Background on the U.K. / SCONUL LibQUAL+ implementation Stephen Town, Cranfield University

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

UK HE Libraries survey methods General Satisfaction –Exit questionnaires –SCONUL Satisfaction Survey Designed Surveys –Satisfaction vs Importance –Priority Surveys Outcome measurement –ACPI project National Student Survey (1 Question)

Survey methods used in the UK West, 2004 A Survey of Surveys

1. SCONUL LibQUAL+ Participation

The UK approach Coordinated on behalf of the Society of College, National & University Libraries (SCONUL) Working Group on Performance Improvement (WGPI) UK Higher Education (HE) institutions UK & Irish HE institutions UK & Irish HE institutions 2006 – 20 UK & Irish HE institutions 2007 – 22 UK & Irish HE institutions 62 different institutions

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

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

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

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 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

LibQUAL+ Participants 2007 Anglia Ruskin University Cambridge University Library Coventry University Cranfield University De Montfort University London South Bank University Napier University Nottingham Trent University Royal Holloway University of London School of Oriental and African Studies Senate House Library, University of London St Andrews University University College, Cork University of Bath University of Birmingham University of Central Lancashire University of Edinburgh University of Leeds University of Limerick University of Manchester University of Surrey University of Wales Bangor

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

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

CMU+ University of Wales College Newport De Montfort University Leeds Metropolitan University Liverpool John Moores University Robert Gordon University London South Bank University University of the West of England, Bristol University of Central Lancashire Anglia Ruskin University University of Westminster Napier University Queen Margaret University University of East London Roehampton University University of Luton Coventry University University of Wolverhampton University of Ulster

Former Colleges University of Gloucestershire University College Northampton University College Worcester

Other / Specialist Institutions Dublin Institute of Technology Institute of Education Institute of Technology Tallaght St. George’s, University of London University College for the Creative Arts

Overall Potential UK Sample to 2007 Full variety of institutions 49% of institutions* 53% of HE students (>850,000) 36% of Libraries 45% of Library expenditure *Based on Universities UK membership of 126

Time frame December – Registration January – UK Training & Results Meeting February to May – Session I July – UK Training & Results Meeting July to December – Session II January 2008 – SCONUL results available

Dimensions of Quality Affect of Service Information Control Library as a Place

F. Heath, 2005

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

2004 – 5 local question selected from a range of over 100 Different questions tailored to local needs

Sample Survey

2. Results from SCONUL

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 SCONUL 2006 –20 institutions –19,108 respondents Increase by 1,753 LibQUAL –308 institutions –128,958 respondents LibQUAL –202 institutions –112,551 respondents Decrease by 16,407 LibQUAL –199 institutions –108,504 respondents Decrease by 4,047 LibQUAL –298 institutions –176,360 respondents Increase by 67,856

SCONUL Response by User Group 2006

SCONUL Response by Discipline 2006

Respondent Comparisons Glasgow University –2006 = 1,535 –2005 = 1,384 –2004 = 2,178 –2003 = 503 London South Bank University –2006 = 700 –2005 = 766 –2004 = 568 –2003 = 276

Core Questions

SCONUL Core Question Summary 2006

SCONUL Core Question Summary 2005

SCONUL Core Question Summary 2004

SCONUL Core Question Summary 2003

Overall Comparisons

Undergraduates

Core Question Summary for Undergraduates 2006

Core Question Summary for Undergraduates 2005

Core Question Summary for Undergraduates 2004

Core Question Summary for Undergraduates 2003

Postgraduates

Core Question Summary for Postgraduates 2006

Core Question Summary for Postgraduates 2005

Core Question Summary for Postgraduates 2004

Core Question Summary for Postgraduates 2003

Academic Staff

Core Question Summary for Academic Staff 2006

Core Question Summary for Academic Staff 2005

Core Question Summary for Academic Staff 2004

Core Questions Summary for Academic Staff 2003

Comparisons by Dimension

Affect of Service Comparisons

Information Control Comparisons

Library as Place Comparisons

Overall Comparisons by User Group

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

Comments

Free text comments received 2003 London South Bank University428 University of London422 UWE, Bristol419 University of Wolverhampton413 University of Bath412 University of Gloucestershire407 Lancaster University396 Robert Gordon University395 University of Liverpool378 Liverpool John Moores University353 Royal Holloway University341 University of Wales, Swansea340 Uni of Wales College, Newport339 University of Oxford337 University College Northampton332 Glasgow University330 University of Edinburgh328 Leeds Metropolitan University327 DE Montfort University326 Cranfield University170

Free text comments received 2004 UMIST + University of Manchester1090 Trinity College Library Dublin1032 Glasgow University920 Brunel University906 University of Sheffield786 University of Westminster671 University of Strathclyde511 London South Bank University358 Anglia Polytechnic University311 Napier University299 University of Liverpool258 Queen Margaret University College251 University of York239 University of East London239 University College Worcester170 Loughborough University Library120

Free text comments received 2005 University of Exeter559 University of Edinburgh206 University of Dundee709 University of Bath527 University of Ulster854 University College Northampton142 University of Birmingham975 Roehampton University359 University of Glasgow536 University of Surrey593 Royal Holloway UoL596 City University798 Cranfield University302 University of Luton188 Dublin Institute of Technology569 London South Bank University455

Free text comments received 2006 Aberdeen University574 Cambridge University106 Cranfield University147 Glasgow University620 Goldsmith College399 Institute of Education, UoL487 Institute of Technology Tallaght200 London South Bank University382 Queen Mary, UoL745 Robert Gordon University181 Scottish Agricultural College134 St George’s, UoL299 University of Central Lancashire 654 University of Gloucestershire412 University of Leeds888 University of Leicester791 University of Liverpool255 University of the West of England, Bristol 736 University of Warwick355 University of Westminster916

Comments Comparisons Total number of comments 2006 = 9,281 Total number of comments 2005 = 8,368 Total number of comments 2004 = 8,161 Total number of comments 2003 = 7,342

Expect everything From: The library in DCMT is one of the best, if not the best, departments of the campus. The staff are outstanding, professional, helpful and extremely friendly. The place is always inviting and welcoming. To: The library is consistently unimpressive, except as a consumer of funds and resources. And everything in between!

3. Feedback from participants and lessons learnt

Why LibQUAL+? Benchmarking Cost effectiveness Analysis compiled by LibQUAL+ Fast delivery of results Support available, especially regarding analysis of results 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.

Primary aim(s) for surveying users We wanted to find out what a broad range of our users thought of the services we offer; what level of service-delivery 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). 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.

Feedback on the LibQUAL+ process Majority found it straightforward Some issues in obtaining: – addresses –Demographic data The publicity to the student body was the most time consuming part

Feedback on results Overall results were as expected by the institutions “In the majority of cases the results proved our own suspicions, and there were few surprises. We were very pleased, though, to actually have an independent source of information to which we could refer during debates and discussions.” “Not too surprising really given anecdotal evidence known already” Detailed questions highlighted new information, as LibQUAL+ goes into more depth than previous surveys

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)

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. New reception desk instituted. Staff meetings to discuss customer service. Summer training programme enhanced to encompass areas of concern. 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

Tips for participating Use a large sample Promote the survey to help increase the response rate –Online – –Posters –Notices in college newsletters etc. 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!

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

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

Acknowledgements Colleen Cook, Dean Of Texas A&M University Libraries Bruce Thompson, Professor and Distinguished Research Scholar, Texas A&M 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, R&D Officer, Cranfield University All SCONUL LibQUAL+ Participants

J. Stephen Town Director of Knowledge Services Defence College of Management and Technology Deputy University Librarian Cranfield University