Site Navigation
Library Satisfaction Survey 2006
1. Background
Rodski Research is a company used by 34 Australian universities to conduct library client surveys – it provides a useful means of highlighting areas where improvement is required, benchmarking with other university libraries (most of the questions are the same) and tracking progress between surveys. The Library carried out its third Rodski survey of client satisfaction in May 2006. Our earlier surveys were conducted in May 2002 and May 2004.
The 2006 ACU National survey could be completed online or via a paper copy and contained 38 statements covering the full range of services and facilities. Clients were asked to rate (on a scale of 1 to7) each statement twice, firstly to measure its importance and secondly to give their impression of the Library's performance. When the results are correlated, a comparison between the ranking of importance and performance is made to identify areas when improvement is most needed (or most dissatisfaction is present). If performance is rated between two and three points lower than importance this is considered as significant and if the difference is more than three points then this indicates "widespread dissatisfaction".
2. Response Rate
We received a total of 2,331 replies, which was a very pleasing result compared with the rest of the sector (where the average response rate, even in larger universities was 1,100). The respondents included the full range of users - academic staff, undergraduate students, researchers, etc, with a good representation from each campus as well as remotely located students.
The largest number of replies came from North Sydney (532) and the lowest from Canberra (150), which registered a considerable decline in response rate from the previous survey. However, as indicated above, this still compares very favourably with the total number of responses received at other universities. Education (738) was, once more, the academic area with the highest response rate, followed by Nursing (572), reflecting the prominence of these disciplines in the University's profile, but there were reasonable results from all the others, even those with quite small cohorts.
Thus, we can be confident in the results.
3. Main Results
As was the case in 2002 and 2004, the Library recorded the highest level of satisfaction rates in areas of performance relating to staff ("staff are friendly", "staff treat me without discrimination", "staff are professional", etc.) and the lowest in areas to do with facilities and collections ("facilities for using personal laptops are adequate", "number of computer workstations is adequate", "quiet study areas are adequate", "the library collection is adequate", etc.).
However the evaluation of the Library's performance improved, sometimes considerably, in all areas for which weaknesses had been registered in 2002 and/or 2004.
What Is Important to Our Clientele?
Client perceptions of what is important to them shifted noticeably since the 2004 survey and generally reflected the move to the online environment. However the latest survey also revealed an increased expectation of staff performance.
The top 10 areas in terms of client ranking of importance were:
| Statement | Mean Score (out of 7) |
| Library staff are friendly and helpful | 6.49 |
| Library staff treat me fairly and without discrimination | 6.39 |
| Library staff display professionalism | 6.33 |
| Information resources (books, electronic, etc) are easily accessed | 6.30 |
| Databases and electronic resources are adequate | 6.27 |
| Library's website is easy to use | 6.24 |
| Opening hours meet my needs | 6.24 |
| The library collection is adequate | 6.22 |
| Computer facilities/electronic equipment are adequate | 6.22 |
| Access to electronic resources is easily available | 6.21 |
It is interesting to note that the responses to the statement on databases and electronic resources indicated a slightly higher level of importance to that regarding the overall collection.
While the responses were similar across the all categories of users, there were some noticeable, if predictable, differences. For example, academic staff and students involved in research activities rated the collection (print and electronic) as relatively more important while fully online students were more likely to stress the value of webpages and other online services.
Looking at individual campuses, all ranked "library staff are friendly and helpful" as being the most important statement and the results were generally quite consistent across the board. The one exception was St Patrick's where a greater emphasise was placed on collections and electronic resources. But it should be stressed that these were still relatively minor differences rather than showing a distinct trend.
Responses by academic discipline were remarkably uniform, including the areas relating to relatively small courses.
Best and Worst Performance
The top ten areas in terms of performance were:
| Statement | Mean Score (out of 7) |
| Library staff are friendly and helpful | 6.23 |
| Library web pages provide clear and useful information | 5.79 |
| Library's web site is easy to use | 5.73 |
| Service desk staff respond in a timely manner | 5.70 |
| Library staff treat me fairly and without discrimination | 5.68 |
| Library classes are useful in helping me access resources | 5.63 |
| Requests for inter campus loans are filled promptly | 5.58 |
| Library staff display professionalism | 5.56 |
| Library staff provide clear and accurate feedback to my queries | 5.51 |
| Library staff provide quality service | 5.51 |
The bottom ten area in terms of performance were:
| Statement | Mean Score (out of 7) |
| Facilities for using personal laptops are adequate | 4.51 |
| Number of computing workstations is adequate | 4.66 |
| Computer facilities and electronic equipment are adequate | 4.75 |
| Quiet study areas are adequate | 4.75 |
| Wireless facilities are adequate | 4.85 |
| Group study facilities are adequate | 4.93 |
| The library collection is adequate | 4.95 |
| Individual seating is adequate | 5.06 |
| Information resources (books, electronic, etc) are easily accessed | 5.08 |
| Adequate signage exists within the library | 5.12 |
Comparison to 2002 and 2004
The 2004 survey showed modest overall gains in client perception with some areas doing better than others. The 2006 survey recorded a very strong improvement in the broad categories of "Communication", "Service Quality", "Service Delivery", "Facilities & Equipment" and "Virtual Library", with "Library Staff" slipping back very slightly.
The overall satisfaction rating grew from 4.75 (out of 7) in 2002 to 4.93 in 2004 to 5.44 in the latest survey. This represents a considerable improvement in a relatively short space of time.
The most significant positive changes in client perceptions were in areas such as the adequacy of the collection, the provision of computing facilities, photocopying and printing services, and general facilities. These are all areas were the Library committed additional resources following the results of the previous Rodski surveys.
Comparison to Other Universities
When compared to the rankings for other universities ACU National's results were:
| ACU National | Median | |
| 1. Communication | 114 | 108 |
| 2. Service Quality | 138 | 128 |
| 3. Service Delivery | 152 | 147 |
| 4. Facilities and Equipment | 105 | 100 |
| 5. Library Staff | 166 | 166 |
| 6. Virtual Library | 91 | 89 |
| Overall | 675 | 649 |
Because of the different number of questions and a change to the composition of the categories it is not sensible to include a direct comparison of the aggregated scores from previous surveys. However when compared with other universities using Rodski, ACU National went from the bottom of the third quartile in 2002 to near the top of the third quartile in 2004 and to the top of the second quartile in 2006. While most universities appear to be enhancing the provision of physical facilities, especially computers, the improvement at ACU National was still notable.
The Largest Gaps
Within ACU National, the ten largest gaps between performance and importance were identified in answer to the following statements:
| Statement | Gap |
| Number of computer workstations is adequate | 1.53 |
| Computer facilities/electronic equipment are adequate | 1.47 |
| Quiet study facilities are adequate | 1.29 |
| The library collection is adequate | 1.28 |
| Information resources (books, electronic, etc) are easily accessed | 1.23 |
| Databases and electronic resources are adequate | 1.05 |
| Access to electronic resources is easily available | 1.03 |
| Individual seating is adequate | 1.00 |
| Course-specific resources are easy to find and access | 0.96 |
| Group study facilities are adequate | 0.90 |
It is important to note that, under the Rodski methodology, none of these gaps should be regarded as "significant" (which would require a difference of at least 2.00 between importance and performance). Further when broken down by individual campuses, no library recorded a gap greater than 2.00 on any statement. For staff and research students, the largest gap was recorded for the adequacy of the collection, for undergraduate and postgraduate (coursework) students the lack of computer workstations and for fully online students access to electronic resources. But no gap was recorded as "significant".
Although not highlighted as "significant", issues related to individual seating, quiet study places and group work areas emerged as being areas of relatively greater concern to our clientele. However much of this is relative. For example, the statement relating to individual seating moved from being the 9th largest gap to being the 8th largest but the actual gap between importance and performance fell from 1.45 in 2004 to 1.00 in 2006 – the all-round improvement in client perception simply caused it to move up the list even though the gap actually fell.
The variation in responses between campuses was less than in previous surveys, which reflects priority given to refurbishments and the provision of additional computing resources to those libraries where the previous surveys reported a higher level of significant gaps. In 2004 there were still some gaps on individual campuses that we are high as 3.77 and quite a few above 2.00. In 2006 no campus recorded a gap of more than 2.00 for any statement – the highest gap was 1.82, which was recorded for the provision of computer workstations at the North Sydney Campus Library (Melbourne and Strathfield registered gaps of 1.74 and 1.71 respectively).
In the previous surveys clients in smaller academic areas, especially those studying on larger campuses, tended to register much higher levels of dissatisfaction but in the 2006 results this gap had also largely disappeared.
4. Using the Results
The Rodski survey is not a perfect instrument but, in conjunction with the recommendations of the Library Review and the AUQA Report, it has proven valuable in helping to identify priorities for resource allocation and service delivery. It is encouraging to note that the different feedback mechanisms utilised all tend to give the same message.
As a result of the feedback from earlier Rodski surveys, the Library has put significant additional resources into collection development and facilities improvement. The 2006 survey demonstrates just how successful this has been with the across-the-board improvement in client perception in all areas previously identified as critical weaknesses.
However, the survey also indicates that there are still areas where the Library can improve and the Library has or will continue to strive to improve these aspects of our operations. Two are worth noting:
- Since the 2006 survey we have already increased (or are about to increase) the number of computer workstations in Canberra, North Sydney, Strathfield and Melbourne – this has included better provision for computer access in group study facilities.
There will also be some additional refurbishments undertaken in all our libraries except Ballarat before the end of this year. - The acquisitions budget will continue to grow strongly and will reach its target of $2,000,000 in 2007, however that growth will limit the Library's capacity to put resources into other areas.
We have begun work on redeveloping the Library website, a service that is seen by our broad clientele as being increasingly important and by our online students as something that should be substantially improved.
Each Library will co-operate with local Campus Operations areas to determine if we can make some further improvements to the physical facilities, especially in relation to group study areas. In the case of North Sydney we will endeavour to have the classroom located in the library removed from the timetable, which would greatly reduce noise in the study areas. A project to upgrade signage at three campuses has begun.
5. Conclusion
The increasing financial strength of Australian Catholic University has meant that the Library (along with the rest of the University) has had the opportunity to improve its performance and the earlier Rodski survey results have helped identify key areas for additional resource allocation.
The third Rodski survey has produced very pleasing results, not the least of which is that we have clearly put those resources in the right place. Much of the negativity towards the Library's collections, facilities and services has disappeared but the challenge of continuous improvement remains. A fourth Rodski survey will be undertaken in May 2008.
Chris Sheargold
Director, Libraries
7.9.06
