1 / 26

New Ways of Listening To Our Users: LibQUAL+ 2004 @ Queen’s

New Ways of Listening To Our Users: LibQUAL+ 2004 @ Queen’s. What Is LibQUAL+ ?. Web-based tool for assessing library service quality. A tool for identifying areas for service improvement Developed and refined over 5 years, 200,000+ respondents, 400+ institutions

nemo
Download Presentation

New Ways of Listening To Our Users: LibQUAL+ 2004 @ Queen’s

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. New Ways of Listening To Our Users: LibQUAL+ 2004 @ Queen’s

  2. What Is LibQUAL+ ? • Web-based tool for assessing library service quality. • A tool for identifying areas for service improvement • Developed and refined over 5 years, 200,000+ respondents, 400+ institutions • Based on ServQual. 15 years of research and application at Texas A&M, etc.

  3. How Does LibQUAL+ Measure Quality? Rating of services in context • Based on users’ and non-users’ perceptions and expectations • Gap analysis between perceived level of service, and minimum and desired service level • Comparison with other libraries, past years & developing norms

  4. Why LibQUAL+? • Quick, easy and inexpensive • Web based survey administered by Association of Research Libraries (ARL); data collected & analyzed by expert LibQUAL+ staff • Allows Library to see relationship to academic libraries across North America over time • Complement other local assessments • Starting point to identify best practices in providing library service

  5. LibQUAL+ 2004 Survey Specifics • 202 institutions from North America, Europe & Australia - including 57 ARL Libraries & consortia • 9 Canadian institutions: Alberta, Calgary, McGill, Montreal, Queen’s, UNB, Western, Windsor, York • 113,000 respondents

  6. LibQUAL+ Spring 2004 Survey • 22 service quality survey questions • 5 optional “local” questions • Demographic & usage questions • One open comments box

  7. Service Quality Dimensions Library Service Quality Affect of Service Library as Place Empathy Utilitarian Space Responsiveness Symbol Assurance Refuge Reliability Information Control Scope of collections Ease of Navigation Convenience Timeliness Modern Equipment

  8. When it comes to… My MinimumService Level Is low …… high My DesiredService Level Is low …… high Perceived ServicePerformance Is low …… high N/A 1 Employees who instill confidence in users 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 N/A 2 Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to find things on my own 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 N/A 3 Print and/or electronic journal collections I require for my work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 N/A Survey - Sample Section

  9. Service Adequacy Gap = Perceived Score – Minimum Score Rating user expectations Desired level of service or Value

  10. Queen’s 2004 Results The Results are a measure of perceived service quality in relation to user expectations for that service or library facility.

  11. Comparative results can tell us Where we need to focus our attention to improve services. A low score compared to other peer libraries, points to a potential area for improvement.

  12. Comparative results told us Users priorities and service expectations are strikingly consistent among the institutions participating in the 2004 survey. Queen’s top 5 & bottom 5 rated questions were identical to the average ARL top & bottom 5.

  13. Population for Queen’s Survey • Total initial sample: 5,450 • All full time-faculty: 850 • Random stratified sample of: • 3,000 full-time undergraduates • 1000 full-time graduates • 600 staff

  14. Survey Respondents Analyses based 773 completed valid user surveys – excludes library staff. The respondent population was largely representative of the overall population distribution.

  15. Respondent Comments • 361 respondents (45%) filled in the comments box • Provides context & detail for survey scores • Loaded into a database to facilitate analysis http://db.library.queensu.ca/libqual/ • Summary of general comments + Actions taken/planned http://library.queensu.ca/webir/libqual/results-2004.htm

  16. Frequency of Use At least once a week, respondents used: • Library premises: 56% • Library resources sites: 76% • Google or other non-library gateway: 90% 67% use Google, etc. daily! Undergrads use the library (63%) & its resources (67%) with similar frequency

  17. Overall 2004 Ratings Queen’s exceeded ARL average 1st among Canadian participants Strengths: • Library as Place • Service by library staff (Affect of Service) Most needed improvements: • Collections & access to information (Information Control)

  18. Library as Place Highly rated as: A comfortable and inviting location Higher use = Lower rating • Most important to undergrads

  19. Library as Place Concerns/Challenges: Lack of seating during exams, insufficient and old computer equipment, insufficient printers, expensive copying/printing charges, need for longer hours, and for more variety of study space (quiet spaces, discussion spaces, informal spaces, etc.)

  20. Affect of Service Highly rated for: Employees who deal with users in a caring fashion • More knowledgeable users rate customer service more highly (get more out of these services)

  21. Affect of Service Challenges to Libraries: • Promote the value of instructional services to the community • Reaching out to users who don’t/won’t come to training sessions or the reference desk

  22. Information Control • Faculty most dissatisfied; low negative rating • Undergraduates are most satisfied; positive rating almost matches overall ARL rating. • Humanities/Social Sciences users generate low service rating across all user groups.

  23. Information Control System-wide Challenges: • Market existing services and collections more effectively • Easier access to library resources from the desktop; maximize existing resources • Improve electronic & print collections: boost weak collections/reinforce strong ones

  24. LibQUAL+ Consultation Timeline • To Date: • Report and consultation plan discussed at Management Team and AUL Forum • Report and plan distributed to all staff • All-Staff information sessions, Oct. 4 & 7 /04 • Units and functional teams, Oct. 12-Nov. 5 /04 Meetings of individual units and functional teams identify the issues in their areas of responsibilities and recommend appropriate actions. • AUL Forum, Nov. 8 /04 Review responses, fill in gaps & adjust overlaps and contradictory directions

  25. LibQUAL+ Consultation Timeline • Management Team, January – March /05 Reviewed the compilation of issues and objectives in developing the 2005/06 Budget Report. Compiled and approved action items prepared by the functional teams and units. Roll Out to Public • Two articles for The Gazette & The Journal • 1stSummary of Results [Oct. 2004] • 2ndSurvey Results piece incorporating actions planned & taken to improve services[April 2005] • Survey resultspublished on the Library’s LibQUAL+ web site: http://library.queensu.ca/webir/libqual.htm

  26. Queen’s LibQUAL+ Web Site http://library.queensu.ca/webir/libqual.htm

More Related