Drexel’s Service Quality Improvement Initiative Reaps Benefits for Users

John Wiggins, Director of Library Services and Quality, has been engaged with implementing service quality at Drexel University Libraries since 2012. This more systematic attention to quality improvement was initiated by the dean, Danuta Nitecki, and John has steadily built the effectiveness of these methods in the library environment.

His experience is a great example of how changing an organization’s culture takes time, engagement from all levels of staff, and although not always yielding the results we think we want, might yield more than we bargained for.

The Service Quality Initiative program was launched in January 2012 with a visit from Toni Olshen, business librarian at Peter F. Bronfman Business Library at York University’s Schulich School of Business. Olshen is an expert in service quality measurement and customer-centered activities. Through her formal presentation and informal coffee hours, Olshen introduced the concept of service gap analysis, where there is a potential gap between perceived and expected service.

Since the Service Quality Improvement launch, John has engaged staff in four formal SQ projects, looking at:

• Interlibrary loan
• Access to online databases provided by the libraries
• Self-service checkout
• Rush orders for reserves

The first service quality project looked at the interlibrary loan process – for all libraries an area of potential inefficiency and complexity, yet essential in providing research support for our students and faculty. A group of fifteen staff from throughout the Library looked for high impact, high return on investment changes.

In providing interlibrary loan service, gaps might exist between perceived and expected policies, process, external communications or services. For instance, if ILLiad status updates are not meaningful to patrons that is an external communication gap. These issues were examined to identify those that, if addressed, had the broadest impact and highest return on investment (or “bang for the buck”) were given priority.

As staff became more familiar with the process, the system that worked best for Drexel was codified. For instance, smaller teams, although those that included all experts in the process, worked better. A modified Lean approach is now in use, in which all steps in a process are carefully documented by the key participants. The process of ordering rush reserves, when fully described, involved 89 steps. These were itemized on a spreadsheet with the average time each step took (How we “think” the process works). In the final step, the process was actually conducted and timed. Not only are the staff able to identify ways to make this more efficient, but staff came to appreciate the complexity of what their colleagues were doing. By articulating and documenting the process, and by sharing with staff outside the process, new eyes several steps may be eliminated. Yeh Service Quality Improvement!

And kudos to John, who in his own efforts models continuous improvement in providing a better user experience – as he builds on his learning each time he undertakes a new service quality project!

Drexel’s Principles for Process Evaluation (based on Lean approach)

1. Goal is to reduce customer time and increase convenience
2. Secondary goal is to reduce costs to allow for reallocation of resources
3. Staff involved in process are on the team
4. Improvement team members contribute knowledge and ideas to team’s efforts
5. Team will examine all aspects/angles of the process for potential improvements
6. Improvements may range from and include tweaks of minor tasks through re-envisioning the process or the Library’s program to deliver the service

If you’d like to read more about the use of Lean in higher education and libraries:

Lean Methodology in Higher Education (MacQuarie University)