

ith t

echn

olog

y.-0

.86

96-1

.31

64-1

.17

92-1

.08

255

14H

avin

g in

form

atio

n an

d ac

cess

to

new

and

use

ful i

nstr

uctio

nal t

echn

olog

ies

or m

etho

ds. S

elf-

repo

rted

fa

culty

onl

y.-1

.84

58-1

.84

58

15H

avin

g an

effe

ctiv

e, in

tuiti

ve, a

nd r

elia

ble

Lear

ning

Man

agem

nt S

yste

m (

Blac

kboa

rd).

Sel

f-re

port

ed fa

culty

an

d st

uden

ts o

nly.

-1.7

610

9-2

.12

49-1

.87

158

16G

ettin

g tim

ely

and

help

ful s

upp

ort

for

Blac

kboa

rd (

the

WSU

lear

ning

man

agem

ent

syst

em. S

elf-

repo

rted

fa

culty

and

stu

dent

s on

ly.

-1.3

086

-1.1

845

-1.2

613

1

17H

avin

g ac

cess

to

high

sp

eed

com

put

ing

for

rese

arch

. Sel

f-re

port

ed fa

culty

onl

y.-1

.45

38-1

.45

38

18H

avin

g in

tern

et s

pee

d/ca

pac

ity s

pec

ifica

lly in

ter

ms

of r

esea

rch

need

s. S

elf-

repo

rted

facu

lty o

nly.

-1.0

742

-1.0

742

19H

avin

g da

ta s

tora

ge s

pac

e us

ed s

pec

ifica

lly fo

r re

sear

ch d

ata.

Sel

f-re

port

ed fa

culty

onl

y.-1

.21

42-1

.21

42

20Av

aila

bilit

y an

d ho

urs

for

open

com

put

er la

bs. S

elf-

repo

rted

stu

dent

s on

ly.

-0.7

667

-0.7

667

21H

avin

g a

pos

itive

env

ironm

ent

(cle

anlin

ess,

noi

se, t

emp

erat

ure,

etc

.) fo

r th

e op

en c

omp

uter

lab

(SA

C

311)

. Sel

f-re

port

ed s

tude

nts

only

.-0

.72

68-0

.72

68

22Av

aila

bilit

y of

cla

ssro

oms

and

mee

ting

spac

es w

ith v

ideo

conf

eren

ncin

g te

chno

logy

. Sel

f-re

port

ed fa

culty

an

d st

aff o

nly.

-1

.53

62-0

.95

80-1

.20

142

23G

ettin

g tim

ely

and

help

ful s

upp

ort

for

vide

ocon

fere

ncin

g te

chno

logy

in c

lass

room

s or

mee

ting

spac

es.

Self-

repo

rted

facu

lty a

nd s

taff

only

.-1

.38

64-1

.17

84-1

.26

148


Research Resources

Comp.Labs

Video-conf.

WSU

Sp

oka

ne

Tech

no

log

y

2017

– S

uper

iori

ty G

ap A

nal

ysis

Com

par

ison

of t

he S

uper

iorit

y G

ap S

core

s (d

esire

d-m

inim

um)

for

Stud

ents

, Fac

ulty

, and

Sta

ff


Co

lor

Leg

end

:M

inim

al0

to -

1.0

Smal

l Gap

-1.0

to

-2.

0La

rge

Gap

-2.0

to

-3.

0Ex

trem

e G

ap>

-3.0

Stud

ents

Facu

lty

Staf

fA

ll

Cat

ego

ry#

Item

2017

2016

2015

2 yr

∆20

1720

1620

152

yr ∆

2017

2016

2015

2 yr

∆20

1720

1620

152

yr ∆

Co

nn

ecti

vity

an

d A

cces

s

1H

avin

g an

Inte

rnet

ser

vice

tha

t op

erat

es r

elia

bly.

-1.2

5-1

.58

-1.1

10.

14-1

.05

-0.8

9-0

.78

-0.2

7-0

.58

-1.0

0-0

.63

-0.0

5-0

.96

-1.1

8-0

.86

-0.1

0

2H

avin

g an

Inte

rnet

ser

vice

tha

t p

rovi

des

adeq

uate

cap

acity

or

spee

d.-1

.02

-1.4

3-1

.01

0.01

-1.1

3-0

.80

-0.7

8-0

.35

-0.6

4-0

.94

-0.7

6-0

.12

-0.9

0-1

.08

-0.8

6-0

.04

3H

avin

g an

Inte

rnet

ser

vice

tha

t p

rovi

des

adeq

uate

Wi-F

i cov

erag

e.-1

.16

-1.5

7-1

.12

0.04

-1.8

0-1

.23

-1.3

7-0

.43

-0.8

6-1

.33

-1.2

90.

43-1

.18

-1.3

8-1

.26

0.08

4H

avin

g ad

equa

te c

ellu

lar

(or

mob

ile)

cove

rage

thr

ough

out

cam

pus

.-1

.01

-1.4

7-1

.34

0.33

-1.9

6-1

.68

-1.2

5-0

.71

-0.9

3-1

.52

-1.5

60.

63-1

.21

-1.5

4-1

.39

0.18

Tech

no

log

y an

d

Co

llab

ora

tio

n

Serv

ices

5H

avin

g w

ebsi

tes

and

onlin

e se

rvic

es t

hat

are

easy

to

use.

-1.2

0-1

.66

-1.2

70.

07-1

.99

-1.3

6-1

.59

-0.4

0-1

.34

-1.4

4-1

.44

0.10

-1.4

2-1

.51

-1.4

30.

01

6H

avin

g on

line

serv

ices

tha

t en

hanc

e th

e te

achi

ng a

nd le

arni

ng

exp

erie

nce.

-1.2

2-1

.28

-1.1

5-0

.07

-2.1

1-1

.68

-1.7

0-0

.41

-1.0

7-1

.33

-0.8

7-0

.20

-1.4

3-1

.42

-1.2

2-0

.21

7H

avin

g te

chno

logy

ser

vice

s th

at a

llow

me

to c

olla

bora

te e

ffect

ivel

y w

ith o

ther

s.-1

.15

-1.2

7-1

.18

0.03

-2.0

6-1

.72

-1.7

8-0

.28

-1.0

3-1

.33

-1.1

20.

09-1

.30

-1.4

1-1

.32

0.02

8H

avin

g sy

stem

s th

at p

rovi

de t

imel

y ac

cess

to

data

tha

t in

form

s de

cisi

on m

akin

g.-1

.12

-1.2

2-1

.08

-0.0

4-1

.85

-1.2

7-1

.53

-0.3

2-1

.45

-1.6

6-1

.16

-0.2

9-1

.39

-1.4

0-1

.23

-0.1

6

9Th

e av

aila

bilit

y of

cla

ssro

oms

or m

eetin

g sp

aces

with

tec

hnol

ogy

that

enh

ance

s th

e te

achi

ng a

nd le

arni

ng e

xper

ienc

e.-1

.16

-1.3

1-1

.39

0.23

-2.2

7-1

.78

-2.0

3-0

.24

-1.3

1-1

.19

-1.0

8-0

.23

-1.4

8-1

.40

-1.4

6-0

.02

Sup

po

rt a

nd

Tr

ain

ing

10G

ettin

g tim

ely

reso

lutio

n of

tec

hnol

ogy

pro

blem

s th

at I

am

exp

erie

ncin

g.-0

.93

-0.8

7-0

.97

0.04

-0.9

7-0

.80

-1.1

40.

17-0

.70

-1.0

4-0

.91

-0.2

1-0

.84

-0.9

2-1

.01

0.15

11Te

chno

logy

sup

por

t st

aff w

ho h

ave

the

know

eldg

e to

ans

wer

my

que

stio

ns.

-0.6

7-0

.55

-0.3

9-0

.28

-1.0

5-0

.81

-1.0

4-0

.01

-0.6

7-1

.04

-1.1

30.

46-0

.75

-0.8

0-0

.84

0.09

12Re

ceiv

ing

com

mun

icat

ions

reg

ardi

ng t

echn

olog

y se

rvic

es t

hat

I can

un

ders

tand

.-0

.64

-0.5

1-0

.59

-0.0

5-1

.15

-0.8

6-1

.11

-.04

-0.7

2-0

.86

-0.9

00.

18-0

.78

-0.7

5-0

.85

0.07

13G

ettin

g ac

cess

to

trai

ning

or

othe

r se

lf-he

lp in

form

atio

n th

at

incr

ease

s m

y ef

fect

iven

ess

with

tec

hnol

ogy.

-0.8

6-0

.76

-1.1

1-0

.75

-1.3

1-1

.07

-1.1

6-0

.15

-1.1

7-1

.59

-1.2

50.

08-1

.08

-1.2

0-1

.17

0.09

Co

lor

Leg

end

:M

inim

al0

to -

1.0

Smal

l Gap

-1.0

to

-2.

0La

rge

Gap

-2.0

to

-3.

0Ex

trem

e G

ap>

-3.0

2017

v. 2

016

v. 2

015

– Su

per

iori

ty G

ap A

nal

ysis

Year

-to-

Year

Com

par

ison

of t

he S

uper

iorit

y G

ap S

core

s (d

esire

d-m

inim

um)

for

Stud

ents

, Fac

ulty

, and

Sta

ff


Cat

ego

ry#

Item

Stud

ents

Facu

lty

Staf

fA

ll

Min

Rank

Des

Rank

NM

inRa

nkD

esRa

nkN

Min

Rank

Des

Rank

NM

inRa

nkD

esRa

nkN

Co

nn

ecti

vity

an

d

Acc

ess

1H

avin

g an

Inte

rnet

ser

vice

tha

t op

erat

es r

elia

bly.

7.52

28.

871

128

8.28

18.

911

757.

821

8.79

110

77.

811

8.85

131

5

2H

avin

g an

Inte

rnet

ser

vice

tha

t p

rovi

des

adeq

uate

cap

acity

or

spee

d.7.

483

8.78

312

58.

073

8.82

571

7.69

28.

1713

107

7.70

28.

802

307

3H

avin

g an

Inte

rnet

ser

vice

tha

t p

rovi

des

adeq

uate

Wi-F

i cov

erag

e.7.

571

8.84

212

87.

996

8.86

371

7.23

67.

6314

100

7.55

68.

725

303

4H

avin

g ad

equa

te c

ellu

lar

(or

mob

ile)

cove

rage

thr

ough

out

cam

pus

.7.

435

8.56

812

77.

957

8.74

973

7.20

77.

5615

102

7.48

78.

598

306

Tech

no

log

y an

d

Co

llab

ora

tio

n

Serv

ices

5H

avin

g w

ebsi

tes

and

onlin

e se

rvic

es t

hat

are

easy

to

use.

7.02

118.

559

117

7.82

108.

844

687.

138

8.51

710

17.

2412

8.59

829

1

6H

avin

g on

line

serv

ices

tha

t en

hanc

e th

e te

achi

ng a

nd le

arni

ng e

xper

ienc

e.7.

0211

8.50

1011

27.

7111

8.69

1165

6.90

118.

3310

607.

1614

8.50

1024

0

7H

avin

g te

chno

logy

ser

vice

s th

at a

llow

me

to c

olla

bora

te e

ffect

ivel

y w

ith o

ther

s.6.

9613

8.39

1311

57.

4115

8.52

1366

7.11

108.

399

957.

1316

8.43

1228

1

8H

avin

g sy

stem

s th

at p

rovi

de t

imel

y ac

cess

to

data

tha

t in

form

s de

cisi

on m

akin

g.7.

149

8.40

1210

27.

5014

8.47

1560

7.13

98.

565

867.

2313

8.48

1125

1

9Th

e av

aila

bilit

y of

cla

ssro

oms

or m

eetin

g sp

aces

with

tec

hnol

ogy

that

enh

ance

s th

e te

achi

ng a

nd le

arni

ng e

xper

ienc

e.7.

1010

8.47

1111

67.

909

8.73

1067

7.16

88.

546

807.

3211

8.55

926

7

14H

avin

g in

form

atio

n an

d ac

cess

to

new

and

use

ful i

nstr

uctio

nal t

echn

olog

ies

or

met

hods

. Sel

f-re

port

ed fa

culty

onl

y7.

0520

8.22

1958

7.05

178.

2216

58

15H

avin

g an

effe

ctiv

e, in

tuiti

ve, a

nd r

elia

ble

Lear

ning

Man

agem

nt S

yste

m (

Blac

k-bo

ard)

. Sel

f-re

port

ed fa

culty

and

stu

dent

s on

ly.

7.47

48.

724

109

8.00

58.

807

497.

634

8.74

415

8

16G

ettin

g tim

ely

and

help

ful s

upp

ort

for

Blac

kboa

rd (

the

WSU

lear

ning

man

agem

ent

syst

em. S

elf-

repo

rted

facu

lty a

nd s

tude

nts

only

.7.

277

8.58

786

8.09

28.

788

457.

556

8.65

713

1

17H

avin

g ac

cess

to

high

sp

eed

com

put

ing

for

rese

arch

. Sel

f-re

port

ed fa

culty

onl

y.7.

2419

8.21

2038

7.24

128.

2117

38

18H

avin

g in

tern

et s

pee

d/ca

pac

ity s

pec

ifica

lly in

ter

ms

of r

esea

rch

need

s. S

elf-

repo

rted

fa

culty

onl

y.7.

3618

8.24

1842

7.36

108.

2415

42

19H

avin

g da

ta s

tora

ge s

pac

e us

ed s

pec

ifica

lly fo

r re

sear

ch d

ata.

Sel

f-re

port

ed fa

culty

on

ly.

7.40

168.

3316

427.

409

8.33

1442

20Av

aila

bilit

y an

d ho

urs

for

open

com

put

er la

bs. S

elf-

repo

rted

stu

dent

s on

ly.

6.45

157.

8816

676.

4520

7.88

2067

21H

avin

g a

pos

itive

env

ironm

ent

(cle

anlin

ess,

noi

se, t

emp

erat

ure,

etc

.) fo

r th

e op

en

com

put

er la

b (S

AC

311

). S

elf-

repo

rted

stu

dent

s on

ly.

6.90

148.

0915

686.

9018

8.09

1968

22Av

aila

bilit

y of

cla

ssro

oms

and

mee

ting

spac

es w

ith v

ideo

conf

eren

ncin

g te

chno

logy

. Se

lf-re

port

ed fa

culty

and

sta

ff on

ly.

7.58

128.

6112

626.

8912

8.28

1280

7.19

148.

4213

142

23G

ettin

g tim

ely

and

help

ful s

upp

ort

for

vide

ocon

fere

ncin

g te

chno

logy

in c

lass

room

s or

mee

ting

spac

es. S

elf-

repo

rted

facu

lty a

nd s

taff

only

.8.

054

8.81

664

7.42

48.

574

847.

693

8.68

614

8

Co

lor

Leg

end

Top

34-

6


Research Resources

Comp.Labs Video-conf.

WSU

Sp

oka

ne

Tech

no

log

y

Sup

po

rt a

nd

Tra

inin

g

10G

ettin

g tim

ely

reso

lutio

n of

tec

hnol

ogy

pro

blem

s th

at I

am e

xper

ienc

ing.

7.20

88.

686

107

7.92

88.

816

647.

315

8.69

397

7.41

88.

725

273

11Te

chno

logy

sup

por

t st

aff w

ho h

ave

the

know

eldg

e to

ans

wer

my

que

stio

ns.

7.41

68.

705

105

8.03

58.

882

667.

543

8.75

297

7.61

58.

763

273

12Re

ceiv

ing

com

mun

icat

ions

reg

ardi

ng t

echn

olog

y se

rvic

es t

hat

I can

und

erst

and.

6.98

128.

3714

108

7.53

138.

5114

687.

1110

8.45

899

57.

1515

8.43

1227

5

13G

ettin

g ac

cess

to

trai

ning

or

othe

r se

lf-he

lp in

form

atio

n th

at in

crea

ses

my

effe

ctiv

e-ne

ss w

ith t

echn

olog

y.6.

2016

7.84

1796

7.39

178.

3117

646.

8613

8.30

1192

6.73

198.

1118

255

2017

– M

inim

um a

nd

Des

ired

Ser

vice

Lev

el R

anki

ng

sSe

rvic

e Le

vels

(m

inim

um a

nd d

esire

d) fo

r St

uden

ts, F

acul

ty, a

nd S

taff

(Top

6 h

ighl

ight

ed)


Stud

ents

Facu

lty

Staf

fA

ll

Nee

dW

ant

Nee

dW

ant

Nee

dW

ant

Nee

dW

ant

Cat

ego

ry#

Item

2017

M

in20

17

Ran

k20

16

Ran

k20

15

Ran

k20

17

Des

2017

R

ank

2016

R

ank

2015

R

ank

2017

M

in20

17

Ran

k20

16

Ran

k20

15

Ran

k20

17

Des

2017

R

ank

2016

R

ank

2015

R

ank

2017

M

in20

17

Ran

k20

16

Ran

k20

15

Ran

k20

17

Des

2017

R

ank

2016

R

ank

2015

R

ank

2017

M

in20

17

Ran

k20

16

Ran

k20

15

Ran

k20

17

Des

2017

R

ank

2016

R

ank

2015

R

ank

Co

nn

ecti

vity

an

d A

cces

s

1H

avin

g an

Inte

rnet

ser

vice

tha

t op

erat

es r

elia

bly.

7.52

23

31

128

21

8.28

12

18.

911

11

7.82

11

18.

791

11

7.81

11

18.

851

11

2H

avin

g an

Inte

rnet

ser

vice

tha

t p

rovi

des

adeq

uate

cap

acity

or

spee

d.7.

483

54

312

53

38.

073

33

8.82

53

37.

692

23

8.17

132

37.

702

32

8.80

22

2

3H

avin

g an

Inte

rnet

ser

vice

tha

t p

rovi

des

adeq

uate

Wi-F

i cov

erag

e.7.

571

11

212

81

27.

996

47

8.86

38

67.

236

68

7.63

146

87.

556

43

8.72

53

2

4H

avin

g ad

equa

te c

ellu

lar

(or

mob

ile)

cove

rage

thr

ough

out

cam

pus

.7.

435

69

812

74

77.

957

85

8.74

91

87.

207

57

7.56

155

77.

487

75

8.59

86

6

Tech

no

log

y an

d

Co

llab

ora

tio

n

Serv

ices

5H

avin

g w

ebsi

tes

and

onlin

e se

rvic

es t

hat

are

easy

to

use.

7.02

118

108.

559

58

7.82

1011

128.

844

106

7.13

88

108.

517

96

7.24

1210

68.

598

78

6H

avin

g on

line

serv

ices

tha

t en

hanc

e th

e te

achi

ng a

nd le

arni

ng

exp

erie

nce.

7.02

1112

118.

5010

910

7.71

117

88.

6911

45

6.90

119

138.

3310

1013

7.16

1410

108.

5010

1012

7H

avin

g te

chno

logy

ser

vice

s th

at a

llow

me

to c

olla

bora

te e

ffect

ivel

y w

ith o

ther

s.6.

9613

1112

8.39

1310

107.

4115

99

8.52

139

97.

1110

129

8.39

97

117.

1316

88

8.43

129

10

8H

avin

g sy

stem

s th

at p

rovi

de t

imel

y ac

cess

to

data

tha

t in

form

s de

cisi

on m

akin

g.7.

149

75

8.40

128

57.

5014

1011

8.47

1511

117.

139

105

8.56

54

87.

2313

612

8.48

117

7

9Th

e av

aila

bilit

y of

cla

ssro

oms

or m

eetin

g sp

aces

with

tec

hnol

ogy

that

enh

ance

s th

e te

achi

ng a

nd le

arni

ng e

xper

ienc

e.7.

1010

98

8.47

1111

127.

909

59

8.73

104

97.

168

106

8.54

612

97.

3211

911

8.55

911

8

Sup

po

rtan

d T

rain

ing

10G

ettin

g tim

ely

reso

lutio

n of

tec

hnol

ogy

pro

blem

s th

at I

am

exp

erie

ncin

g.7.

208

46

8.68

67

67.

928

64

8.81

66

47.

315

44

8.69

35

47.

418

54

8.72

55

5

11Te

chno

logy

sup

por

t st

aff w

ho h

ave

the

know

eldg

e to

ans

wer

my

que

stio

ns.

7.41

62

28.

705

54

8.03

51

28.

882

22

7.54

33

28.

752

310

7.61

52

28.

763

44

12Re

ceiv

ing

com

mun

icat

ions

reg

ardi

ng t

echn

olog

y se

rvic

es t

hat

I ca

n un

ders

tand

.6.

9812

107

8.37

1412

97.

5313

1211

8.51

1412

127.

1110

311

8.45

811

107.

1515

129

8.43

1212

10

13G

ettin

g ac

cess

to

trai

ning

or

othe

r se

lf-he

lp in

form

atio

n th

at

incr

ease

s m

y ef

fect

iven

ess

with

tec

hnol

ogy.

6.20

1613

137.

8417

1313

7.39

1713

138.

3117

1313

6.86

1313

148.

3011

1313

6.73

1913

138.

1118

1313

Co

lor

Leg

end

Top

34-

6

2017

v. 2

016

v. 2

015

– M

inim

um a

nd

Des

ired

Ser

vice

Lev

el R

anki

ng

sYe

ar-t

o-Ye

ar C

omp

aris

on o

f the

Ser

vice

Lev

els

(min

imum

and

des

ired)

for

Stud

ents

, Fac

ulty

, and

Sta

ff


Cat

ego

ry#

Item

Stud

ents

Facu

lty

Staf

fA

ll

Co

nn

ecti

vity

an

d A

cces

s

Gen

der

FM

FM

FM

FM

N (

vari

es b

y q

uest

ion

)75

2935

1768

2317

869

1H

avin

g an

Inte

rnet

ser

vice

tha

t op

erat

es r

elia

bly.

0.07

0.22

-0.4

2-0

.26

0.46

0.07

0.11

0.04

2H

avin

g an

Inte

rnet

ser

vice

tha

t p

rovi

des

adeq

uate

cap

acity

or

spee

d.0.

130.

54-0

.62

0.14

0.46

0.41

0.10

0.39

3H

avin

g an

Inte

rnet

ser

vice

tha

t p

rovi

des

adeq

uate

Wi-F

i cov

erag

e.0.

17-0

.05

-1.0

7-0

.68

0.61

-0.1

40.

07-0

.24

4H

avin

g ad

equa

te c

ellu

lar

(or

mob

ile)

cove

rage

thr

ough

out

cam

pus

.0.

25-0

.18

-1.7

1-0

.24

0.31

0.45

-0.1

60.

01

Tech

no

log

y an

d

Co

llab

ora

tio

n S

ervi

ces

5H

avin

g w

ebsi

tes

and

onlin

e se

rvic

es t

hat

are

easy

to

use.

0.33

0.38

-1.1

4-0

.81

-0.1

80.

62-0

.18

0.15

6H

avin

g on

line

serv

ices

tha

t en

hanc

e th

e te

achi

ng a

nd le

arni

ng e

xper

ienc

e.0.

240.

29-1

.37

-0.8

50.

240.

61-0

.18

0.04

7H

avin

g te

chno

logy

ser

vice

s th

at a

llow

me

to c

olla

bora

te e

ffect

ivel

y w

ith o

ther

s.0.

240.

44-1

.05

-0.9

00.

180.

62-0

.05

0.14

8H

avin

g sy

stem

s th

at p

rovi

de t

imel

y ac

cess

to

data

tha

t in

form

s de

cisi

on m

akin

g.0.

090.

28-0

.74

-0.9

5-0

.14

0.28

-0.1

7-0

.05

9Th

e av

aila

bilit

y of

cla

ssro

oms

or m

eetin

g sp

aces

with

tec

hnol

ogy

that

enh

ance

s th

e te

achi

ng a

nd le

arni

ng

exp

erie

nce.

0.33

-0.0

3-1

.90

-0.6

50.

120.

05-0

.27

-0.1

7

Sup

po

rt a

nd

Tra

inin

g

10G

ettin

g tim

ely

reso

lutio

n of

tec

hnol

ogy

pro

blem

s th

at I

am e

xper

ienc

ing.

0.53

0.47

-0.1

30.

260.

760.

460.

480.

41

11Te

chno

logy

sup

por

t st

aff w

ho h

ave

the

know

eldg

e to

ans

wer

my

que

stio

ns.

0.49

0.71

-0.2

50.

150.

640.

320.

390.

43

12Re

ceiv

ing

com

mun

icat

ions

reg

ardi

ng t

echn

olog

y se

rvic

es t

hat

I can

und

erst

and.

0.68

0.77

-0.1

50.

100.

620.

880.

470.

61

13G

ettin

g ac

cess

to

trai

ning

or

othe

r se

lf-he

lp in

form

atio

n th

at in

crea

ses

my

effe

ctiv

enes

s w

ith t

echn

olog

y.0.

760.

79-0

.44

-0.3

70.

180.

480.

260.

37

14H

avin

g in

form

atio

n an

d ac

cess

to

new

and

use

ful i

nstr

uctio

nal t

echn

olog

ies

or m

etho

ds. S

elf-

repo

rted

fa

culty

onl

y-0

.87

-0.3

1-0

.87

-0.3

1

15H

avin

g an

effe

ctiv

e, in

tuiti

ve, a

nd r

elia

ble

Lear

ning

Man

agem

nt S

yste

m (

Blac

kboa

rd).

Sel

f-re

port

ed fa

culty

an

d st

uden

ts o

nly.

-0.5

8-0

.26

-1.7

8-0

.25

-0.9

5-0

.26

16G

ettin

g tim

ely

and

help

ful s

upp

ort

for

Blac

kboa

rd (

the

WSU

lear

ning

man

agem

ent

syst

em. S

elf-

repo

rted

fa

culty

and

stu

dent

s on

ly.

-0.1

60.

28-0

.67

-0.1

8-0

.34

0.15


17H

avin

g ac

cess

to

high

sp

eed

com

put

ing

for

rese

arch

Sel

f-re

port

ed fa

culty

onl

y.-0

.35

-0.9

2-0

.34

-0.9

2

18H

avin

g in

tern

et s

pee

d/ca

pac

ity s

pec

ifica

lly in

ter

ms

of r

esea

rch

need

s. S

elf-

repo

rted

facu

lty o

nly.

-0.1

3-0

.43

-0.1

3-0

.43

19H

avin

g da

ta s

tora

ge s

pac

e us

ed s

pec

ifica

lly fo

r re

sear

ch d

ata.

Sel

f-re

port

ed fa

culty

onl

y.-0

.39

-0.3

3-0

.39

-0.3

3

Research Resources

20Av

aila

bilit

y an

d ho

urs

for

open

com

put

er la

bs. S

elf-

repo

rted

stu

dent

s on

ly.

0.65

0.48

0.65

0.48

21H

avin

g a

pos

itive

env

ironm

ent

(cle

anlin

ess,

noi

se, t

emp

erat

ure,

etc

.) fo

r th

e op

en c

omp

uter

lab

(SA

C 3

11).

Se

lf-re

port

ed s

tude

nts

only

.0.

590.

270.

590.

27

Comp.Labs

22Av

aila

bilit

y of

cla

ssro

oms

and

mee

ting

spac

es w

ith v

ideo

conf

eren

ncin

g te

chno

logy

. Sel

f-re

port

ed fa

culty

an

d st

aff o

nly.

-0

.77

-0.3

20.

360.

70-0

.11

0.24

23G

ettin

g tim

ely

and

help

ful s

upp

ort

for

vide

ocon

fere

ncin

g te

chno

logy

in c

lass

room

s or

mee

ting

spac

es.

Self-

repo

rted

facu

lty a

nd s

taff

only

.-0

.62

-0.3

7-0

.05

0.13

-0.2

8-0

.09

Video-conf.

WSU

Sp

oka

ne

Tech

no

log

y

2017

– S

ervi

ce A

deq

uacy

Gap

by

Gen

der

Com

par

ison

of t

he A

deq

uacy

Gap

Sco

res

(per

ceiv

ed-m

inim

um)

for

Stud

ents

, Fac

ulty

, and

Sta

ff by

Gen

der


Co

lor

Leg

end

:Po

siti

ve>0

Mild

Pai

n0

to -

0.49

Hig

h P

ain

-0.5

to

-0.

99Ex

trem

e Pa

in1.

0

Item

Stud

ents

Facu

lty

Staf

f

Gen

der

F

FF

Dif

fM

MM

Dif

fF

FF

Dif

fM

MM

Dif

fF

FF

Dif

fM

MM

Dif

f

Cat

ego

ry#

2017

2016

2015

2017

2016

2015

2017

2016

2015

2017

2016

2015

2017

2016

2015

2017

2016

2015

N (

vari

es b

y q

uest

ion

7568

7229

3440

3539

4017

2531

6862

7023

4031

Co

nn

ec-

tivi

ty a

nd

A

cces

s

1H

avin

g an

Inte

rnet

ser

vice

tha

t op

erat

es r

elia

bly.

0.07

0.21

0.28

-0.2

10.

220.

290.

55-0

.33

-0.4

20.

130.

08-0

.50

-0.2

60.

400.

45-0

.66

0.46

-0.0

80.

39-0

.07

0.07

0.33

0.74

-0.6

7

2H

avin

g an

Inte

rnet

ser

vice

tha

t p

rovi

des

adeq

uate

ca

pac

ity o

r sp

eed.

0.13

0.49

0.35

-0.2

20.

540.

120.

84-0

.30

-0.6

20.

130.

15-0

.77

0.14

0.96

0.57

-0.4

30.

460.

110.

50-0

.04

0.41

0.54

0.23

0.18

3H

avin

g an

Inte

rnet

ser

vice

tha

t p

rovi

des

adeq

uate

W

i-Fi c

over

age.

0.17

0.02

0.13

0.04

-0.0

50.

060.

55-0

.60

-1.0

7-0

.21

-0.2

5-0

.82

-0.6

8-0

.04

0.19

-0.8

70.

61-0

.17

0.12

0.49

-0.1

40.

470.

07-0

.21

4H

avin

g ad

equa

te c

ellu

lar

(or

mob

ile)

cove

rage

th

roug

hout

cam

pus

.0.

250.

320.

040.

21-0

.18

0.50

0.68

-0.8

6-1

.71

-0.7

90.

03-1

.74

-0.2

40.

170.

00-0

.24

0.31

0.02

-0.3

60.

670.

45-0

.78

-0.1

70.

62

Tech

no

log

y an

d

Co

llab

-o

rati

on

Se

rvic

es

5H

avin

g w

ebsi

tes

and

onlin

e se

rvic

es t

hat

are

easy

to

use

.0.

330.

220.

270.

060.

380.

550.

67-0

.29

-1.1

40.

32-0

.16

-0.9

8-0

.81

-0.1

60.

44-1

.25

-0.1

8-0

.26

-0.2

80.

100.

620.

180.

160.

46

6H

avin

g on

line

serv

ices

tha

t en

hanc

e th

e te

achi

ng a

nd

lear

ning

exp

erie

nce.

0.24

0.76

0.36

-0.1

20.

290.

150.

51-0

.22

-1.3

7-0

.53

-0.3

2-1

.05

-0.8

50.

16-0

.39

-0.4

60.

24-0

.08

0.52

-0.2

80.

610.

330.

560.

05

7H

avin

g te

chno

logy

ser

vice

s th

at a

llow

me

to c

olla

bo-

rate

effe

ctiv

ely

with

oth

ers.

0.24

0.48

0.30

-0.0

60.

440.

670.

64-0

.20

-1.0

5-0

.54

-0.5

8-0

.47

-0.9

00.

22-0

.20

-0.7

00.

18-0

.22

0.18

0.00

0.62

0.24

0.34

0.28

8H

avin

g sy

stem

s th

at p

rovi

de t

imel

y ac

cess

to

data

tha

t in

form

s de

cisi

on m

akin

g.0.

090.

640.

21-0

.12

0.28

0.22

0.54

-0.2

6-0

.74

-0.0

4-0

.03

-0.7

1-0

.95

0.10

-0.1

4-0

.81

-0.1

4-0

.61

-0.1

40.

000.

28-0

.53

0.47

-0.1

9

9Th

e av

aila

bilit

y of

cla

ssro

oms

or m

eetin

g sp

aces

with

te

chno

logy

tha

t en

hanc

es t

he t

each

ing

and

lear

ning

ex

per

ienc

e.0.

330.

720.

160.

18-0

.03

-0.1

50.

49-0

.52

-1.9

0-0

.64

-1.2

6-0

.64

-0.6

50.

00-0

.11

-0.5

40.

12-0

.09

0.00

0.12

0.05

0.64

0.54

-0.4

9

Sup

po

rtan

d

Trai

nin

g

10G

ettin

g tim

ely

reso

lutio

n of

tec

hnol

ogy

pro

blem

s th

at

I am

exp

erie

ncin

g.0.

530.

670.

330.

200.

470.

570.

88-0

.41

-0.1

30.

45-0

.05

-0.0

80.

260.

790.

45-0

.19

0.76

0.40

0.29

0.47

0.46

0.31

0.57

-0.1

1

11Te

chno

logy

sup

por

t st

aff w

ho h

ave

the

know

eldg

e to

an

swer

my

que

stio

ns.

0.49

0.82

0.77

-0.2

80.

710.

871.

00-0

.29

-0.2

50.

31-0

.13

-0.1

20.

150.

610.

67-0

.52

0.64

-0.0

20.

070.

570.

320.

210.

230.

09

12Re

ceiv

ing

com

mun

icat

ions

reg

ardi

ng t

echn

olog

y se

rvic

es t

hat

I can

und

erst

and.

0.68

1.13

0.69

-0.0

10.

771.

130.

83-0

.06

-0.1

50.

230.

08-0

.23

0.10

1.17

0.48

-0.3

80.

620.

240.

130.

490.

880.

780.

670.

21

13G

ettin

g ac

cess

to

trai

ning

or

othe

r se

lf-he

lp in

form

a-tio

n th

at in

crea

ses

my

effe

ctiv

enes

s w

ith t

echn

olog

y.0.

760.

810.

120.

640.

791.

240.

93-0

.14

-0.4

40.

150.

50-0

.94

-0.3

70.

870.

41-0

.04

0.18

-0.3

1-0

.03

0.21

0.48

0.49

0.69

-0.2

1

Co

lor

Leg

end

:Po

siti

ve>0

Mild

Pai

n0

to -

0.49

Hig

h P

ain

-0.5

to

-0.

99Ex

trem

e Pa

in1.

0

2017

v. 2

016

v. 2

015

– Se

rvic

e A

deq

uacy

Gap

by

Gen

der

Year

-to-

Year

Com

par

ison

of t

he S

ervi

ce L

evel

s (p

erce

ived

- m

inim

um)

for

Stud

ents

, Fac

ulty

, and

Sta

ff by

Gen

der


C


APPENDIX CTOP THREE RESPONSE ANALYSIS

Response Analysis – Top Three Most Helpful IT ServicesIn an open ended question, survey respondents were asked which three WSU Spokane IT Services are the most helpful. There were a total of 107 re-spondents: 48 students, 24 faculty, and 35 staff. Top five are highlighted.

Technology ServiceStudent Faculty Staff All

# % # % # % # %

Tech Support 29 60.42% 15 62.50% 33 94.29% 77 49.04%

Wi-Fi 14 29.17% 3 12.50% 7 20.00% 24.00 15.29%

Blackboard 5 10.42% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 5.00 3.18%

Website 1 2.08% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1.00 0.64%

Technology Training 0 0.00% 2 8.33% 5 14.29% 7.00 4.46%

Information Security 1 2.08% 0 0.00% 1 2.86% 2.00 1.27%

Blackboard Support 4 8.33% 3 12.50% 0 0.00% 7.00 4.46%

Printing 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 2.86% 1.00 0.64%

Email 0 0.00% 1 4.17% 0 0.00% 1.00 0.64%

Internet Speed/Reliability 0 0.00% 2 8.33% 0 0.00% 2.00 1.27%

Classroom/Conference Room Technology 2 4.17% 1 4.17% 4 11.43% 7.00 4.46%

Tech Communication 1 2.08% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1.00 0.64%

Cellphone Coverage 3 6.25% 0 0.00% 1 2.86% 4.00 2.55%

Videoconferencing/AMS Support 2 4.17% 3 12.50% 4 11.43% 9.00 5.73%

Access to Software & Hardware 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 2.86% 1.00 0.64%

MAC's 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 3 8.57% 3.00 1.91%

Other (Skype,VDI) 2 4.17% 1 4.17% 2 5.71% 5.00 3.18%

Technology Service Student Faculty Staff All

# % # % # % # %

Wi-Fi 13 23.64% 4 16.67% 5 14.71% 22 19.47%

Cell Coverage 0 0.00% 2 8.33% 2 5.88% 4 3.54%

Information Security (including phishing) 7 12.73% 3 12.50% 2 5.88% 12 10.62%

Blackboard 13 23.64% 2 8.33% 1 2.94% 16 14.16%

WSU Spokane Website 6 10.91% 1 4.17% 2 5.88% 9 7.96%

Computer Lab Environment 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%

Tech Support 4 7.27% 4 16.67% 8 23.53% 16 14.16%

Technology Training 6 10.91% 2 8.33% 5 14.71% 13 11.50%

Blackboard Support 2 3.64% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 1.77%

MyWSU 1 1.82% 0 0.00% 1 2.94% 2 1.77%

Classroom/Conf. Room Technology 4 7.27% 1 4.17% 2 5.88% 7 6.19%

AMS/Videoconferencing 10 18.18% 11 45.83% 9 26.47% 30 26.55%

Printing Capabilities in Labs 1 1.82% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 0.88%

Internet Speed/Reliability 8 14.55% 1 4.17% 1 2.94% 10 8.85%

CougSync 1 1.82% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 0.88%

Data Storage Management 0 0.00% 2 8.33% 1 2.94% 3 2.65%

Accessibility of Online Resources 1 1.82% 3 12.50% 2 5.88% 6 5.31%

Tech Communications 4 7.27% 2 8.33% 7 20.59% 13 11.50%

ExamSoft 3 5.45% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 3 2.65%

SharePoint Support and Training 0 0.00% 2 8.33% 4 11.76% 6 5.31%

Response Analysis – Top Three IT Services Needing ImprovementIn an open ended question, survey respondents were asked which three WSU Spokane IT Services need improvement. There were a total of 113 re-spondents: 55 students, 24 faculty, and 34 staff. Top five are highlighted.


APPENDIX DCOMMENT ANALYSIS

Technology ServiceStudent Faculty Staff All

# % # % # % # %

Tech Support 29 60.42% 15 62.50% 33 94.29% 77 49.04%

Wi-Fi 14 29.17% 3 12.50% 7 20.00% 24.00 15.29%

Blackboard 5 10.42% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 5.00 3.18%

Website 1 2.08% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1.00 0.64%

Technology Training 0 0.00% 2 8.33% 5 14.29% 7.00 4.46%

Information Security 1 2.08% 0 0.00% 1 2.86% 2.00 1.27%

Blackboard Support 4 8.33% 3 12.50% 0 0.00% 7.00 4.46%

Printing 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 2.86% 1.00 0.64%

Email 0 0.00% 1 4.17% 0 0.00% 1.00 0.64%

Internet Speed/Reliability 0 0.00% 2 8.33% 0 0.00% 2.00 1.27%

Classroom/Conference Room Technology 2 4.17% 1 4.17% 4 11.43% 7.00 4.46%

Tech Communication 1 2.08% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1.00 0.64%

Cellphone Coverage 3 6.25% 0 0.00% 1 2.86% 4.00 2.55%

Videoconferencing/AMS Support 2 4.17% 3 12.50% 4 11.43% 9.00 5.73%

Access to Software & Hardware 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 2.86% 1.00 0.64%

MAC's 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 3 8.57% 3.00 1.91%

Other (Skype,VDI) 2 4.17% 1 4.17% 2 5.71% 5.00 3.18%

Technology Service Student Faculty Staff All

# % # % # % # %

Wi-Fi 13 23.64% 4 16.67% 5 14.71% 22 19.47%

Cell Coverage 0 0.00% 2 8.33% 2 5.88% 4 3.54%

Information Security (including phishing) 7 12.73% 3 12.50% 2 5.88% 12 10.62%

Blackboard 13 23.64% 2 8.33% 1 2.94% 16 14.16%

WSU Spokane Website 6 10.91% 1 4.17% 2 5.88% 9 7.96%

Computer Lab Environment 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%

Tech Support 4 7.27% 4 16.67% 8 23.53% 16 14.16%

Technology Training 6 10.91% 2 8.33% 5 14.71% 13 11.50%

Blackboard Support 2 3.64% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 1.77%

MyWSU 1 1.82% 0 0.00% 1 2.94% 2 1.77%

Classroom/Conf. Room Technology 4 7.27% 1 4.17% 2 5.88% 7 6.19%

AMS/Videoconferencing 10 18.18% 11 45.83% 9 26.47% 30 26.55%

Printing Capabilities in Labs 1 1.82% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 0.88%

Internet Speed/Reliability 8 14.55% 1 4.17% 1 2.94% 10 8.85%

CougSync 1 1.82% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 0.88%

Data Storage Management 0 0.00% 2 8.33% 1 2.94% 3 2.65%

Accessibility of Online Resources 1 1.82% 3 12.50% 2 5.88% 6 5.31%

Tech Communications 4 7.27% 2 8.33% 7 20.59% 13 11.50%

ExamSoft 3 5.45% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 3 2.65%

SharePoint Support and Training 0 0.00% 2 8.33% 4 11.76% 6 5.31%

D


APPENDIX DCOMMENT ANALYSIS

Question 1: Having an Internet service that operates reliably.

Comment # %

Hard to connect to Internet and/or Wi-Fi 4 27%

Not reliable 3 20%

Slow during peak times 2 13%

Wi-Fi is weak in some buildings/locations 2 13%

Difficulty connecting to Internet/Wi-Fi on personal computers 2 13%

Sufficient/Okay 1 7%

Would like to see Wi-Fi extended to parking lot 1 7%

Library computers are slow 1 7%

Total comments 16

Number of commenters 12

Number of respondents 116

Question 2: Having an Internet service that provides adequate capacity and speed.

Comment # %

Very important 2 50%

Slow 1 25%

Speed is good 1 25%

Slow in main buildings 1 25%

Total comments 5



Question 3: Having an Internet service that provides adequate Wi-Fi coverage.

Comment # %

Dead spots/spotty coverage 3 15%

Increase coverage in certain areas (parking lots, bathrooms, basements)

2 10%

Coverage is good 2 10%

Not reliable 1 5%

Noticed improvement 1 5%

Issues connecting via phone 1 5%

Issues connecting via laptop or personal computers 1 5%

Cuts out during peak use (i.e. during classes and exams) 3 15%


Total comments 20



Question 4: Having adequate cellular (or mobile) coverage throughout campus.

Comment # %

Coverage is spotty 1 7%

Coverage is lacking in ground floor/basements 1 7%

Lack of cell coverage in SAC 20 3 20%

Safety concerns 1 7%

General lack of coverage in buildings 4 27%

Needs improvement 3 20%

Sufficient coverage 2 13%

Total comments 15



Comment Analysis – Students




Technology and Collaboration Services

Question 5: Having Web sites and online services that are easy to use.

Comment # %

MyWSU is difficult to use/needs improvement 1 13%

WSUS sites need to be more intuitive 1 13%

WSUS sites need general improvement 1 13%

Search functions need updating/refining 3 38%

Library program is confusing/cumbersome 1 13%

Quick links of WSUS site are helpful (MyWSU, email, Black-board)

1 13%

Total comments 8



Question 6: Having online services that enhance the teaching and learning experience.

Comment # %

Online services are difficult to navigate 1 9%

Blackboard is difficult to use 1 9%

Prefer Canvas to Blackboard 1 9%

AMS system needs improvement 2 18%

Pounce is not accessible or as functional as free cloud-based options

1 9%

Technology needs improvement among Nursing sites 1 9%

No suggestions 2 18%

No issues 1 9%

Very important 1 9%

Total comments 11



Question 7: Having technology services that allow me to collaborate effectively with others.

Comment # %

Use other non-university services (i.e. Google, social media) 1 8%

Communication through Blackboard is difficult 1 8%


AMS training for students is requested 1 8%

AMS is unreliable 1 8%

AMS is particularly unreliable at peak times 2 17%

AMS has connectivity/log in issues 1 8%

AMS microphones need improvement 1 8%

Library computers are unreliable, slow, and need improvement 1 8%

Collaborative tools to communicate with external parties is requested

1 8%

Too many collaborative tools are hindering communication 1 8%


Total comments 14



Question 8: Having systems that provide timely access to data that informs decision-making.

Comment # %


Must clear cache to access resources due to slow Wi-Fi 1 13%

Email communications are appreciated 1 13%

Library needs updated computers 1 13%

Lack of decision support for asset management 1 13%

Colleges have too much IT autonomy and it's causing dis-course.

1 13%

Total comments 8



Question 9: The availability of classrooms or meeting spaces with technology that enhances the teaching and learning experience.

Comment # %

Need more study/meeting rooms with appropriate technology 3 16%

Need increased outlet access 1 5%

Lack of health science labs with quality equipment 2 11%

AMS needs improvement 2 11%

Doing a good job 3 16%

Classrooms are too small (not enough tables/chairs) 1 5%

No suggestion 1 5%

Skype should be available in each classroom 1 5%

Collaborative technology in studying/meeting spaces needs improvement

5 26%

Total comments 19





Support and Training

Question 10: Getting timely resolution of technology problems that I am experiencing.

Comment # %

Slow resolution to problems 3 33%

Good service 2 22%

Would like more information or support for using Canvas 1 11%

Would like an IT person here on weekends 1 11%

No issues 2 22%

Total comments 9



Question 11: Technology support staff who have the knowledge to answer my questions.

Comment # %

Not helpful/bad experiences 1 13%

Would appreciate more availability from support staff (i.e. evenings & weekends)

1 13%

Staff seems to lack knowledge 3 38%

Important 1 13%

Great 1 13%

Would appreciate a WSU IT person at extension campus 1 13%

Total comments 8



Question 12: Receiving communications regarding technology services that I can understand.

Comment # %

Unclear communication 2 50%

IT communication needs improvement 1 25%

Communications regarding strategic direction of IT is requested

1 25%

Total comments 4



Question 13: Getting access to training or other self-help information that increases my effectiveness with technology.

Comment # %

More/better training is needed 1 17%

Does not fit in student schedules 1 17%

Ability to solve tech issues would be preferred 1 17%


Support staff is doing well 1 17%

No issues 1 17%

Total comments 6




Blackboard and Instructional Technology

Question 15: Having an effective, intuitive, and reliable Learning Management System (Blackboard).

Comment # %

Issues with Blackboard's connectivity or functionality 7 20%

Difficult to access important documents or information in Blackboard

2 6%

Prefer Canvas or other LMS 6 17%

Blackboard has poor collaborative features and discussion boards

3 9%

Blackboard notifications are poor 2 6%

Blackboard is inferior to other storage systems 1 3%

Faculty does not consistently use Blackboard 4 11%

Faculty use other LMS 1 3%

Blackboard is sufficient/okay 2 6%

Faculty and students need better training on how to use Blackboard

1 3%

General disappointment for Blackboard 3 9%

Make Blackboard available on mobile devices 2 6%

Gratitude for replacing Angel 1 3%

Total comments 35



Question 16: Getting timely and helpful support for Blackboard.

Comment # %

Blackboard support needs improvement 1 13%

Good 3 38%

General disappointment for Blackboard 2 25%


No issues 1 13%

Total comments 8




Computer Labs

Question 20: Availabilty and hours for open computer labs.

Comment # %

Need to extend hours (earlier/later, weekends) 5 45%

Staff can be disruptive 1 9%

Staff is good 1 9%

Yakima would like a computer lab, preferrably with a printer 3 27%

Availability of study rooms/classrooms is an issue 1 9%

Total comments 11



Question 21: Having a positive environment (cleanliness, noise, temperature, etc.) for the open computer labs

Comment # %

Too loud 1 20%

Yakima would like a computer lab 1 20%

Availability is an issue 2 40%

Study environment has a direct effect on student's work 1 20%

Total comments 5






Question 2: Having an Internet Service that provides adequate capacity and speed.

Comment # %

Memory capacity/speed issues hinder class 1 25%

Slow 1 25%


Makes sharing files difficult 1 25%

Total comments 4




Comment # %

Wi-Fi is spotty around buildings 1 33%

The Ignite NW Building has no Wi-Fi coverage 1 33%

There are connectivity issues with WSU Wireless 1 33%

Total comments 3




Comment # %

Coverage is spotty/lacking in areas 4 31%

Can be a privacy concern for those that have to leave their office

1 8%

Noticed improvement 1 8%


PBS Building still has issues 1 8%

No suggestions 1 8%

Affects classes because some faculty use phones as clickers 1 8%

First floor of Nursing building is particularly bad 2 15%

Total comments 13



Question 1: Having an Internet Service that operates reliably

Comment # %

Unreliable in certain areas 2 40%

Improved 1 20%

Likely to be caused from problems with older hardware 1 20%

Unreliable connection is affecting students’ exams 1 20%

Total comments 5



Comment Analysis – Faculty




Comment # %

WSUS Site is hard to navigate 2 33%

Search functions are unreliable and hard to use 3 50%

Websites are out-dated 1 17%

Total comments 6




Comment # %

General disappointment 1 17%

Suggest making online platforms more user-friendly 2 33%

Blackboard does not enhance the learning experience 1 17%

Blackboard is an improvement from Angel 1 17%

Request for an audience response system that is FERPA com-pliant

1 17%

Total comments 6




Comment # %

Skype for Business is great 1 10%

Unaware of collaborative technology offered 1 10%

Videoconferencing between campuses needs improvement 1 10%

Skype for Business needs improvement 2 20%

Prefers Zoom to Skype 1 10%


SharePoint is cumbersome 1 10%

Current collaborative technology is cumbersome 1 10%

Pounce is non-functional 1 10%

Total comments 10




Comment # %

Suggestion: Having adequate personnel and technology to support data requests

1 100%

Total comments 1




Comment # %

Additional tech-equipped classrooms are needed 3 33%

Every space should have access to technology 1 11%

Good 1 11%

Suggestion: Tablets 1 11%

It's difficult to schedule rooms 2 22%

Suggestion: Adopt Zoom 1 11%

Total comments 9








Comment # %

"Hit or miss" with technical support 1 20%

Customer service is great 2 40%

Customer service is slow 1 20%

University needs to prioritize classroom technology 1 20%

Total comments 5




Comment # %

Good/helpful 5 83%

Problems requiring Pullman support do not get solved 1 17%

Total comments 6




Comment # %

Spotty communication 1 33%

Website seems out-of-date 1 33%

It's difficult to know if IT emails are WSU IT or a scam 1 33%

Total comments 3




Comment # %

Would like clearer access to training schedules (i.e. yearlong calendar)

1 14%

Training is held at inopportune times 1 14%

One-on-one works well 1 14%

Training is done well 1 14%

Self-help tutorials would be helpful 2 29%

More workshops would be helpful 1 14%

Total comments 7





Blackboard and Instructional Technology

Question 15: Having an effective, intuitive, and reliable Learning Management System (Blackboard).

Comment # %

Blackboard is "horrible" 1 8%

Support is helpful 1 8%

Suggestion: A template for putting courses on Blackboard would be less confusing for students and faculty

1 8%

Blackboard's grading system needs improvement (inaccurate and not user friendly)

1 8%

Very important 1 8%

Satisfactory 1 8%

Blackboard is not quick or user-friendly 2 17%

Entrada might be a better substitute than Blackboard 1 8%

Students have difficulty with Blackboard 2 17%

Haven't used Blackboard 1 8%

Total comments 12



Question 16: Getting timely and helpful support for Blackboard.

Comment # %

Usually very good 1 33%

Needs to be a support person during lunch 1 33%

Entire campus needs to be on one single LMS 1 33%

Total comments 3



Question 14: Having information and access to new and useful instructional technologies or methods

Comment # %

Unsure of where to find/access information 2 33%

Would love to have information/access to new/useful technol-ogy

2 33%

Current hardware needs updating 1 17%

Suggestion: An audience response system that integrates with Blackboard

1 17%

Total comments 6



Research Resources

Question 18: Having Internet speed/capacity specifically in terms of research needs.

Comment # %

No feedback has been received.

Total comments 0



Question 19: Having data storage space used specifically for research data.

Comment # %

OneDrive has plenty of storage 1 25%

There are syncing issues with OneDrive 1 25%

Faculty would like SQL server instances on a central server 1 25%

Faculty keep data on multiple hard drives but not backed up to a server

1 25%

Total comments 4



Question 17: Having access to high speed computing for research.

Comment # %

Fears that there will be scheduling issues when ESFCOM begins using research technologies

1 100%

Total comments 1




Videoconferencing

Question 22: Availability of classrooms or meeting spaces with videoconferencing technology.

Comment # %

AMS Camera is low quality 1 11%

There are issues in AMS (delays, disconnects) 3 33%

Need more spaces across campus 2 22%

Skype for Business is not reliable 1 11%

Scheduling spaces can be challenging 2 22%

Total comments 9



Question 23: Getting timely and helpful support forvideoconferencing technology in classrooms or meeting spaces.

Comment # %

Good 1 13%

Very responsive 2 25%

Equipment is poor 1 13%

Not resolved in a timely manner 1 13%

Increasing staff would help 1 13%

New equipment would help 1 13%

Often meetings are delayed until support can arrive 1 13%

Total comments 8




Question 1: Having an Internet service that operates reliably.

Comment # %

When the internet goes down, it takes a while before it gets fixed

1 20%

Wireless is spotty in areas 1 20%

Local area networks seem to be faster than the Wi-Fi 1 20%

A larger server may help 1 20%

More routers or access points may help 1 20%

Total comments 5



Question 2: Having an Internet service that provides adequate capacity and speed.

Comment # %

Suggestion: Implement secure and private LAN's among campuses

1 25%

Suggestion: Make access to networks credential-based instead of location-based

1 25%


Not very reliable 1 25%

Total comments 4





Comment # %

Service is spotty in certain areas 2 22%

The 4th floor, North side of Nursing has very poor Wi-Fi 1 11%

The Ignite Building has poor Wi-Fi 1 11%

No comment 2 22%

Wi-Fi should cover the entirety of the Spokane campus 1 11%

Wi-Fi drops between buildings 1 11%

Noticeable improvements 1 11%

Total comments 9




Comment # %

Coverage is spotty/lacking in areas 4 22%

Boosters have not completely solved the problem 1 6%

Staff must leave their offices to use their phone 4 22%

Basement and lower floors in general have spotty to no coverage

3 17%

Ignite building has spotty service 1 6%

PBS building still has issues 1 6%

Noticeably improved 1 6%

No suggestions 1 6%

Suggestion: Larger antenna coverage 1 6%

First floor of Nursing building is particularly bad 1 6%

Total comments 18




Comment Analysis – Staff





Comment # %

WSUS site is hard to navigate/not user friendly 6 23%

The current web CMS is not customizable and has a poor layout

1 4%

There are too many WSU websites 1 4%

The system for scheduling/reserving rooms is inefficient 3 12%

The payroll system is outdated 3 12%

Suggestion: Implement a single ERP that has everything for finance, HR, procurement, reporting, document management, and more

1 4%

The travel reimbursement process should be streamlined and electronic

2 8%

Entrada is clunky and limited in functionality 1 4%

Suggestion: Put a search bar on every page of website 1 4%

Current consistency on website is helpful 1 4%

Lack of information on websites 2 8%

Blackboard is difficult to use (not efficient, hinders students) 1 4%

SharePoint has glitches 1 4%

Very important 1 4%

Website in general is out-dated and has broken links 1 4%

Total comments 26




Comment # %

Finding information on the WSU website can be challenging 1 25%

Would like to do more online tutorials, videos, etc. 1 25%

Online trainings should be updated 1 25%

No suggestion 1 25%

Total comments 4




Comment # %

Too many security sign-in levels on Intranet 1 6%

More training options need to be available 2 12%

Suggestion: Bring trainings to small group's regular meetings, and then schedule follow-up training sessions

1 6%

AMS is difficult for connecting students in a team environment 1 6%

Skype for Business is problematic (causes delays) 1 6%

Skype for Business works well, and needs to be in more confer-ence rooms

3 18%

While great internally, collaboration with external groups is difficult

2 12%

Very important 1 6%

Current collaboration services are not satisfactory 1 6%

Sharing between lab members needs improvement 1 6%

Staff miss Pexip 1 6%

Current services are satisfactory 1 6%

SharePoint is cumbersome, and difficult for creating workflows 1 6%

Total comments 17




Comment # %

More data available online would be helpful 2 25%

Current systems are outdated and not user friendly 1 13%

Financial systems need updates 2 25%

R25 room viewer is inefficient 1 13%

Entrada is clunky and not particularly helpful for providing insights

1 13%


Total comments 8




Technology and Collaboration Services (continued)


Comment # %

Additional tech-equipped classrooms and simulation rooms are needed

1 6%

ITS should communicate enhancements and updates to people 1 6%

Information about current systems needs better communica-tion

1 6%

Scheduling rooms with proper technology is difficult 3 19%

ITS should communicate room-changes to participants better 1 6%

Current technology is easy to use and it works 1 6%

Collaboration between sites is hindering classes 1 6%

Collaboration technology needs improvements 2 13%

More spaces are needed for small groups and active learning 3 19%

No suggestion 2 13%

Total comments 16






Comment # %

Good/satisfied 1 25%

Wi-Fi service unavailable in office 1 25%

Requests for help have not been answered 1 25%


Total comments 4




Comment # %

Good/satisfied 3 38%

Staff give conflicting answers sometimes 1 13%

Some staff are more knowledgeable than others 2 25%

Staff answering with "Call so-and-so" or "That person is un-available" is frustrating. All staff should be equally trained.

2 25%

Total comments 8




Comment # %

Some staff do not receive newsletters 1 14%

Communications about updates/enhancements can be improved

1 14%

Information is accessible and understandable 2 29%

AMS system is complicated to use or sign up for 1 14%

There are adequate trainings provided 1 14%

Communications during training is good/satisfactory 1 14%

Total comments 7




Comment # %

Training does not fit in staff schedules 1 6%

Resources are available, but respondent doesn’t access them 2 11%

Trainings about MyWSU and Nursing database would be helpful

1 6%

Trainings about Microsoft Office would be helpful 1 6%

Communication regarding training opportunitities can be improved

3 17%

Bringing training to work places would be helpful 1 6%

Lynda.com should be be accessible to staff 1 6%

Some documents on WSU website are not easily accessible 1 6%

Some WSU training is outdated and not engaging 1 6%

Training is good/satisfactory 2 11%

Unaware of training or access to training opportunities 4 22%

Total comments 18




Videoconferencing

Question 22: Availability of classrooms or meeting spaces with videoconferencing technology.

Comment # %

Conference rooms are up to date with technology 1 7%

There need to be more available conference rooms 3 21%

SAC147A and EWU auditiorium need video technology again 1 7%

Guidance/training on using conference rooms is important and needed

1 7%

Scheduling spaces is difficult 2 14%

SAC needs more meeting spaces 1 7%

No suggestions 1 7%

Support is not knowledgeable or timely about the issues 1 7%

Support is helpful, readily available, and does their best 2 14%

Uses Skype for videoconferencing 1 7%

Total comments 14



Question 23: Getting timely and helpful support forvideoconferencing technology in classrooms or meeting spaces.

Comment # %

Good and responsive service 1 6%

Technology fails often 2 13%

Not resolved or responded to in a timely manner 4 25%

Support's solutions were not adequate or helpful 3 19%

Automated room scheduling would be helpful 1 6%

Preventative support would be helpful (i.e. anticipating problems, checking rooms before usage, fixing issues ahead of time)

2 13%

There seems to be a disconnect between Pullman and Spokane ITS

1 6%

Technical Support's contact information needs to be easily accessible

1 6%

No suggestions 1 6%

Total comments 16




2017 techqual+ it survey report - s3.wp.wsu.edu · pdf file2017 techqual+ it survey report ......

Documents