The ninth annual JISC Regional Support Centre (RSC) customer satisfaction survey was run between 27^th April and 15^th May 2009. Some 2,879 contacts at ~1,000 RSC supported organisations were invited to take part and express their views regarding the RSC service. The data collected by the survey are used by the RSCs to contribute towards their self-evaluation and forward planning processes, and additionally for 2009, to inform both a full review of the RSC service and the planning process for a fourth round of funding (2010-2013).

Once again respondents have demonstrated their satisfaction with the RSC service. Particularly encouraging are: the positive impact of the RSCs on organisations (mean 1.95[1]), the reported appropriateness of the service (mean 1.81), and the high levels of satisfaction with the support provided (mean 1.55). That the RSCs are an appropriate and effective service is further demonstrated by the occasional nature of their use: they are embedding skills and knowledge into the community, avoiding the problem of organisations becoming over-reliant on their support day-to-day, enabling a focus on more strategic advice and development. Furthermore, it is notable that respondents reported an increase in the use of other JISC services as a result of using the RSCs.

Importantly, this high level of satisfaction is maintained regardless of the level of experience of the respondent or the degree of use they make of the RSC. Within the survey, significant differences between RSCs were minimal and respondent type differences, whilst more numerous, followed expected patterns. This provides clear evidence that the RSCs offer a universally high standard of service, matching the diverse needs of different regions, organisations and job roles.

Good communication is essential to the success of any support service and the RSCs are highly rated in this regard: awareness of the services offered was high (most were known by >50% of respondents), and all of the communication methods utilised by the RSCs were judged to be sufficient (mean 2.02). Face-to-face communication and more 'traditional' methods (e.g. email, newsletters) are preferred but the diversity of communication channels, including less widely favoured new technology (e.g. online presentations, podcasts), appears to be a strength.

Since its establishment in 2000, the RSC service has evolved to meet the changing needs of the growing set of organisations it supports. Despite the uniformly high quality of the service, it is nevertheless possible to observe the effects of some of these evolutionary changes in the survey responses, particularly with regard to differences between respondent types. Most notable are the lower ratings and reported use by Technical Managers, who have not been the focus of RSC support since Round 1 (2000-2003), and the higher ratings/use by Staff Development Managers who are focus of Round 3 (2007-2010).

Aside from these obvious, expected differences, it is interesting to note that Adult and Community Learning, Specialist Colleges and Work Based Learning providers, as additions to the core set of supported Further Educations organisations, appear to be making good use of the service and are particularly satisfied with it. Also, the specific areas of support used tend to suggest these sectors are somewhat 'needier' with regard to management services (e.g. business processes, organisational improvement, strategy) than other sectors. Conversely, the more established but non-core Higher Education and Sixth Form sectors tend to make less use and give lower ratings in certain areas, suggesting they are not such a good 'fit' with the service as Further Education Colleges.

Looking forward, towards Round 4 (2010-2013), respondents indicated support for 'Learning, teaching and assessment' should remain the core activity of the RSCs (mean 1.58); demand for senior management oriented support was much more muted, particularly for 'Business management' (mean 2.31). This might suggest the focus of Round 3 has not been entirely successful: however, it is important to note the small proportion of senior managers in the survey sample, and that a small sub-group of respondents dominated by management roles did give a series of correlated, strongly positive responses (see discussion of Q8f, above).

The number of respondents to the survey declined slightly this year to 891 or 31% of those invited (down from 34% in 2008), as has been the case for several years. The response across different sectors and RSCs was fairly consistent: however, it is worth noting, when interpreting the survey results, that the sample was dominated by Learning Resource and Staff Development Managers, particularly those from Further Education Colleges.

Respondents were asked a pre-survey question this year to determine their length of service in their current post. The intention was to examine whether this had any impact on the use they made of the RSCs or their views of the service. Analysis of this data against the other questions in the survey yielded no significant correlations, indicating the RSC service is used and viewed equally by respondents regardless of their 'time in post'.

Tables 1 and 2, below, give a summary of the mean response to questions 1 to 10, broken down by RSC and respondent type, respectively. Scoring generally runs from 1 or 100% = highest, to 4/5 or 0% = lowest; RSC or respondent type means that are statistically significantly above (•) or below (•) the average for that question are highlighted; the data for questions 6 to 10 represents a mean of all sub-questions. These tables illustrate the high degree of satisfaction with the RSCs and the limited degree of differences between RSCs and respondent types; they should be used as a reference for the rest of this section of the report.

Table 1: Mean response to Q1 to Q10 by RSC ('c' = 'currently offers', 's' = 'should offer'); 1 or 100% = high, 4/5 or 0% = low) highlighted responses are significantly above(•) or below (•) average

Table 2: Mean response to Q1 to Q10 by respondent type ('c' = 'currently offers', 's' = 'should offer'); 1 or 100% = high, 4/5 or 0% = low) highlighted responses are significantly above(•) or below (•) average

The first section of the survey concerned how frequently respondents engaged directly with their RSC (Q1) and referred to RSC supplied information (Q2). In both cases this was approximately 'occasionally' but referral to materials was significantly more frequent than direct engagement (mean 1.74 vs. 1.87). This degree of contact suggests the RSCs are an appropriately specified and effective support service: 'rare' contact may indicate a service is unsuitable whilst 'frequent' contact could indicate ineffectiveness. That RSC support materials are referred to more frequently than direct contact is made suggests those materials are themselves appropriate and effective.

Part of the reasoning behind questioning contact frequency was to investigate whether 'heavy' and 'light' users had different opinions of the RSC service. Comparing contact frequency and overall RSC impact (Q3) demonstrated strong positive correlations for both engagement and referral, with engagement also being strongly correlated with the appropriateness of RSC support (Q5). More notable, however, is the lack of strong correlations with any of the more detailed questions about service awareness (Q6), use (Q7), satisfaction (Q8) and communication sufficiency (Q10), indicating all users are equally well served and, importantly, 'light' usage is probably not a result of any service deficiency.

Frequency of contact varied little between RSCs, with no significant differences of note; however differences between respondent types were more numerous. Key engagers were, unsurprisingly, Information Learning Technologists/Staff development mangers (SDM, mean 1.70) and, more interestingly Specialist College staff (SPC, mean 1.55). Other types were average engagers, except for Sixth Form College staff (SFC, mean 2.07) and Network/Technical Managers (TM, mean 2.04) who engage less frequently. Notably, the latter are also the only ones to refer to RSC information less frequently than average (mean 2.04).

The next section of the survey asked questions to gauge respondents' overall views towards the RSC service (Q3-5), prior to investigating those views in more detail in the rest of the survey. The overall impact of the RSCs on organisations was reported as being 'positive' (mean 1.95), with organisational use of other JISC services increasing 'a little' as a result of RSC interaction (mean 2.26), and respondents 'tended to agree' that RSC support was appropriate to their role (mean 1.81). It would appear, therefore, that the RSCs are operating successfully in their role as a support provider.

Importantly, no significant differences were found in reported impact between RSCs, and differences between respondent types were also limited: HEI staff, HE in FE co-ordinators and Technical Managers all reported significantly lower impact than average, although this is not unexpected given the evolution of the RSC remit.

As with questions 1 and 2, part of the reason for questioning overall impact was to examine any links with more detailed customer satisfaction questions in the survey. Aside from two exceptions, discussed below, there were no strong correlations between questions 3 to 5 and any of the later questions, although there were a large number of more moderate ones (0.3 < r <0.5). This suggests that overall regard in which the RSCs are held is not necessarily related to specific interactions but the service as a whole.

In addition to the correlations mentioned above, including those with contact frequency, it is also notable that respondents who consider RSC support to be most appropriate, also indicate it has had the greatest positive impact (r = 0.63). This is understandable and highlights the importance of tailoring the RSC service carefully to the individual roles supported.

Eleven different areas of support provided by the RSCs (see Table 3) were questioned in greater detail by the survey, covering awareness (Q6), use (Q7) and satisfaction (Q8).

Table 3: Mean response to Q6 to Q8 by sub-question

Awareness of most of the areas of support was high (>50%), with the less well known services being those targeted more towards senior managers (SM), who only represented a small part of the sample. Where a service was thought not to be offered, it was generally desired, again with the exception of senior management oriented services (a, b, f & h). Any overall lack of interest in or awareness of the more specialist services (i.e. senior and network management) is not of great concern as they are all well known amongst their target audience.

There were no significant differences of note in awareness between RSCs, and those between respondent types, whilst more numerous, were to expected patterns (e.g. Technical Managers were most aware of network management support). It would, therefore, appear that communication of services available to relevant role holders is effective, and core services are well communicated regardless of relevance (e.g. learning technology support).

Due to the role specificity, use of RSC support was 'only a little' overall (mean 3.04) but core services, such as learning technology and resources support (e & i), approached 'a fair amount' of use. Many of the other support areas are primarily focused towards one or two respondent types, and in those cases use by the respondent types in question is typically higher than the average (e.g. Strategy support use by Senior Managers). Overall, as with contact frequency, this degree of use suggests the service is appropriate and effective.

Significant usage differences between RSCs were few and of little note, and those between respondent types were to expected patterns. Nevertheless, it was notable that Staff Development Managers and ACL staff made above average use of more services (4 and 3 respectively) than other respondent types, whilst Technical Managers, Learning Resources Managers and SFC staff made below average use of many services (8, 5 and 5 respectively). These differences are probably a result of the Round 3 senior management focused remit. Notably, Senior Managers do not appear to make above average use of the RSCs; however, this is probably due to their low representation in the survey sample.

Satisfaction with RSC support was high overall, being half-way between 'very satisfied' and 'satisfied' (mean 1.55), with no significant differences between the types of support questioned, and almost none between RSCs or respondent types. This question was rest