Transcript Slide 1
TM LibQUAL+ Introduction ™ Martha Kyrillidou Bruce Thompson National Library for Health London, UK August 26, 2005 Project URL – http://www.libqual.org/ Total Circulation Total Circulation 600,000 550,000 500,000 450,000 19 91 19 92 19 93 19 94 19 95 19 96 19 97 19 98 19 99 20 00 20 01 20 02 400,000 Note. M. Kyrillidou and M. Young. (2003). ARL Statistics 2002-03. Washington, D.C.: ARL, p.8. Reference Transactions Reference Transactions 170,000 160,000 150,000 140,000 130,000 120,000 110,000 100,000 19 91 19 92 19 93 19 94 19 95 19 96 19 97 19 98 19 99 20 00 20 01 20 02 90,000 Note. M. Kyrillidou and M. Young. (2003). ARL Statistics 2002-03. Washington, D.C.: ARL, p.8. Assessment “The difficulty lies in trying to find a single model or set of simple indicators that can be used by different institutions, and that will compare something across large groups that is by definition only locally applicable— i.e., how well a library meets the needs of its institution. Librarians have either made do with oversimplified national data or have undertaken customized local evaluations of effectiveness, but there has not been devised an effective way to link the two.” Sarah Pritchard, Library Trends, 1996 LibQUAL+ Goals ™ Improve mechanisms and protocols for evaluating libraries Develop web-based tools for assessing library service quality Identify best practices in providing library service Support libraries seeking to understand changes in user behavior Assist libraries seeking to re-position library services in the new environment Multiple Methods of Listening to Customers Transactional surveys* Mystery shopping New, declining, and lost-customer surveys Focus group interviews Customer advisory panels Service reviews Customer complaint, comment, and inquiry capture Total market surveys* Employee field reporting Employee surveys Service operating data capture *A SERVQUAL-type instrument is most suitable for these methods Note. A. Parasuraman. The SERVQUAL Model: Its Evolution And Current Status. (2000). Paper presented at ARL Symposium on Measuring Service Quality, Washington, D.C. The LibQUAL+ Premise ™ PERCEPTIONS SERVICE “….only customers judge quality; all other judgments are essentially irrelevant” Note. Zeithaml, Parasuraman, Berry. (1999). Delivering quality service. NY: The Free Press. Extended GAPS Model Organizational Barriers to SQ Poor Upward Communication Customers’ Assessment of SQ GAP 1 Reliability Perception of Infeasibility Responsiveness GAP 2 GAP 5 Poor Tech - Job Fit Assurance Empathy GAP 3 Tangibles Poor Horizontal Communication GAP 4 “22 items” 2000 2001 2002 2003 41-items 56-items 25-items 22-items Affect of Service Affect of Service Service Affect Service Affect Reliability Library as Place Library as Place Library as Place Library as Place Reliability Personal Control Information Control Provision of Physical Collections Self-Reliance Information Access Access to Information Access to Information Survey Instrument Rapid Growth in Other Areas Languages American English British English French Dutch Swedish Types of Institutions Consortia Each may create 5 local questions to add to their survey Academic Health Sciences Academic Law Academic Military College or University Community College European Business Hospital Public State Countries U.S., U.K., Canada, Ireland, the Netherlands, Sweden, France, South Africa, Egypt, Australia LibQUAL+ Participants ™ 350 316 300 250 240 200 206 150 164 100 50 43 0 12 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 World LibQUAL+™ Survey Participating Libraries LibQUAL+ Resources ™ LibQUAL+™ Website: http://www.libqual.org Publications: http://www.libqual.org/publications Events and Training: http://www.libqual.org/events Gap Theory/Radargraph Introduction: http://www.libqual.org/Information/Tools/libqualpresentation.cfm LibQUAL+™ Procedures Manual: http://www.libqual.org/Information/Manual/index.cfm