1 / 16

Service priority alignment in Association of Research Libraries (ARL) member libraries

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

flynn
Télécharger la présentation

Service priority alignment in Association of Research Libraries (ARL) member libraries

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 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

  2. 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)

  3. 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)

  4. 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?

  5. 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

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

  7. 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

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

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

  10. 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

  11. 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.

  12. 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

  13. 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)?

  14. 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

  15. Contact Information Damon Jaggars University of Texas Libraries jaggars@austin.utexas.edu (512) 495-4321 Shanna Smith Division of Statistics and Scientific Computation University of Texas at Austin sesmith@austin.utexas.edu (512) 475-9425 Jocelyn Duffy Portland State University Library jduffy@pdx.edu (503) 725-4126

More Related