Service Quality
Improvement Council
Minutes
November 18, 1998
Present: Betty Cohen, Ellen Cordes, Sue Crockford-Peters, Suzanne Eggleston,
Jan Glover, Emily Horning, Kenny Marone, Danuta Nitecki, Sandy Peterson,
Rich Richie, Tom Schneiter, Andy Shimp, Joan Swanekamp, Paul Stuehrenberg
(chair)
I. No new announcements
II. Minutes
It was decided that minutes will be posted to yulib after Council members
have had a chance to make corrections to the draft minutes - i.e., two to
three days after the draft minutes have been sent for review.
III. Future Agenda Item
Circulation Group - progress report and recommendations
IV. Meaning of assessment at Yale University Library
Danuta discussed the possible benefits of examining the culture of assessment
at YUL as a means to improve the quality of reader services. The recent talks
given by Amos Lakos and Peter Hernon were aimed at increasing awareness in
such an orientation and in the important role of acquiring data and feedback
from the library community. Given generally low experience with assessment
strategies among library staff, it was decided that the Council should wait
to appoint a separate Assessment Committee until the other committees have
had an opportunity to get started with their work.
In the meantime, Danuta will share a proposal developed in conjunction with
Peter Hernon; although it has a research component to evaluate an assessment
methodology, it also offers a practical means for YUL to identify factors
most relevant to measure service quality. The project will involve three
steps. First the SQI Council members will be asked to rank the importance
of statements [from a list generated by Hernon and his colleagues from prior
research] to determine which are most relevant to describe expectations for
excellent services at YUL. Once the list has been refined, it will be presented
to user groups (faculty and students) and library groups (e.g. Library Management
Council, Library Management Team) for further refinement. These statements
will then be incorporated into the questionnaire framework developed by the
SERVQUAL instrument for use in a reader survey on service quality. Initial
steps in identifying quality measures will be taken in December of this year;
by spring, the instrument should be ready for use; by the end of the spring
semester, the data collection/analysis process should be underway.
The point was raised that the SERVQUAL has been criticized for not safeguarding
against inconclusive results. Danuta noted part of the methodology research
she and Hernon are investigating is to see if modifying the instrument will
remedy this problem. Added areas such as electronic services will be incorporated
into the 130 statements to be ranked at the next meeting.
The goals of this project include
a) improving the instrument
b) gauging staff perceptions of service quality
c) gauging patron perceptions of service quality
d) tracking improvement of service quality over time
V. Agenda, 12/2
1) First refinement of the Servqual instrument for the library's needs
2) Review Sandy's draft charge for the Staffing Group
