1. Matariki Network of Universities Library Benchmarking Project

2. The Matariki opportunity Limited library benchmarking that allows reliable international comparisons. Matariki members are leading places of learning. Each focuses on a rounded education which is research-led. Matariki members encourage an inter-disciplinary approach and support a full subject base across the sciences, social sciences and humanities, and each has a mix of postgraduate and undergraduate students.

3. Benchmarking “Benchmarking is the process of identifying best practices and learning from others. It has been found that actual improvements following benchmarking arise from considering and looking at processes, tools and techniques rather than simply comparing and reviewing measurements of activity. Benchmarking activities extend networking, build collaborative relationships and mutual understanding between participants, enable better understanding of practice, process or performance and provides insights into how improvements might be made.” Jackson, Norman (2001) "Benchmarking in UK HE: an overview", Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 9 Iss: 4, pp.218 - 235

4. Library benchmarking project The partnership provides the platform for an international group of university libraries to collaborate on the development of a process of identifying best practices and learning from each other. This will initially include considering processes, programs and techniques that support a small part of what we do.

5. Project aim Collaborative comparisons of a selected number of services and activities representative of library service provision. To provide a shared response to the question: If we [the university library] enable and support the academic endeavour how do we measure our effectiveness?

6. Project areas The project considers benchmarking activities in three identifiable areas of support for our intuitions:  support for research,  support for learning and teaching,  the role of the library as a place within the student experience

7. Project scope The initial scope covers support for learning and teaching, specifically activities and practice for learning and teaching programmes that support the transition of first year students to University life. How new undergraduates transition into University in general is an area of interest with policy makers and university administration as they consider tertiary education retention rates and increased social inclusion.

8. Project timeframe A logistical challenge in the coordination of the project has been the differing academic year each partner follows. Timetabling for the project has been constructed to allow for vacation periods and periods when other priorities must take precedence.

9. Communication strategy  face to face meetings - to develop a shared understanding across the network  discussion documents - to develop a collaborative approach to the project  newsletter - to keep stakeholders informed on progress

10. Online collaborative workspace A secure service for sharing information across a range of formats.  discussion space  terms and definitions  shared resources and links  survey area

12. Selecting a cohort to report on Each partner is at a different stage of working with certain groups of students across the disciplinary range for which there is an identified need or institutional/funding body priority. Dartmouth: AllTübingen: Law, Education, Medicine Durham: ClassicsUppsala: Physiotherapy Otago: LocalsWestern Australia: Medicine Queens: Disability

13. Initial survey  A series of 9 questions passed to partners to review from 20 th December 2011 – 10 th February 2012  Questions confirmed on 20 th February 2012 and responses requested by 30 th March 2012  Most responses received by May 2012  Survey report released 5 th October 2012

14. Survey questions 1. Describe the cohort. - Include details on size, specific characteristics, and identified learning needs. 2. Explain how the library works with the cohort. - Briefly outline the history of this relationship -Include details of the other groups in the University who work with this cohort. -Highlight the way the library and these other groups work together.

15. Survey questions 3. Indicate the current status of the programme that is provided for the cohort. - Include details on the progress of the specific programme as it relates to the wider library teaching and learning programme. -Highlight any trends of interest, opportunities, and challenges in this area. 4. Outline the policy framework that supports the specific programme that is provided for the cohort. - Include details on the organisational structure, the library setting, the wider institutional priorities, and government influences. -Indicate how important these are in determining library activities and service

16. What have we learnt?  there is a diverse array of activities and practices that demonstrate a clear commitment to clients needs  there is a range of formal and informal assessment processes  sustainability is a common challenge across all libraries  two libraries report direct engagement with the University executive

17. What have we learnt? What do the Library liaison team at Otago do well?  starting to actively work with other student support groups  well positioned to provide clients with access to a range of learning support resources  is mindful of engaging in sustainable activities.

18. What have we learnt? What more could the Library liaison team at Otago do?  refine consultation service booking process  promote the benefits of students documenting their ‘approach’ to undertaking a literature search within the course assessment  develop an evaluation framework for liaison activity

19. What have we learnt?  it is important to provide time for each partner to contribute  taking time to develop a shared understanding has paid off  this could lead to developing a library quality assessment maturity model

20. Initial Repeatable Defined Quantitatively managed Continuous improvement Quality / Assessment Maturity Model 5 4 3 2 1 optimized measured confirmed documented ad hoc

21. Roadmap for measuring effectiveness?  a structure and processes that work  sharing in developing common set of assessment tools  discussion document 2, the next phase of the project

22. The Durham context ‘shaped by the past: creating the future’  3 rd oldest English University, founded 1832  a Collegiate University, 16 Colleges  16,000 students, high proportion of international students, 3000 postgrads  highly rated research University, a ‘top 10’ UK League Table, 80 th in world rankings  occupies world’s oldest University building (1087)

26. Benchmarking: the Durham Context  achieving benefits from MNU  an extension of UK intra-national benchmarking  positive focus on transition to First Year plus work being done on Library induction  University strategic imperative and Library contribution to recruitment, retention, progression and achievement

27. Benchmarking: the Durham Experience  active and innovative engagement with cohort of 90 1 st Year Classics students, team teaching scholarly skills programme  a tangible, transferrable, scalable model of induction and information skills  demonstrating benefits of transnational benchmarking  demonstrating the value of MNU membership

28. What worked well?  Otago University Library facilitation  guiding principles of the project  collaboration, communication, consultation  working collaboratively with academics  institutional recognition – Education Committee / Pro VC  assessment a key component of module

29. Challenges?  small scale of the Classics pilot limited by staff resources  getting senior Library colleagues interested  ‘selling’ the benefits of MNU involvement  terminology  scalability / sustainability  maturity models

30. Next Steps (for Durham!)  developing other projects and sharing ownership/management of these  face to face meeting critical to review, plan, disseminate & develop collaboration  further development of survey instrument  maintain academic rigour of research  development of a MNU survey instrument?  greater Durham engagement

31. questions ? Library benchmarking project