- The ESP process was conducted at the University of York Library over a week in 2008. It assessed the state of assessment at the library and made recommendations. - Findings included that assessment was not embedded in the culture, LibQUAL+ scores were low, and processes could be more efficient. Suggestions included promoting a culture of assessment, reviewing procedures, and following up on LibQUAL+ results. - Actions taken included training for staff, process reviews, and improved LibQUAL+ and student survey results in 2009, showing the positive impact of the ESP visit. The conclusions were that the ESP approach transferred well to a UK institution and contributed to cultural and strategic changes.

1. ESP in the UK:
from assessment to action
J. Stephen Town, Steve Hiller, Jim
Self and Martha Kyrillidou

2. Summary
• Background to the program
• The University of York
• The ESP process in York
• Findings
• Actions
• Observations and conclusions

3. Background to the program

4. ARL Supports the Assessment Community
• Tools
– ARL Statistics
– LibQUAL+®
– MINES for Libraries®
– ClimateQUAL™
– ARL Library Scorecard Initiative (2009-)
• Building a Community of Practice
– Library Assessment Conferences
– Service Quality Evaluation Academy
– Library Assessment blog
– Workshops
• Individual Library Consultation (Jim and Steve)
– Effective, Sustainable, Practical Library Assessment

5. Key Reasons for Developing an
Assessment Consulting Service (2005-)
• LibQUAL+® results – what to do with them
• E-Metrics data – how to understand them
• New emphasis on outcomes-based assessment from
accreditation agencies and associations
• Data driven university administrations
• Establishing sustainable assessment programs
• Article by Jim and Steve, “From Measurement to
Management” . . . Library Trends , Summer 2004,
highlighted issues involved with data collection,
analysis and use (or non-use) in libraries.

6. ARL Assessment Consulting Service
• Began in 2005 as “Making Library Assessment Work” (MLAW)
Assess the state of assessment efforts in individual research
libraries, identify barriers and facilitators of assessment, and
devise pragmatic approaches to assessment that can flourish in
different local environments”
• Funded by participating libraries; limited to ARL members
• Conducted by Steve Hiller and Jim Self under the aegis of
Martha Kyrillidou of ARL
• In 2007 changed to “Effective, Sustainable and Practical
Library Assessment” (ESP) and opened up to all libraries
• 41 libraries visited since February 2005
– 38 in North America (32 ARL libraries)
– 3 others in Israel, South Africa and UK

7. ESP Insights
• Strong interest in using assessment to improve
• Uncertainty on how to establish and sustain assessment
• Lack of assessment knowledge among staff
• Underutilization of campus assessment resources
• More data collection than data utilization
• Effectiveness not dependent on library size or budget
• Each library has a unique culture and mission
• Organizational issues play a significant role in sustainable
assessment

8. Rationale
• http://www.arl.org/stats/initiatives/esp/
• Those starting, prioritising or embedding
assessment activities
• Evaluating current activities
• Accreditation requirements
• Developing a quality culture
• LibQUAL+ active

9. The University of York
and its Library & Archives

10. The University
• Founded 1963
• UK top ten; RAE 8th
;
World 81st
• 11,000 students
• >30 departments in
humanities, social
sciences, science
• Campus growth
• Collegiate and inclusive

11. The Library & Archives
• > 1m items
• >100 staff
• Traditional divisions
• Archives extensive &
unique
• Developing digital
library expertise
• New Director 2007

12. The ESP process in York

13. Sustainable assessment week 21-29 Jun 2008
• LibQUAL+ Results meeting
• International benchmarking seminar
• ESP Dinner with senior University staff
• Senior Management Team session
– UK, University and quality contexts, including 2008 survey
results
• Team sessions with Library divisions (4)
• Future initiatives
– SPEC Kit; WUN collaboration

14. Process observations
• No cultural issues, except …
• Compact and efficient process
• Commitment and insight
• Similar to traditional UK consultancy or peer
review, but …

15. Post visit
• Report delivered and finalised promptly
• Incorporation into Library planning cycle
• Feedback to broader University
• Follow up value for more remote
participants?

16. Findings

17. Current position
• Budget issues
• National Student Survey results disappointing
• Inadequate reporting of survey results
• Assessment not embedded
• Culture values precedent and regulation
• LibQUAL+ scores low

18. Suggestions and options 1
1. Practices and procedures for assessment
1. Assessment group and leadership
2. Training
3. Culture
2. An Assessment plan
3. Culture promotion
1. From budget to real costs
2. From regulation to user perspective
3. From risk aversion to ‘why not?’

19. Suggestions and options 2
4. Processes review
1. Classification system
2. Acquisition process review
5. LibQUAL+ results follow-up
6. Review collection development and liaison
7. Seek areas of collaboration between Library
and the Archives

20. Actions and achievements

21. Progress 1
• Culture change and promotion
– Middle management training & quality focus
– University Staff survey 2009
– All staff Awayday 2009 (User perspectives on library value)
– Project styles
• Process review
– Redesign of acquisition process to remove repeat touches
and increase trust across organisational boundaries
– Reclassification proposal under consideration; supported by
University senior managers

22. Progress 2
• LibQUAL+ follow up and embedding
– 2009 survey, results and breakdowns
– Devolvement to proto-evaluation group
– Improved results across almost all items and disciplines
• NSS results improvement
– Moved from 78% overall to 81%
– Met first improvement target
• Academic liaison transformation
– Additional substantial investment
– Role development and career paths

23. University of York
LibQUAL+
2008 to 2009 trends
• Superiority mean scores
improved across all but one of the
22 core and 5 local questions
• The other item remained
constant
• Discipline adequacy scores
improved in all but six cases
• Information control overall
adequacy score moved from
negative to positive
• Substantial improvements in
convenient service hours and
online course support items (the
latter also out of the red)

24. Confounding factors
• Departure of performance measurement lead
and hiatus during replacement
– Leadership and assessment group
– In house capability and training
• Major library refurbishment program
• Creation of Information directorate and
closer working with IT Services

25. Observations and conclusions

26. Benefits
• External view from professional experts
• Succinct and compelling report
• Broader scope than assessment alone
• Specific recommendations outside the
comfort zone
• Institutional and organisational acceptance
• Same language

27. Conclusions
• ESP is transferable to institutions outside
North America
• The US origin can be a positive factor within
aspirant world class institutions
• Practical and strategic insight very strong
(and unexpected?)
• Successful in this case in contributing to
culture, community and value