quality review: the desire to “read everything”
I had already written this post, in all it’s brilliance… but then my wordpress crashed momentarily when i went to publish it and i lost it. Argh. So my apologies for a less than brilliant post. ;-)
In the QuestionPoint Advisory Board meeting today, Caleb mentioned that he has a “quality team” that reviews sessions 4x yearly to pick out the best of the best. To make sure they don’t miss anything, he said they want to read everything- which is a huge job and a sentiment also reflected in Florida’s quality group.
Wanting to read everything is a common affliction.
Quality is a large part of my job here at AUN and when I first started, I had just come from the land of transcript analysis and couldn’t help but read all the sessions from the previous day. Trouble was, we were getting 150-200 sessions per day and after a while, as I got more and more responsibilities, it was harder to keep up with things. Then I went to ALA MidWinter in Seattle and realized that I couldn’t “catch up” with the sessions I had missed.
I’ve since tried a lot of different ways of doing quality- sampling, reports, surveys- but I have yet to find a way that makes me feel good about it. I really do just want to read them all! Quality (and consistency) is such a huge part of customer service (which is such a huge part of what I do) I can’t help it! In order to really do what I want with quality, this project really would need a 3rd person on staff. That isn’t a possibility.
Quality is usually the first thing to drop of the priorities list when other things come up. Joe reflected this when i first started- that he always wanted to do more with it but ended up not having the time. I hear this a lot. Perhaps my next line of work should be as “quality consultant” that way folks wouldn’t need *another* person on staff, would still get their quality review done, and i could just read transcripts all day, then write articles and things that would inform future training for vr professionals.
Yeah, that sounds good.
(more later on quality review in VR versus f2f… which isn’t done since there isn’t any record of a f2f transaction)