LibQUAL

1
LibQUAL

• The UK and London South Bank experience

2
(No Transcript)
3
Peter Godwin

• London South Bank University
• 28 June 2005

4
LibQUAL the UK and LSBU experience

• Life before LibQUAL
• Arrival of LibQUAL
• UK and Irish participation
• SCONUL experience
• UK and US comparisons
• LSBU experience
• What have I learned?

5
Life before LibQUAL

• Part of general University user satisfaction
  survey
• Priority Research surveys
• SCONUL and its role
• UK national student survey 2005 has one whole
  library question!

6
Arrival of LibQUAL

• Organised via SCONUL Advisory Committee on
  Performance Improvement
• Supported by Consortium of University Research
  Libraries in the UK and Ireland
• Involvement began in 2003

7
UK and Irish take-up

• 20 UK Higher Education (HE) institutions
  participated in 2003
• 17 UK Irish Higher Education (HE) institutions
  participated in 2004
• 17 UK Irish Higher Education (HE) institutions
  participating in 2005
• 43 different institutions

8
John Moores University Lancaster University Leeds
University Liverpool University University of
Manchester University of Sheffield
Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen Dundee
University Edinburgh University Glasgow
University Napier University Queen Margaret
College Strathclyde University
Birmingham ,Coventry University University of
Wolverhampton De Montfort University Luton
University, Oxford University College,
Northampton Anglia Polytechnic University
Dublin Institute of Technology Trinity College,
Dublin Ulster University
University of Wales, Newport University of
Swansea
London South Bank University Brunel University
City University Roehampton University Royal
Holloway University of East London University of
London University of Westminster University of
Surrey, Guildford
Bath University University of West
England Cranfield University Exeter
University University of Gloucestershire Universit
y College Worcester
9
Institutions who took part

• Mixture of old and new Universities
• Includes 2 Irish Universities
• Diversity encouraged so that libraries feel they
  can compare results against peers

10
Participation 2003-2005

• By 2004 20 of UK institutions
• 31 of HE students (530,000)
• 26 of Libraries
• 28 of Library expenditure
• By 2005 one third of UK HE institutions had taken
  part

11
Time schedule

• December Registration deadline
• January UK Training
• February to May Surveys run
• One month after survey closes Results
  distributed
• July Dissemination
• Plus second run in 2005 (Coventry)

12
Response comparisons

• SCONUL 2003
• 20 institutions
• 11,919 respondents
• SCONUL 2004
• 16 institutions
• 16,611 respondents
• Increase by 4,692

13
SCONUL experience reasons for taking part

• Allows benchmarking
• Analysis is compiled by ARL and Texas AM
• Competitive price
• Enabled comparison with other survey methods
• More library focussed than other institutional
  surveys

14
SCONUL experience issues

• Obtaining e-mail addresses problematic
• Demographic data problems
• The smaller the sample the smaller the result
• Sampling was hard, and blanket e-mail increased
  response markedly
• Desirability of separating full and part time
  student responses

15
SCONUL experience issues

• May need to have results and radar charts for
  particular sites
• UK libraries are used to more summaries and a
  commentary on results
• Difficulty of aligning our subjects with standard
  ARL disciplines
• Some concerns about US bias and exact wording of
  content and language

16
SCONUL experience lessons

• LibQUAL is easy to administer and support is good
• LibQUAL instrument has more respectability than
  home-grown surveys
• Most places were not too surprised at their
  results, but detailed questions gave far more
  data
• People adjust their expectations according to the
  environment
• Users dont care what we wear

17
SCONUL experience lessons

• Users desire for journals, books and learning
  materials is insatiable
• The things we care most about are not necessarily
  what they care most about
• Comparative data in UK available for the first
  time
• Glasgow have found their zones of tolerance move
  up the scale as the minimum service levels score
  higher
• At least half participants have said they will
  use LibQUAL again

18
SCONUL experience lessons

• The results for SCONUL cohort 2004 were more
  critical than 2003 due to
• Different participants?
• Increasing expectations as students have to pay
  more themselves

19
UK and US comparisons in 2004

• UK undergraduates had negative mean service
  adequacy gap for Library as place
• UK postgraduates had negative mean service
  adequacy gap for Library as place and Information
  control
• Uk academic staff had negative mean service
  adequacy gap for Library as place and ARL faculty
  for Information control

20
Glasgow and London South Bank

• Glasgow
• 2003 503
• 2004 2,178
• 2005 1,384
• London South Bank University
• 2003 276
• 2004 568
• 2005 766

21
London South Bank University
22
(No Transcript)
23
(No Transcript)
24
London South Bank University

• Central London new University
• 16,388 staff and students
• Founded in 1892 as Borough Polytechnic,
• Joined 4 other colleges to become South Bank
  Polytechnic in 1970
• Became South Bank University in 1992 and London
  South Bank University in 2003

25
London South Bank University

• 42 male, 52 female
• 62 are 25 and over
• 47.5 are part-time
• 74.5 undergraduate, 22 postgraduate
• By country of origin 41 are from overseas
• 40 are white and 60 ethnic minorities

26
(No Transcript)
27
London South Bank University

• 17 Arts and Human Sciences
• 32 Health and Social Care
• 21.5 Engineering, Science and Built Environment
• 24 Business, Computing and Information Management

28
(No Transcript)
29
LSBU experience

• E-mail option problematic but has improved this
  year
• Participation has increased each year. No survey
  fatigue!
• A good incentive is essential
• Promotion of the survey around the buildings is
  productive
• Surprising number fill in a printed version

30
LSBU experience

• 2003 was a pilot and detailed results had to be
  treated with caution
• 2004 was valid and showed some improvements in
  satisfaction
• 2005 showed marked improvement, with all positive
  undergraduate adequacy mean scores

31
(No Transcript)
32
(No Transcript)
33
(No Transcript)
34
(No Transcript)
35
LSBU explanations

• After 2003 survey we redecorated the main
  library, installed new book shelves and a new
  Library Management System
• After 2004 survey we redesigned our Web site,
  made off-campus access easier, used
  floorwalkers at crucial times of the year to
  answer queries and help students navigate the
  building, improved guiding and maps, prioritised
  shelf tidying using special team of shelvers with
  mandatory shelf tidying each week for all staff

36
LSBU experience

• Surveys are dynamic processes and views do change
• The instrument is comprehensive but is long and
  off-putting to fill in
• Provides excellent information on user
  satisfaction but needs to be supplemented by our
  own snap surveys on particular issues e.g.this
  year use of our LIS Web Site LIS_at_
• Comments in the box are very valuable and
  supplement the statistical information. We are
  going to use them to set up Focus Groups

37
Comments

• Generally, staff are helpful but some are very
  hostile indeed
• (PG Social Science female student 23-30)

• Compared with other University libraries it is a
  fine place to find information to learn and work
• (UG Social Science male student 18-22)

38
Comments

• Better work in here than 2 years back. Keep up
  the good work
• (UG Business
• Male student
• 23-30)

• It is improving but some staff is still very
  rood especially gards
• (UG ArtsMan/Media/
• English female student
• 23-30)

39
What have I learned?

• Libraries both sides of the Atlantic share many
  of the same problems and can learn from one
  another
• LibQUAL is an instrument which can be used
  internationally

40
What have I learned?

• Only customers judge quality all other
  judgements are essentially irrelevant
• (Zeithaml,V.A. Parasuman, A., Berry.L.L.
  Delivering quality)

41
(No Transcript)