LibQUAL+ ® & Beyond: Applying Your Survey Results & Other Performance Measures in Library Practice...

LibQUAL+LibQUAL+®® & Beyond: Applying Your & Beyond: Applying Your Survey Results & Other Performance Survey Results & Other Performance

Measures in Library PracticeMeasures in Library Practice

LibQUAL+® Canada WorkshopOctober 24-25, 2007

Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Martha Kyrillidou, Director, Statistics and Service Quality Programs, ARLSteve Hiller, Director, Assessment and Planning, UW

Jim Self, Director, Management and Information Services, UVA

Martha Kyrillidou, Director Statistics and Service Quality Programs

Association of Research Libraries

LibQUAL+® & Beyond, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, October 24-25, 2007

What’s in a “Library”?

A word is not crystal, transparent and unchanged; it is the skin of a living

thought, and may vary greatly in color and content according to the circumstances

and time in which it is used. --Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes


What’s in a word?What’s in a word?

What makes a quality

library?

“Quality much like beauty is in the eye of the beholder”


Library Assessment and Library Assessment and its Global Dimensionsits Global Dimensions

• Markets and people exposed to economic and social frameworks unheard of before

• Competing internationally

• Library users exposed to global forces

• Libraries facing similar challenges

• Libraries as the Internet

• Libraries as Google

• Libraries as Collaborative Spaces


Library AssessmentLibrary Assessment

Library assessment provides a structured process to learn about our communities, their work and the libraries connection to what they do

The information acquired through library assessment is used in an iterative manner to improve library programs and services and make our libraries responsive to the needs of our communities.

Academic libraries do not exist in a vacuum but are part of

a larger institution. Assessment within the institution may take place in individual areas as well as at the broad institutional level.


Thinking Strategically About Library Thinking Strategically About Library Futures: Some Assessment-Related Futures: Some Assessment-Related QuestionsQuestions• What is the central work of the library and how

can we do more, differently, and at less cost?• What important services does the library provide

that others can’t? • What advantages does the research library

possess?• How is customer behavior changing?• How do we add value to our customers work?• What are the essential factors responsible for

library success now and in the future?


Free speech wall, Free speech wall, Charlottesville, Sept 2006Charlottesville, Sept 2006


IFLA: Measuring QualityIFLA: Measuring Quality

• Resources, infrastructure: What services does the library offer?

• Use: How are the services accepted?

• Efficiency: Are the services offered cost-effectively?

• Potentials and Development: Are there sufficient potentials for future development?


Assessment at ARLAssessment at ARL

• A gateway to assessment tools: StatsQUAL®:

– ARL Statistics -- E-Metrics

– LibQUAL+®

– DigiQUAL®

– MINES for Libraries®

• Library Assessment Conferences• Service Quality Evaluation Academy• Library Assessment Blog• Making Library Assessment Work• ESP Assessment

– Effective, Sustainable, Practical


Assessment at CARLAssessment at CARL


Assessment at SCONULAssessment at SCONUL


Assessment at CAULAssessment at CAUL


Assessing the Value of Networked Electronic Services

The MINES survey

Measuring the Impact of Networked Electronic Services (MINES) - MINES for Libraries®


What Are We Measuring? What Are We Measuring? Reviewing the ARL StatisticsReviewing the ARL StatisticsOctober 2005, ARL Board approved a study to:• Determine if there are new ways of describing

research library collections.– What is it we are currently measuring– Are they the right data– Develop alternative models

• Develop a profile of the characteristics of a contemporary research library

• Determine/develop new meaningful measures to augment current ones to support this profile


Quantitative StatsQuantitative Stats(Per Bruce Thompson)(Per Bruce Thompson)

• Expenditure Focused Index (EFI)• Current ARL stats that could be used for

benchmarking– Collections – User interactions

• # Participants in group presentations• # Presentations to library groups• # Reference transactions

– Collaborative Activities - Interlibrary loan activities• Borrowed total items• Loaned total items

• Set of statistics related to the digital library (from ARL supplementary statistics)


Qualitative ProfileQualitative ProfileDeveloping New Metrics Developing New Metrics (per Yvonna Lincoln)(per Yvonna Lincoln)

• Uniqueness of collections• Defining the value of consortia• Administrative and budgetary efficiencies• Student outcomes/student learning/graduate

success• Contributions to faculty productivity• Social frameworks/intellectual networks• Generating new knowledge• Creating the collective good with reusable

assets


What Makes a Research Library?What Makes a Research Library?

• Breadth and quality of collections and services• Sustained institutional commitment to the library• Distinctive resources in a variety of media• Services to the scholarly community• Preservation of research resources• Contributions of staff to the profession• Effective and innovative use of technology• Engagement of the library in academic planning

Association of Research Libraries ‘Principles of Membership’


Group discussionGroup discussion

• How do you go about developing a profile that is succinct and rich?

• Other important areas that should be part of a qualitative profile?

• Can LibQUAL+® be used in the profiles?


Library of the Future Will Also Library of the Future Will Also Need . . .Need . . .. . . To have it’s own data collection and

management personnel, individuals who constantly collect, analyze and prepare reports on data regarding what services are being used, which portions of the collection are getting the highest usage, what materials are being lent through interlibrary loan, and who patrons are.

Documenting the libraries contributions to quality teaching, student outcomes, research productivity will become critical.


Making Library Assessment WorkMaking Library Assessment Work

• ARL project approved in 2004• Funded by participating libraries• Site visits by Steve and Jim

– Presentation– Interviews and meetings – Report to the Library

• 24 libraries in U.S. and Canada visited in 2005-06

• Succeeded by Effective, Sustainable and Practical Library Assessment in 2007– Open to all libraries – 6 libraries participating in 2007


What We FoundWhat We Found

• Strong interest in using assessment to improve customer service and demonstrate value of library

• Many libraries uncertain on how to establish, maintain, and sustain effective assessment

• Effectiveness of assessment program not dependent on library size or budget

• Each library has a unique culture and mission. No “one size fits all” approach works.

• Strong customer-focus and leadership support were keys to developing an effective and sustainable assessment


What are the lessons learned?What are the lessons learned?

• Understanding changes in users approach to information resources.

• Service quality improvement is a key factor.

• Understanding the impact of e-resources on library services - TRL.

• Learning how to compete with Google.

• Upfront investment in design and development.

• Making the assessment service affordable, practical,

& effective.

• Assessment needs to be satisfying and fun.

Steve Hiller Director

Assessment and PlanningUniversity of Washington Libraries

User Needs Assessment and Academic Library Performance


An “Aha” Moment

“[Access to online resources] has changed the way I do library research. It used to be a stage process: Initial trip, follow-up trip, fine-tuning trip. Now it’s a continuous interactive thing. I can follow-up anything at any time. While I’m writing I can keep going back and looking up items or verifying information.”

Graduate Student, Psychology (2002 UW Libraries focus group)


What Do We Need to Know About Our What Do We Need to Know About Our Customers?Customers?

• Who are our customers (and potential customers)?• What are their teaching, learning, and research interests? • How do they work? What’s important to them?• How do they find information needed for their work?• How do they use library services? What would they

change?• How do they differ from each other in library use/needs?

How does the library add value to their work?How does the library contribute to their success?


How Do We Get Customer Information?How Do We Get Customer Information?

• Surveys• Usage statistics• Focus groups• Observation• Usability• Interviews• Embedding• Data mining (local, institutional)• Logged activities


University of WashingtonUniversity of Washington(Site of the 2008 Library Assessment Conference!)(Site of the 2008 Library Assessment Conference!)

• Located in beautiful Seattle metro population 3.2 million

• Comprehensive public research university – 27,000 undergraduate students– 12,000 graduate and professional

students (80 doctoral programs)– 4,000 research and teaching

faculty

• $800 million annually in federal research funds (2nd in U.S.)

• Large research library system– $40 million annual budget– 150 librarians on 3 campuses


UW Libraries Assessment PrioritiesUW Libraries Assessment PrioritiesCustomer Needs, Use and SuccessCustomer Needs, Use and Success

• Information seeking behavior and use• Patterns of library use• Value of library• User needs• Library contribution to customer success• User satisfaction with services, collections, overall• Data to make informed and wise decisions that lead to

resources and services that contribute to user success


UW Libraries:UW Libraries: Assessment Methods UsedAssessment Methods Used

• Large scale user surveys every 3 years (“triennial survey”): 1992, 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2007 – All faculty – Samples of undergraduate and graduate students– Research scientists, Health Sciences fellow/residents

2004-• In-library use surveys every 3 years beginning 1993• LibQUAL+™ from 2000-2003 • Focus groups/Interviews (annually since 1998)• Observation (guided and non-obtrusive)• Usability• Use statistics/data miningInformation about assessment program available at:

http://www.lib.washington.edu/assessment/


Our Latest Assessment MethodOur Latest Assessment Method


The Qualitative Provides the KeyThe Qualitative Provides the Key • Increasing use of such qualitative methods as, comments

interviews, focus groups, usability, observation• Statistics/quantitative data often can’t tell us

– Who, how, why

– Value, impact, outcomes

• Qualitative provides information directly from users– Their language

– Their issues

– Their work

• Qualitative provides understanding


Researchers and Libraries:Researchers and Libraries: 3 Recent Studies with Qualitative Focus3 Recent Studies with Qualitative Focus • University of Minnesota

– Extremely comfortable with electronic sources– Interdisciplinary critical in sciences– Inadequate methods for organizing research materials

• New York University – Researchers (all disciplines) no longer tied to physical library– Physical library can play a “community” role– Expectations for info shaped by Web and commercial sector

• University of Washington (Biosciences)– Start info search outside library space (virtual and physical)– All digital all the time – Could not come up with “new library services” unprompted


Reasons for UW Libraries Biosciences Reasons for UW Libraries Biosciences Review Review

• Better understand how bioscientists work• Growing inter/multi/trans disciplinary work• Significant change in use patterns• Libraries responsiveness to these changes• Value of research enterprise to the University• Strengthening library connection to research

Ensuring our services and resources support the work of the biosciences community


Biosciences Review Process Biosciences Review Process (2006)(2006)

• Define scope (e.g. what is “bioscience”?)• Identify and mine existing data sources

– Extensive library assessment data– Institutional and external data

• Acquire new information through a customer-centered qualitative approach – Environmental scan – Interviews – Focus groups – Peer library surveys

NO NEW USER SURVEYS


Biosciences Faculty Interview ThemesBiosciences Faculty Interview Themes

• Library seen primarily as E-Journal provider • Physical library used only for items not available online• Start information search with Google and PubMed• Too busy for training, instruction, workshops• Faculty who teach undergrads use libraries differently• Could not come up with “new library services”

unprompted


Biosciences Focus Group ThemesBiosciences Focus Group Themes• Content is primary link to the library

– Identify library with ejournals; want more titles & backfiles

• Provide library-related services and resources in our space not yours– Discovery begins primarily outside of library space with Google and Pub

Med; Web of Science also important

– Library services/tools seen as overly complex and fragmented

• Print is dead, really dead– If not online want digital delivery/too many libraries

– Go to physical library only as last resort

• Data and reference management important to some– Bioresearcher toolkit, EndNote, JabRef, StatA


Biosciences Task Force RecommendationsBiosciences Task Force Recommendations

• Integrate search/discovery tools into users workflow• Expand/improve information/service delivery options• Make physical libraries more inviting/easier to use

– Consolidate libraries, collections and service points– Reduce print holdings; focus on services

• Use an integrated approach to collection allocations• Get librarians to work outside library space• Lead/partner in scholarly communications & E-science • Provide more targeted communication and marketing


Biosciences Review Follow-up : 2007 ActionsBiosciences Review Follow-up : 2007 Actions

• Appointed a Director, Cyberinfrastructure Initiatives & Special Asst to the Univ Libr for Biosciences & E-Science

• Libraries Strategic Plan priorities for 2007 include:

– Improve discovery to delivery (WorldCat Local etc.)– Reshape our physical facilities as discovery and learning centers – Strengthen existing delivery services, both physical and digital,

while developing new, more rapid delivery services– Enhance and strengthen the Libraries support for UW’s scientific

research infrastructure – Do market research before developing & promoting services

• Informed development of Libraries 2007 Triennial Survey


In God We Trust: In God We Trust: All Others Must Bring DataAll Others Must Bring Data

UW Triennial Survey 2007 – Selected QuestionsMode of access/physical library uses and users

Resource type importance

Sources consulted for research

Primary reasons for using Libraries Web sites

Information literacy

Libraries contribution to work and academic success

Useful library services (new and/or expanded)

Satisfaction


UW Triennial Library Survey UW Triennial Library Survey Number of Respondents and Response Rate 1992-2007Number of Respondents and Response Rate 1992-2007

2007 2004 2001 1998 1995 1992

Faculty 1455

36%

1560

40%

1345

36%

1503

40%

1359

31%

1108

28%

Grad/Prof

Students

580

33%

627

40%

597

40%

457

46%

409

41%

560

56%

Undergrads 467

20%

502

25%

497

25%

787

39%

463

23%

407

41%


Mode of Library Use by Group 2007 (weekly or more often)

Visit Only 2%

Visit Only 1%

Visit Only 27%

Remote & Visit 19%

Remote & Visit 39%

Remote & Visit45%

Remote Only72%

Remote Only47%

Remote Only14%

Non- Weekly 8%

Non- Weekly6%

Non- Weekly 20%

Faculty

Grad

Undergrad

I only wish I could reproduce the graduate reading room in my home because I do so much of my reading/research online now. Oh well, at least I can be in my slippers.

Associate Professor, Psychology


UW Faculty Mode of Use by Academic Area 1998/2007 (w eekly or more often)

0% 1% 1%Visit Only 6%

Visit Only10%Visit Only10%

Remote & Visit 32%

Remote & Visit 42%

Remote & Visit 51%

Remote & Visit 17%

Remote & Visit 39%

Remote & Visit

7%

Remote Only45% Remote

Only87%

Remote Only26% Remote

Only 72%

Remote Only 23%

Remote Only 47%

Non- Weekly 17%

Non- Weekly5%

Non- Weekly 25%

Non- Weekly 9% Non- Weekly

15%

Non- Weekly,9%

Health Sci1998

Health Sci2007

Science-Engin1998

Science-Eng2007

Hum-Soc Sci1998

Hum-Soc Sci2007


Undergrad Mode of Library Use 1998/2007 (w eekly or more often)

Visit Only 27%Visit Only 35%

Remote & Visit 35%

Remote & Visit39%

Remote Only 7%

Remote Only14%

Non- Weekly 23%

Non- Weekly20%

Undergrad 1998 Undergrad 2007


Physical Library Users by Group forPhysical Library Users by Group forSelected LibrariesSelected Libraries (2005 In-Library Use Survey) (2005 In-Library Use Survey)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Main Art Business Health Sci Math Music Undergrad

Undergrad Grad Faculty Other

Undergrads 70%, Grads 25%, Faculty/Staff 5%


Physical Library Use by Academic AreaPhysical Library Use by Academic Area (2005 In-Library Use Survey)(2005 In-Library Use Survey)

Libraries Used Biology Undergrads (n=126)

Other

Chem9%

Other Sci

Health Sci

Main33%

UGL 44%

Health Sci Library Use - Grad by Area (n=186)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Health Sci

Other

Unknown


What Do They Do in the Library?Activities by Group (UW 2005 In-Library Use Survey)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Ask for help Look formaterial

Copy Work alone Work in groups Use LibComputer

Use printer

Undergrads

Grad Students

Faculty/Staff


In-Person Visits1998-2007(% From "triennial" surveys)

Faculty

Faculty

Grad

Grad

Undergrad

Undergrad

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

1998 2001 2004 2007


Off-Campus Remote UseOff-Campus Remote Use 1998-20071998-2007((Percentage using library services/collections at least Percentage using library services/collections at least 2x2x week)week)

Faculty

Undergrad

Grad

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

1998 2001 2004 2007

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%


Importance of Books, Journals, DatabasesImportance of Books, Journals, DatabasesAcademic Area Academic Area (2007, Faculty, Scale of 1 “not important” to 5 “very important)(2007, Faculty, Scale of 1 “not important” to 5 “very important)

Books

Journals<1985

Bib

Databases

Journals>1985

3

3.25

3.5

3.75

4

4.25

4.5

4.75

5

Health Sciences Science-Engineering Hum-Soc Science

Books Journals<1985 Bib Databases Journals>1985


Book/Older Journal Importance By Selected College/School (2007, Faculty)

Education

Nursing

Medicine

Fine ArtsHumanities

Science Social Sci

Engineering

Ocean-Fish

ForestryBusiness

Public Health

2.75

3

3.25

3.5

3.75

4

4.25

3 3.25 3.5 3.75 4 4.25 4.5 4.75 5

Book

Old

er J

ourn

al


Overall Collections Satisfaction Overall Collections Satisfaction in Selected Hum/Soc Sci Colleges in Selected Hum/Soc Sci Colleges (2007, Faculty and Grads)(2007, Faculty and Grads)

Faculty Faculty

Grad

Grad

3.8

3.9

4

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

Architect Fine Arts Humanities Social Sci Business Education


Sources Consulted for Information on Sources Consulted for Information on Research TopicsResearch Topics (2007, Scale of 1 “Not at All” to 5 “Usually”)(2007, Scale of 1 “Not at All” to 5 “Usually”)

Faculty

Grad

Undergrad

2.5 2.75 3 3.25 3.5 3.75 4 4.25 4.5

BibliographicDatabases

Open Internet RefSource

Open Internet Search

“If it’s not on the Internet, it doesn’t exit.” My students at all levels behave this way. They also all rely on Wikipedia almost exclusively for basic information. Associate Professor, English


Primary Reasons for Using Libraries Primary Reasons for Using Libraries Web SitesWeb Sites 2007 Faculty2007 Faculty (at least 2x per week)(at least 2x per week)

15%

25%

35%

45%

55%

65%

75%

Health Sci Science-Engin Hum-Soc Sci

Library Catalog Bib Database Online journal articlesThe ability to access full-text or pdf research articles online through the library subscriptions is my primary use of the library and is central to my research. Neurobiology Grad Student

The ability to access full-text or PDF research articles online through the library subscriptions is my primary use of the library and is central to my research. Neurobiology Grad Student


Information Literacy: Importance to Undergrad Information Literacy: Importance to Undergrad Success & Rating Student PerformanceSuccess & Rating Student Performance(% of Faculty marking 4 or 5 on scale of 1 “Low” to 5 “High” in 2007 Triennial Survey)(% of Faculty marking 4 or 5 on scale of 1 “Low” to 5 “High” in 2007 Triennial Survey)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Finding and RefiningResearch Topics

Finding Info in Library

Finding Info on Web

Critically evaluatinginfo sources

Cite sources correctly

Knowing aboutplagiarism

Performance Importance

It is difficult to help students understand how to use sources, what the libraries can provide them, and help them appreciate the resources available to them beyond Google. Do you have any suggestions? Assistant Professor, Art


Undergrad Rating of Usefulness Undergrad Rating of Usefulness (Mean score on scale of 1 “Not Useful” to 5 “Very Useful”)(Mean score on scale of 1 “Not Useful” to 5 “Very Useful”)

3 3.25 3.5 3.75 4 4.25 4.5

Librarian classpresentation

Research consultwith librarian

Library referenceassistance

Library subjectguides

Course reserves


Usefulness of New/Expanded Services Usefulness of New/Expanded Services Faculty and Grad Faculty and Grad (% responding yes for each service)(% responding yes for each service)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Manage your info anddata

Integrate services intocampus Web sites

Office Delivery ofBooks

Digitize collections

Scan on Demand

Grad Faculty

You’re considering a free scanning service for journal articles? That would change my life! Wow! I didn’t even know I could want that. Now I want that! Post-Doc, Oceanography


Usefulness of New/Expanded Services Usefulness of New/Expanded Services UndergradsUndergrads (Physical Library Services in Red)(Physical Library Services in Red)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Consult on finding info

Group/PresentationSpaces

Book Self-Check out

Integrate services intocampus Web sites

More library computers

Increase weekend hours

Quiet work/study areas

Odegaard needs a facelift. The lighting in terrible and the workspaces are old--not somewhere that you want to spend hours studying. I live in Suzzallo, however and I love it. Undergrad


Libraries Contribution to:Libraries Contribution to: (Scale of 1 “Minor” to 5 “Major”) (Scale of 1 “Minor” to 5 “Major”)

3 3.25 3.5 3.75 4 4.25 4.5 4.75

Academic Success

Efficient Use of Time

Finding info in new orrelated areas

Keeping current inyour field

Being a moreproductiveresearcher

Grad Faculty

The UW libraries and librarians are the BEST. Our ability to access the system from the road (or home) and to review/download current articles is absolutely super. The resources on HealthLinks have helped train many young doctors and saved COUNTLESS lives. --Associate Professor, Medicine


2007 Triennial Survey Key Findings2007 Triennial Survey Key Findings• Library satisfaction exceptionally high• Long-term changes in mode of use continue

– Sharp increase in off-campus remote use by faculty/grad– Library as place still important to undergraduates

• Open Internet gains as primary discovery medium – Library provided bibliographic databases decline in importance

• Users want content delivered to them in their space & desired format

• Faculty see information literacy as important to student success– Student performance in this area is rated low – Student evaluation of effectiveness is mixed

• Libraries is major contributor to faculty research productivity and grad student academic success


What We’ve Learned about the UW What We’ve Learned about the UW CommunityCommunity

• Libraries are still important source of information; however library less integrated into work/learn “flows”

• Library needs/use patterns vary by and within academic areas and groups

• Remote access is preferred method for faculty and grad students and has changed the way they use libraries

• Faculty and students find information and use libraries differently than librarians prefer them too

• Library/information environment is perceived as too complex; users find simpler ways (Google) to get info

• Customers cannot predict the Libraries future


How UW Libraries Has Used Assessment How UW Libraries Has Used Assessment

• Extend hours in Undergraduate Library• Create more diversified student learning spaces• Eliminate print copies of journals • Enhance usability of discovery tools and website• Provide standardized service training for all staff• Stop activities that do not add value • Consolidate and merge branch libraries• Change/reallocate collections allocations• Change/reallocate staffing• Support budget requests to University


Closing the Loop: Closing the Loop: Using Data Effectively in ManagementUsing Data Effectively in Management

• Use multiple assessment methods• Focus on user work and how they find & use information • Increase reliance on qualitative info to identify issues

from user perspective• Learn from our users• Partner with other campus programs/institutions• Mine/repurpose existing data

Decisions based on data not assumptions -“assumicide”


Our Challenge: Maintain High Value and Our Challenge: Maintain High Value and SatisfactionSatisfaction (UW Overall Satisfaction 1995-2007)(UW Overall Satisfaction 1995-2007)

Faculty 4.25

4.44

4.33 4.33

Faculty 4.56

Undergrad 3.97 3.99

4.22

4.32

Undergrad 4.36

4.34

4.26

4.11Grad 4.18

Grad 4.36

3.8

3.9

4

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

1995 1998 2001 2004 2007

3.8

3.9

4

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

You guys and gals rock!!!!!! We need to invest in our library system to keep it the best system in America. The tops! My reputation is in large part due to you. Professor, Forest Resources

Measures that Matter: Designing a Measures that Matter: Designing a Balanced Score CardBalanced Score Card

Jim Self, Director, Management Information Services, UVA


The University of VirginiaThe University of Virginia

• 14,000 undergraduates– 66% in-state, 34% out of state– Most notable for liberal arts– Highly ranked by U.S. News

• 6,000 graduate students– Prominent for humanities, law,

business– Recent expansion in sciences

• Located in Charlottesville– Metro population of 160,000


The University LibrariesThe University Libraries

• 5 million volumes

• 15 libraries

• 350 FTE staff

• $35 million budget

• Top 20 in ARL

• 2005 ACRL Academic Library of the Year


U.Va. Library InnovationsU.Va. Library Innovations

• Electronic Text Center -- 1992

• Customer Surveys – 1993, 1994

• LEO Faculty Delivery -- 1994

• MIS unit – 1996

• Library café -- 1998

• Balanced Scorecard – 2002

• Scholars’ Lab -- 2006


Management Information ServicesManagement Information Services

• MIS committee formed in 1992

• Evolved into a department 1996-2000

• Currently three staff

• Coordinates collection of statistics

• Publishes annual statistical report

• Coordinates assessment

• Resource for management and staff


Collecting the Data at U.Va.Collecting the Data at U.Va.

• Customer Surveys

• Staff Surveys

• Mining Existing Records

• Comparisons with peers

• Qualitative techniques


CorroborationCorroboration

• Data are more credible if they are supported by other information

• John Le Carre’s two proofs


UVa Customer SurveysUVa Customer Surveys

• Faculty – 1993, 1996, 2000, 2004– Separate analysis for each academic unit– Response rates 59% to 70%

• Students – 1994, 1998, 2001, 2005– Separate analysis for grads and undergrads– Undergrad response rates 43% to 50%– Grad response rates 54% to 63%

• LibQUAL+® in 2006– Response rates 14% to 24%


Analyzing U.Va. Survey ResultsAnalyzing U.Va. Survey Results

• Two Scores for Resources, Services, Facilities– Satisfaction = Mean Rating (1 to 5)– Visibility = Percentage Answering the Question

• Permits comparison over time and among groups

• Identifies areas that need more attention


Reference Activity and Visibility Reference Activity and Visibility in Student Surveysin Student Surveys

1,756

6,008

34%Visibility

39% Visibility

75% Visibililty

64% Visibility

1,000

7,000

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Re

fere

nc

e Q

ue

sti

on

s

Re

co

rde

d p

er

We

ek

10%


Constructing a Balanced Constructing a Balanced ScorecardScorecard• Select a limited number of meaningful and

measurable indicators for each dimension

• Select targets for each indicator

• Four dimensions:– User perspective– Internal processes perspective– Finance perspective– Future/growth perspective


Importance of TargetsImportance of Targets

• Measure quantitatively

• Set challenging, but achievable targets

• Consider two sets of targets:– Complete success– Partial success

• Aggregate regularly to provide feedback

• Address problems that are revealed


The BSC at the U.Va. LibraryThe BSC at the U.Va. Library

• Implemented in 2001

• Results tallied FY02 through FY07

• Completing metrics for FY08

• Reporting results for FY07

• A work in progress


Choosing the Metrics Choosing the Metrics --Reflecting Values--Reflecting Values• What is important?

• What are we trying to accomplish?


Choosing the MetricsChoosing the Metrics--Diversity and Balance--Diversity and Balance• Innovations and operations

• Variety of measurements


Choosing the MetricsChoosing the Metrics--Ensuring validity--Ensuring validity• Does the measurement accurately

reflect the reality?


Choosing the MetricsChoosing the Metrics--Being Practical--Being Practical• Use existing measures when possible

• Use sampling

• Collect data centrally

• Minimize work by front line


What Do We Measure at U.Va.?What Do We Measure at U.Va.?

• Customer survey ratings

• Staff survey ratings

• Timeliness and cost of service

• Usability testing of web resources

• Success in fund raising

• Comparisons with peers


Reviewing the PerspectivesReviewing the Perspectives

• User

• Internal Processes

• Finance

• Learning and Growth


Balanced ScorecardBalanced ScorecardUVA Fiscal Year 2007UVA Fiscal Year 2007

Target1

Target2

Not Met


Metric U.1.A: Overall rating in Metric U.1.A: Overall rating in student and faculty surveysstudent and faculty surveys

• Target1: An average score of at least 4.25 (out of 5.00) from each of the major constituencies.

• Target2: A score of at least 4.00.

FY07 Result: Target2 – Graduate students 4.08 – Undergraduates 4.11


Metric I.1.A: Processing time for Metric I.1.A: Processing time for routine acquisitionsroutine acquisitions

• Target1: Process 90% of in-print books from North America within one month.

• Target2: Process 80% of in-print books from North America within one month.

• Result FY07: Target1.– 94% processed within one month.


Metric I.2.A.Metric I.2.A. Staff Rating of Staff Rating of Internal CommunicationsInternal Communications

• Target1: Positive scores (4 or 5) on 80% of responses to internal communications statement in biennial work life survey.

• Target2: Positive scores on 60% or responses.

• Result FY07: Did not meet target.– 48% or responses were positive.


Metric F.1.B. Library spending Metric F.1.B. Library spending compared to University compared to University expendituresexpenditures • Target1: : The University Library will

account for at least 2.50% of the University’s academic division expenditures.

• Target2: : The Library will account for at least 2.25% of expenditures.

• Result FY07: Target1. – 2.71% ($26.2M of $963M)


Metric F.1.C.Metric F.1.C. Amount of Amount of unrestricted development receipts.unrestricted development receipts.

• Target1: Increase unrestricted (or minimally restricted) giving by 10% each year.

• Target2: Increase of 5% per year.

• Result FY07: Target1.

– FY07 unrestricted receipts were $871,000; target was $411,000.


Metric F.2.A: Unit Cost of Electronic Metric F.2.A: Unit Cost of Electronic Serial UseSerial Use

• Target1: There should be no increase in unit cost each year.

• Target2: Less than 5% annual increase in unit cost.

• Result FY07: Target1. – Cost per journal article downloaded in FY07 was

$1.98, compared to $2.10 in FY06.


Metric L.2.C.Metric L.2.C. Comparing librarian Comparing librarian salaries to peer groups. salaries to peer groups.

• Target1: Average librarian salaries should rank in the top 40% of average salaries at ARL libraries.

• Target2: Rank in top 50%.

• Result FY07: Target1.

– Ranked 33 of 113. (Top 28%)


Trying your hand at a ScorecardTrying your hand at a Scorecard

• Devise one or two metrics per dimension– Should be something that matters– How would you measure it? – How do you define success?


Two more metrics from U.Va. Two more metrics from U.Va.

• Representing values of the Library


Metric U.3.A: Circulation of new Metric U.3.A: Circulation of new monographsmonographs

• Target1: 60% of all newly cataloged print monographs should circulate within two years.

• Target2: 50% should circulate within two years.

• Result FY07: Target1.– 63% of monographs purchased in FY05 circulated

within two years.


Metric U.4.B: Turnaround time for Metric U.4.B: Turnaround time for user requestsuser requests

• Target1: 90% of user requests for new books should be filled within 7 days.

• Target2: 80% of user requests for new books should be filled within 7 days.

• Result FY07: Target1.– 77% filled within 7 days.


To summarize…To summarize…The Balanced ScorecardThe Balanced Scorecard

• Reflects the organization’s vision

• Clarifies and communicates the vision

• Provides a quick, but comprehensive, picture of the organization’s health

LibQUAL+ ® & Beyond: Applying Your Survey Results & Other Performance Measures in Library Practice...

Documents

Transcript of LibQUAL+ ® & Beyond: Applying Your Survey Results & Other Performance Measures in Library Practice...