The survey assessed library clients' perceptions of service strengths and weaknesses. 1148 responses were received from various campus locations and client categories. Results showed clients believe library staff quality is most important and the library performs highest in this area. No factors had a performance-importance gap greater than 2, indicating the library is meeting or exceeding expectations. Areas to watch include computer access and adequacy of the collection, which were important but had lower performance scores. The recommendations are to prioritize issues using both the analyses and verbatim client comments.

1. Library Client Survey 2007 Adrian Shaw Manager Library and Information Management

2. Background Generally we run a survey to: to assess library service strengths and weaknesses; to assess clients' perceptions of library services; to assess different expectations and performance evaluations across client categories;

3. Background Why Insync? possible to compare our performance over time Measure performance in comparison with other Australian university and TAFE institutes libraries – benchmarking They do ALL the analysis

4. Background 2nd Insync Surveys Library Client Survey undertaken by Chisholm Institute of TAFE Library Clients provided some demographic information Clients were asked to rate variables (statements) on a scale of 1-7: the importance of each of the statements to them their impression of the Library’s performance on each statement

5. Methodology 37 Variables (statements) – some unique, considered critical to the continued success of the Library Gap analysis methodology used to measure difference between mean importance and mean performance Gaps >2.0 are significant Analysis by campus, category, gender, frequency of visit

6. Response statistics • Location 1148 responses received – high degree of confidence in the results Frankston (32.5%) Dandenong (24.6%) Berwick (17.3%)

7. Response statistics • Category Certificate course student – best represented group (39.7%) Diploma student (35.9%)

8. Response statistics • Gender, Domestic/International Gender Female (61.1%) Male (37.1%)

9. Response statistics • Frequency of visits Library 2-4 days a week (37.5%) Fortnightly (19.8%) Rarely (19%) Online Rarely (48.3%) 2-4 days a week (20.6%)

10. Comparison with other libraries • Weighted Performance Index A top 25% performer

11. Comparison with other libraries • Weighted Performance Index Lowest performing category Highest performing category Comparison with highest, lowest and median performers in the database

12. Comparison with other libraries General assessment of client satisfaction

13. Comparison with other libraries Personal assessment of overall quality

14. Comparison with other libraries Best practice categories Priority categories for the clients

15. Client Perceptions • What clients believe is important 7/10 relate to Library staff Adequacy of photocopying and printing facilities Access to computers Adequacy of the collection

16. Client Perceptions • How clients believe the Library is performing 9/10 relate to Library staff - a credit to the quality of Library staff Adequacy of photocopying and printing facilities

17. Client Perceptions • How clients believe the Library is performing One factor in common with the top 10 importance list - Access to computers to support study/research is adequate

18. Client Perceptions • Where clients believe the Library can potentially improve 2 factors in common with the top 10 importance list There are no significant gap scores recorded, which is a positive result for the Library

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. Improvement opportunities • Location Gap scores Most common concern Unique to category

21. Improvement opportunities • Category Most common concern Unique to category

22. Improvement opportunities • Library visits Most common concerns Unique to category

23. Improvement opportunities • Online visits Most common concerns Unique to category

24. Improvement opportunities • Status Most common concerns Unique to category

25. Improvement opportunities • Gender Shared concerns across both groups

26. Review • What clients believe is important Quality and professionalism of Library staff Adequacy of photocopying and printing facilities Access to computers Adequacy of the collection

27. Review • How clients believe the Library is performing performed highest on the category of Library Staff According to library clients, seven out of ten of the highest performing variables relate to library staff lowest score recorded was for Facilities and Equipment (but still performing above the median) Communication, Service Quality, Service Delivery and Virtual Library are all above average performers

28. Review • Where clients believe the Library can potentially improve there are no gap scores of greater than 2.00, which is a positive result for the Library The areas that need to be watched are: Access to computers to support study/research is adequate – Importance (9), performance (33) The library collection is adequate for my needs – Importance (10), performance (26)

29. Review • Recommendations When prioritising issues for action, it is recommended that: a combination of the provided analyses verbatim comments be used to gain a more in-depth understanding around what drives clients’ concerns