1. New Ways of Listening To Our Users: LibQUAL+ 2004 @ Queen’s

2. What Is LibQUAL+ ? l Web-based tool for assessing library service quality. l A tool for identifying areas for service improvement l Developed and refined over 5 years, 200,000+ respondents, 400+ institutions l Based on ServQual. 15 years of research and application at Texas A&M, etc.

3. How Does LibQUAL+ Measure Quality? Rating of services in context and l Based on users’ and non-users’ perceptions and expectations l Gap analysis between perceived level of service, and minimum and desired service level l Comparison with other libraries, past years & developing norms

4. Why LibQUAL+? l Quick, easy and inexpensive  Web based survey administered by Association of Research Libraries (ARL); data collected & analyzed by expert LibQUAL+ staff l Allows Library to see relationship to academic libraries across North America over time l Complement other local assessments l Starting point to identify best practices in providing library service

5. LibQUAL+ 2004 Survey Specifics l 202 institutions from North America, Europe & Australia - including 57 ARL Libraries & consortia l 9 Canadian institutions: Alberta, Calgary, McGill, Montreal, Queen’s, UNB, Western, Windsor, York l 113,000 respondents

6. LibQUAL+ Spring 2004 Survey l 22 service quality survey questions l 5 optional “local” questions l Demographic & usage questions l One open comments box

7. Service Quality Dimensions Library Service Quality Affect of Service Empathy Responsiveness Assurance Reliability Library as Place Utilitarian Space Information Control Ease of Navigation Convenience Scope of collections Timeliness Refuge Symbol Modern Equipment

8. When it comes to… My Minimum Service Level Is low …… high My Desired Service Level Is low …… high Perceived Service Performance Is low …… high N/A 1 Employees who instill confidence in users 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 N/A 2 Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to find things on my own 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 N/A 3 Print and/or electronic journal collections I require for my work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 N/A Survey - Sample Section

9. Rating user expectations Service Adequacy Gap = Perceived Score – Minimum Score Desired level of service or Value

10. Queen’s 2004 Results The Results are a measure of perceived service quality in relation to user expectations for that service or library facility.

11. Comparative results can tell us Where we need to focus our attention to improve services. A low score compared to other peer libraries, points to a potential area for improvement.

12. Comparative results told us Users priorities and service expectations are strikingly consistent among the institutions participating in the 2004 survey. Queen’s top 5 & bottom 5 rated questions were identical to the average ARL top & bottom 5.

13. Population for Queen’s Survey l Total initial sample: 5,450  All full time-faculty: 850  Random stratified sample of: l 3,000 full-time undergraduates l 1000 full-time graduates l 600 staff

14. Survey Respondents Analyses based 773 completed valid user surveys – excludes library staff. The respondent population was largely representative of the overall population distribution.

15. Respondent Comments l 361 respondents (45%) filled in the comments box l Provides context & detail for survey scores l Loaded into a database to facilitate analysis http://db.library.queensu.ca/libqual/ l Summary of general comments + Actions taken/planned http://library.queensu.ca/webir/libqual/results- 2004.htm

16. Frequency of Use At least once a week, respondents used:  Library premises: 56%  Library resources sites: 76%  Google or other non-library gateway: 90% 67% use Google, etc. daily! Undergrads use the library (63%) & its resources (67%) with similar frequency

17. Overall 2004 Ratings Queen’s exceeded ARL average 1 st among Canadian participants Strengths:  Library as Place  Service by library staff (Affect of Service) Most needed improvements:  Collections & access to information (Information Control)

18. Library as Place Highly rated as: A comfortable and inviting location Higher use = Lower rating  Most important to undergrads

19. Library as Place Concerns/Challenges: Lack of seating during exams, insufficient and old computer equipment, insufficient printers, expensive copying/printing charges, need for longer hours, and for more variety of study space (quiet spaces, discussion spaces, informal spaces, etc.)

20. Affect of Service Highly rated for: Employees who deal with users in a caring fashion  More knowledgeable users rate customer service more highly (get more out of these services)

21. Affect of Service Challenges to Libraries:  Promote the value of instructional services to the community  Reaching out to users who don’t/won’t come to training sessions or the reference desk

22. Information Control  Faculty most dissatisfied; low negative rating  Undergraduates are most satisfied; positive rating almost matches overall ARL rating.  Humanities/Social Sciences users generate low service rating across all user groups.

23. Information Control System-wide Challenges:  Market existing services and collections more effectively  Easier access to library resources from the desktop; maximize existing resources  Improve electronic & print collections: boost weak collections/reinforce strong ones

24. LibQUAL+ Consultation Timeline  To Date:  Report and consultation plan discussed at Management Team and AUL Forum  Report and plan distributed to all staff  All-Staff information sessions, Oct. 4 & 7 /04  Units and functional teams, Oct. 12-Nov. 5 /04 Meetings of individual units and functional teams identify the issues in their areas of responsibilities and recommend appropriate actions.  AUL Forum, Nov. 8 /04 Review responses, fill in gaps & adjust overlaps and contradictory directions

25. LibQUAL+ Consultation Timeline  Management Team, January – March /05 Reviewed the compilation of issues and objectives in developing the 2005/06 Budget Report. Compiled and approved action items prepared by the functional teams and units. Roll Out to Public  Two articles for The Gazette & The Journal  1 st Summary of Results [Oct. 2004]  2 nd Survey Results piece incorporating actions planned & taken to improve services [April 2005]  Survey results published on the Library’s LibQUAL+ web site: http://library.queensu.ca/webir/libqual.htmhttp://library.queensu.ca/webir/libqual.htm

26. Queen’s LibQUAL+ Web Site