In early 2012, a team of librarians from Emory University\u27s Robert W Woodruff Library set out to better understand how the library\u27s key user groups work, what they need to do that work, and how the library might better meet those needs. To develop its understanding the team modified the Voice of the Customer FOCUS methodology--a clearly defined and rigorous process for developing and conducting semi-structured interviews and for analyzing the data associated with those interviews.
In this presentation, team members will review their research methodology (including a discussion of its benefits and drawbacks), review their project\u27s findings and its impact on the library, and suggest how others might adapt their research methodology to their own libraries and needs

Bailey, Susan

Bodnar, Jon

Maloy, Frances

English

Georgia State University

Voice of the Customer (VOC) 
Emory Libraries 
2006-2012 
Susan Bailey, Emory Libraries and 
Information Technology 
Jon Bodnar, Emory Libraries and 
Information Technology 
Frances Maloy, Union College 
 
Focus Groups 
Structured Interviews 
Desktracker Data 
Listserv data 
 Ask a librarian 
 Service desk inquiries 
 Ejournals report 
 ReservesDirect 
 ILL 
 Purchase requests 
Suggestion Box 
Service Desk Comment Cards 
Personal Relationships 
Library Policy Committee 
Ad hoc Meetings on Special Topics 
Liaison Emails 
Marketing by Wandering Around 
Surveys 
 Annual Library Survey 
 Honors Survey 
 Instructional Survey 
BACKGROUND 
Emory University & Libraries 
Students 
Enrollment, Fall 2013     14,513 
  Undergraduate       7,836 
  Graduate and Professional      6,677 
Degrees Awarded (2012-2013)       4,239 
  Undergraduate          2,186 
  Graduate          2,053 
 
Libraries 
Staff (2012, excluding students) 
Woodruff  (including Business & MARBL)    162 
Health Sciences             25 
Law                19 
Oxford College             10 
Theology               16 
 
Print and electronic volumes: More than 3.9 million 
Serial subscriptions: Nearly 100,000, with more than 
80,000 of those via electronic access 
Assessment at Emory 
• 2001, 2002, 2003, 2005—Conducted LibQUAL 
• 2003-2004—Appointed new University 
President who initiated campus strategic 
planning efforts 
• 2005—Appointed full time Assessment 
Librarian 
• 2005-2006—Participated in ARL Making 
Library Assessment Work project 
 
Assessment at Emory 
• 2006—Appointed new Director from Los 
Alamos National Laboratory Library who had 
won awards there for organizational 
performance excellence based on the 
Malcolm Baldrige criteria 
• 2007—Conducted first local user survey 
• 2007--Developed first business plans that 
included customer focus elements 
• 2008--Conducted focus groups with faculty, 
graduate students and undergraduates 
 
Customer Focus 
• Business planning process included multiple 
components, key among those: Customer 
segmentation matrix—identify and segment 
customers, their needs, motivations, quantity, 
distinguishing characteristics 
• Although each library unit included customer 
segmentation matrix in its business plan, 
leadership felt there was still inadequate 
understanding of library customers 


2010-2011 
• Newly revised Strategic Plan for the Library 
included a “Voice of the Customer” strategic 
objective to improve understanding of 
customer needs 
• Services Division leader was the champion of 
the initiative and brought together a 6-person 
team to work on the project 
 
Initial Project Report 
• Included Baldrige profile section 
• Included synthesis of previously conducted 
customer focus groups, survey data 
• Included personas 
• Included VOC process maps 
• Included recommendations 
 
Leadership Response 
• While recognizing the work done, leadership 
did not accept the report in its first iteration 
• To the group: Utilize the FOCUS methodology 
from Voices into Choices: Acting on the Voice 
of the Customer by Brodie and Burchill; add 
consultant Jude Heimel to the project team; 
extend the work already done using this 
methodology and produce a scholarly 
research report that incorporates improved 
customer data and recommendations 
 
 
FOCUS METHODOLOGY 
Overview of the FOCUS methodology 
1. An approach to using structured interviews (and 
observation) to document people’s statements of 
need relating to a product or service 
 
2. A data analysis technique for translating need 
statements into priority requirements that can be 
used as a starting point for decisions about 
improving the product or service 
 
Major steps in the process 
• Frame the issue to explore and plan the project, 
 
• Organize and balance scope, schedule, and resources 
 
• Refine customer segments according to the issue or questions 
 
• Review existing data sources, design and conduct interviews  
 
• Analyze data in a way that minimizes subjectivity and abstracts 
customer needs, requirements, and opportunities for 
improvement 
 
• Generate and select actions to address concerns or take advantage 
of opportunities 
 
Benefits of the approach 
• Presents techniques for clarifying goals and expectations 
 
• Emphasizes the need to balance scope, schedule, and 
resources with stakeholder expectations 
 
• Explains how to develop a useful interview guide 
 
• Details affinity diagramming techniques for data analysis 
 
• Presents a plan for producing actionable results focused on 
improving a product or service 
 
Things the method doesn’t supply 
• Experienced meeting facilitator and project 
manager 
 
• Experienced interviewers 
 
• Experienced note takers 
THE EMORY PROJECT 
Our issue 
We’d like to know more about you as an 
academic researcher and professor. We’re 
particularly interested in how you work—what a 
typical project looks like, how you start it, how it 
develops, and how your work changes as it 
matures. Ultimately we want to adapt and 
improve library services so that they better 
support you in these activities. 
 
 
Data analysis 
• Identify statements of need, concerns, issues, 
problems, and solutions: What are our interviewees’ 
key concerns? 
 
• Translate strongest statements into requirements: 
What requirements underlie their key concerns? 
 
• Identify themes and prioritize requirements: What are 
the larger themes in our requirements, and which are 
the highest priority for our interviewees? 
Listening & Learning Posts Available 
for VOC Project 
 
Focus Groups 
Structured Interviews 
Desktracker Data 
Listserv data 
 Ask a librarian 
 Service desk inquiries 
 Ejournals report 
 ReservesDirect 
 ILL 
 Purchase requests 
Suggestion Box 
Service Desk Comment Cards 
Personal Relationships 
Library Policy Committee 
Ad hoc Meetings on Special Topics 
Liaison Emails 
Marketing by Wandering Around 
Surveys 
 Annual Library Survey 
 Honors Survey 
 Instructional Survey 
Focus Group & Survey Comments 





V o i c e s  i n  t h e  L i b r a r y  
9 | P a g e  
 
methods in finding books.   
 
2. Some of the faculty interviewed said the library’s search tools do not work for them.  They want 
search tools that are integrated, reliable, and save them time.  Commenting on the change to 
ALEPH, one faculty member said, “There has been a significant setback to research at Emory and 
that’s the change to EUCLID.  The new system is just really difficult to even find volumes you know 
are over there.”  Another said of the change in systems, “I no longer do bibliographic work at Emory; 
I use the Library of Congress instead.”  She went on to say, “The new interface no longer emphasizes 
the call number, which is what is most important to my search.”  Yet another said, “And the old 
EUCLID was pretty reliable.  There were some exceptions.  Now I feel like it is always kind of like a 
game.  Sometimes you’re lucky; sometimes you’re not.” 
 
3. Some humanities faculty said that when print materials are in storage they are inaccessible because 
the indexing and cataloging lacks detail.  Speaking of the German system, one faculty member said, 
“If it is a storage system, then they have a perfect catalog, and I can find everything in the catalog.  
And here [at Emory] sometimes I have the feeling that books are lost in storage because they have 
no access through the catalog.”  
 
4. Humanities Faculty use technology to research and improve pedagogy.  “Table of contents is a 
welcome enhancement,” one said.  Another commented on how technology changed how his 
students interact with other students’ writing:  “The interesting thing about wikis is that when 
they’re reading one another’s papers, boy does their writing improve.”  Speaking of a DiSC funding 
grant, a third said, “Our goal is to get the digital stuff done.  I’m teaching a class in the fall that 
involves undergraduates inputting data.”  
 
5. Humanities faculty place high demands on and have high expectations of library facilities.  For 
example, they would like the library’s hours to align more with their personal work schedules.  One 
faculty member asked for library hours not to shorten during semester breaks.  “That is when we 
have time [to do our work],” he said.  Another said, “Once I found a full cup of coffee open without a 
lid in a bookshelf.  I was shocked.”  And another:  “I can just see that one space after the other 
opens to new computers, as if the students wouldn’t have their own computers….so then it is just 
about getting space so they can talk and use computers.”  
 
6. Humanities faculty browse collections; they consider browsing a critical research process.  “In 
Rome,” a faculty member said, “I browse all of the time.  I do browse a fair amount in Woodruff,” 
and from another professor:  “Browsing is an important way to do research,” and from the teaching 
perspective: “...getting the students into the library and realizing an important aspect to research is 
actually going into the stacks.  You never know what you are going to find by accident.” 
 
7. For humanities faculty, eaching and research inform and extend each other.  “I’ve been teaching 
contemporary music for many years, and I suppose that’s where my recent research ideas have 
Sample Observations  
• The importance of the library catalog, EUCLID 
was a consistent theme for the Humanities 
faculty. 
• Robust collections of data and literature are 
essential to the research process of social 
scientists. 
• The scientists expressed a need for readily 
available books and journals for looking up facts, 
confirming quotes, and verifying citations. 
 
Cross Segment Themes and Discussion  
• Faculty Research: 
High-level process across segments is similar 
How faculty talk about their work is different: 
 Social Scientists and Scientists talk about data gathering; 
Humanists talk about reading, thinking, writing, researching. 
 Social Scientists and Scientists are concerned with drawing 
conclusions, literature reviews, summarizing and validating 
results 
 Humanists are concerned with creativity and deep thought. 
  
• Faculty Teaching: 
– All faculty interviewed care about their students. 
They want their students engaged in and to find 
enjoyment in their classes. 
– All faculty interviewed spend time selecting course 
readings. 
– All faculty interviewed advise graduate students; 
how they do it varies by discipline. 
• Humanists see advising as service to their department; it is 
a separate activity from their research; Humanists work 
alone to get credit for their work. 
• Social Scientists and Scientists see advising intertwined 
with their research.  Social Scientists and Scientists 
collaborate; Social Scientists collaborate with peers; 
Scientists collaborate with peers and graduate students.  
Scientists are training graduate students how to conduct 
scientific research in the labs.   
• All faculty interviewed rely on library 
collections 
• Humanities talked about using JSTOR, 
browsing print and electronic collections and 
using search and discovery tools;  using 
collections in all formats. 
• Social Scientists talked mostly about e-
journals and databases. 
• Scientists talked about e-journals and 
databases. 
Findings 
• Research-level collections that are accessible 
• Library hours that cater to student and faculty 
schedule  
• Dissatisfaction with search and discovery tools 
• Interoperability of catalog, databases and other 
systems 
• “One” Emory Library system 
• More visibility of subject liaisons 
• Library Spaces for all users and all uses 
• VOC findings validate findings from other sources 
 
Recommendations 
1. Maintain and expand research-level collections. 
 
2. Address concerns about the reliability of the catalog and usability 
of library search, discovery, and delivery tools. 
 
3. Coordinate policies across Emory Libraries. 
 
4. Address frustrations with the Library’s website. 
 
5. Use customer input to develop library spaces 
 
6. Create a programmatic assessment and voice of the customer 
plan for the library. 
Observations from afar  
(time and space) 
• VOC team was highly skilled in assessment and 
customer focused 
• Results gave greater depth to what the VOC team 
already knew 
• Power in seeing verbatims for VOC team and for 
others 
• Deeper understanding of who the people we 
serve and the teaching and research processes 
• Affirming to be listened to; can be used to build 
relationships and take down barriers 
 
 
Observations… 
• The FOCUS process requires a team with a variety of skills- 
qualitative research skills, facilitation skills, analytical skills, 
convergent and divergent thinking, and writing and editorial skills. 
• Project scope was driven by the deadline which eliminated 
structured interviews of Undergraduate and Graduate Students. 
• Qualitative process best for understanding obvious problems that 
then need to be drilled down on to understand how best to resolve. 
• Report appeared at a time of a transition in leadership: departure 
of the Vice Provost and Director of Libraries; new library leadership 
bringing together Libraries and University Technology Services into 
a single division (LITS) under the Chief Information Officer of the 
University. 
• Basecamp was a great project tool and has preserved institutional 
knowledge. 
Project Complete! 
Questions? 
Susan Bailey  libsbb@emory.edu 
 
Jon Bodnar  jon.bodnar@emory.edu 
 
Frances Maloy  maloyf@union.edu  


Voices in the Library

ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University

Voice of the Customer (VOC) Emory Libraries 2006-2012 Susan Bailey, Emory Libraries and Information Technology Jon Bodnar, Emory Libraries and Information Technology Frances Maloy, Union College  Focus Groups Structured Interviews Desktracker Data Listserv data  Ask a librarian  Service desk inquiries  Ejournals report  ReservesDirect  ILL  Purchase requests Suggestion Box Service Desk Comment Cards Personal Relationships Library Policy Committee Ad hoc Meetings on Special Topics Liaison Emails Marketing by Wandering Around Surveys  Annual Library Survey  Honors Survey  Instructional Survey BACKGROUND Emory University & Libraries Students Enrollment, Fall 2013     14,513   Undergraduate       7,836   Graduate and Professional      6,677 Degrees Awarded (2012-2013)       4,239   Undergraduate          2,186   Graduate          2,053  Libraries Staff (2012, excluding students) Woodruff  (including Business & MARBL)    162 Health Sciences             25 Law                19 Oxford College             10 Theology               16  Print and electronic volumes: More than 3.9 million Serial subscriptions: Nearly 100,000, with more than 80,000 of those via electronic access Assessment at Emory • 2001, 2002, 2003, 2005—Conducted LibQUAL • 2003-2004—Appointed new University President who initiated campus strategic planning efforts • 2005—Appointed full time Assessment Librarian • 2005-2006—Participated in ARL Making Library Assessment Work project  Assessment at Emory • 2006—Appointed new Director from Los Alamos National Laboratory Library who had won awards there for organizational performance excellence based on the Malcolm Baldrige criteria • 2007—Conducted first local user survey • 2007--Developed first business plans that included customer focus elements • 2008--Conducted focus groups with faculty, graduate students and undergraduates  Customer Focus • Business planning process included multiple components, key among those: Customer segmentation matrix—identify and segment customers, their needs, motivations, quantity, distinguishing characteristics • Although each library unit included customer segmentation matrix in its business plan, leadership felt there was still inadequate understanding of library customers 2010-2011 • Newly revised Strategic Plan for the Library included a “Voice of the Customer” strategic objective to improve understanding of customer needs • Services Division leader was the champion of the initiative and brought together a 6-person team to work on the project  Initial Project Report • Included Baldrige profile section • Included synthesis of previously conducted customer focus groups, survey data • Included personas • Included VOC process maps • Included recommendations  Leadership Response • While recognizing the work done, leadership did not accept the report in its first iteration • To the group: Utilize the FOCUS methodology from Voices into Choices: Acting on the Voice of the Customer by Brodie and Burchill; add consultant Jude Heimel to the project team; extend the work already done using this methodology and produce a scholarly research report that incorporates improved customer data and recommendations   FOCUS METHODOLOGY Overview of the FOCUS methodology 1. An approach to using structured interviews (and observation) to document people’s statements of need relating to a product or service  2. A data analysis technique for translating need statements into priority requirements that can be used as a starting point for decisions about improving the product or service  Major steps in the process • Frame the issue to explore and plan the project,  • Organize and balance scope, schedule, and resources  • Refine customer segments according to the issue or questions  • Review existing data sources, design and conduct interviews   • Analyze data in a way that minimizes subjectivity and abstracts customer needs, requirements, and opportunities for improvement  • Generate and select actions to address concerns or take advantage of opportunities  Benefits of the approach • Presents techniques for clarifying goals and expectations  • Emphasizes the need to balance scope, schedule, and resources with stakeholder expectations  • Explains how to develop a useful interview guide  • Details affinity diagramming techniques for data analysis  • Presents a plan for producing actionable results focused on improving a product or service  Things the method doesn’t supply • Experienced meeting facilitator and project manager  • Experienced interviewers  • Experienced note takers THE EMORY PROJECT Our issue We’d like to know more about you as an academic researcher and professor. We’re particularly interested in how you work—what a typical project looks like, how you start it, how it develops, and how your work changes as it matures. Ultimately we want to adapt and improve library services so that they better support you in these activities.   Data analysis • Identify statements of need, concerns, issues, problems, and solutions: What are our interviewees’ key concerns?  • Translate strongest statements into requirements: What requirements underlie their key concerns?  • Identify themes and prioritize requirements: What are the larger themes in our requirements, and which are the highest priority for our interviewees? Listening & Learning Posts Available for VOC Project  Focus Groups Structured Interviews Desktracker Data Listserv data  Ask a librarian  Service desk inquiries  Ejournals report  ReservesDirect  ILL  Purchase requests Suggestion Box Service Desk Comment Cards Personal Relationships Library Policy Committee Ad hoc Meetings on Special Topics Liaison Emails Marketing by Wandering Around Surveys  Annual Library Survey  Honors Survey  Instructional Survey Focus Group & Survey Comments V o i c e s  i n  t h e  L i b r a r y  9 | P a g e   methods in finding books.    2. Some of the faculty interviewed said the library’s search tools do not work for them.  They want search tools that are integrated, reliable, and save them time.  Commenting on the change to ALEPH, one faculty member said, “There has been a significant setback to research at Emory and that’s the change to EUCLID.  The new system is just really difficult to even find volumes you know are over there.”  Another said of the change in systems, “I no longer do bibliographic work at Emory; I use the Library of Congress instead.”  She went on to say, “The new interface no longer emphasizes the call number, which is what is most important to my search.”  Yet another said, “And the old EUCLID was pretty reliable.  There were some exceptions.  Now I feel like it is always kind of like a game.  Sometimes you’re lucky; sometimes you’re not.”  3. Some humanities faculty said that when print materials are in storage they are inaccessible because the indexing and cataloging lacks detail.  Speaking of the German system, one faculty member said, “If it is a storage system, then they have a perfect catalog, and I can find everything in the catalog.  And here [at Emory] sometimes I have the feeling that books are lost in storage because they have no access through the catalog.”   4. Humanities Faculty use technology to research and improve pedagogy.  “Table of contents is a welcome enhancement,” one said.  Another commented on how technology changed how his students interact with other students’ writing:  “The interesting thing about wikis is that when they’re reading one another’s papers, boy does their writing improve.”  Speaking of a DiSC funding grant, a third said, “Our goal is to get the digital stuff done.  I’m teaching a class in the fall that involves undergraduates inputting data.”   5. Humanities faculty place high demands on and have high expectations of library facilities.  For example, they would like the library’s hours to align more with their personal work schedules.  One faculty member asked for library hours not to shorten during semester breaks.  “That is when we have time [to do our work],” he said.  Another said, “Once I found a full cup of coffee open without a lid in a bookshelf.  I was shocked.”  And another:  “I can just see that one space after the other opens to new computers, as if the students wouldn’t have their own computers….so then it is just about getting space so they can talk and use computers.”   6. Humanities faculty browse collections; they consider browsing a critical research process.  “In Rome,” a faculty member said, “I browse all of the time.  I do browse a fair amount in Woodruff,” and from another professor:  “Browsing is an important way to do research,” and from the teaching perspective: “...getting the students into the library and realizing an important aspect to research is actually going into the stacks.  You never know what you are going to find by accident.”  7. For humanities faculty, eaching and research inform and extend each other.  “I’ve been teaching contemporary music for many years, and I suppose that’s where my recent research ideas have Sample Observations  • The importance of the library catalog, EUCLID was a consistent theme for the Humanities faculty. • Robust collections of data and literature are essential to the research process of social scientists. • The scientists expressed a need for readily available books and journals for looking up facts, confirming quotes, and verifying citations.  Cross Segment Themes and Discussion  • Faculty Research: High-level process across segments is similar How faculty talk about their work is different:  Social Scientists and Scientists talk about data gathering; Humanists talk about reading, thinking, writing, researching.  Social Scientists and Scientists are concerned with drawing conclusions, literature reviews, summarizing and validating results  Humanists are concerned with creativity and deep thought.   • Faculty Teaching: – All faculty interviewed care about their students. They want their students engaged in and to find enjoyment in their classes. – All faculty interviewed spend time selecting course readings. – All faculty interviewed advise graduate students; how they do it varies by discipline. • Humanists see advising as service to their department; it is a separate activity from their research; Humanists work alone to get credit for their work. • Social Scientists and Scientists see advising intertwined with their research.  Social Scientists and Scientists collaborate; Social Scientists collaborate with peers; Scientists collaborate with peers and graduate students.  Scientists are training graduate students how to conduct scientific research in the labs.   • All faculty interviewed rely on library collections • Humanities talked about using JSTOR, browsing print and electronic collections and using search and discovery tools;  using collections in all formats. • Social Scientists talked mostly about e-journals and databases. • Scientists talked about e-journals and databases. Findings • Research-level collections that are accessible • Library hours that cater to student and faculty schedule  • Dissatisfaction with search and discovery tools • Interoperability of catalog, databases and other systems • “One” Emory Library system • More visibility of subject liaisons • Library Spaces for all users and all uses • VOC findings validate findings from other sources  Recommendations 1. Maintain and expand research-level collections.  2. Address concerns about the reliability of the catalog and usability of library search, discovery, and delivery tools.  3. Coordinate policies across Emory Libraries.  4. Address frustrations with the Library’s website.  5. Use customer input to develop library spaces  6. Create a programmatic assessment and voice of the customer plan for the library. Observations from afar  (time and space) • VOC team was highly skilled in assessment and customer focused • Results gave greater depth to what the VOC team already knew • Power in seeing verbatims for VOC team and for others • Deeper understanding of who the people we serve and the teaching and research processes • Affirming to be listened to; can be used to build relationships and take down barriers   Observations… • The FOCUS process requires a team with a variety of skills- qualitative research skills, facilitation skills, analytical skills, convergent and divergent thinking, and writing and editorial skills. • Project scope was driven by the deadline which eliminated structured interviews of Undergraduate and Graduate Students. • Qualitative process best for understanding obvious problems that then need to be drilled down on to understand how best to resolve. • Report appeared at a time of a transition in leadership: departure of the Vice Provost and Director of Libraries; new library leadership bringing together Libraries and University Technology Services into a single division (LITS) under the Chief Information Officer of the University. • Basecamp was a great project tool and has preserved institutional knowledge. Project Complete! Questions? Susan Bailey  libsbb@emory.edu  Jon Bodnar  jon.bodnar@emory.edu  Frances Maloy  maloyf@union.edu  

https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1011&amp;context=southeasternlac

Voices in the Library

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Georgia State University

ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University