Site map
| Quality 1 December 2004 |
Minutes of the meeting held on 1 December 2004 at Imperial CollegePresent: Nicky Kershaw (APU) (Chair); Kate Burke (UEL); Catriona Cannon (University of the Arts); Wendy Fish (Wellcome); Peter Godwin (London South Bank); Susan Howard (Imperial); Janet Percival (UCL); Sue Price (Courtauld Institute); Elaine Salter (Westminster) Apologies: Angus Brown (Kings College); Pete Ryan (Canterbury Christchurch) 1. Minutes of the meeting held on 30 September 2004Minute 5 Working Group Web Pages The web pages are maintained by John Gilby, rather than the M25 Administration Assistant. The Minutes were then agreed as a true and accurate record. 2. Matters arisingMinute 3 Mystery Shopping ES will re-circulate her report on Mystery Shopping for further comment, and it will then be put onto the website. 4a Survey Results These have been placed on the website, and ES agreed to write an introduction. It was agreed that the Group should identify the types of survey it wishes to run before deciding on the purchase of survey software. 4c User feedback methods KB circulated a paper on the UEL Student Survey carried out in February 2004. Workbank staff had been employed to conduct the survey: this worked well, as students were felt to respond better to being interviewed by their peers than by library staff. The survey was run for 6 weeks, and data input took a further 6 weeks. 3,829 students, or 31% of the total, were surveyed. The final questions, "What is the best thing?" and "What is the worst thing?" worked very well, enabling students to give their personal opinions. These opinions were used in fine-tuning the library service. Survey results were also valuable in successfully making the case for introducing 24/7 library opening, bookable pcs and self-issue. However, the interviewers found the work laborious, and the whole procedure was very time consuming. The cost of employing Workbank staff was modest, but if the library staff time involved in inputting and analysing data is costed, the total cost of the Survey is considerably higher. UEL does not intend to repeat the survey in 2005. PG reported that LSBU top up its LibQUAL+ survey with specific issues surveys. This year, UCL will be moving from a paper survey to a web-based survey, still using Libra. APU intends to continue with LibQUAL+ every 2 years. Imperial has decided to replace its scheduled survey with focus groups this year, as it has received strong feedback about survey fatigue. 4d User surveys training event
This was a very successful event, attracting 26 delegates. There were
mixed views as to the desirability of holding a half-day event; the
feedback forms may provide some clarification. The PowerPoints from the
event will be added to our website. 6 Links with other quality groups
SCONUL ACPI is happy to send a member to our meetings; NK will follow
this up. It will be useful to discuss with ACPI the boundaries between
the 2 groups, to avoid duplication of effort. 3. Discussion with John Gilby of the M25 Systems TeamJohn gave an overview of the work of the M25 Systems Team. It has amassed considerable Z39.50 expertise in its various projects, including its work on the InforM25 suite and the interoperability between Copac and InforM25. The Team runs the M25 server, which included the m25, cpd25 and inform25 domain names. John maintains the consortium web pages, excluding that of the Steering Group, which is maintained by the M25 Administration Assistant. The Working Groups all use the same template for their pages. Email addresses on the M25 website will be encoded in the near future, to prevent recognition by Spam robots. There will also be a complete revision of the website in 2005. There are no restrictions as to what we can put on our website, and we need to give some consideration as to how we wish to use it. 4. Action PlanThe Action Plan needs to be finalised and put onto the website. It was recognised that the Group had been ambitious in drawing up its plan, and that some topics need to be postponed to 2005/2006. a. Service Level Definitions AB and SVH are working on a paper. They have identified a wide range of methods of drawing up SLDs, and will collate and provide an overview. b. Book availability surveys
NK will email the M25 Consortium to find out which libraries conduct
book availability surveys. ES will then contact them, with the aim of
developing guidelines and a template. c. Focus groups
The Group felt that it would be useful to conduct a survey of current
practice, and organise a workshop involving an external expert. PG and
JP volunteered to conduct the survey. d. Perceptions of academic staff The Group agreed to postpone consideration of this topic until the next academic year. e. Benchmarking The Group agreed to consider this in 2005/2006, when the Wellcome may have made some progress with its benchmarking partners. The Group agreed to prioritise its Action Plan at the next meeting. It will also consider the inclusion of quality circles as a topic to investigate. 5. Links to other Quality GroupsThe
following links were suggested: SCONUL ACPI; LibQUAL; CILIP; CURL;
other UK regional groups; US sites. Any other suggestions should be
sent to NK. 6. Dates and venues of next meetingsThe following dates were agreed, with the venues being subject to confirmation: SH December 2004 |
