MONASH UNIVERSITY LIBRARY’S QUALITY SELF REVIEW: INVOLVING ALL STAFF
M. Pernat
Monash University Library, Monash University, Victoria, 3800
Plan
Act
QUALITY
Improve
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
Evaluate
TERMS OF REFERENCE/KEY CONCEPTS
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
CHEQ representative
CORE SERVICES
• 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
Resources
Physical
Infrastructure
Services
reference finalised, external panel members confirmed
Structure of the Review
Directors
Site-based
Functional
staff
groups
Working
Groups Individual
staff
Review Timeline 2003
Jan-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
STAFF REACTIONS AND CONCERNS
POSITIVE
• Regarded as an opportunity to bring about improvement
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
DISCUSSION
Written 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.
• 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
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
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