Institution Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Have you/are If so, was With which Were these On which What was the Were there any Any general you engaged this part of other institutions factors did overall specific advice on the in any formal a larger libraries did actively you purpose of concrete process for benchmarking institutional you compare involved in benchmark? the exercise? outcomes of others who exercises exercise? yourself? the process? the exercise may be about within your for you e.g. to embark on Library? additional such an resources? exercise? Australian No n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Catholic University Australian No n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Defence Force Academy Australian No. Plan to N/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a National take the University first step later in the year. Bond No n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a University Central No n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Queensland University Charles Sturt No - but University interested. A benchmarking study may be carried out by university libraries in NSW under the aegis of Unison. Curtin No. Attended N/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a University of a AQC 5 day Technology course on formal benchmarking. We are a long way off, but need to know the methodology. Deakin University Edith Cowan No n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a University Flinders University of South Australia Griffith No n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a University James Cook No n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a University of North Qld La Trobe No n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a University Macquarie No n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a University Monash No, but plan N/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a University to. Murdoch University Northern Benchmarking No. Visits In all 4 of the 6 To improve In so far as Plenty! In Territory is an undertaken: instances library the overall staff order to University integral Best Practice letters were branches quality of commitment benchmark component of Coordinator - exchanged identified a library could be effectively, the Library's Swinburne, prior to the process for service identified as library staff best practice RMIT, VU, VUT, visits benchmarking: To identify a concrete need to in research CSIRO outlining the acquisitions more outcome, then understand information Arts Librarian purpose of - monograph effective and yes we have what projects. - the visit, ordering efficient achieved a benchmarking Currently QUT, QGU issues to be process means of great deal. is, how it identifying Lending discussed and lending - delivering a Has also works and why processes for Services in some shelving, quality enhanced the it is a benchmarking Manager - instances an loans desk service profile of the useful tool and have NMQU, actual list service As a method University for improving engaged in UTS-Kuringai of questions Reference - of attracting Library both service. networking Information was forwarded reference clients, within and There needs visits with Technology as well. effectiveness, funding outside the to be other Manager - UWS CSIRO information resources. University organisational university Chief Information technology community. commitment libraries to Librarian and Access to improving gauge their Manager Manager spent services and suitability. Purchasing and a week at NTU the Processing - exchanging recognition all NZ information that university and ideas. benchmarking libraries performance after ALIA NZ against other 1994. "best in Visits class" currently organisations planned to US is an excellent method of improving your own performance. Staff need formal training in benchmarking. Sound preparation to ensure benchmarking visits remain focussed. Northern (continued) Commitment to Territory continuing to University seek ways to improve services Focus groups are an excellent means of involving clients in identifying processes for benchmarking process. Immense value in benchmarking outside your own industry. Queensland Yes. Yes. University of We expect 1. Technical Improve our Still in Not yet - University of New South them to be. Services services and planning too early. Technology Wales through-put. provide stage. University of 2. Research comparisons University has Technology, Support of resourcing provided some Sydney activities. levels funds ($20,000) for the benchmarking process. Royal Planning for RMIT is Nominated QUT, Have not A. Loans, See answer to n/a Since we are Melbourne this exercise seeking ISO Griffith contacted Information question 2. at the Institute of is in its 9000 University, these Services, beginning on Technology initial accreditation Northern institutions Copying this issue of stages. in 1998. The Territory as planning Services, developing Library is, University, on quality Information formal therefore, British processes has Skills quality being Library not been Education, processes, we encouraged to Document finalised. Reserve, would welcome develop Supply Centre Audiovisual the results systematic and Services - of the quality SilverPlatter. QUT and survey. processes, Griffith including, of Universities course, for the HE benchmarking. Sector and the Northern Territory University for TAFE. B. Interlibrary loans and document supply - British Library Document Supply Centre C. INFORMIT Electronic Publishing - SilverPlatter. Southern No. n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Cross University Swinburne Use AARL Yes. As part Wollongong and No Expenditure To get an While it is Swinburne University of statistics as of the QUT in on various understanding not possible would Technology appropriate objective relation of functions, on where to point to appreciate to argue and setting for resource staffing Swinburne benchmarking advice and discuss 1994, we were allocations,. levels and stands in itself discussion. issues in the required to Griffith in outputs, relation to resulting in Not yet far University. set relation to approaches to resource and positive along the benchmarks CWIS on WWW, processes, eg service outcome, it is track for projects Tea Tree Gully integration provision, to an important we were College of of Library determine part of the undertaking TAFE re staff in the areas where case that is integration of development improvement argued and Library staff process can be made that adds to in course and to argue the outcome. development a case for Data is being teams. funding. prepared on resource acquisition and benchmarking will be looked at as part of this process. University of Adelaide University of No n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Ballarat University of No n/a/ n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Canberra University of Melbourne University of New England University of New South Wales University of No n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Newcastle University of No formal n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Queensland benchmarking yet undertaken. Informal benchmarking against similar libraries occurs: - Budget distribution - Staffing distribution - Technology applications - Organisational structure. Conspectus analysis is a preliminary to benchmarking the collection. University of South Australia University of Yes No Griffith Not sure Cataloguing To deliver The - Discuss Southern University output new productivity fully with Queensland Library acquisitions has increased all staff to clients in very members the shortest significantly involved possible time since the - Seek their cataloguing ideas and staff agreed suggestions to to improve benchmarking procedures continuously - Create harmonious supportive working climate - Provide relevant staff training - Provide the best possible equipment - Negotiate with staff members, do not push too hard at the beginning - Be patient - Make sure staff are given proper recognition for their achievement - Celebrate University of Sydney University of Tasmania University of Not yet. N/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Technology, Investigations Sydney only. Planning to cooperate with QUT and UNSW in a benchmarking exercise, with QUT leading. University of No n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Western Sydney University of Wollongong Victoria Benchmarking N/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a University of has been Technology incorporated into a Total Quality Service Program e.g. Quality Action Teams are using best practice in other libraries and other organisations as an aid to improvement, in some cases. No formal benchmarking program.
Updated 28 August 1995
Return to CAUL Home Page