Transcript Slide 1
Background on the U.K. / SCONUL LibQUAL+ implementation Stephen Town, Cranfield University Objectives • To give an overview of U.K. / SCONUL LibQUAL+ participation • To present the overall results of the SCONUL Cohort • To describe the feedback from participants and the lessons learnt UK HE Libraries survey methods • General Satisfaction – Exit questionnaires – SCONUL Satisfaction Survey • Designed Surveys – Satisfaction vs Importance 1989– Priority Surveys 1993- • Outcome measurement – ACPI project 2003- • National Student Survey (1 Question) Survey methods used in the UK 6 2 2 4 27 Libra LibQUAL+ In-House 11 SPSS SNAP Perception Excel Others 13 18 West, 2004 A Survey of Surveys 1. SCONUL LibQUAL+ Participation The UK approach • Coordinated on behalf of the Society of College, National & University Libraries (SCONUL) Advisory Committee on Performance Improvement (ACPI) • 2003 - 20 UK Higher Education (HE) institutions • 2004 -17 UK & Irish HE institutions • 2005 - 16 UK & Irish HE institutions • 2006 – 20 UK & Irish HE institutions • 54 different institutions LibQUAL+ Participants 2003 • University of Bath • Cranfield University • Royal Holloway & Bedford New College • University of Lancaster • University of Wales, Swansea • University of Edinburgh • University of Glasgow • University of Liverpool • University of London Library • University of Oxford • University College Northampton • University of Wales College Newport • University of Gloucestershire • De Montfort University • Leeds Metropolitan University • Liverpool John Moores University • Robert Gordon University • South Bank University • University of the West of England, Bristol • University of Wolverhampton LibQUAL+ Participants 2004 • • • • • • • • Brunel University Loughborough University University of Strathclyde University of York Glasgow University Sheffield University Trinity College, Dublin UMIST + University of Manchester • University of Liverpool • Anglia Polytechnic University • University of Westminster • London South Bank University • Napier University • Queen Margaret University College • University College Worcester • University of East London LibQUAL+ Participants 2005 • • • • • • University of Exeter University of Edinburgh University of Dundee University of Bath University of Ulster University College Northampton • University of Birmingham • Roehampton University • • • • • • • University of Glasgow University of Surrey Royal Holloway UoL City University Cranfield University University of Luton Dublin Institute of Technology • London South Bank University LibQUAL+ Participants 2006 • Cambridge University Library • Cranfield University • Goldsmiths College • Institute of Education • Institute of Technology Tallaght • Queen Mary, University of London • Robert Gordon University • St. George's University of London • University of Aberdeen • University College for the Creative Arts • University of Central Lancashire • University of Glasgow • University of Gloucestershire • University of Leeds • University of Leicester • University of Liverpool • University of the West of England • University of Warwick • University of Westminster • London South Bank University CURL • University of Cambridge • University of Aberdeen • University of Edinburgh • University of Glasgow • University of Liverpool • University of London Library • University of Oxford • Sheffield University • Trinity College, Dublin • University of Manchester • University of Birmingham • University of Leeds • University of Warwick Pre-92 & 94 Group • Cranfield University • Royal Holloway & Bedford New College • University of Wales, Swansea • Brunel University • Loughborough University • Goldsmith College • Queen Mary, University of London • • • • • • • • University of Dundee University of Bath University of Lancaster University of York University of Exeter University of Surrey University of Leicester University of Strathclyde CMU+ • University of Wales College Newport • De Montfort University • Leeds Metropolitan University • Liverpool John Moores University • Robert Gordon University • South Bank University • University of the West of England, Bristol • University of Central Lancashire • • • • • • • • • • Anglia Polytechnic University University of Westminster Napier University Queen Margaret University College University of East London Roehampton University University of Luton Coventry University University of Wolverhampton University of Ulster Former Colleges • University of Gloucestershire • University College Northampton • University College Worcester Other / Specialist Institutions • • • • • Dublin Institute of Technology Institute of Education Institute of Technology Tallaght St. George’s, University of London University College for the Creative Arts Overall Potential UK Sample to 2006 • • • • • Full variety of institutions 43% of institutions* 38% of HE students (>800,000) 42% of Libraries 48% of Library expenditure *Based on Universities UK membership of 126 Time frame • • • • • • December – Registration January – UK Training February to May – Session I April to June – Session I results distributed July – Results meeting July to December – Session II Dimensions of Quality • Affect of Service • Information Control • Library as a Place Dimensions of Library Service Quality Library Service Quality Information Control Affect of Service Empathy Scope of Content Responsiveness Convenience Assurance Reliability Ease of Navigation Library as Place Utilitarian space Symbol Refuge F. Heath, 2005 Model 3 Timeliness Equipment Self-Reliance 2003 – 5 additional questions for all SCONUL Participants • • • • Access to photocopying and printing facilities Main text and readings needed Provision for information skills training Helpfulness in dealing with users’ IT problems • Availability of subject specialist assistance 2004 – 5 local question selected from a range of over 100 Different questions tailored to local needs Sample Survey Sample Survey… continued 2. Results from SCONUL Response Comparisons • SCONUL 2003 – 20 institutions – 11,919 respondents • SCONUL 2004 • LibQUAL+ 2003 – 308 institutions – 128,958 respondents • LibQUAL+ 2004 – 16 institutions – 16,611 respondents – 202 institutions – 112,551 respondents • Increase by 4,692 • Decrease by 16,407 • SCONUL 2005 – 16 institutions – 17,355 respondents • Increase by 744 • LibQUAL+ 2005 – 199 institutions – 108,504 respondents • Decrease by 4,047 SCONUL Response by Discipline 2005 Respondent Comparisons • Glasgow University – 2005 = 1,384 – 2004 = 2,178 – 2003 = 503 • London South Bank University – 2005 = 766 – 2004 = 568 – 2003 = 276 Core Questions Core Questions SCONUL Core Question Summary 2005 SCONUL Core Question Summary 2004 SCONUL Core Question Summary 2003 Overall Comparisons Information Control 8.50 8.00 8.00 8.00 7.50 7.50 7.50 Minimum Mean 7.00 Minimum Mean 7.00 7.00 Affect of Service 8.00 7.00 Desired Mean Perceived Mean 6.50 Perceived Mean 6.50 6.00 6.00 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.00 5.00 SCONUL 2003 SCONUL 2004 SCONUL 2005 SCONUL 2003 SCONUL 2004 SCONUL 2005 Minimum Mean Desired Mean 6.50 Desired Mean 6.00 5.00 7.50 Mean 8.50 6.50 8.50 Library as Place 8.50 Mean Mean Affect of Service Perceived Mean SCONUL 2003 SCONUL 2004 SCONUL 2005 Undergraduates Core Question Summary for Undergraduates 2005 Core Question Summary for Undergraduates 2004 Core Question Summary for Undergraduates 2003 Postgraduates Core Question Summary for Postgraduates 2005 Core Question Summary for Postgraduates 2004 Core Question Summary for Postgraduates 2003 Academic Staff Core Question Summary for Academic Staff 2004 Core Question Summary for Academic Staff 2004 Core Questions Summary for Academic Staff 2003 Comparisons by Dimension Affect of Service Comparisons Postgraduates 8.50 8.00 7.50 7.00 Academic Staff 8.50 8.50 8.50 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.00 Affect of Service 7.00 Minimum Mean Desired Mean Desired Mean Perceived Mean 6.50 6.00 6.00 6.00 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.00 5.00 SCONUL 2005 6.50 6.00 SCONUL 2003 SCONUL 2004 SCONUL 2003 SCONUL 2004 5.00 SCONUL SCONUL 2003 2005 Minimum Mean Perceived Mean SCONUL 2004 Minimum Mean 7.00 6.50 6.50 Perceived Mean 7.00 Mean Desired Mean Mean Minimum Mean Desired Mean 6.50 Library Staff 8.50 Mean Mean Undergraduates 5.00 SCONUL 2005 Perceived Mean SCONUL 2003 SCONUL 2004 SCONUL 2005 Information Control Comparisons Postgraduates Library Staff 8.50 8.50 8.50 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.00 7.00 6.50 Desired Mean 7.00 Perceived Mean Minimum Mean Desired Mean 7.00 Mean Minimum Mean Mean Affect of Service 6.50 8.50 Academic Staff 8.50 Mean Mean Undergraduates Minimum Mean Desired Mean 6.50 Perceived Mean 6.50 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.00 5.00 SCONUL 2005 Perceived Mean 8.00 7.50 7.00 SCONUL 2003 SCONUL 2004 SCONUL 2003 SCONUL 2004 5.00 SCONUL SCONUL 2005 2003 Minimum Mean Desired Mean 6.50 Perceived Mean SCONUL 2004 5.00 SCONUL SCONUL 2005 2003 SCONUL 2004 SCONUL 2005 Library as Place Comparisons Postgraduates 8.50 8.00 7.00 8.50 8.50 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 Desired Mean Perceived Mean Minimum Mean 7.00 Desired Mean Perceived Mean 7.00 6.50 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.00 SCONUL 2005 5.00 SCONUL 2005 SCONUL 2003 SCONUL 2004 SCONUL 2004 SCONUL 2003 Minimum Mean Perceived Mean SCONUL 2004 Minimum Mean Desired Mean 6.50 5.00 SCONUL SCONUL 2003 2005 6.50 Mean Minimum Mean Mean Affect of Service7.00 7.00 Desired Mean 6.50 Library Staff 8.50 5.00 7.50 Academic Staff 8.50 Mean Mean Undergraduates 6.50 Perceived Mean SCONUL 2003 SCONUL 2004 SCONUL 2005 Overall Comparisons by User Group Postgraduates Undergraduates Overall Library Staff Academic Staff 8.50 8.50 8.50 8.50 8.50 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 Perceived Mean Minimum Mean Desired Mean 6.50 Perceived Mean 7.00 Minimum Mean Desired Mean 6.50 Perceived Mean 7.00 Mean Desired Mean 7.00 Mean Minimum Mean Mean 7.00 Affect of Service Mean Mean 7.00 Minimum Mean Desired Mean 6.50 6.50 6.50 8.506.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.50 Perceived Mean 8.00 5.00 7.50 7.00 SCONUL 2003 5.00 SCONUL SCONUL 2004 2005 SCONUL 2003 5.00 SCONUL SCONUL 2004 2005 SCONUL 2003 5.00 SCONUL SCONUL 2004 2005 Minimum Mean Desired Mean 6.50 Perceived Mean SCONUL 2003 5.00 SCONUL SCONUL 2004 2005 SCONUL 2003 SCONUL SCONUL 2004 2005 Comments Free text comments received 2003 London South Bank University 428 Royal Holloway University 341 University of London 422 University of Wales, Swansea 340 UWE, Bristol 419 Uni of Wales College, Newport 339 University of Wolverhampton 413 University of Oxford 337 University of Bath 412 University College Northampton 332 University of Gloucestershire 407 Glasgow University 330 Lancaster University 396 University of Edinburgh 328 Robert Gordon University 395 Leeds Metropolitan University 327 University of Liverpool 378 DE Montfort University 326 Liverpool John Moores University 353 Cranfield University 170 Free text comments received 2004 UMIST + University of Manchester 1090 Anglia Polytechnic University 311 Trinity College Library Dublin Napier University 299 258 1032 Glasgow University 920 University of Liverpool Brunel University 906 Queen Margaret University College 251 University of Sheffield 786 University of York 239 University of Westminster 671 University of East London 239 University of Strathclyde 511 University College Worcester 170 London South Bank University 358 Loughborough University Library 120 Free text comments received 2005 University of Exeter 559 University of Glasgow 536 University of Edinburgh 206 University of Surrey 593 University of Dundee 709 Royal Holloway UoL 596 University of Bath 527 City University 798 University of Ulster 854 Cranfield University 302 University College Northampton 142 University of Luton 188 University of Birmingham 975 Dublin Institute of Technology 569 Roehampton University 359 London South Bank University 455 Comments Comparisons • Total number of comments 2005 = 8,368 • Total number of comments 2004 = 8,161 • Total number of comments 2003 = 7,342 Expect everything From: • The library facility is uniformly of a high quality in terms of the book collection maintained, on line electronic resources and "customer care" given to the users. To: • The library is consistently unimpressive, except as a consumer of funds and resources. And everything in between! 3. Feedback from participants and lessons learnt Purpose for participating • • • • Benchmarking Analysis compiled by LibQUAL+ Trialling alternative survey methods More library focused than previous in-house method • Supporting Charter Mark application process • Planned institutional survey failed to happen. LibQUAL+ was cost effective way of doing something to fill the gap. Primary aim(s) for surveying users • Understand what their opinions of our service is, to inform strategic planning. • Making sure we knew what customers concerns really are as we have had much lobbying by one group of students. Also nearly three years since last survey, so needed an update after much change in services. • User satisfaction : as simple as that. We need to know how they view us and whether we are improving. 3 years of the same survey can have some credibility. • To gain information for better planning of our service and make adjustments in areas found wanting. Feedback on the LibQUAL+ process • Majority found it straightforward • Hard work subtracting / managing inbuilt US bias • Some issues in obtaining: – Email addresses – Demographic data • The publicity to the student body was the most time consuming part Feedback on results • Overall results were as expected by the institutions • “Not too surprising really given anecdotal evidence known already” • Detailed questions highlighted new information, as LibQUAL+ goes into more depth than previous surveys • Surprisingly bad, especially compared with other surveys including a parallel one How can LibQUAL+ be improved? • Summary and commentary on results • More flexibility on the content and language of the questionnaire • More interaction with other UK participating libraries • Providing results by department, campus, and for full time and part time students • Simpler questionnaire design • We really need a ConvergedServQual tool! • Needs to allow you to use a word other than library (e.g. Learning Resource Centre) Changes made as a result of the survey • It has strengthened our case in asking for more money to improve the environment. • We have re-introduced our A-Z list of e-journals which had been axed several weeks before the survey was conducted. • Implementing PG forums to address issues raised • Main Library makeover/Group study area • Refocused discussions and mechanisms relating to resource expenditure at the most senior levels Tips for participating • Use a large sample • Promote the survey to help increase the response rate – – – – Online Email Posters Notices in college newsletters etc. Tips for participating • Allow enough time to collect demographics data • Exploit all areas of help and advice – – – – ARL Web site & discussion list JISCMail discussion list Each other Us! Conclusions Conclusions • LibQUAL+ Successfully applied to the UK academic sector • Provided first comparative data on academic library user satisfaction in the UK • At least half the participants would use LibQUAL+ again Lessons learnt • The majority of participants would not sample the population in future surveys • The smaller the sample, the lower the response rate • Collecting demographics is time consuming and subject categories are not always fitting • Results are detailed and comprehensive, further analysis is complex Acknowledgements • Colleen Cook, Dean Of Texas A&M University Libraries • Bruce Thompson, Professor and Distinguished Research Scholar, Texas A&M University • Fred Heath, Vice Provost and Director of the University of Texas Libraries, Austin • Martha Kyrillidou & ARL • Chris West. A Survey of Surveys. SCONUL Newsletter. Number 31. • Selena Lock, R&D Officer, Cranfield University • All SCONUL LibQUAL+ Participants J. Stephen Town Director of Information Services Defence College of Management and Technology Deputy University Librarian Cranfield University [email protected]