1 What Do Users Think of Us? Mining Three Years of CUL LibQUAL Data Liane O’Brien, Linda Miller, Xin Li May 21, 2008

2 LibQUAL at CUL CUL administered 4 rounds of the survey In 2001, CUL was a developing partner (pilot phase) Total respondents for was 1,742  287 faculty  707 grads  748 undergrads The response rate has trended downward from 20% in 2002 to 15% in 2005

3 Why go back to past LibQUAL data? It reveals how CUL has done in four areas that matter to users:  Human touch  Library as place  User empowerment  Access to materials/resources These data will help us to:  Understand better where CUL has done well or not well over time  Identify areas for improvement  Spot changes and early signs of new trends

4 Methodology of this analysis Focused on the core questions Excluded 2001 data due to pilot-nature Selected only the questions asked in all three surveys (with a few exceptions) Analyzed the “Perceived, Desired, & Minimum” ratings for each group

5 LibQUAL borrows some assumptions from the business world Users will choose the most satisfactory/efficient services that fits their personal needs We can’t change our users’ expectations, but we can change what we offer Whether we changed enough is reflected in users’ responses

6 LibQUAL ratings variables Nine point scale: 1 = lowest, 9 = highest The level the user wants The lowest service level the user can accept Where the user perceives the library service is now

7 Understanding the graph User’s range of tolerance for a particular CUL service User’s desire Expectation mid-way or “average” Minimum level user can accept Where CUL is in user’s mind Above average Below average

8 Users’ average perception ratings The scores are well above average CUL seems to be doing better in 2005 than it did in 2003

9 User’s average perceptions ratings in the context of their expectations … until you put them in the context of their expectations Expectations have gone up and the tolerance range has narrowed Both scores are close to the minimum level acceptable The score is up in 2005, but we lost ground in meeting expectations

10 Human Touch services (Questions 1-9) Willingness to help users (1) Dependability in handling user’s service problems (2) Employees who deal with users in a caring fashion (3) Employees who have the knowledge to answer user questions (4) Employees who instill confidence in users (5) Employees who understand the needs of their users (6) Readiness to respond to users’ questions (7) Giving users individual attention (8) Employees who are consistently courteous (9)

11 Library As Place services (Questions 10-11) Quiet space for individual activities (10) A comfortable and inviting location (11)

12 User Empowerment services (Questions 12-16) Making electronic resources accessible from my home or office (12) A library Web site enabling me to locate information on my own (13) Modern equipment that lets me easily access needed information (14) Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to find things on my own (15) Making information easily accessible for independent use (16)

13 Access to Materials/Resources services (Questions 17-20) Timely document delivery (17) The printed library materials I need for my work (18) Print and/or electronic journal collections I require for my work (19) The electronic information resources I need (20)

14 How we analyzed the data Overview data Data by the four areas Human Touch Library as a Place User Empowerment Access Question-specific data

15 Overall, CUL is doing very well Most scores are well above the survey scale’s midpoint (5) Most scores increased from 2003 CUL has also faired well against its participating ARL peers

16 Overall, CUL users expect a lot Although the survey score range is 1-9, the majority of all CUL scores are 6+, with a few in 5+

17 Services most important to user groups (desired service levels above 8 at least 2 times from 2002 to 2005) Faculty 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, , 17 10, 11 Question #s: 1-9 Human Touch Question #s: Library as a Place Question #s: User Empowerment Question #s: Access Undergrads Grads 1, 4, 7, 18, 19 None

18 Perceived service levels in bottom half of user groups’ ranges of tolerance ALL user types Faculty only Faculty & Grads only Grads only Grads & Undergrads only Undergrads only , 13, 15, , 11, 14, 16 10, , 15, 19, 20 13, , 13,15, 16 10, 14 Question #s: 1-9 Human Touch Question #s: Library as a Place Question #s: User Empowerment Question #s: Access !

19 Perceived service levels in bottom quarter of user groups’ ranges of tolerance ALLFaculty only Faculty & Grads only Grads only Grads & Undergrads only Undergrads only , 13, 15, 19, Question #s: 1-9 Human Touch Question #s: Library as a Place Question #s: User Empowerment Question #s: Access !!

20 The Human Touch Area (9 services) Over all years, only 3 perceived service levels did not fall above user group’s average expectations Faculty and grads’ desired service levels were higher than undergrads’ Overall, more of faculty’s expectations were met

21 The Human Touch Area (9 services) In 2005, services each group rated with 1 of their 4 highest desired service levels  Willingness to help users  Employees who have the knowledge to answer user questions  Readiness to respond to users’ questions  Employees who are consistently courteous In 2005, services each group rated with 1 of their 3 lowest desired service levels  Employees who instill confidence in users  Giving users individual attention Overall, services that met less of user groups’ expectations  Dependability in handling users’ service problems  Employees who have the knowledge to answer user questions

22 Employees who have the knowledge to answer user questions Faculty desired service level rose from 2002 to 2005, while those for students fell More of each groups’ expectations were met in 2005 than in 2002

23 Giving users individual attention Faculty perceived service levels rose each year Students’ 2005 perceived service levels were down from 2002 In 2005, faculty and undergrads’ perceived service levels were 1.4 survey scale units apart

24 The Library as a Place Area (2 services) Obvious differences between user groups:  faculty desired service levels were lower, and a larger part of their expectations were met  for students, the opposite was true More of all groups’ expectations were met for “A comfortable and inviting location” than for “A quiet space for individual activities”

25 Quiet space for individual activities All user groups’ perceived service levels rose each year Undergrad’s desired service level rose from 2002 to 2005 (true for only 3 of the 20 services covered) Undergrads’ range of tolerance narrowed each year Less of undergrads’ expectations were met each year; more of faculty and grads’ expectations were met in 2005

26 User Empowerment Area (5 services) Clearly an area of concern  Desired service levels were high for all groups  Many perceived service levels fell below groups’ average expectations All groups’ scores are more similar to each other than in previous areas

27 Making electronic resources accessible from my office or home All perceived service levels fell bellow groups’ average expectations; however, more of each groups’ expectations were met in 2005 than in 2003 Undergrads’ desired service level increased from 2002 to 2005 All groups’ scores are similar

28 A library website enabling me to locate information on my own High desired service levels for all groups (all above 8) More of undergrads’ expectations were met than those of faculty and grads Faculty and undergrads’ desired service levels dropped in 2005

29 Access Area (4 services) High desired service levels for all groups (esp. faculty and grads) Overall, desired service levels for collections higher than for those for document delivery / ILL Many perceived service levels for collection-specific services fell bellow user groups’ average expectations

30 The printed library materials I need for my work Faculty’s desired service levels higher than those of students in 2003 and 2005 Faculty and grad desired service levels rose each year; undergrads’ desired service levels dropped from 2002 to 2005 Less of each group’s expectations were met in 2005 than in 2002

31 The electronic information resources I need Desired service levels high for all groups, but rising for grads in 2005, while falling for faculty and undergrads Faculty and undergrads’ perceived service levels fell higher in their ranges of tolerance in 2005; grads’ perceived service level fell lower

32 Recent Library actions? The Human Touch Library as a Place  Space renovations in various libraries  Open up staff meetings space for study after hours Access  GetIT  Buy instead of borrow  Favoring e-resources  Scholarly Communications  Large Scale Digitization User Empowerment  Web Vision  Usability testing  Loaner laptops and equipments  VIVO ?

33 Questions to Ponder SWOT Analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats)  Where are we consistently doing well?  Where are we consistently weak?  Are these weak areas the Library’s opportunities to invest in, or,  Are these areas we should give up or give over to competitors? Would you use LibQUAL data to make decisions? Should we do LibQUAL again? If so, how often?

34 Questions? Thank you very much!