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. George’s, 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 (>800,000) 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

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

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 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

53. 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

54. 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

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. 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 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

70. J. Stephen Town Director of Information Services Defence College of Management and Technology Deputy University Librarian Cranfield University j.s.town@cranfield.ac.uk