Informing Reference Services @ Columbia University Libraries Using Today’s Numbers to Plan Tomorrow’s Services RUSA Program, ALA Annual Conference 4:00PM, June 26,2011 Jennifer Rutner, Assessment & Planning Librarian Columbia University Libraries
Dec 22, 2015
Informing Reference Services @ Columbia University Libraries
Using Today’s Numbers to Plan Tomorrow’s ServicesRUSA Program, ALA Annual Conference
4:00PM, June 26,2011Jennifer Rutner, Assessment & Planning LibrarianColumbia University Libraries
Reference Assessment @ Columbia
Digital Centers User Needs AssessmentService EvaluationVirtual Reference Assessment
Assessment Program Mission Statement
Serve library users and staff through the gathering, analysis, and application of high-quality, actionable information to guide library decision making.
Project Teams and Decision Making
Appoint project team Conduct assessment Make
recommendations Implementation
Defining Information Needs
Identify existing data
Brainstorm questions
Information needs “IWTK”
Prioritize information
needs
Determine audience
Assign methodology
Develop protocol
Library vision
User needs
Assessing IM Reference
IM at Columbia Libraries
•CUL launches Chat Reference
2001•Eval
uation of Virtual Reference transactions
2006
•Switch to Meebo
•Departmental library accounts
2007
•User Assessment
2009
•Switch to LibH3lp
•Expand staffing and hours, consolidate services
2010
Motivation
• Understand how IM services are being used.• Evaluate quality of service provided via IM
reference services.• Identify user-needs for reference support.
Clients• Reference Coordinating Committee• IM Reference Coordinator
Methodology
Survey
• Service evaluation survey sent to IM users
Focus groups
• Students who had never used IM reference
• Libraries staff
Data Analysis
• Compilation of IM statistics from 2007-2009
Findings: User Survey• 46% were graduate students• 41% were between 23-29 years old• 61% were 1st time library IMers• 79% discovered IM through the website• 51% were at home when they IM’d
Findings: User Survey
• 74% were very satisfied with the information they received when using the IM service
• 69% strongly agreed that the resources suggested by the librarian were useful
• 85% strongly agreed that using IM to contact a librarian was very easy
• 80% agreed that the hours were satisfactory
Findings: Focus Groups
• Hours: “It’s not 24 hours? That sucks.” • Communication: “It is a little bit awkward, but it’s good
that librarians are taking this to the instant messaging level. It’s just better service.”
• Marketing: “Very visible… if you’re trying to eventually expand the hours and make it more visible for students…”
• Staffing: “If they could answer the question, whoever can answer the question.”
• Convenience: “I live off campus so, my Columbia experience is minimal. So, this IM thing would probably be helpful for someone like me, who doesn’t chill in the library.”
Findings: Transaction Analysis
• 60% were policy/procedural, research or holdings questions
• 8% were e-resource problems• 90% come through the widget• 57% required no follow-up• 85% are <10 minutes
1702 transactions logged from 2007-2008.
Recommendations
An ideal IM service for our users would be a 24/7 service; staffed by knowledgeable, friendly people; easy to access from the Libraries’ web pages that they use most; where they can get quick efficient service.
Impact: Service• Library-wide participation• MLS interns• 15 additional staffStaffing• 36 additional hours/week
Hours• Original: Live Assistance• Interim: Meebo• Today: Library H3lpPlatform
Impact: Usage
Year # of IM Transaction2007 4682008 3832009 5492010 22932011 (through May) 1722
Digital Centers: User Needs Assessment
Locations
Digital Social Science Center @ Lehman Social Science Library
Digital Humanities Center @ Butler History & Humanities Library
Digital Science Center @ Science & Engineering Library
The Burke Library @ Union Theological SeminaryAvery Architectural & Fine Arts Library
MotivationHow is the changing information environment
impacting library use, and student needs for technology and research support?
Clients• Departmental libraries• Libraries IT Office• Library Leadership
Methodology
Social Sciences2007
• Online questionnaire
• Student focus groups (2)
• Faculty interviews
• Observation studies
Humanities2009
• Online questionnaire
• In-library paper questionnaire
• Focus groups, TBD
Sciences2010
• Online questionnaire
• In-library paper questionnaire
• In-library flip charts
Results
Social Sciences
• Surveyn = 125
Humanities
• Surveyn = 940
Sciences
• Surveyn = 611
Impact: Digital Social Science Center
• From on-call to desk hours
Mode• Increased visibility• Centralized service pointLocation• Promote consultation services• “Info Expo” eventOutreach• Group study• Presentation practice roomStudy space• Presentation practice room• Quantitative support, GIS, bibliographic softwareTechnology
Ongoing!Impact: Digital Humanities Center
• Dedicated 2 reference staff to the DHC
Staffing• Transitioning reference support from
the reading room to the DHCLocation• SCANNERS!
Technology• Extended hours in the DHC• Late night vs. overnightHours
Impact: Digital Science Center
• Increased reference visibilityLocation
• Emerging Technology Librarian hiredStaffing
• Group study rooms and boothsStudy space
• Quantitative software• Visualization softwareTechnology• More workshops
Instruction
Digital Centers: Evaluation
DSSC Evaluation
MotivationUnderstand awareness of and
satisfaction with new services at the DSSC.
Methodology• Online survey• In-library paper survey
Response• 416 respondents
– 47% Graduate Students– 80% from the social sciences
Findings: Technology
• 66% “never heard of” data services, Bloomberg stations
• 47% “heard of/never used” GIS
• Overall satisfaction with technology services
Findings: Research Support
• 34% “never heard of” the reference desk• 42% “never heard of” emailing a librarian• 50% “never heard of” of research consultations• 50% “never heard of” library workshops• 66% “never heard of” IMing a librarian
Findings: Space
• 75% use the library for individual study• 68% use the library for group study
• 67% are satisfied with individual study• 67% are satisfied with group study
• 61% “never heard of” practice presentation room• 73% “never heard of” conference calling room
Impact• Continue renovations• Improve maintenanceFacilities• Continue to expand group study
Study space• Promote IM• Promote GIS/Data servicesOutreach• Offer more workshops• New orientation approachInstruction
Thank you.
Special thanks to: Amanda Bielskas, Rob Cartolano, Kathleen Dreyer, Mary Giunta, Jean LaPonce, Bob Scott, Jane Winland