LibQUAL+ and the Library Summit Concept London February 3, 2006 Fred Heath Vice Provost and...

Preview:

Citation preview

LibQUAL+ and theLibrary Summit Concept

LondonFebruary 3, 2006

Fred HeathVice Provost and Director, University of Texas Libraries

fheath@austin.utexas.edu

You Have your Libqual+ You Have your Libqual+ Data: Now What?Data: Now What?

The Library Summit

Why Assess?Why Assess?1.1. Because our bosses demand it: Libraries are Because our bosses demand it: Libraries are

expensive. expensive.

2.2. Because our accrediting agencies require Because our accrediting agencies require it.it.

3.3. Because our customers deserve to be Because our customers deserve to be listened to.listened to.

4.4. Because we want to repair our deficits and adapt Because we want to repair our deficits and adapt to evolving behaviors.to evolving behaviors.

Libraries Remain a Credible Libraries Remain a Credible Resource in 21Resource in 21stst Century Century

Note. Digital Library Federation and Council on Library and InformationResources. (2002). Dimensions and Use of the Scholarly Information Environment.

98% agree with statement98% agree with statement, “My … library , “My … library contains information from credible and contains information from credible and known sources.”known sources.”

It ain’t your grandmother’s library…any more

• Speed of change no longer incremental

• Rate of change is transformational

Changing BehaviorsChanging Behaviors

• Anecdotal indicators• Operational evidence• Research information

“…everyone in class tried to get those articles on line and some people didn’t even bother to to to the stacks when theycouldn’t Google them.” Graduate Student NYT Online 6/21/04 (Katie Hafner, “Old search engine in the

the library tries to fit into a Google world”)

Reference DecreaseReference Decrease

Note. M. Kyrillidou and M. Young. (2002).ARL Statistics 2000-01. Washington, D.C.: ARL, p.7.

Searches for Online JournalsSearches for Online JournalsUT Austin Libraries 2002-2004 MonthlyUT Austin Libraries 2002-2004 Monthly

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

Total File Requests - UT Austin Libraries Total File Requests - UT Austin Libraries 2000-20032000-2003

0

100,000,000

200,000,000

300,000,000

400,000,000

500,000,000

600,000,000

700,000,000

800,000,000

900,000,000

2000 2001 2002 2003

Total Hits

Changing BehaviorsChanging Behaviors

Note. Digital Library Federation and Council on Library and InformationResources. (2002). Dimensions and Use of the Scholarly Information Environment.

Recent Survey:Recent Survey:Only Only 15.7% agreed with the statement15.7% agreed with the statement “The “The Internet has not changed the way I use the Internet has not changed the way I use the library.”library.”

Faculty: Dependence on Electronic Resources

Will Increase

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2000 2003

Not WellSomewhatVery Well

“I will become increasingly dependent on electronic research resources in the future.”

http://www.arl.org/arl/proceedings/144/guthrie_files/guthrie.ppt

Research Behavior: Research Behavior: Personal ControlPersonal Control

When searching for When searching for printprint journals for journals for research:research:

Note. Digital Library Federation and Council on Library and InformationResources. (2002). Dimensions and Use of the Scholarly Information Environment.

• Only 13.9% ask a librarian for assistanceOnly 13.9% ask a librarian for assistance• Only 3.2% consider consulting a librarian a preferred Only 3.2% consider consulting a librarian a preferred way of identifying informationway of identifying information

LibQUAL+: Reasons for being

• To answer necessity for assessment

• To detect rapid shifts in information-seeking behavior

• To facilitate reallocation of resources from traditional services and functions

Peer Assessment

• University of Texas Libraries compares favorably to peers

• University of Washington

• University of Wisconsin – Madison

• UCLA

• Ohio State University

• University of Minnesota – Twin Cities

LibQUAL+™

Adequacy GapThe difference between the minimum and perceived score

Information Control scores. UT had…higher perceived scores than did the peer group. UT had a larger adequacy gap and a significantly smaller superiority gap than did the peer groups.

Constituent Groups

• What are the differences we can recognize by constituent group?– Undergraduate– Graduate Students– Faculty– Library Staff

Constituent Groups

• What are the differences we can recognize by constituent group?– Undergraduate– Graduate Students– Faculty– Library Staff

Consider Discipline Differences

• Are there statistically different behaviors by discipline to which we need to respond?

Humanities (N = 103)Humanities had significantly lower perceived scores for Library as Place(Humanities = 6.15; other UT = 6.565). The adequacy gap for Affect of Service was marginally higher(Humanities = 1.089; other UT = 0.778).

Engineering & Computer Science (N = 112)Respondents from Engineering and Computer Science had significantly lower minimum(E & CS = 5.771; other UT = 6.230) standards for Affect of Service and Information Control (E & CS = 6.462;other UT = 6.742). The perceived rating for Information Control was also significantly lower (E & CS = 7.979;other UT = 8.188). The adequacy gap was significantly larger for Affect of Service (E & CS = 1.197; other UT = 0.757) and overall (E & CS = 0.939; other UT = 0.607).

What next?

… the Library Summit

Clemson University Libraries Clemson UniversityClemson University Libraries Clemson University

The Clemson Summit Concept

Concept initiated by President

Summits are organized around a university function

Bring university constituents together to focus on one area

Take the leap!

Why hold a Library Summit?

Discuss current state of library service quality

Generate fresh ideas for change and improvement from the University community

Gather qualitative data for strategic planning process from external constituents

Allowed me as a new Vice Provost to strategically engage the entire academic community

Summit OverviewModeled after Clemson University Libraries Summit

Invited representatives from campus community

President Faulkner opened the Summit

Major opinion makers, critics

Participant information packet

Summit Overview, cont’d

Facilitated roundtable discussions focused on service quality dimensions

How to improve where service quality is currently below users’ expectations or deteriorating over time

Focus on “how to” not “can’t do”

Summit Agenda9:00 – 10:00 AM Introductory Remarks (Dr. Faulkner)

Purpose of Summit(Dr. Heath)

Brief Introduction to LibQUAL+

Expected Outcomes

10:00 – 11:00 AM Roundtable #1

11:00 – noon Roundtable #2

noon – 1:00 PM Lunch

Statistical analysis

Focus group facilitators

Participants

Invitations and information packet

Event coordination

Survey comments

Adequacy Gaps

Community feedback

Summit Checklist

Roundtable DiscussionsDiscussions organized around LibQUAL+ dimensions

Choose different topic for each session

Innovative and constructive solutions from your perspective

Negative gaps & “danger zones”

Focus on “how to” not “can’t do”

Facilitator & library staff roles

Analyze and sort focus group data

Items assigned to appropriate AD for implementation

Timelines set and posted to web site

Communicate changes to University community on ongoing basis

After the Summit

Service Quality Assessment and Improvement Site

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/vprovost/assessment/index.html

LibQUAL+ results and analyses

Library Summit info and focus group data

Improvement projects and timetables

Service Quality Assessment and Improvement Site

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/vprovost/assessment/index.html

LibQUAL+ results and analyses

Library Summit info and focus group data

Improvement projects and timetables

Coffee bar in both PCL and UGL

The library to more actively enforce cell phone and noise policies

Fewer and more clearly defined service points in PCL and UGL

More couches and comfortable chairs in all library facilities

Ubiquitous wireless access in all library facilities; more power

Longer business hours in a number of library facilities

Better photocopiers with additional functionality

Both quiet spaces and areas where you can talk and work in groups

Major Themes: Library as Place

Library staff to be friendly, courteous and approachable

The library to better market services to the University community

Better access to subject specialists

Library staff to be more proactive, to “roam” the library looking for opportunities to help users and to more actively promote services to faculty and departments

Major Themes: Affect of Service

More services and notifications accessible online through the library web site, UT Direct and email

The library web site and UTNetCAT to function more like Google and Amazon.com with additional personalization, seamless linking and alert services

Well-designed, easy-to-use searching and help interfaces on the library web site and UTNetCAT

More accessible instruction in how to use library resources both online and in-person

Books and other materials to be delivered to campus addresses

Major Themes: Personal Control

SFX & MetaLib

Providing “negative” information from LIBQUAL+ results was very positive (Psychology: “disconfirming expectancy”

An organization that makes its weaknesses public and asks for advice gains positive regard

Participants tend to take ownership of their ideas

Input from Summit participants provides richer and more detailed data for management decision making

What we learned

Alternate years between community and staff library summits

Focus on middle managers and supervisors

Reinforce “holistic” idea of customer service and the need for constant improvement

Gain valuable feedback from staff about improving services

Next step… Staff Library Summit

Trends: Trends: Access to InformationAccess to Information by Status by StatusFaculty

DesMinPer

AI

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

Year

2001 2002 2003

Graduate

DesMinPer

AI

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

Year

2001 2002 2003

Undergrad

DesMinPer

AI

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

Year

2001 2002 2003

Total

DesMinPer

AI

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

Year

2001 2002 2003

Alignment of values

• Can we be sure that our priorities, values correctly align with those of our constituents?

• If a case for misalignment can be made, what can we do to align ourselves more effectively?

ARL Means

5.00

5.50

6.00

6.50

7.00

7.50

8.00

IC1

IC2

IC3

IC4

IC5

IC6

IC7

IC8

AS1

AS2

AS3

AS4

AS5

AS6

AS7

AS8

AS9

LP1

LP2

LP3

LP4

LP5

LibQUAL+ Questions

Minimum Mean

Perceived Mean

- 30 -

Recommended