MONASH UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

1
MONASH UNIVERSITY LIBRARYS QUALITY SELF REVIEW
INVOLVING ALL STAFF M. PernatMonash University
Library, Monash University, Victoria, 3800
Plan
Act
QUALITY
Improve
Evaluate

• TERMS OF REFERENCE/KEY CONCEPTS

• 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 panels visit and
  report
• Project brief, actions and website prepared,
  terms of
• reference finalised, external panel members
  confirmed

• 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

Resources
Physical Infrastructure
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 librarys contribution
  and status

Structure of the Review Directors
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
Site-based staff
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.
Functional groups
Working Groups
Individual staff

• 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

• 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/ab
  out