LibQUAL+ in the UK and beyond
Stephen Town
University of York, UK
QQML 2009, Chania
Friday 29th May
1200-1340
Outline
•
•
•
•
Introduction
LibQUAL+ outside North America
LibQUAL+ results in the UK & Ireland
LibQUAL+ in action
The premise for LibQUAL+ beyond North
America
• Underlying need to demonstrate our worth
• The reallocation of resources from traditional
services and functions
• Rapid shifts in information-seeking behavior
– Need to keep abreast of customer demands
• Increasing user demands
– 37% of UK 16 – 18 year olds in the UK expect better libraries in
return for their top-up fees
• Specific Quality Assurance regimes, and contextual
drivers (Bologna)
Multiple Methods
of Listening to Customers
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Transactional surveys*
Mystery shopping
New, declining, and lost-customer surveys
Focus group interviews
Customer advisory panels
Service reviews
Customer complaint, comment, and inquiry capture
Total market surveys*
Employee field reporting
Employee surveys
Service operating data capture
• *A SERVQUAL-type instrument is most suitable for these methods
Note. A. Parasuraman. The SERVQUAL Model: Its Evolution And Current Status. (2000).
Paper presented at ARL Symposium on Measuring Service Quality, Washington, D.C.
UK Service Quality Context in 2003
• Academic library & institutional quality
initiatives since at least early 90s
• Sophisticated survey market, with standard
SCONUL satisfaction survey; designed surveys
through Priority Research and others
• Specific audit and assessment regimes for
which surveys could provide supporting
evidence
LibQUAL+ outside North America
The SCONUL Consortium
• 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 -16 UK & Irish HE institutions
• 2005 - 16 UK & Irish HE institutions
• 2006 – 20 UK & Irish HE institutions
• 2007 – 21 UK & Irish HE institutions
• 2008 – 17 UK & Irish institutions
• 2009 - 17 UK & Irish institutions
• 66+ different institutions (including EBS UK members)
Overall Potential UK Sample to 2009
• Full variety of institutions
• 50% of institutions* (53% of RAE top 50)
• >53% of HE students potentially sampled
(>850,000)
*Based on a selection of Universities UK membership of 131
RLUK
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
University of Aberdeen
University of Birmingham
University of Bristol
British Library
Cambridge University
Cardiff University
Durham University
Edinburgh University
Glasgow University
Imperial College London
University of Manchester
King's College London
Leeds University
University of Liverpool
University of London
• The London School of
Economics and Political
Science (LSE)
• National Library of Scotland
• National Library of Wales
• Newcastle University
• University of Nottingham
• University of Oxford
• School of Oriental and
African Studies (SOAS)
• University of Sheffield
• University of Southampton
• Trinity College Dublin
• UCL
• V&A Museum
• University of Warwick
• Wellcome Library
Ireland
• University College Cork
• University College
Dublin
• Dublin City University
• NUI, Galway
• University of Limerick
• NUI, Maynooth
• Trinity College Dublin
• Dublin Institute of
Technology
• Institute of Technology
Tallaght
• Irish Management
Institute
• University of Ulster
SCONUL Consortium 2009
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Cranfield University
Institute of Technology Tallaght
Royal College of Nursing
Royal Holloway University of
London
St George's, University of London
Trinity College Library Dublin
University of Aberdeen
University of Bath
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
University
University
University
University
University
University
University
University
University
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
Birmingham
Bradford
Glasgow Library
Leeds
Limerick
Manchester
St. Andrews
Ulster
York
LibQUAL+ France Consortium
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Sciences Po
Service Commun de Documentation - Université de Provence
Université de Bretagne Occidentale - Service Commun de Documentation
Université de Bretagne-sud - Service commun de la Documentation
Université de Rennes 2 - Service commun de documentation
Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines
Université du Sud Toulon-Var
Université Paris 12 Val de Marne
Université Sorbonne nouvelle - Paris 3
LibQUAL+ Belge & Norway
•
•
•
•
Université Catholique de Louvain
Université de Liège
Université Libre de Bruxelles
Utrecht University Library
•
•
•
•
•
•
Hedmark University College
The NTNU Library
University of Agder
University of Bergen Library
University of Oslo
University of Tromsø Library
World
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
National Graduate Institute for
Policy Studies
National University of Singapore
Universidad de Guadalajara
Université de la Polynésie française
University of Cape Town
University of Haifa
University of Pretoria, Department
of Library Services
政策研究大学院大学-日本語
Consortia outside North America
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Belgium
Canada
European Business Schools (EBSLG)
France
Hong Kong (JULAC)
Japan
NHS England
Norway
UK & Ireland (SCONUL)
Rapid Growth in Other Areas
• Languages
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
American English
British English
Other English variations
Afrikaans
French (2 versions)
German
Dutch
Scandinavian languages
Chinese
Welsh
• Types of Institutions
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Academic Health Sciences
Academic Law
Academic Military
College or University
Community College
European Business
Hospital
Public
State
• Countries
–
U.S., U.K., Ireland, Canada,
the Netherlands, South Africa,
Sweden, France, Australia,
New Zealand, Malaysia
World LibQUAL+ Survey 2005
Participating Libraries
LibQUAL+® Languages
American English
French Canadian
Swedish
British English
Afrikaans
Dutch English
Dutch
Continental French
Swedish
(British English)
German
Norwegian
Finnish
Danish
Over 700 institutions
1,000,000 respondents
LibQUAL+ and SCONUL
Results and consequences
Key to Bar Charts
Key to Radar Charts
Respondents by Institution for SCONUL
Population and Respondent Profiles by
User Sub-Group
Population and Respondent Profiles by
Standard Discipline
Core questions summary
Core Questions Dimensions Summary
Local Questions Summary
Core Questions Summary for
Undergraduates
Core Questions Summary for
Postgraduates
Core Questions Summary for Academic
Staff
Core Questions Summary for Library Staff
LibQUAL+ 2006 Summary Colleges
or Universities (American English)
LibQUAL+ 2006 Summary SCONUL
Longitudinal Analysis for SCONUL
Dimension Breakdown
Affect of Service
Information Control
Library as Place
8.50
8.50
8.00
8.00
8.00
7.50
7.50
7.50
8.50
7.00 Mean
Desired
Minimum
Mean
7.00
Mean
7.00
Mean
Mean
Minimum Mean
Perceived Mean
Affect of Service
6.50
6.00
6.50
Desired Mean
Perceived
Mean
6.50
6.00
6.00
5.50
5.50
5.00
5.00
8.50
5.50
8.00
5.00
2003
2004
2005
2006
2003
2004
2005
7.50
Minimum Mean
ean
7.00
Desired Mean
Perceived Mean
2006
2003
2004
2005
2006
Longitudinal Analysis for SCONUL
User Group Breakdown
Undergraduates Overall
Postgraduates Overall
Academic Staff Overall
8.50
8.50
8.50
8.50
8.00
8.00
8.00
8.00
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
8.50
6.00
Mean
Desired Mean
7.00
Desired Mean
7.00
Perceived Mean
Perceived Mean
Perceived Mean
Affect of Service
6.50
Mean
Mean
Mean
Desired Mean
7.00
Minimum Mean
Minimum Mean
Minimum Mean
7.00
Library Staff Overall
6.50
6.50
6.50
6.00
6.00
6.00
5.50
2006
5.50
2006
5.50
2006
8.00
5.50
7.50
2003
2004
2005
2003
2004
2005
2003
Minimum Mean
an
7.00
Desired Mean
Perceived Mean
2004
2005
2003
2004
2005
2006
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
LibQUAL+ in action
Use for national policy influence
• SCONUL LibQUAL+ results contributed to
national enquiries on libraries and learning
in higher education, with particular
reference to learning spaces, and the
competitiveness of UK University libraries in
comparison to global peers
UK University Case Study:
Using LibQUAL+® Results
• Strategic Service Developments
– Data to support service development
– Ability to identify where not meeting expectations
– Measure if change has met need
• Budget Discussions
– Data to support bid for increased funding
– Data to support case for change in emphasis (towards e-provision)
• Marketing Position
– Status of the library within the University
– Importance of national & international benchmarking
LibQUAL+ related outcomes
Funding received for:
• New Web Services Administrator
• Increased opening hours
– Now providing 222,578 seat hours per week
• Library refurbishment programme reinstated
at costs in excess of £8 million
Library Refurbishment
From:
To:
Finding Benchmarking Partners
External Benchmarking
Dimension Summary
0
-0.2
Superiority Mean
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1
-1.2
-1.4
-1.6
Affect of Service
Information Control
Library as Place
Overall
DCMT Superiority Mean
-0.07
-0.83
-0.33
-0.41
UK Superiority Mean
-0.91
-1.32
-1.49
-1.20
US Superiority Mean
-0.73
-1.37
-1.17
-1.09
Peer-to-Peer Benchmarking
D im e ns io n S um m a ry
8.50
8.00
7.50
7.00
6.50
6.00
5.50
5.00
4.50
4.00
Affect of
Service
Affect of
Service
Information
Control
Information
Control
Library as
Place
Library as
Place
Overall
Overall
DCM T
Library 2
DCM T
Library 2
DCM T
Library 2
DCM T
Library 2
LibQUAL+ Analysis Service
• Possibilities for additional analysis are
endless, your time may not be
• The UK LibQUAL+ analysis service provides
customised reports produced to individual
requirements
• Discounted pricing due to unique
relationship with the ARL
Why use LibQUAL?
Why did you choose to use LibQUAL+?
“LibQUAL+ was recommended to us as offering a well
designed, thoroughly Library-focused set of survey
tools”
“Cost-effectiveness”
“Automated processing & fast delivery of results”
“Opportunity to benchmark”
“Respectability and comparability (with others and
historically)”
The benefits of LibQUAL+®
“LibQUAL+ has enabled us to find out what a
broad range of our users thought of the
services we offer; what level of servicedelivery 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).”
UK HE Institution, 2006
J. Stephen Town
Director of Information
& University Librarian
University of York, UK
[email protected]
Descargar

Slide 1