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) Advisory
  Committee on Performance Improvement (ACPI)
• 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
• 54 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 College for the Creative Arts

• 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
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

12
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

13
CMU

• University of Wales College Newport
• 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 Central Lancashire

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

14
Former Colleges

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

15
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

16
Overall Potential UK Sample to 2006

• Full variety of institutions
• 43 of institutions
• 38 of HE students (gt800,000)
• 42 of Libraries
• 48 of Library expenditure
• Based on Universities UK membership of 126

17
Time frame

• December Registration
• January UK Training
• February to May Session I
• April to June Session I results distributed
• July Results meeting
• July to December Session II

18
Dimensions of Quality

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

19
F. Heath, 2005
20
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

21
2004 5 local question selected from a range of
over 100

• Different questions tailored to local needs

22
Sample Survey
23
Sample Survey continued
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

• 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

26
SCONUL Response by Discipline 2005
27
Respondent Comparisons

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

28
Core Questions
29
Core Questions
30
SCONUL Core Question Summary 2005
31
SCONUL Core Question Summary 2004
32
SCONUL Core Question Summary 2003
33
Overall Comparisons
34
Undergraduates
35
Core Question Summary for Undergraduates 2005
36
Core Question Summary for Undergraduates 2004
37
Core Question Summary for Undergraduates 2003
38
Postgraduates
39
Core Question Summary for Postgraduates 2005
40
Core Question Summary for Postgraduates 2004
41
Core Question Summary for Postgraduates 2003
42
Academic Staff
43
Core Question Summary for Academic Staff 2004
44
Core Question Summary for Academic Staff 2004
45
Core Questions Summary for Academic Staff 2003
46
Comparisons by Dimension
47
Affect of Service Comparisons
48
Information Control Comparisons
49
Library as Place Comparisons
50
Overall Comparisons by User Group
51
Comments
52
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
53
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
54
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
55
Comments Comparisons

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

56
Expect everything

• From
• The library facility is uniformly of a high
  quality in terms of the book collection
  maintained, on line electronic resources and
  "customer care" given to the users.
• To
• The library is consistently unimpressive, except
  as a consumer of funds and resources.
• And everything in between!

57
3. Feedback from participants and lessons learnt
58
Purpose for participating

• Benchmarking
• Analysis compiled by LibQUAL
• 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.

59
Primary aim(s) for surveying users

• 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.

60
Feedback on the LibQUAL process

• Majority found it straightforward
• Hard work subtracting / managing inbuilt US bias
• Some issues in obtaining
• Email addresses
• Demographic data
• The publicity to the student body was the most
  time consuming part

61
Feedback on results

• Overall results were as expected by the
  institutions
• Not too surprising really given anecdotal
  evidence known already
• Detailed questions highlighted new information,
  as LibQUAL goes into more depth than previous
  surveys
• Surprisingly bad, especially compared with other
  surveys including a parallel one

62
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)

63
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.
• 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

64
Tips for participating

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

65
Tips for participating

• 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!

66
Conclusions
67
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

68
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

69
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

70
J. Stephen Town

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