Transcript Getting our priorities in order: are our service values in

Service priority alignment in
Association of Research Libraries
(ARL) member libraries
Damon Jaggars & Shanna Smith
University of Texas at Austin
Jocelyn Duffy
Portland State University
7th Northumbria International Conference on Performance Measurement in
Libraries and Information Services
Stellenbosch, South Africa
August 14, 2007
LibQUAL+ instrument
- 22 items (1-9 Likert scale)
- Minimum, Perceived, Desired
- Dimensions of Service Quality: Affect of Service (AS),
Information Control (IC), Library as Place (LP)
Information Control
Undergraduate
Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to find things on my own
3
Making information easily accessible for independent use
6
Making electronic resources accessible from my home or office
1
A library website enabling me to locate information on my own
7.5
Modern equipment that lets me easily access the information I need
2
** Print and/or electronic journal collections I require for my work
12.5
** The printed library materials I need for my work
16
* The electronic information resources I need
12.5
Desired Mean Ranking 2005
Graduate
Faculty
5
5
6
6
3
2
4
4
7
10
1.5
1
10
8.5
1.5
3
Staff
8
13
22
6
15
10.5
14
12
Affect of Service
Readiness to respond to users' questions
Employees who understand the needs of their users
Employees who deal with users in a caring fashion
Employees who instill confidence in users
Employees who have the knowledge to answer user questions
Willingness to help users
Giving users individual attention
Dependability in handling users' service problems
Employees who are consistently courteous
15
19
18
21
10
17
22
4.5
14
12
14
17
20
9
11
22
8
13
13
11.5
15
16
8.5
14
17
11.5
7
5
7
10.5
9
3
2
17
4
1
4.5
11
7.5
9
18
15
19
18
16
21
19
20
21
18
22
18
19
16
20
21
Library as Place
** A getaway for study, learning, or research
** Library space that inspires study and learning
** Quiet space for individual activities
A comfortable and inviting location
* Community space for group learning and group study
Calculating Priority Index
•
Define service priorities for individual respondents by re-scaling desired
scores
•
Illustration:
– Betty, a member of the library staff
– Very high expectations; average desired score across all 22 items
is 8.8.
– Some items more important than others to her
• Desired score for “comfortable and inviting location” is 7
• Desired score for “employees who deal with users in a caring
fashion” is 9
– Re-scale Betty’s scores around her individual mean of 8.8 to
calculate priority scores
– New scores: -1.8 for inviting location (below-average); +0.2 for
caring for users (above-average)
Results for UT Austin Analysis
• Library staff set a lower service priority than users on several IC
items
• Library staff set a higher service priority than users on several
AS items
• Library staff prioritize higher than faculty, lower than
undergraduates, and similarly to graduate students on LP items
• Are our local results generalizable across the larger library
community, specifically the ARL cohort?
ARL Cohort Study Sample
• ARL cohort for 2006 LibQUAL+ survey administration
• 45 ARL libraries
• 28,851 useable surveys submitted:
– 10,856 from undergraduates
– 11,157 from graduate students
– 6,214 from faculty
– 624 from library staff
Average Faculty & Library Staff Priority
Scores for 7 Selected ARL Libraries
Making electronic resources
accessible from my home or
office (IC1)
Information Control: ARL Cohort
E-resources from home/office
Website/information on own
Printed materials
E-resources I need
Modern equipment
Easy-to-use access tools
Making information accessible
Print or e-journals
Affect of Service: ARL Cohort
Instill confidence
Individual attention
Courteous
Ready response
Knowledge
Caring
Understand needs
Willing to help
Dependable
Library as Place: ARL Cohort
Inspire study & learning
Quiet space/individual
Comforting/inviting
A getaway
Group learning/study
Results from ARL Cohort Study
• Misalignments in service priorities found in the local
analysis confirmed and expanded in the ARL cohort
analysis
• Library staff set a lower service priority for most IC items
• Library staff set a higher service priority for all AS items
(except AS #9 – Dependability of service)
• Library staff prioritize higher than faculty, lower than
undergraduates, and similarly to graduate students on LP
items
Conclusions
• ARL Cohort library staff, in general, have not yet
internalized the extent to which many users prioritize
unmediated access to easy-to-use, quality content and
services and de-emphasize traditional mediated service.
• Disparate, and sometimes conflicting, service priorities of
our core user groups, especially faculty and
undergraduates is a complicating factor.
• A challenge for library leadership to work with staff to
better align organizational service priorities with evolving
user needs and demonstrated behaviors.
Possible Limitations
• Assumption: Users’ desired scores on the LibQUAL+
survey can be used to indicate the relative importance of a
survey item
• Relatively small sample size of library staff
• Point of view staff take when responding to the survey
Future Research
• Are the service priorities of staff and users diverging over
time?
• Is it useful to compare the service priorities of an individual
library’s staff against the cohort (or a chosen cohort)?
Local - ARL Cohort Comparison
Item
UT Austin
ARL Cohort
AS-1 Employees who instill confidence in users
F+G+U+
F+G+U+
AS-2 Giving users individual attention
G+U+
F+G+U+
AS-3 Employees who are consistently courteous
U+
F+G+U+
AS-4 Readiness to respond to users' questions
F+G+U+
AS-5 Employees who have the knowledge to answer user questions
F+G+U+
AS-6 Employees who deal with users in a caring fashion
F+G+U+
AS-7 Employees who understand the needs of their users
F+G+U+
AS-8 Willingness to help users
F+G+U+
AS-9 Dependability in handling users' service problems
F-
IC-1 Making electronic resources accessible from my home or office
F-G-U-
F-G-U-
IC-2 A library Web site enabling me to locate information on my own
F-G-
F-G-U-
IC-3 The printed library materials I need for my work
U+
F-G-U-
IC-4 The electronic information resources I need
F-G-
F-G-UF-G-U-
IC-5 Modern equipment that lets me easily access needed information
IC-6 Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to find things on my own
F-G-
F-G-U-
IC-7 Making information easily accessible for independent use
F-G-
F-G-U-
IC-8 Print and/or electronic journal collections I require for my work
F-G-
F-G-
LP-1 Library space that inspires study and learning
F+U-
F+U-
LP-2 Quiet space for individual activities
F+U-
F+G-U-
LP-3 A comfortable and inviting location
U-
F+U-
LP-4 A getaway for study, learning, or research
F+
F+G-U-
LP-5 Community space for group learning and group study
F+G+
F+U-
F = Faculty
G = Graduate students
U = Undergraduates
“+” = Library staff set higher service priority
“-” = Library staff set lower service priority
Red = marginally higher or lower prioritization
Contact Information
Damon Jaggars
University of Texas Libraries
[email protected]
(512) 495-4321
Shanna Smith
Division of Statistics and Scientific Computation
University of Texas at Austin
[email protected]
(512) 475-9425
Jocelyn Duffy
Portland State University Library
[email protected]
(503) 725-4126