Background on the U.K. / SCONUL LibQUAL implementation

1
Background on the U.K. / SCONUL LibQUAL
implementation

• Stephen Town,
• Cranfield University

2
Objectives

• To give an overview of U.K. / SCONUL LibQUAL
  participation
• To present the overall results of the SCONUL
  Cohort
• To describe the feedback from participants and
  the lessons learnt

3
UK HE Libraries survey methods

• General Satisfaction
• Exit questionnaires
• SCONUL Satisfaction Survey
• Designed Surveys
• Satisfaction vs Importance 1989-
• Priority Surveys 1993-
• Outcome measurement
• ACPI project 2003-
• National Student Survey (1 Question)

4
Survey methods used in the UK
West, 2004 A Survey of Surveys
5
1. SCONUL LibQUAL Participation
6
The UK approach

• Coordinated on behalf of the Society of College,
  National University Libraries (SCONUL) Working
  Group on Performance Improvement (WGPI)
• 2003 - 20 UK Higher Education (HE) institutions
• 2004 -17 UK Irish HE institutions
• 2005 - 16 UK Irish HE institutions
• 2006 20 UK Irish HE institutions
• 2007 22 UK Irish HE institutions
• 62 different institutions

7
LibQUAL Participants 2003

• University of Bath
• Cranfield University
• Royal Holloway Bedford New College
• University of Lancaster
• University of Wales, Swansea
• University of Edinburgh
• University of Glasgow
• University of Liverpool
• University of London Library
• University of Oxford
• University College Northampton

• University of Wales College Newport
• University of Gloucestershire
• De Montfort University
• Leeds Metropolitan University
• Liverpool John Moores University
• Robert Gordon University
• South Bank University
• University of the West of England, Bristol
• University of Wolverhampton

8
LibQUAL Participants 2004

• Brunel University
• Loughborough University
• University of Strathclyde
• University of York
• Glasgow University
• Sheffield University
• Trinity College, Dublin
• UMIST University of Manchester
• University of Liverpool

• Anglia Polytechnic University
• University of Westminster
• London South Bank University
• Napier University
• Queen Margaret University College
• University College Worcester
• University of East London

9
LibQUAL Participants 2005

• University of Exeter
• University of Edinburgh
• University of Dundee
• University of Bath
• University of Ulster
• University College Northampton
• University of Birmingham
• Roehampton University

• University of Glasgow
• University of Surrey
• Royal Holloway UoL
• City University
• Cranfield University
• University of Luton
• Dublin Institute of Technology
• London South Bank University

10
LibQUAL Participants 2006

• Cambridge University Library
• Cranfield University
• Goldsmiths College
• Institute of Education
• Institute of Technology Tallaght
• Queen Mary, University of London
• Robert Gordon University
• St. George's University of London
• University of Aberdeen

• University of Central Lancashire
• University of Glasgow
• University of Gloucestershire
• University of Leeds
• University of Leicester
• University of Liverpool
• University of the West of England
• University of Warwick
• University of Westminster
• London South Bank University

11
LibQUAL Participants 2007

• Anglia Ruskin University
• Cambridge University Library
• Coventry University
• Cranfield University
• De Montfort University
• London South Bank University
• Napier University
• Nottingham Trent University
• Royal Holloway University of London
• School of Oriental and African Studies

• Senate House Library, University of London
• St Andrews University
• University College, Cork
• University of Bath
• University of Birmingham
• University of Central Lancashire
• University of Edinburgh
• University of Leeds
• University of Limerick
• University of Manchester
• University of Surrey
• University of Wales Bangor

12
CURL

• University of Cambridge
• University of Aberdeen
• University of Edinburgh
• University of Glasgow
• University of Liverpool
• University of London Library
• University of Oxford

• Sheffield University
• Trinity College, Dublin
• University of Manchester
• University of Birmingham
• University of Leeds
• University of Warwick

13
Pre-92 94 Group

• Cranfield University
• Royal Holloway Bedford New College
• University of Wales, Swansea
• Brunel University
• Loughborough University
• Goldsmith College
• Queen Mary, University of London

• University of Dundee
• University of Bath
• University of Lancaster
• University of York
• University of Exeter
• University of Surrey
• University of Leicester
• University of Strathclyde

14
CMU

• University of Wales College Newport
• De Montfort University
• Leeds Metropolitan University
• Liverpool John Moores University
• Robert Gordon University
• London South Bank University
• University of the West of England, Bristol
• University of Central Lancashire

• Anglia Ruskin University
• University of Westminster
• Napier University
• Queen Margaret University
• University of East London
• Roehampton University
• University of Luton
• Coventry University
• University of Wolverhampton
• University of Ulster

15
Former Colleges

• University of Gloucestershire
• University College Northampton
• University College Worcester

16
Other / Specialist Institutions

• Dublin Institute of Technology
• Institute of Education
• Institute of Technology Tallaght
• St. Georges, University of London
• University College for the Creative Arts

17
Overall Potential UK Sample to 2007

• Full variety of institutions
• 49 of institutions
• 53 of HE students (gt850,000)
• 36 of Libraries
• 45 of Library expenditure
• Based on Universities UK membership of 126

18
Time frame

• December Registration
• January UK Training Results Meeting
• February to May Session I
• July UK Training Results Meeting
• July to December Session II
• January 2008 SCONUL results available

19
Dimensions of Quality

• Affect of Service
• Information Control
• Library as a Place

20
F. Heath, 2005
21
2003 5 additional questions for all SCONUL
Participants

• Access to photocopying and printing facilities
• Main text and readings needed
• Provision for information skills training
• Helpfulness in dealing with users IT problems
• Availability of subject specialist assistance

22
2004 5 local question selected from a range of
over 100

• Different questions tailored to local needs

23
Sample Survey
24
2. Results from SCONUL
25
Response Comparisons

• SCONUL 2003
• 20 institutions
• 11,919 respondents
• SCONUL 2004
• 16 institutions
• 16,611 respondents
• Increase by 4,692
• SCONUL 2005
• 16 institutions
• 17,355 respondents
• Increase by 744
• SCONUL 2006
• 20 institutions
• 19,108 respondents
• Increase by 1,753

• LibQUAL 2003
• 308 institutions
• 128,958 respondents
• LibQUAL 2004
• 202 institutions
• 112,551 respondents
• Decrease by 16,407
• LibQUAL 2005
• 199 institutions
• 108,504 respondents
• Decrease by 4,047
• LibQUAL 2006
• 298 institutions
• 176,360 respondents
• Increase by 67,856

26
SCONUL Response by User Group 2006
27
SCONUL Response by Discipline 2006
28
Respondent Comparisons

• Glasgow University
• 2006 1,535
• 2005 1,384
• 2004 2,178
• 2003 503
• London South Bank University
• 2006 700
• 2005 766
• 2004 568
• 2003 276

29
Core Questions
30
Core Questions
31
SCONUL Core Question Summary 2006
32
SCONUL Core Question Summary 2005
33
SCONUL Core Question Summary 2004
34
SCONUL Core Question Summary 2003
35
Overall Comparisons
36
Undergraduates
37
Core Question Summary for Undergraduates 2006
38
Core Question Summary for Undergraduates 2005
39
Core Question Summary for Undergraduates 2004
40
Core Question Summary for Undergraduates 2003
41
Postgraduates
42
Core Question Summary for Postgraduates 2006
43
Core Question Summary for Postgraduates 2005
44
Core Question Summary for Postgraduates 2004
45
Core Question Summary for Postgraduates 2003
46
Academic Staff
47
Core Question Summary for Academic Staff 2006
48
Core Question Summary for Academic Staff 2005
49
Core Question Summary for Academic Staff 2004
50
Core Questions Summary for Academic Staff 2003
51
Comparisons by Dimension
52
Affect of Service Comparisons
53
Information Control Comparisons
54
Library as Place Comparisons
55
Overall Comparisons by User Group
56
General findings

• Highly desired
• Making electronic resources accessible from my
  home or office
• Print and/or electronic journals I require for my
  work
• A haven for study, learning or research
• Lowest
• Library staff who instil confidence in users
• Giving users individual attention
• Space for group learning and group study

57
Comments
58
Free text comments received 2003
London South Bank University 428
University of London 422
UWE, Bristol 419
University of Wolverhampton 413
University of Bath 412
University of Gloucestershire 407
Lancaster University 396
Robert Gordon University 395
University of Liverpool 378
Liverpool John Moores University 353
Royal Holloway University 341
University of Wales, Swansea 340
Uni of Wales College, Newport 339
University of Oxford 337
University College Northampton 332
Glasgow University 330
University of Edinburgh 328
Leeds Metropolitan University 327
DE Montfort University 326
Cranfield University 170
59
Free text comments received 2004
UMIST University of Manchester 1090
Trinity College Library Dublin 1032
Glasgow University 920
Brunel University 906
University of Sheffield 786
University of Westminster 671
University of Strathclyde 511
London South Bank University 358
Anglia Polytechnic University 311
Napier University 299
University of Liverpool 258
Queen Margaret University College 251
University of York 239
University of East London 239
University College Worcester 170
Loughborough University Library 120
60
Free text comments received 2005
University of Exeter 559
University of Edinburgh 206
University of Dundee 709
University of Bath 527
University of Ulster 854
University College Northampton 142
University of Birmingham 975
Roehampton University 359
University of Glasgow 536
University of Surrey 593
Royal Holloway UoL 596
City University 798
Cranfield University 302
University of Luton 188
Dublin Institute of Technology 569
London South Bank University 455
61
Free text comments received 2006
Aberdeen University 574
Cambridge University 106
Cranfield University 147
Glasgow University 620
Goldsmith College 399
Institute of Education, UoL 487
Institute of Technology Tallaght 200
London South Bank University 382
Queen Mary, UoL 745
Robert Gordon University 181
Scottish Agricultural College 134
St Georges, UoL 299
University of Central Lancashire 654
University of Gloucestershire 412
University of Leeds 888
University of Leicester 791
University of Liverpool 255
University of the West of England, Bristol 736
University of Warwick 355
University of Westminster 916
62
Comments Comparisons

• Total number of comments 2006 9,281
• Total number of comments 2005 8,368
• Total number of comments 2004 8,161
• Total number of comments 2003 7,342

63
Expect everything

• From
• The library in DCMT is one of the best, if not
  the best, departments of the campus. The staff
  are outstanding, professional, helpful and
  extremely friendly. The place is always inviting
  and welcoming.
• To
• The library is consistently unimpressive, except
  as a consumer of funds and resources.
• And everything in between!

64
3. Feedback from participants and lessons learnt
65
Why LibQUAL?

• Benchmarking
• Cost effectiveness
• Analysis compiled by LibQUAL
• Fast delivery of results
• Support available, especially regarding analysis
  of results
• Trialling alternative survey methods
• More library focused than previous in-house
  method
• Supporting Charter Mark application process
• Planned institutional survey failed to happen.
  LibQUAL was cost effective way of doing
  something to fill the gap.

66
Primary aim(s) for surveying users

• We wanted to find out what a broad range of our
  users thought of the services we offer what
  level of service-delivery quality we had achieved
  in their eyes, and to get a clear picture of what
  they actually wanted the Library to deliver (as
  opposed to what we thought they wanted).
• Understand what their opinions of our service is,
  to inform strategic planning.
• Making sure we knew what customers concerns
  really are as we have had much lobbying by one
  group of students. Also nearly three years since
  last survey, so needed an update after much
  change in services.
• User satisfaction as simple as that. We need to
  know how they view us and whether we are
  improving. 3 years of the same survey can have
  some credibility.
• To gain information for better planning of our
  service and make adjustments in areas found
  wanting.

67
Feedback on the LibQUAL process

• Majority found it straightforward
• Some issues in obtaining
• Email addresses
• Demographic data
• The publicity to the student body was the most
  time consuming part

68
Feedback on results

• Overall results were as expected by the
  institutions
• In the majority of cases the results proved our
  own suspicions, and there were few surprises. We
  were very pleased, though, to actually have an
  independent source of information to which we
  could refer during debates and discussions.
• Not too surprising really given anecdotal
  evidence known already
• Detailed questions highlighted new information,
  as LibQUAL goes into more depth than previous
  surveys

69
How can LibQUAL be improved?

• Summary and commentary on results
• More flexibility on the content and language of
  the questionnaire
• More interaction with other UK participating
  libraries
• Providing results by department, campus, and for
  full time and part time students
• Simpler questionnaire design
• We really need a ConvergedServQual tool!
• Needs to allow you to use a word other than
  library (e.g. Learning Resource Centre)

70
Changes made as a result of the survey

• It has strengthened our case in asking for more
  money to improve the environment.
• We have re-introduced our A-Z list of e-journals
  which had been axed several weeks before the
  survey was conducted.
• New reception desk instituted. Staff meetings to
  discuss customer service. Summer training
  programme enhanced to encompass areas of concern.
  
• Implementing PG forums to address issues raised
• Main Library makeover/Group study area
• Refocused discussions and mechanisms relating to
  resource expenditure at the most senior levels

71
Tips for participating

• Use a large sample
• Promote the survey to help increase the response
  rate
• Online
• Email
• Posters
• Notices in college newsletters etc.

• Allow enough time to collect demographics data
• Exploit all areas of help and advice
• ARL Web site discussion list
• JISCMail discussion list
• Each other
• Us!

72
Conclusions
73
Conclusions

• LibQUAL Successfully applied to the UK academic
  sector
• Provided first comparative data on academic
  library user satisfaction in the UK
• At least half the participants would use LibQUAL
  again

74
Lessons learnt

• The majority of participants would not sample the
  population in future surveys
• The smaller the sample, the lower the response
  rate
• Collecting demographics is time consuming and
  subject categories are not always fitting
• Results are detailed and comprehensive, further
  analysis is complex

75
Acknowledgements

• Colleen Cook, Dean Of Texas AM University
  Libraries
• Bruce Thompson, Professor and Distinguished
  Research Scholar, Texas AM University
• Fred Heath, Vice Provost and Director of the
  University of Texas Libraries, Austin
• Martha Kyrillidou ARL
• Chris West. A Survey of Surveys. SCONUL
  Newsletter. Number 31.
• Selena Lock, RD Officer, Cranfield University
• All SCONUL LibQUAL Participants

76
J. Stephen Town

• Director of Knowledge Services
• Defence College of Management and Technology
• Deputy University Librarian
• Cranfield University
• j.s.town_at_cranfield.ac.uk