Transcript Using LibQual+™ Data to Direct Change and Access Success

Using LibQual+™ Data to
Direct Change and Access
Success :
The AUM Approach
Assessing the Future
• In 2003, the Library realized that we were
five years away from our reaffirmation
process with the Southern Association.
• We believed that to have a successful
review, we needed baseline data which
measured our users’ satisfactions with
library services.
• To gather the data we needed, the library
staff researched and recommended that
LibQual+™ be used.
• The survey format was convenient to
administer.
• It would allow distinction amongst users.
• Most importantly, it would give us firm data
on what our users felt about the library and
its services.
• The Library launched its survey in March
31st, 2004. The survey lasted one month.
• In order to increase participation, we
offered participants who registered a
chance at random drawings for a $25 and
$50 gift certificate from the University
bookstore, and a chance at winning a
Palm Pilot, provided by the Friends of the
AUM Library.
Survey Distribution
• In order to provide convenient access, we
posted a link to the LibQual+™ survey on
the Library homepage. This provided
students with access 24 / 7.
• We also distributed printed copies around
the Library as we do have some students
who are technophobes.
Response Rate
• We received 251 responses from a
university 5,412 for a response rate of
4.6%.
• We also received 73 written comments on
Library services and the physical
environment.
• Of the 73, 61 were classifiable as Good
(40), Bad (1) , or Needs Improvement 20).
Improvement Suggestions
• Of the 20 comments classified as
“Needing Improvement,” five comments
related to the physical facilities of the
Library, five related to equipment needs,
six related to services, and four related to
staffing.
• Specific comments were made requesting
Group Study rooms and more comfortable
seating.
First Steps: Analyzing Responses
• Our first step was to analyze the “Need
Improvement Responses.” We utilized the
broad categories of Physical Facilities,
Equipment, Services, and Staffing issues.
• In terms of the physical facilities, the
complaints centered around the
unappealing nature of the furnishings and
the lack of group study rooms.
• We next looked at equipment concerns.
These focused upon complaints about the
copy machines and the lack of CD-ROM
access on the Computers in the Library.
• When we examined services complaints,
they centered around having online
access to services we already provided,
such as online Interlibrary Loan request
forms and being able to renew books
online.
• The final concern expressed related to
interactions among our student assistants
and library patrons.
Next Steps
• Once the results were categorized, we
focused upon those elements we could fix
rapidly.
• First, we revised our orientation program
for students at Circulation to emphasize
customer service.
• Second, we replaced the existing copy
machines with newer, digital models.
Next Steps, Cont.
• We then upgraded our purchasing plan for
computer replacements to include more
memory, and CDRW capabilities.
• Recognizing that a number of our service
complaints dealt with services we were
already providing, we revised our publicity
campaign to focus upon those services.
Services Improvement
• To answer the most frequent comments in
the LibQual+™ response, we included on
the library webpage information on how to
renew a book on-line.
Services Improvement Cont.
• We then moved to improve access to
Interlibrary Loan services on-line. To do
this, we purchased the Endeavor
Interlibrary Loan module from Endeavor
and integrated the forms into our web
page and OPAC.
Services Improvement, Cont.
• We added a site on the library web page
for “Interlibrary Loan Requests” that would
direct patrons to the request forms, while
informing them of the library policies.
Improving Services, Cont.
• We next added a link on the library website to the Interlibrary Loan Request forms.
Space – The Final Frontier
• Without a doubt, refurbishing the physical
space was the biggest challenge the
library faced.
• The library is located in a ten story tower,
built in 1984 and neither designed nor built
for the computer age.
• The structure of the building provided
limited space to include group study
rooms.
Space
• Beyond the issues of space were the
questions of how to improve seating AND
provide for a comfortable area in which
students could study.
• Working with my Administrative Associate,
we began by having all of the chairs in the
library portion of the Tower re-upholstered.
Space
• The re-upholstery project began in fall
semester of 2003 and continued until fall
of 2004 before it was completed. Chairs
were sent out in thirds to be reupholstered and returned.
• While this created a generally more
comfortable setting on the floors, we were
still concerned about student comfort.
Space
• In looking at the survey responses, one
comment resonated with us. The student
requested more comfortable seating
arrangements and ambiance, i.e, like
Barnes and Nobles, with a possible coffee
house.
• My Administrative Associate, Janice
Warren, undertook the project to improve
the physical arrangements.
Space
• Discussing the concept with the Library
department heads, there was a consensus
that efforts should be made to include a
coffee bar within the project.
• Janice and I discussed the budget
available and settled on $25,000 for the
upgrade for seating for the first floor area.
We decided on limiting the project initially
to the first floor because if we included a
coffee bar, it would need to go on that
floor.
Space
• Janice contacted Alabama Business
Furnishings to come out and provide us
information on new seating.
• I made a wise decision by allowing Janice
and the librarians to make the aesthetic
decisions on fabric, etc.
• The process was started in April of 2004,
with a goal of being completed by the start
of fall semester.
Space
• The following photos show the original
seating and user space on the first floor of
the library.
Space
• Following our refurbishment, the first floor,
including the coffee bar, looks like this.
The Coffee Bar
• Because of University policies and State
Health Regulations, we were limited in the
type of facility we could put in place.
• We could not afford a full-service coffee
bar with refreshments, though many of our
users indicated this was the type of
establishment they would prefer.
Coffee Bar
• As a result, we had constructed the cart in
the following photo and contracted with
Royal Cup to provide a variety of coffees
and teas.
Space
• Finally, as part of the refurbishment
project, we converted former office /
storage space on the 5th floor of the Tower
to a group study room.
Next Steps
• Though held up slightly by delays in the
shipping of the new furniture, the first floor
upgrades were completed by September
of 2004.
The Focus Group
• Our next step was to try to delve deeper
into the scores that we had received on
the 2003 LibQual+™ survey and the user
comments. To this end, we contracted
with a former faculty member to conduct
focus group sessions on campus.
• Focus groups featuring undergraduates
and graduate students were held October
28th and November 10th, 2004. A total of
29 students participated.
Focus Group
• Six recommendations came out of the
Focus Group sessions.
• First, it was recommended that the library
actively participate in new student
orientation programs. While we had
attempted to do so in the past, these
recommendations gave us ammunition to
argue with the organizers in Student
Services that library participation was
important.
Focus Group
• The students also recommended that the
library work closely with the departments
on campus to ensure that current
materials were being ordered for the
collection. We have moved to provide the
faculty with cut-off dates by which to
submit book requests. Following the cutoff dates, librarians assume responsibility
for ordering and updating the collections.
Focus Group
• It was recommended that the library
become more aggressive in
communicating the availability of services.
To address this, the library has developed
new brochures and pamphlets which are
distributed at the circulation desk and
which emphasize the different services.
Efforts to include information on the
website were increased as well.
Focus Group
• It was recommended that the library
improve signage to guide the users to the
appropriate floor within the tower to find
materials.
The library developed listings of the
holdings on each floor and posted them in
the elevators.
Focus Group
• Layout and design. Students requested
additional group study space be added
and a re-design to “improve the overall
atmosphere throughout the library.”
To accomplish this, we located additional
space on the 6th floor which we converted
to a group study room, and comfortable
seating similar to those on the first floor,
including couches, were ordered.
Focus Group
• Finally, the students recommended that
computers, copy machines, and
emergency phones or manned stations be
added on each floor.
As computers and emergency phones
already existed on the floors, this did not
become a high priority.
LibQual+™ 2006: Measuring
Success
• Our initial plans in 2003 were to cycle
participation in the LibQual+™ survey to
every three years. We felt that this would
give us enough time to analyze the data,
to make changes, and to have the
changes take effect and allow the users to
grow accustomed to the changes.
Measuring Success
• The re-design of the LibQual+™ survey
altered the dimension descriptors of the
survey. In 2003, four categories were
considered: Access to Information; Affect
of Service; Library as Place, and Personal
Control.
• In 2006, these dimensions became Affect
of Service; Information Control, and
Library as Place.
AUM LibQual+™ Scores
2003 & 2006
LibQual+™ Perceived Service Scores 2003 – 2006
Category
AUM
Colleges
&
Universities
Affect
of
Service
2003
7.13
7.14
Affect
of
Service
2006
7.36
7.12
Access to Information Library
Information Control
as
2003
2006
Place
2003
7.22
7.50
6.64
7.02
7.09
6.85
Library
As
Place
2006
7.77
7.73
Conclusions
• LibQual+™ has proven to be a valuable
resource for the AUM Library.
• It has allowed us to better understand our
users expectations and to plan more
specifically on how to meet user needs.
• Furthermore, the data provided by the
survey has benefited the Library in the
preparations for the SACS Reaffirmation
visit.
Changes for the Future
• One important difference between the
2003 and 2006 surveys was in our inability
to compare our scores with other NAAL
Libraries because of different testing
cycles.
• We feel that this comparability is an
important element for the University, so we
are moving our assessment cycle to
ensure that we are on the same timeline
as the other NAAL Libraries.