|
Yale University Library
Service Quality
Improvement Council
SQI Council
Minutes
Meeting of May 29, 2002
Present: M. Gentry, H. Grossetta-Nardini, C. Jones, D. Moon,
D. Nitecki, K. Parker, K. Reynolds, J. Rossman, A. Solomon (chair)
The first issue discussed was the "environmental snapshot"
Danuta was asked to quickly create for the strategic planning exercises.
Danuta asked the committee to brainstorm and think of additional data
sources she could incorporate into her report. The sources could record
measurements of internal expectations, or could be articles about the
general climate externally. Danuta will try to incorporate into her
report projections of changes in user expectations in the future due
to the current political, social and economic environment.
Some suggestions were made:
Danelle suggested an article in the American Archivist about user surveys.
Alan suggested looking at the Duke University strategic plan to get
a view of others' environments for comparison. He feels they have a
similar strategy to the YUL. Carol volunteered to provide comments about
Borrow Direct and the ILL survey. The group also discussed what users
seem to expect in reference assistance: more e-resources, remote access,
and immediate gratification.
Next the committee discussed two sections of the draft document "Shaping
Service Quality." Alan suggested that the group pick one or two
sections and work on achieving the goals during the upcoming FY. Carol
volunteered Document Delivery. The committee discussed the Document
Delivery section of "Shaping Service Quality." Points of discussion
included: Making clear in the first paragraph that not all services
are available library wide (i.e. intercampus delivery of articles);
to work more on having readers understand the larger idea of document
delivery and what it encompasses; to have a success factor for every
goal in each section; to clarify what level of standardization is needed
throughout campus; to remove percentages from success factors and incorporate
those into specific goals; that success factors will likely vary in
format from section to section because the areas are so different; to
use the phrase "eligible Yale researcher" instead of referring
to campus use only; the type of data that will need to be collected
is very different from ARL statistics - how will we capture it?
The group also discussed the Access to Collections section of the draft
document. The discussion of this section was more theoretical, as not
as many specific success factors have yet been developed compared to
the Document Delivery section. Points of discussion included: What does
"held" by the YUL really mean - physical, virtual, accessible;
What does OPAC mean (doesn't include everything, ex. - subject guides,
lists, other catalogs); take out complete in the success factor describing
the OPAC, as the sense of this word can be easily misconstrued; create
a separate bullet point for electronic resources (and then figure out
how to measure success); success of e-resources would be to have a single
place to determine what readers have access to, and that readers are
confident they will have an opportunity to access as much as possible;
e-resources may be to "messy" to ever hammer out specific
goals; we should be accurate and complete in the resources we can control
- OPAC and finding aids.
Submitted by Jae Rossman
©
2001 Yale University Library.
Last modified June 4, 2002.
Send comments about this web site to the library web administrator at
Library Administrative Services.
This file is located at http://www.library.yale.edu/Administration/SQIC
|
