listening to our users libqual @ queen s 2010 n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Listening To Our Users LibQUAL+ @ Queen’s 2010 PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Listening To Our Users LibQUAL+ @ Queen’s 2010

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 26
dana

Listening To Our Users LibQUAL+ @ Queen’s 2010 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

107 Views
Download Presentation
Listening To Our Users LibQUAL+ @ Queen’s 2010
An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Listening To Our UsersLibQUAL+ @ Queen’s2010

  2. What Is LibQUAL+ ? • Part of the Library’s ongoing process of service evaluation and planning. • Web-based tool for assessing library service quality & identifying opportunities for enhancements • Developed and refined over 9 years, 1,00,000+ respondents, 1,000+ institutions • Based on ServQual. 17 years of research and application at Texas A&M, etc.

  3. How Does LibQUAL+ Measure Quality? Rating of services in context • Based on client perceptions and expectations • Gap analysis between perceived level of service, and minimum and desired service level • Although higher scores are better, they have no absolute intrinsic meaning on their own. • Meaningful in comparison with past years, other libraries & norms developed over the years

  4. Gap Rating System[Perceived – Minimum = Service Adequacy Gap] Desired level of service, or Value Perceived level of service Minimum Expected level of service

  5. LibQUAL+ Survey in Canada • Queen’s participated in 2007 LibQUAL Canada Consortium (54 libraries across Canada). Queen’s will participate in the next consortial survey, 2010: http://library.queensu.ca/webir/canlibqual/canlibs.htm • Opportunity to benchmark results with a group of comparable peer institutions: e.g. research-intensive institutions across Canada and universities across Ontario.

  6. LibQUAL+ Winter 2010 Survey • 22 service quality survey questions • 5 optional “local” questions • Demographic & usage questions • One open comments box

  7. LibQUAL+ Winter 2010 Survey LibQUAL+ Lite Each respondent answers a reduced number of questions randomly selected from the full survey. • 11 service quality survey questions • 1 optional “local” question • Demographic & usage questions • One open comments box

  8. Why LibQUAL+ Lite Survey LibQUAL+ Lite was developed in 2008 by ARL in response to the concern among past participants that the size of the full survey (22 core+ 5 optional questions) was limiting their response rates. Trials using the Lite survey have shown significant increases in the response rate over the full survey: http://www.libqual.org/About/LQLite/index.cfm. Queen’s has opted to use LibQUAL+ Lite to survey our university community in 2010.

  9. Service Quality “Dimensions” Library Service Quality Affect of Service Library as Place Empathy Utilitarian Space Responsiveness Symbol Assurance Refuge Reliability Information Control Scope of collections Ease of Navigation Convenience Timeliness Modern Equipment

  10. When it comes to… My MinimumService Level Is low …… high My DesiredService Level Is low …… high Perceived ServicePerformance Is low …… high N/A 1 Employees who instill confidence in users 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 N/A 2 Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to find things on my own 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 N/A 3 Print and/or electronic journal collections I require for my work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 N/A Survey - Sample Section

  11. 2007 LibQUAL Results LibQUAL results are a measure of perceived service quality in relation touser expectations

  12. Detailed Report • This report compares the Queen’s 2007 results against those in 2004 & against the 2007 Canadian Consortial results • Highlights of report: • ongoing trends (most & least valued service areas) • Library performance (strengths & areas for potential enhancements) • assess effectiveness of changes to library facilities and services implemented since 2004.

  13. Issues & Actions Report This document summarizes • issues for potential attention arising the from survey • action plans to enhance these services & facilities

  14. 2007 Findings Actions • Issues & Action plans to enhance services & facilities Example from Library Web Site: http://library.queensu.ca/webir/libqual-2007/issues&actions.html

  15. LibQUAL Report Highlights Higher Scores Higher expectations

  16. Overall 2007 Performance Ratings Among the top Canadian Library Participants Strongest: Library as Place Affect of Service or client services Area for improvement: Information Control (Collections & access to information)

  17. Value vs Performance Information ControlHighestvalue/lowest rating or “Gap” score Affect of ServiceLower value/higher rating Library as PlaceLowest value/highest rating

  18. Affect of Service Tends to generate lower value ratings & relatively high performance ratings compared to other service areas. Queen’s among highest performance ratings in Canadian Consortium

  19. Affect of Service Challenges to Libraries: Promote the value of research & instructional services to the community Reaching out to users who don’t/won’t come to training sessions or the reference desk

  20. Information Control Tends to generate highest value ratings & relatively low performance ratings compared to other service areas. Queen’s in top 10 among Canadian Participants in 2007; improved overall performance since 2004 survey

  21. Information Control Challenges: More & better discovery resources (e.g. databases) have raised expectations about timely availability of full-text resources, incl. ILL/Doc Del More effective access to library resources & services from the Library web site; maximize existing resources Improve electronic & print collections Continuing need to market available services and collections effectively

  22. Library as Place Improved on already strong overall 2004 performance Most Queen’s campus libraries continue to be highly rated as: A comfortable and inviting location Most important to undergrads

  23. Library as Place Challenges: Lack of sufficient quiet spaces for individual study & research Insufficient seating during exams, Expensive copying/printing charges, Request for longer hours all term & all libraries, In Stauffer: dirty washrooms and a general lack of adequate maintenance; Controversy over food & drink policy

  24. Frequency of Use At least once a week, respondents used: Google & other search engines: >90% Library resources sites: >80% Library premises: 60%

  25. Internal Consultation Process • Report discussed at Management Team; consultation plan developed • Report and plan distributed to all staff • All-Staff information session • Units and functional teams • Meetings of individual units and functional teams identify the issues in their areas of responsibilities and recommend appropriate actions. • Management Team Reviewed the compilation of issues and objectives in developing the 2005/06 Budget Report. Compiled and approved action items prepared by the functional teams and units.

  26. Roll Out to Public • Articles for The Gazette & The Journal in Fall 2007 • Survey results & action plans published on the Library’s LibQUAL+ web site: http://library.queensu.ca/webir/libqual-2007/results-2007.html