MONASH UNIVERSITY LIBRARY’S QUALITY SELF REVIEW: INVOLVING ALL STAFF M. Pernat

Monash University Library, Monash University, Victoria, 3800

QUALITY AT MONASH UNIVERSITY• Quality cycle – plan, act, monitor and review, improve

• Staff to question what they are doing, why, how, why

that way, and to demonstrate that processes are working

• Staff to consider how to improve processes & how to maximise

personal effectiveness through learning and development

• Fitness for purpose at all operational levels

• Individuals and units have own responsibility for QA

• Stakeholder feedback sought, both internal and external

MONASH UNIVERSITY LIBRARY• 8 libraries at 6 sites in Victoria (also South Africa & Malaysia)

• 260 library staff support students and staff in 10 faculties

• Quality Management Group established – directors plus

CHEQ representative

• Project Manager (from within the library) designated to

coordinate the self review and to provide executive

support for the external panel’s visit and report

• Project brief, actions and website prepared, terms of

reference finalised, external panel members confirmed

TERMS OF REFERENCE/KEY CONCEPTS

PlanPlan

ImproveImprove

EvaluateEvaluate

ActAct

Structure of the ReviewDirectors

Review Timeline 2003Jan-Feb Conduct staff information sessions

March Prepare report

May Report sent to external panel

July External panel visit

Sept Panel report

Nov Implementation plan complete

ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE, MANAGEMENT, QUALITY ASSURANCE AND IMPROVEMENT

• Leadership, standing and reputation of the library• Extent of alignment of objectives with university directions and plans• Staff opportunities to contribute to planning and review• Indicators in place to measure progress of objectives• Financial management, compliance, risk assessment

HUMAN RESOURCES• Recruitment and selection of staff; skills profile• Induction and mentoring; staff development• Opportunities for creativity; innovative practices• Opportunities to provide feedback, influence change

CORE SERVICES

PROFESSIONAL AND COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES• Assistance to groups other than key stakeholders• Participation in professional associations• Contribution to local community activities• Public awareness of the library’s contribution and status

Site-based staff

Working Groups

Functional groups

Individual staff

REFERENCES• Centre for Higher Education Quality-various materials on quality at Monash www.monash.edu.au/cheq• Library quality webpage www.lib.monash.edu.au/about

STAFF REACTIONS AND CONCERNS

POSITIVE

• Regarded as an opportunity to bring about improvement

• Seen as a means to increase knowledge of the library

• A new approach to plan, review and adjust

• Willing to work with new library management team

• Keen to see full report with recommendations

• Willing to commit to improving services to customers

• An opportunity to assess strengths and weaknesses

• Input provided was focused and relevant

NEGATIVE

• Some issues identified previously remain unresolved

• Skepticism as to whether the final report would include all

issues raised

• Too busy to fully participate

• Concerned about extra workload – during the review, and

as a result of the self review report’s recommendations

DISCUSSIONWritten reports from staff groups provided a number of recommendations for further action. These were mainly framed in the context of the quality cycle and identified matters that had not previously been raised. Some staff concerned themselves with task-based, workplace issues that required resolution directly with supervisors.

Staff recognised the value in reflecting on “fitness for purpose” and were willing to analyse systems already in place, and to identify where they were lacking. The current approach was preferred to previous attempts at QA which focused on step by step analysis of tasks.

RECOMMENDED APPROACH• Appoint a project manager for the duration of review process• Appoint a small group of senior staff to drive the self review• For a consistent approach, develop a PowerPoint show• Ensure all staff are invited by supervisors to contribute• Set up flexible means of input e.g. small groups (10-12 persons), or the relevant manager prepares a draft and requests staff to comment• Assure staff that the self review is not an exercise to identify personal weaknesses but a genuine effort to change practices through a continuous improvement cycle• Emphasise problem identification now, solutions later

QUALITYQUALITY

Resources Physical Infrastructure

Services