Library Client Survey 2007

451 views
394 views

Published on

Chisholm Institute Library Client Survey 2007

Published in: Education, Economy & Finance
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
451
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
6
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Library Client Survey 2007

    1. 1. Library Client Survey 2007 Adrian Shaw Manager Library and Information Management
    2. 2. Background <ul><li>Generally we run a survey to: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>to assess library service strengths and weaknesses; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>to assess clients' perceptions of library services; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>to assess different expectations and performance evaluations across client categories; </li></ul></ul>
    3. 3. Background <ul><li>Why Insync? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>possible to compare our performance over time </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Measure performance in comparison with other Australian university and TAFE institutes libraries – benchmarking </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>They do ALL the analysis </li></ul></ul>
    4. 4. Background <ul><li>2nd Insync Surveys Library Client Survey undertaken by Chisholm Institute of TAFE Library </li></ul><ul><li>Clients provided some demographic information </li></ul><ul><li>Clients were asked to rate variables (statements) on a scale of 1-7: </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>the importance of each of the statements to them </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>their impression of the Library’s performance on each statement </li></ul></ul></ul>
    5. 5. Methodology <ul><ul><li>37 Variables (statements) – some unique, considered critical to the continued success of the Library </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Gap analysis methodology used to measure difference between mean importance and mean performance </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Gaps >2.0 are significant </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Analysis by campus, category, gender, frequency of visit </li></ul></ul>
    6. 6. Response statistics • Location <ul><li>1148 responses received – high degree of confidence in the results </li></ul><ul><li>Frankston (32.5%) </li></ul><ul><li>Dandenong (24.6%) </li></ul><ul><li>Berwick (17.3%) </li></ul>
    7. 7. Response statistics • Category <ul><li>Certificate course student – best represented group (39.7%) </li></ul><ul><li>Diploma student (35.9%) </li></ul>
    8. 8. Response statistics • Gender, Domestic/International <ul><li>Gender </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Female (61.1%) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Male (37.1%) </li></ul></ul>
    9. 9. Response statistics • Frequency of visits <ul><li>Library </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>2-4 days a week (37.5%) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Fortnightly (19.8%) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Rarely (19%) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Online </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Rarely (48.3%) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>2-4 days a week (20.6%) </li></ul></ul></ul>
    10. 10. Comparison with other libraries • Weighted Performance Index <ul><li>A top 25% performer </li></ul>
    11. 11. Comparison with other libraries • Weighted Performance Index Lowest performing category Highest performing category <ul><li>Comparison with highest, lowest and median performers in the database </li></ul>
    12. 12. Comparison with other libraries <ul><li>General assessment of client satisfaction </li></ul>
    13. 13. Comparison with other libraries <ul><li>Personal assessment of overall quality </li></ul>
    14. 14. Comparison with other libraries <ul><li>Best practice categories </li></ul>Priority categories for the clients
    15. 15. Client Perceptions • What clients believe is important <ul><li>7/10 relate to Library staff </li></ul><ul><li>Adequacy of photocopying and printing facilities </li></ul><ul><li>Access to computers </li></ul><ul><li>Adequacy of the collection </li></ul>
    16. 16. Client Perceptions • How clients believe the Library is performing <ul><li>9/10 relate to Library staff - a credit to the quality of Library staff </li></ul><ul><li>Adequacy of photocopying and printing facilities </li></ul>
    17. 17. Client Perceptions • How clients believe the Library is performing <ul><li>One factor in common with the top 10 importance list - </li></ul><ul><li>Access to computers to support study/research is adequate </li></ul>
    18. 18. Client Perceptions • Where clients believe the Library can potentially improve <ul><li>2 factors in common with the top 10 importance list </li></ul><ul><li>There are no significant gap scores recorded, which is a positive result for the Library </li></ul>
    19. 19. Look in this area of the grid for improvement opportunities. Shows areas of high importance, but low in performance Gap grid • All variables Performance Importance
    20. 20. Improvement opportunities • Location Gap scores Most common concern Unique to category
    21. 21. Improvement opportunities • Category Most common concern Unique to category
    22. 22. Improvement opportunities • Library visits Most common concerns Unique to category
    23. 23. Improvement opportunities • Online visits Most common concerns Unique to category
    24. 24. Improvement opportunities • Status Most common concerns Unique to category
    25. 25. Improvement opportunities • Gender Shared concerns across both groups
    26. 26. Review • What clients believe is important <ul><li>Quality and professionalism of Library staff </li></ul><ul><li>Adequacy of photocopying and printing facilities </li></ul><ul><li>Access to computers </li></ul><ul><li>Adequacy of the collection </li></ul>
    27. 27. Review • How clients believe the Library is performing <ul><ul><li>performed highest on the category of Library Staff </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>According to library clients, seven out of ten of the highest performing variables relate to library staff </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>lowest score recorded was for Facilities and Equipment (but still performing above the median) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Communication, Service Quality, Service Delivery and Virtual Library are all above average performers </li></ul></ul>
    28. 28. Review • Where clients believe the Library can potentially improve <ul><ul><li>there are no gap scores of greater than 2.00, which is a positive result for the Library </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The areas that need to be watched are: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Access to computers to support study/research is adequate – Importance (9), performance (33) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>The library collection is adequate for my needs – Importance (10), performance (26) </li></ul></ul></ul>
    29. 29. Review • Recommendations <ul><li>When prioritising issues for action, it is recommended that: </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>a combination of the provided analyses </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>verbatim comments </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>be used to gain a more in-depth understanding around what drives clients’ concerns </li></ul></ul>

    ×