Service Quality Improvement Council

September 6, 2000

Agenda

1. Announcements, questions, future agenda items

2. Continue discussions on "meta-issues" relating to the services the library provides to patrons, and the role SQIC-II might have in carrying those issues forward

Minutes

Present: Suzanne Eggleston, Holly Grossetta Nardini, Rich Richie, Andy Shimp, Martha Smalley, Paul Stuehrenberg (chair), Joan Swanekamp

Absent: Katie Bauer, Sue Crockford-Peters, Emily Horning, Kenny Marone, Fred Martz, Danuta Nitecki

I. "Meta-issues" relating to SQIC's role in improving library services. Continuation of the previous meeting's discussion of meta-issues to be raised at SQIC's proposed forums commenced with a brief recap of issues already put forth. Committee members were asked to propose further recommendations. Suggested meta-issues included

• YUL's Web presence: Brainstorm ways to deliver services more efficiently using the Web.
  This issue was originally raised at the last SQIC meeting. Frustration was once again voiced over the general lack of direction on the creative use of the Web.

• Document Delivery: Update of work to date by the current Document Delivery Group.

• Accessibility
  Across the board discussion of this topic, including policies on accessible technologies and services for persons with disabilities and efforts to standardize non-Roman script accessibility on public workstations.

• Improved presentation of administrative roles: A clarification of where responsibility for services lies.
  Here again, the desirability of having a Web coordinator in place to better foster the service aspect of YUL's Web presence was mentioned. As part of this issue, it was recommended that a "chain of command" be established to ensure that tasks are handled by appropriate staff. As part of the broader issue of improving library communication, Paul Stuehrenberg suggested naming a contact person per unit/committee responsible for facilitating dialogue across structural divisions. It was noted that there is often confusion with regard to which library entity is working on which task because of the many, seemingly disparate ventures that are afoot without apparent coordination. Due to this perceived absence of coordination, it is often difficult to piece together how departmental/committee efforts relate to one another. Redundancy in committee initiatives (i.e., more than one committee working on the same or related projects without knowledge of parallel efforts), uneven communication between committees and staff (i.e., committee work that goes unshared), and low staff morale (resulting from a sense that individuals are not able to affect change) were noted as consequences of an over-decentralization of duties. Explanations posited for this relational structure included the "historical evolution" of library committees and units, and the many different points to which these committees and units report.

  Developing a better method for introducing new personnel to the library staff community was put forth as a possible communication improvement. Another suggestion was the production of a user-friendly, regularly updated, periodically announced electronic newsletter, providing administrative news in a more digestible format and in a more timely manner than minutes issued by library committees.

• Reader concerns: Locating library materials more easily.
  Joan Swanekamp suggested focusing on matters of primary concern to readers - that is, the problem of mis-shelved items, the general state of shelving (e.g., overcrowding, etc.), and cataloging practices. Such a forum would have the added benefit of involving technical services staff in public service efforts to make the collections more accessible to readers. It was proposed that the forum deal with a review of work practices adopted over the years by units that tend to mislead readers. The practice of labeling oversized materials with a "+" and not simply labeling such items "oversized" was put forth as an example of an arcane practice that confuses even staff not directly engaged in cataloging. It was suggested that discussion of this issue may also involve finding ways to better guide readers on how to navigate the library system more effectively; it was pointed out that some reader complaints have less to do with faulty staff practices than with neglect by readers of instruction on locating materials.

  Other public services issues that could be addressed at a forum on reader concerns include
  

  • Making the process of finding call numbers for items at the Sterling Memorial Library less intimidating

  • Improving signage in the stacks and on floors of SML

  • Rationalizing the classification scheme for all materials held by YUL. It was noted that the older books in the L&B Room do not follow the same classification scheme as other library materials.

  • Improving public services training and skills among C&T and professionals.

• Professional development: Take a systematic look at how the library supports the professional development of staff.
  It was mentioned that SCOPA had tried to get a mentoring program off the ground. Other suggested staff development initiatives included
  

  • grooming staff for managerial positions

  • providing skills to assist committees in better handling tasks within a short time frame (i.e., how to better organize meetings, write reports, etc.)

• Agility of organization: Investigate what is needed to resolve questions more quickly.
  Joan noted that reactions to situations or opportunities sometimes come too late. A way to better manage the way the library deals with problems or questions is needed.

Paul asked whether the proposed SQIC forums should take the form of brainstorming sessions, comparable to the current discussion, or focus on a particular topic. Joan suggested that the forums provide a structured presentation of issues to which staff can react. It was suggested that the biannual LMC forums be used as a model for the SQIC forums. Paul inquired whether the forums should target a particular audience. Possible models for round table discussions with targeted staff were shared (e.g., LMS, process improvement workshop developed for LMC's re-engineering initiative). The option of having an open forum and a separate discussion with targeted staff was put forth. Martha Smalley suggested that an online form be made available for staff to express their ideas.

Paul proposed holding an open forum, followed by an elect group to summarize and process the results of the open discussion. The desired outcomes of these talks are a blueprint for the future structure of SQIC (including the development of a more efficient reporting structure) and a list of priorities for the coming year.

Paul asked that further thoughts on this matter be sent to him via email.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m.