1 / 32

Charting Library Service Quality

Charting Library Service Quality. Sheri Downer Auburn University Libraries. Background of Need for LibQUAL+. Library had undergone extensive changes in services Librarian and Staff responsibilities had changed Utilization of physical spaces had changed.

roland
Download Presentation

Charting Library Service Quality

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Charting Library Service Quality Sheri Downer Auburn University Libraries

  2. Background of Need for LibQUAL+ • Library had undergone extensive changes in services • Librarian and Staff responsibilities had changed • Utilization of physical spaces had changed

  3. Major Changes Affecting Public Services • Four reference desks on different floors were incorporated into one central information commons • Reference desk • 35 public access computers • 2 consultation workstations • Reference collection

  4. Major Changes Affecting Public Services • Service desks were added on first and second floors • Science and technology journals were placed on fourth floor • Nearer to related subject areas • Other journals housed on second floor near reference desk • Overdue fines were eliminated

  5. Questions We Were Concerned About • Did we need to add service desks on third and fourth floors? • Some faculty felt these changes diminished our ability to serve them well • What other services needed improving? • Were the library hours reflective of the times the library needed to be open?

  6. Questions We Were Concerned About • Where did we need to focus our expenditures? • Journal backfiles • Monographic materials • Digital projects • Training • Library hours • Public services staffing

  7. Assessment Became a Reality • In April, 2003, SACS was scheduled to visit Auburn University • Under new SACS guidelines assessment is a priority • Each campus unit required to develop assessment plans • LibQUAL+ was perfect assessment tool • Visit date changed to October, 2003 • Date now changed to February 4-7, 2004

  8. Assessment Became a Reality • April 8, 2002, sample population invited to take part in LibQUAL+ project • 800 faculty members • 1,200 undergraduates • 800 graduate students • Had a return rate of nearly 60%

  9. Results of Data • Data indicated that many faculty and students perceive strength in the Library’s physical facility and environment.

  10. Results of Data • Areas that were rated as exceeding minimum requirements: • 1. A contemplative environment • 2. A place for reflection and creativity • 3. A comfortable and inviting location • 4. A haven for quiet and solitude • 5. Willingness to help users

  11. Results of Data • Areas rated as a level closest to the minimum acceptable level: • 1. Complete run of journals • 2. Convenient business hours • 3. Employees who have the knowledge to answer user questions • 4. Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to find things on my own • 5. Convenient access to library collections

  12. Library Assessment Committee • Library committee assigned to assess and analyze the LibQUAL+ survey results • Identify steps to bring library services and programs closer to faculty and student expectations • Will use several different approaches for assessing weaknesses

  13. Assessment Objectives • Complete runs of journals: • Library journal holdings will meet research needs of Auburn faculty • A survey of faculty will be administered • Will identify gaps in journal holdings • Library will design a program to acquire 100% of high priority titles identified

  14. Assessment Objectives • Library Business Hours: • Library business hours will be expanded according to student and faculty needs • A survey of faculty and students will be conducted to identify library hours that best serve user needs • Library hours will be modified to meet identified needs

  15. Assessment Objectives • Employees who have the knowledge to answer user questions: • Public service desks will be staffed with personnel who have the knowledge to answer user questions • Or staff will refer the questions to appropriate subject specialists

  16. Assessment Objectives • Employees who have the knowledge to answer user questions: • Focus groups of faculty and students will be conducted • Will identify service points perceived as deficient • A plan to remedy all identified deficiencies will be completed by the end of this review cycle

  17. What Has Been Done • In spring semester the libraries expanded hours as a pilot project • Need established reason to also extend summer hours • Architecture library extended hours during fall semester • The positive response has been tremendous!

  18. What Has Been Done • Faculty were sent an email requesting response to identify gaps in journal runs • We received good feedback and have checked requests against actual holdings • Other information added such as requests for new titles • Also wanted online titles added to collections of paper titles

  19. What Has Been Done • Faculty were sent an email requesting response to identify gaps in journal runs • Faculty identified over seventy titles that affected their research • All titles were ordered that were available • Began new subscriptions for those we didn’t own • Added 30 new subscriptions or backruns for about $17,000.00

  20. What Has Been Done • Proposal requested from Center for Governmental Studies to conduct focus meetings • Studied concern that emerged about public service desks and knowledge of people staffing those desks • Was concern because we had eliminated multiple reference desks or actual lack of knowledge? • Four focus meetings: 2 faculty groups, 1 graduate group, 1 undergraduate group

  21. What Has Been Done • October 15 and 16 four focus groups were conducted • Most participants visited the library at least twice monthly and ½ visit at least weekly • Found there was a consensus that reference librarians are both knowledgeable and helpful • Groups were not very interested in discussing lack of knowledge…it was not a concern

  22. What Has Been Done • October 15 and 16 four focus groups were conducted • There was discussion that the existence of branch libraries caused frustration with access to collections • Users admitted they often wanted to first try to find materials without help

  23. What Has Been Done • Librarians and staff designed roundtable discussions with library users • Situational discussions of their opinions on specific services • Had personnel available who are experts on the topics being discussed to answer questions

  24. What Has Been Done • Many of the same questions concerning lack of knowledge of librarians were asked of these roundtable groups • Some participants had specific stories but not a clear picture presented that lack of knowledge was a problem • Some participants unaware of differences in reference librarians and the information desk personnel

  25. What Is Planned • The last two areas rated as a level closest to the minimum acceptable level will be assessed: • Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to find things on my own • Convenient access to library collections

  26. Further Assessment Objectives • Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to find things on my own • Library material will be shelved correctly and the online catalog will provide an accurate record for shelved material • The library will design an inventory program to correct misshelving in areas where most misshelving occurs • Assure that the online catalog accurately reflects library holdings

  27. Further Assessment Objectives • Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to find things on my own • Reference and instruction faculty will use data from the results of the SAILS to identify standards/skill sets • Target these for inclusion in relevant sessions of library instruction • Students will score above the across-institutional average on all SAILS standards or skill sets targeted for improvement by inclusion in library instruction

  28. Further Assessment Objectives • Convenient access to library collections • In disciplines where online subscriptions have been substituted for paper subscriptions, faculty will be asked to rate the relative value of online and paper subscriptions • A survey of faculty in relevant departments will be administered • Will evaluate online access and identify deficiencies in the electronic delivery of journals

  29. What Is Planned • Library assessment Committee to evaluate other concerns/suggestions offered at focus groups • Each member will prioritize • Will develop a list of suggestions that the committee recommends for action • Will present recommendations to Library Leadership Group for review and action

  30. What Is Planned • After implementation of the Objectives during the next year, a new LibQUAL+ survey will be run • Can then measure the difference in the responses after the changes are made • Will alert us to new concerns that may have developed

More Related