LIS 770-02 Management of Libraries and Information Centers:
Program Assessment
Fall 2007
Jon Kirsch
December 19, 2007
1
Taylor’s Scientific Management and The LibQual+ Management Tool: A
Contrast of Usefulness
As managers of libraries strive to meet their responsibilities, many feel the
enormity of the challenge. The age of information competition has posed library
managers with new dilemmas on maintaining the library’s relevancy. If the challenge has
become greater, however, so too have the tools at the library manager’s disposal. This
progress becomes clear when contrasting obsolete management theory from the
beginning of the 20th century with the latest resource for library managers in the 21st
century. Frederick Taylor’s groundbreaking scientific management was designed to
“secure the maximum prosperity for the employer, coupled with the maximum prosperity
for each employee” using systematic, scientific methodology (Taylor, 1911, p. 1). Yet his
management theory failed to be useful for libraries because of its focus on the employer
rather than the user and its ignorance of human psychology.
In contrast, academic libraries since 2000 have developed a management tool
called LibQual+™ (LibQual). This innovative tool for library self-assessment is effective
in two important ways. LibQual cultivates a more service-oriented culture in libraries and
gives libraries effective measures to make specific improvements to their organization.
Although LibQual can be utilized in any library, it was designed for academic libraries
and the following analysis will focus on that library context.
Frederick Taylor is known as the management pioneer who believed in a “one
best way” for tasks (Rainey, 2003, p. 25). More specifically, Taylor used time-motion
studies and argued for a concept of analyzing the time involved with every little task to
increase work efficiency (Hough & White, 2001, p. 586). Taylor believed in centralized
planning and elaborate regulations to rigidly keep employees efficient (Provenmodels,
2
2007). In essence, Taylor felt that management and workers should complement each
other and that each could benefit from increasing efficiency.
Unfortunately Taylor’s more scientific methodologies were poorly adapted for the
library service environment. In the library context the user is often paramount, not the
employer. Taylor’s industrial or factory context did not lend itself well to an age where
“only customers judge quality; all other judgments are essentially irrelevant” (Saunders,
2007, p. 22). Library service is not a concrete, physical commodity like steel or pig iron,
and therefore Taylor’s methods were too simplistic to be useful. It was not just a matter
of library directors testing the librarian’s every minute task in budgeting time to help
patrons. Aspects of service quality collided with service efficiency to muddy the waters
of simple production assessment.
Additionally, Taylor’s philosophy failed to understand the psychological motives
of employees, particularly in the library world. Taylor assumed that workers cared more
about financial reward than their work. Yet many library volunteers are motivated purely
by job satisfaction, and the library profession generally attracts those concerned with
helping the public. Taylor also made the psychological miscalculation of believing in a
rigid separation between planning and execution, however most libraries have discovered
that continuous learning amidst changing information technology necessarily blurs that
distinction. For such continuous learning, allowing employees to take initiative becomes
much more valuable than Taylor realized.
Therefore if Taylor’s ground-breaking early 20th century wisdom cannot be
applied to libraries, how can libraries improve the way they manage? Better selfassessment has become crucial to managing. At the forefront of library self-assessment
3
and particularly academic library self-assessment is a survey tool called LibQual.
LibQual evolved as researchers realized that the old forms of self-assessment for libraries
were inadequate. For many years businesses and libraries used questions with simple
Likert scales such as user satisfaction of a particular service on a scale of 1 to 5
(Saunders, 2007, p. 22). Many libraries chose to use input variables such as collection or
serial counts, but these measures became less relevant as digital content proliferated
(Thompson, 2007).
Then, in the 1990s, three professors, Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry, proposed
the idea of a more sophisticated survey so that libraries could create a true scale of
measurement to evaluate their service. They called their self-assessment survey
ServQual, which operated on the idea that “the true measure of satisfaction is the
difference between the level of services received and the level expected” (Saunders,
2007, p. 22). This innovation came to be known as gap analysis (Saunders, 2007, p. 22)).
LibQual expounded further on this concept by comparing patrons’ minimum
expectations, desired expectation, and perception of the service itself.
LibQual was developed by the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) in
cooperation with faculty members at Texas A & M University. They wanted to formulate
a survey that enabled libraries to discover their strengths and weaknesses while also
comparing performance with other libraries. LibQual evolved into a survey with 22 core
items and an open comments box for users to evaluate their library on three criteria. Each
of the 22 items measured three dimensions: (1) Quality of service provided by the staff,
(2) Extent and quality of information resources provided by the library, including the ease
4
of access to information, and (3) Quality of the physical space provided by the library
(University of Texas, 2007).
The first major advantage of LibQUAL is that it cultivates a service-oriented
culture among libraries. One of the great virtues of the survey is that it “transcends a local
campus survey” (Sanville, 2004, p. 13). Previously, many libraries had tools of selfassessment that were valuable. However, because each library had its own idiosyncratic
methods for evaluating its services, it was extremely difficult to meaningfully compare
one library to another. The blanket adoption of LibQual by many libraries and consortia
has now created a meaningful tool for such comparison. As the Healey Library of the
University of Massachusetts noted approvingly, the LibQual survey was vital because it
allowed them to “benchmark UMass Boston results against those of other colleges and
universities to determine best practices” (Healey Library, 2007). Having a systematic
empirical survey like LibQual provided many libraries with a fresh impetus for
competitiveness more reminiscent of the business sector than non-profits. In fact,
libraries were so eager to measure themselves against their peers that administrators of
LibQual urged participating libraries not to discuss head-to-head comparisons with other
libraries (Hubbard & Walter, 2005, pp. 39-40).
LibQual also makes academic libraries more service-oriented by increasing their
value to the larger institution. As one college library noted, “Because the college has an
ongoing assessment program, we received institutional support in 2003 to participate in
the LibQual+ survey” (Sanders & Varnet, 2005, p. 463). With colleges concerned about
maintaining their accreditation, LibQual has highlighted the importance of the library as a
component in the university’s total self-assessment. Instead of the library’s self-
5
assessment being truncated as a minuscule portion of a larger, overshadowing universitywide assessment, LibQual has given the library distinctive status. For instance, some
academic libraries have utilized the Noel-Levitz SSI for self-assessment. While useful,
the survey has only two library-related questions: “Library staff are helpful and
approachable?” and “Library resources and services are adequate?” (Sanders & Varnet,
2005, p. 463). By providing many and more in-depth questions, LibQual sets the ground
for more in-depth analysis and therefore increases the likelihood that an institution will
perceive the library’s independent role at the university.
In other practical ways LibQual encourages academic libraries to become serviceoriented because the data is highly detailed and readily interpretable. One library that
participated in the LibQual survey found that “the information derived from it was much
more detailed than that obtained from earlier General Satisfaction surveys or the
University-wide surveys conducted by the Assessment Office” (Hubbard & Walter, 2005,
p. 41). The ARL gives each participating library useful data and a powerful tool to
continue its own analysis:
ARL gives the participating library a document containing charts and summary
data. An SPSS file of raw data also is made available for further analysis…we
used the raw data to create many additional charts and data subsets. By this
means…we were able to do data sets and charts for each college at the university
and for certain subsets of the faculty and students. By drilling down into the data,
we discovered patterns of responses that were not apparent from the aggregated
data (Saunders, 2007, pp. 22-23).
These methods allow libraries to effectively evaluate whether their collections are
meeting one department’s needs while neglecting another discipline. The University of
Pittsburgh Library discovered, for example, that it had ignored the needs of its graduate
6
student patrons because the electronic journal collection was not extensive enough to
meet research needs (Saunders, 2007, p. 23).
Furthermore LibQual has concrete value in its ability to provide measures that
allow organizations to make specific improvements. For example, one component of
LibQual consists of an open-ended comment section. One study noted that, “consistently,
across libraries, a striking percentage of participants – roughly 40% -- provide comments,
which flesh out users’ service quality perceptions, and make specific recommendations
for service quality improvements” (Thompson, 2007).
A recent case study illustrated the importance of these user comments. Out of 211
participants, 70 respondents at Pittsburgh University Library provided detailed written
comments (Hubbard & Walter, 2005, p. 39). Comments confirmed what the results in the
data had already shown. The 22 short questions had highlighted three major problems at
the library. The library lacked a comfortable and inviting location, modern equipment
that lets one easily access needed information, and information made easily accessible for
independent use. By using comments that correlated positively with the questions, the
library was able to pinpoint specific weaknesses. In trying to solve the lack of an inviting
or comfortable location, librarians realized that the interior furnishings of the library were
more than three decades old. Following the LibQual survey a major interior renovation
consisted of painting, fresh carpeting, new elevators, and comprehensive reupholstering
of old seating. To improve modern equipment the library sped up web access by
switching to a better local area network and internet provider. Lastly, to improve making
information accessible for independent use the library improved its EZ Proxy server and
7
software and allowed students to use library databases more easily off-campus (Hubbard
& Walter, 2005, pp. 41-42).
The Pittsburgh University Library responded to undergraduates’ dissatisfaction in
the LibQual survey also. Undergraduates’ lack of library usage was related to the no
food-and-drink policy. The library not only changed these policies, allowing food and
bottled drinks in specified areas. The library even added its own coffee bar (Saunders,
2007, pp. 22-23). The LibQual survey also revealed that students preferred receiving help
from peers rather than librarians as a first resort. Consequently, the Pittsburgh University
Library established a system of student consultants to help answer preliminary queries
(Saunders, 2007, p. 23). Another library found that the “library as a place” component of
the LibQual survey scored disastrously. Similarly to the Pittsburgh scenario, they
responded with a long-term renovation process in the summer of 2003 and since then
have produced data showing that attendance at the library has increased (Sanders &
Varnet, 2005, pp. 464-465).
Even if the LibQual survey does not prescribe what specific action should be
taken, the survey offers libraries with a specific area to focus efforts for improvement.
For instance, in many libraries the “affect of service” component of the LibQual survey
had the highest impact on user satisfaction according to empirical analysis. As the analyst
noted, “The AS (Affect of Service) dimension is the dominant indicator for each
equation. This result highlights the importance that the people working for the library
operation have on user satisfaction with the service delivered by the academic library”
(Heinrichs, Lim & Sharkey, 2005, pp. 264-265). These kinds of results can lead library
managers to at least focus on training programs or restructuring staff. Even if LibQual
8
cannot say how to change a service, knowing which part of service requires improvement
is the first crucial step. In a similar scenario, Pace University Library, which has multiple
facilities, found that the LibQual survey specifically pointed out which facilities were
under-utilized and revealed problems in the university’s cell phone policy (McGuire,
2003). Therefore, even if libraries may not know specifically how to solve a problem
identified by LibQual, at least the library knows where it must begin.
Nonetheless, despite LibQual’s ability to engender a culture of service and help
libraries identify specific weaknesses in service, it is not without limitations. LibQual is a
web-based survey, and this method produces a research bias. Web-based surveys require
computer literacy and access to hardware and software. Computer-illiterate, nontraditional students may be underrepresented. LibQual’s web-centered interface may also
neglect input from groups of limited financial means who do not own computers such as
racial and ethnic minorities (Perkins, 2004, p. 123). Furthermore, LibQual requires staff
time and on-staff expertise. Staff must be interested and engaged in learning how to use
LibQual as a tool (Sanders & Varnet, 2005, p. 461). The $2,000 cost for a library to do
the LibQual survey may be prohibitive for smaller university libraries unless they can get
funding support from the larger institution (Hubbard & Walter, 2005, p. 36).
Additionally LibQual identifies specific weaknesses but cannot offer
comprehensive solutions. Recognizing a lack of library service and using that information
to systematically develop a strategic plan is difficult (Saunders, 2007, p. 23). Meanwhile
other librarians have shown concern about the user-centric nature of LibQual. One expert
commented that LibQual in its research design states, “It might be desirable from a
practical point of view if a reasonable characterizations of user perceptions summarized
9
user views in a single score” (Edgar, 2006, p. 12). The problem with this perspective is
that it indicates that library service effectiveness can be gauged by a single constituency.
LibQual may not effectively measure the needs or values of funding stakeholders (Edgar,
2006, pp. 12-13). While funding stakeholders certainly value user satisfaction, they may
have their own distinct desires and expectations.
Frederick Taylor’s once revolutionary scientific management lacked practical
applications for libraries. Ultimately, however, libraries and particularly academic
libraries are discovering new management tools. Primary among those tools is LibQual.
This survey instills a service-oriented outlook while giving libraries increased accuracy to
identify and take action against specific service deficiencies. LibQual is not the last word
in self-assessment; however it does represent a groundbreaking development. LibQual
predicts a world where libraries can monitor performance in a standardized, credible
assessment scheme. Using tools such as LibQual libraries can better market themselves to
key stakeholders and justify the services they offer or the changes they want to make
happen. Library managers can therefore do more than just manage their library. They can
better manage the external threats their libraries are facing.
10
Works Cited:
Edgar, W. B. (2006, October). Questioning LibQUAL+(™): Expanding its assessment of
academic library effectiveness. Portal: Libraries & the Academy, 6(4), 445-465.
Healey Library. (2007). Take the survey!!. Retrieved December 11, 2007, from
http://www.lib.umb.edu/libqual
Heinrichs, J. H., Lim, J., & Sharkey, T. (2005, May). Relative influence of the
LibQUAL+(™): Dimensions on satisfaction: A subgroup analysis. College &
Research Libraries, 66(3), 248-265.
Hough, J. R., White, M. A. (2001). Using stories to create change: The object lesson of
Frederick Taylor’s “pig-tale”. Journal of Management, 27(5), 585-601.
Hubbard, W. J., & Walter, D. E. (2005, Spring). Assessing library services with
LibQUAL+: A case study. The Southeastern Librarian, 53(1), 35-45.
McGuire, N. (2003). LibQUAL+ service quality survey: The results are in. Retrieved
December 14, 2007, from
http://www.pace.edu/library/pages/newsletter/fall2003/libqual.html
Perkins, G. H. (2004, September). Will libraries’ web-based survey methods replace
existing non-electronic survey metehods?. Information Technology & Libraries,
23(3), 123-126.
Provenmodels. (2007). Scientific management. Retrieved December 15, 2007, from
http://www.provenmodels.com/29/scientific-management/taylor
Rainey, H. G. (2003). Understanding & managing public organizations (3rd ed.). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sanders, M. R., & Varnet, H. (2005, June). Asking better questions: Small-scale
assessment measures that inform ongoing work. College & Research Libraries
News, 66(6), 461-465.
Sanville, T. (2004). Defending and expanding library turf: The need for scalable
consumer research. Journal of Library Administration, 40(3), 13-17.
Saunders, S. E. (2007, Fall). The LibQUAL+ phenomenon: Who judges quality?.
Reference & User Services Quarterly, 47(1), 21-24.
Taylor, F. W. (1911). The principles of scientific management. New York: Harper &
Row.
11
Thompson, B. (2007). The origins/birth of LibQUAL+(R). Retrieved December 9, 2007,
from http://www.coe.tamu.edu~bthompson/libbirth.htm
University of Texas. (2007). What is LibQUAL+?. Retrieved December 11, 2007, from
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/vprovost/assessment/libqual/index.html
12