Fitness for purpose Monash University Library’s Quality Review Program

1. Cathrine Harboe-Ree Marie PernatUniversity Librarian Senior Policy and Planning LibrarianMarch 2004 Fitness for purpose Monash University Library’s Quality Review Program

2. What is quality?

3. Quality - as fitness for purpose Quality – multi-dimensional and contested nature: As excellence. As zero errors. As standards. “Fitness for purpose …means that the university must create its own quality agenda for its own unique situation…and agree purpose at all levels”. What are we trying to do? Why are we trying to do it? How are we trying to do it? Why are we doing it this way? How do we know it is working? How do we improve it? Centre for Higher Education Quality Quality at Monash: Values and principles http://www.adm.monash.edu.au/cheq/

4. Today’s session • Monash University’s quality program • The library’s ‘year of review’: 2003 • Self review and report • Panel visit and report • Follow-up actions and evaluation • Participation in reviews of other areas • What we have learnt

5. Monash University’s approach • Whole of university quality review • Centre for Higher Education Quality • Service Level Agreements with faculties, KPIs, reports, surveys • Core values and principles • Creating the agenda (fitness for purpose) • Quality as a professional responsibility • Developing as a learning organisation • Valuing diversity • An open and informed approach • A planned and systematic approach • Valuing self-reflection and external reference

6. Quality Cycle – the core of the process • A planned and systematic approach • Ensures continuing and evolving thought and activity Plan Improve Act Evaluate– monitor and review

7. Library: planning and participation • Project Sponsor and Project Manager • Quality Management Group – from November 2002 • Gaining support – importance to all staff, clear goals • 2003 time line February self review by library staff May self review report provided to panel July external panel visit September external panel report completed November report and action plan to DVC • Generic PPT, meetings, groups, template, emails • Web page – www.lib.monash.edu.au/quality/ • Effort and input – consistent and comprehensive

8. Self review report • Terms of reference Organisational structure, management, leadership, QA and improvement; Human resources; Core services – resources, services, physical infrastructure, IT; Professional and community activities • Honest and open appraisal of activities • Opportunities for improvement • Strengths and weaknesses • 11,800 words (on the web) plus 10 appendices

9. External panel • Membership • Chair – Dean • Professor – teaching and learning • Professor – research, Academic Board • Director, IT Services – • Monash • Go8 Librarians x 2 • 2+ days visit • Minimal site visits and presentations • Interviewed 23 people

10. External panel: report • Commendations – 6 • Largely confirmed library directions • Recommendations for action - 18 • Also suggested actions • 8,000 words, 3 appendices • Benchmarking and evidence a focus • Drafted initially by panel secretary with Chair • Available within two months of visit • Led to changes in priorities for future plans

11. … and then • Senior staff planning session • Strategic plan initiatives • Divisional plans and personal performance plans • Budget planning • Action plan – review activities in 6 months • Quality coordinator to monitor actions • Report progress to university after 6 months • Library membership on university committees • Ongoing and longer term

12. Some vital ‘statistics’ • Up to 300 staff involved across 6 campuses • 18 units gave input to self review on templates • 163 recommendations received from staff • Numerous emails to panel, staff, interviewees by University Librarian and Project Manager • 10 QMG meetings & briefings with CHEQ • 23 people interviewed during panel visit • 5 pages of Project Manager’s actions

13. Benefitting from self review • Areas for improvement confirmed • Commitment to ongoing improvement • Increased awareness of ‘quality’ – staff survey • Analysis of services undertaken • Planned and systematic approach • Greater staff involvement and ownership • External verification of current directions • Recognition of library good practice by university • Ready for AUQA

14. Key learnings for a successful review • Purpose and methodology defined at outset • Commitment at senior level • Communication paramount throughout the program • Ditto project planning and management • A serious effort is needed • Open, objective process applied • Need to prove claims • Incorporate panel findings in planning • Promote - Plan, Act, Evaluate, Improve Continuous cycle

15. And the “don’ts” • Expect to resolve serious malfunctions (personal or systemic) • Or, conversely, think that the review will be a piece of cake • Expose a panel secretary to internecine struggles • Or, let him or her loose without clear ground rules • Allow a self review to be created by staff • Involve external panel members in poorly planned or supported processes • Forget to involve senior university personnel