TM

A Total Market Survey

from SERVQUAL to LibQUAL+



Colleen Cook

January 26-27, 2003 ALA Midwinter Meeting Philadelphia Project web site www.arl.org/libqual/

Library Remains a Credible Resource

 98% agree with statement, “My … library contains information from credible and known sources” Note. Digital Library Federation and Council on Library and Information Resources. (2002). Dimensions and Use of the Scholarly Information Environment.

Information Seeking Behaviors are Changing

 15.7% agreed with the statement “The Internet has not changed the way I use the library” Note. Digital Library Federation and Council on Library and Information Resources. (2002). Dimensions and Use of the Scholarly Information Environment.

Finding Electronic Journals for Research

    92.7% find out about e-journals on-line 21.7% report using print resources to find 16.5% would ask a person for assistance Only 2.5% would prefer to ask a librarian Note. Digital Library Federation and Council on Library and Information Resources. (2002). Dimensions and Use of the Scholarly Information Environment.

Finding Print Journals for Research

  Only 13.9% ask a librarian Only 3.2% consider consulting a librarian a preferred way of identifying information Note. Digital Library Federation and Council on Library and Information Resources. (2002). Dimensions and Use of the Scholarly Information Environment.

600,000 550,000 500,000 450,000 400,000 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Note. M. Kyrillidou and M. Young. (2002).

ARL Statistics 2000-01. Washington, D.C.: ARL, p.8.

2001

950,000 900,000 850,000 800,000 750,000 700,000 650,000 600,000 550,000 500,000 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Note. M. Kyrillidou and M. Young. (2002).

ARL Statistics 2000-01. Washington, D.C.: ARL, p.8.

2001

170,000 160,000 150,000 140,000 130,000 120,000 110,000 100,000 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Note. M. Kyrillidou and M. Young. (2002).

ARL Statistics 2000-01. Washington, D.C.: ARL, p.8.

LibQUAL+



Description

LibQUAL+  is a research and development project undertaken to define and measure library service quality across institutions and to create useful quality assessment tools for local planning.

LibQUAL+



Process

 SERVQUAL dimensions served as

a priori

theoretical starting point

Relationships: Perceptions, Service Quality and Satisfaction

….only customers judge quality; all other judgments are essentially irrelevant” Zeithaml, Parasuraman, Berry. (1999). Delivering quality service. NY: The Free Press.

LibQUAL+



Resources

  An ARL/Texas A&M University joint developmental effort based on SERVQUAL LibQUAL+  initially supported by a 3-year grant from the U.S. Department of Education’s Fund for the Improvement of Post-Secondary Education (FIPSE)  Initial project established an expert team, regrounded concepts, and designed survey methodology  Survey conducted at over 200 libraries resulting in a data base of over 78,000 user responses

LibQUAL+



Project Goals

 Establishment of a library service quality assessment program at ARL  Development of web-based tools for assessing library service quality  Development of mechanisms and protocols for evaluating libraries  Identification of best practices in providing library service

LibQUAL+



Participants

Year 4 316 Participants Year 3 164 Participants Year 2 43 Participants Year 1 12 Participants

Spring 2000 Spring 2001

For More Information about Participants: Visit the LibQUAL+  web site.

Spring 2002 Spring 2003

LibQUAL+



Fundamental Contributions to the Measurement of Effective Delivery of Library Services

 Shift the focus of assessment from mechanical expenditure-driven metrics to user-centered measures of quality  Determine the degree to which information derived from local data can be generalized, providing much needed “best practices” information  Re-ground gap theory for the library sector, especially academic libraries  Demonstrate the efficacy of large-scale administration of user-centered assessment transparently across the web  Grounded questions yield data of sufficient granularity to be of value at the local level  Makes little demand of local resources and expertise

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.

Dimensions of Library Service Quality

Affect of Service Empathy Responsiveness Assurance Reliability Information Access Scope Timeliness Convenience Library Service Quality Personal Control Ease of Navigation Convenience Modern Equipment Library as Place Utilitarian space Symbol Refuge

Affect of Service

 Absorbed several of the original SERVQUAL questions measuring Responsiveness, Assurance and Empathy  In the current analysis also includes Reliability  All in all: the Human Dimension of Service Quality

Access to Information

 Covers scope, timeliness, and convenience of access  Adequacy of collections  Comprehensiveness, quality, and depth of information resources  All in all: required information delivered in the format, location, and time of choice

Personal Control

 Covers ease of navigation, convenience, and support services  Personal control of the information universe in general and web navigation in particular  All in all: How users want to interact with the modern library

Library as Place

 Covers usefulness of space, symbolic value, and refuge for work and study  Transcends the SERVQUAL dimension of Tangibles to include the idea of the library as the campus center of intellectual activity  All in all: As long as physical facilities are adequate, library as place may not be an issue

Survey Design Considerations

 Three scales exploring optimal, minimal, and actual service levels  Twenty-five questions clustered around four dimensions  Survey covers a sample of targeted user population  Data illuminates gap between desired level of service and perception of experience

Sample Survey

Spring 2002

Sample Survey…

continued

Sample Survey…

continued

Sample Survey…

continued

Sample Survey…

continued

LibQUAL+



2002 Iteration

 42 — ARL Libraries  35 — Health Sciences Libraries  36 — State Colleges & Universities (excluding ARL)  34 — Private Colleges & Universities (excluding ARL)  15 — Community Colleges  2 — Special & Public Libraries (Smithsonian & NYPL)

LibQUAL+

 Related Documents LibQUAL+  Web Site http://www.arl.org/libqual/ LibQUAL+  Bibliography http://www.coe.tamu.edu/~bthompson/servqbib Survey Participants Procedures Manual

http://www.arl.org/libqual/procedure/lqmanual2.pdf