what do users think of us? mining three years of cul libqual data
DESCRIPTION
What Do Users Think of Us? Mining Three Years of CUL LibQUAL Data. Liane O’Brien, Linda Miller, Xin Li May 21, 2008. LibQUAL at CUL. CUL administered 4 rounds of the survey In 2001, CUL was a developing partner (pilot phase) Total respondents for 2002-2005 was 1,742 287 faculty 707 grads - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
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 2002-2005 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
Print and/or electronic journal collections I require for my work: Graduate students
4.55
5.56
6.57
7.58
8.59
2003 2005
Sco
re (1
-9,
9 h
igh
est)
9
User’s average perceptions ratings in the context of their expectations
Print and/or electronic journal collections I require for my work: Graduate students
4.55
5.56
6.57
7.58
8.59
2003 2005
Sco
re (
1-9,
9 h
igh
est)
… 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 areasHuman TouchLibrary as a PlaceUser EmpowermentAccess
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, 20
2
9, 17
10, 11
Question #s: 1-9 Human TouchQuestion #s: 10-11 Library as a PlaceQuestion #s: 12-16 User EmpowermentQuestion #s: 17-20 Access
Undergrads
Grads
1, 4, 7, 18, 19
None
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
2005 12, 13, 15, 19
18 4, 11, 14, 16
10, 20
2003 12, 15,
19, 20
13, 18 10 16
2002 12 18 4, 13,15, 16
10, 14
Question #s: 1-9 Human TouchQuestion #s: 10-11 Library as a PlaceQuestion #s: 12-16 User EmpowermentQuestion #s: 17-20 Access!
19
Perceived service levels in bottom quarter of user groups’ ranges of tolerance
ALL Faculty only Faculty & Grads only
Grads only Grads & Undergrads
only
Undergrads
only
2005 12, 13, 15, 19, 20
2003 12 15 19 10
2002 13 10 12
Question #s: 1-9 Human TouchQuestion #s: 10-11 Library as a PlaceQuestion #s: 12-16 User EmpowermentQuestion #s: 17-20 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?
