Charting Library Service Quality

1
(No Transcript)
2
Charting Library Service Quality

• Sheri Downer
• Auburn University Libraries

3
Background of Need for LibQUAL

• Library had undergone extensive changes in
  services
• Librarian and Staff responsibilities had changed
• Utilization of physical spaces had changed

4
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

5
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

6
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?

7
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

8
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

9
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

10
Results of Data

• Data indicated that many faculty and students
  perceive strength in the Librarys physical
  facility and environment.

11
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

12
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

13
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

14
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

15
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

16
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

17
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

18
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!

19
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

20
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 didnt own
• Added 30 new subscriptions or backruns for about
  17,000.00

21
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

22
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 knowledgeit was not a concern

23
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

24
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

25
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

26
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

27
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

28
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

29
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

30
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

31
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

32
(No Transcript)