Quality Service Feedback Project (QSFP) Butler Access Services Fall 2007—Spring 2009

1. Quality Service Feedback Project (QSFP)Butler Access ServicesFall 2007—Spring 2009 Inside Jobs: CUL Assessment Projects Francie Mrkich August 19, 2009 CUL Assessment Forum: Aug. 19, 2009

2. Background • Intended to solicit feedback from on-site or in-person transactions at all Butler Access public service points • Make it scalable • Pilot project – Fall semester, 2007 • Giveaway! • Online survey launched – Spring semester 2008 CUL Assessment Forum: Aug. 19, 2009

3. What We Wanted to Know • User status (faculty, grad/undergrad, staff, alumni, visiting researcher, other) • Reason(s) for service point visit • Rate overall service (excellent, good, fair, poor) • Was question answered/problem resolved? • Was staff helpful, knowledgeable, courteous? • Was request/question/problem addressed in a timely manner? • “How can we better support your use of the library?” • Additionally, each Access unit could add department-specific questions. ILL wanted to know the following • Did user borrow material(s) through ILL, Borrow Direct, or both • “Did your requested materials arrive in a timely manner?” • “If they did not arrive in a timely manner, please tell us what happened?” CUL Assessment Forum: Aug. 19, 2009

4. QSFP Marketing • Tear-away forms at signs located at all public service points and key locations in the Butler stacks • Bookmarks • Single URL • www.columbia.edu/library/feedback • User selected applicable service point(s) CUL Assessment Forum: Aug. 19, 2009

5. CUL Assessment Forum: Aug. 19, 2009

6. Responses to Online QSFP ILL: 161 Circulation: 31 Stacks: 11 LIO: 10 PMRR: 4 Reserves/Media Center: 3 CUL Assessment Forum: Aug. 19, 2009

7. ILL QSFP Marketing HOW ARE WE DOING? Please take a moment to tell us what you think about your ILL experience. Please visit http://www.columbia.edu/library/feedback to complete our online survey. Your feedback is valuable to us. • ILL “alert” on ILLiad main request screen • Included at the end of all system-generated e-mail notifications sent to users CUL Assessment Forum: Aug. 19, 2009

8. What We Learned • People are more apt to respond if they can easily link to the survey or fill out a paper form • Many responses mirror comments received this year via LibQual and DHC surveys • Overall, respondents are satisfied with our service and their interactions with us • We’re good, but we can do better CUL Assessment Forum: Aug. 19, 2009

9. What We Did -- PMRR • “You can obtain the key 19th century French newspapers -- Le Figaro, Le Gaulois, Le Pays, Le Siècle, Le Moniteur Universel, L'Entr'acte, Gil Blas -- on microfilm. At present, we have not a single one.” – Faculty • Request forwarded to the selector CUL Assessment Forum: Aug. 19, 2009

10. What We Did -- Stacks • “Many of the books are missing or misshelved.” – Grad student • More shelfreading assigned • Shelving staff proactively shelfread the busiest areas once a month in addition to continuous LC and Dewey classes and periodic scanning for seriously misshelved books CUL Assessment Forum: Aug. 19, 2009

11. What We Did -- Circulation • “Open more counters, restructure the service, Store ILL or Borrow direct books behind the counters; make everything more efficient.” – Graduate student • Planning a reconfiguration of services at Butler Circulation to address queueing and ILL/Borrow Direct/ReCAP book pick ups CUL Assessment Forum: Aug. 19, 2009

12. What We Did -- ILL • “You need to program your interface with WorldCat so that users can request books directly from WorldCat, instead of needlessly wasting time re-entering all of the info on the Columbia ILL page.” – Grad student • Enabled the ILL form to be automatically populated via OpenURL via WorldCat • Implemented OCLC Direct Request CUL Assessment Forum: Aug. 19, 2009

13. What We Did -- ILL • “Thank you so much for all you hard work with my requests! If it is possible to have the returns area enclosed during the day - like a slot, instead of an open cart during the day that would be great. I'm always concerned that a book I return could walk away, and others have raised the same point.” – Grad student • Facilities built and installed a latched wooden cover over the book bin CUL Assessment Forum: Aug. 19, 2009

14. QSFP Successes/Limitations • PRO • High ILL response rate • CON • Other units had no way to push out the link electronically to their specific user base • PRO • ILL feedback resulted in positive change • CON • Survey anonymity meant we couldn’t follow up with seemingly urgent/puzzling problems that would require additional info to troubleshoot • Can’t say thanks to the many people that leave good comments! CUL Assessment Forum: Aug. 19, 2009

15. QSFP Successes/Limitations • PRO • Presence of tear-away slips on prominently displayed posters was a reminder to staff to be helpful • CON • Budget did not support continued purchase of tear-away forms once supply was depleted • PRO • Intended to make it easy for users to provide feedback about our service • CON • Response rate for some Access units was not what we hoped CUL Assessment Forum: Aug. 19, 2009

16. QSFP Successes/Limitations • PRO • Made it clear that users have a problem finding books • CON • Doesn’t quantify the number of books not being found • Doesn’t provide enough info to understand the problem (why the books aren’t on the shelf) • Are they misplaced?  • Are they supposed to be available (i.e., not checked out)?  • Is the user looking in the right place?  • Is the problem confined to a specific area? CUL Assessment Forum: Aug. 19, 2009

17. Next Steps • General QSFP survey will end soon • Keep ILL survey active • Continue to find ways to seek feedback about user experiences • Write final report about QSFP’s impact on department • Continue to address larger themes that we see again from LibQual and DHC surveys CUL Assessment Forum: Aug. 19, 2009