Service priority alignment in Association of Research Libraries (ARL) member libraries Damon Jaggars & Shanna Smith University of Texas at Austin Jocelyn Duffy Portland State University 7th Northumbria International Conference on Performance Measurement in Libraries and Information Services Stellenbosch, South Africa August 14, 2007

LibQUAL+ instrument -22 items (1-9 Likert scale) -Minimum, Perceived, Desired -Dimensions of Service Quality: Affect of Service (AS), Information Control (IC), Library as Place (LP)

Calculating Priority Index Define service priorities for individual respondents by re-scaling desired scores Illustration: –Betty, a member of the library staff –Very high expectations; average desired score across all 22 items is 8.8. –Some items more important than others to her Desired score for “comfortable and inviting location” is 7 Desired score for “employees who deal with users in a caring fashion” is 9 –Re-scale Betty’s scores around her individual mean of 8.8 to calculate priority scores –New scores: -1.8 for inviting location (below-average); +0.2 for caring for users (above-average)

Results for UT Austin Analysis Library staff set a lower service priority than users on several IC items Library staff set a higher service priority than users on several AS items Library staff prioritize higher than faculty, lower than undergraduates, and similarly to graduate students on LP items Are our local results generalizable across the larger library community, specifically the ARL cohort?

ARL Cohort Study Sample ARL cohort for 2006 LibQUAL+ survey administration 45 ARL libraries 28,851 useable surveys submitted: –10,856 from undergraduates –11,157 from graduate students –6,214 from faculty –624 from library staff

Average Faculty & Library Staff Priority Scores for 7 Selected ARL Libraries Making electronic resources accessible from my home or office (IC1)

Information Control: ARL Cohort E-resources from home/office Website/information on own Printed materials E-resources I need Modern equipment Easy-to-use access tools Making information accessible Print or e-journals

Affect of Service: ARL Cohort Instill confidence Individual attention Courteous Ready response Knowledge Caring Understand needs Willing to help Dependable

Library as Place: ARL Cohort Inspire study & learning Quiet space/individual Comforting/inviting A getaway Group learning/study

Results from ARL Cohort Study Misalignments in service priorities found in the local analysis confirmed and expanded in the ARL cohort analysis Library staff set a lower service priority for most IC items Library staff set a higher service priority for all AS items (except AS #9 – Dependability of service) Library staff prioritize higher than faculty, lower than undergraduates, and similarly to graduate students on LP items

Conclusions ARL Cohort library staff, in general, have not yet internalized the extent to which many users prioritize unmediated access to easy-to-use, quality content and services and de-emphasize traditional mediated service. Disparate, and sometimes conflicting, service priorities of our core user groups, especially faculty and undergraduates is a complicating factor. A challenge for library leadership to work with staff to better align organizational service priorities with evolving user needs and demonstrated behaviors.

Possible Limitations Assumption: Users’ desired scores on the LibQUAL+ survey can be used to indicate the relative importance of a survey item Relatively small sample size of library staff Point of view staff take when responding to the survey

Future Research Are the service priorities of staff and users diverging over time? Is it useful to compare the service priorities of an individual library’s staff against the cohort (or a chosen cohort)?

Local - ARL Cohort Comparison F = Faculty G = Graduate students U = Undergraduates “+” = Library staff set higher service priority “-” = Library staff set lower service priority Red = marginally higher or lower prioritization Item UT AustinARL Cohort AS-1 Employees who instill confidence in users F+G+U+ AS-2 Giving users individual attention G+U+F+G+U+ AS-3 Employees who are consistently courteous U+F+G+U+ AS-4 Readiness to respond to users' questions F+G+U+ AS-5 Employees who have the knowledge to answer user questions F+G+U+ AS-6 Employees who deal with users in a caring fashion F+G+U+ AS-7 Employees who understand the needs of their users F+G+U+ AS-8 Willingness to help users F+G+U+ AS-9 Dependability in handling users' service problems F- IC-1 Making electronic resources accessible from my home or office F-G-U- IC-2 A library Web site enabling me to locate information on my own F-G-F-G-U- IC-3 The printed library materials I need for my work U+F-G-U- IC-4 The electronic information resources I need F-G-F-G-U- IC-5 Modern equipment that lets me easily access needed information F-G-U- IC-6 Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to find things on my own F-G-F-G-U- IC-7 Making information easily accessible for independent use F-G-F-G-U- IC-8 Print and/or electronic journal collections I require for my work F-G- LP-1 Library space that inspires study and learning F+U- LP-2 Quiet space for individual activities F+U-F+G-U- LP-3 A comfortable and inviting location U-F+U- LP-4 A getaway for study, learning, or research F+F+G-U- LP-5 Community space for group learning and group study F+G+F+U-

Contact Information Damon Jaggars University of Texas Libraries (512) Shanna Smith Division of Statistics and Scientific Computation University of Texas at Austin (512) Jocelyn Duffy Portland State University Library (503)