In addition, the library has begun to incorporate the LibQUAL+® Lite ratings with the Balanced Scorecard and has created metrics and targets for future administrations of the Balanced Scorecard. The library’s 2009–10 Balanced Scorecard has identified a number performance indicators based on LibQUAL+® scores. These indicators will be used as benchmarks within the library as well as against the SCONUL consortium scores. LibQUAL+® Lite Qualitative Data The volume of qualitative data harvested from users’ comments was unaffected by using the LibQUAL+® Lite protocol in 2010. As in previous years, 43% of respondents (1,070) made in excess of 1,600 distinct comments. This is very good news as the qualitative data is often more persuasive in decision making as it provides information that is easier to understand than numerical score ratings. It identifies problems and provides the context to understand issues. Conclusion In the current economic climate, the ability of libraries to demonstrate that the services they provide are accessible, effective, efficient, progressive, and responsive is unavoidable and absolutely necessary. Over the last seven years, LibQUAL+®, together with other national and international survey instruments and local assessment tools, has been a major factor in this library’s success in increasing and improving access to information resources within a physical environment that is comfortable, inspiring, inviting, and a secure place of work for the students and staff of the university. For the future, there is confidence that LibQUAL+® Lite will be a necessary tool for the library’s continued development of services that are designed to meet users’ needs and expectations. 1 Chris Bailey, University of Glasgow Annual Report 2001 (Glasgow: University of Glasgow, 2002). 2 Steve Hiller, “Another Tool in the Assessment Toolbox: Integrating LibQUAL+® into the University of Washington Libraries Assessment Program,” in Libraries Act on Their LibQUAL+® Findings: From Data to Action, eds. Fred M. Heath, Martha Kyrillidou, and Consuella Askew (New York: Haworth Press, 2004): 127. 3 A Service Adequacy Gap score is calculated by subtracting the minimum score from the perceived score on any given question for each user. In general, a Service Adequacy Gap score is an indicator of the extent to which the library is meeting the minimum expectations of users. A negative Service Adequacy Gap score indicates that the users’ perceived level of service quality is below their minimum level of service quality. For a fuller understanding of the LibQUAL+® scales and graphs, see the online tutorial on “LibQUAL+® Tools,” http://libqual.org/about/about_survey/tools/. 4 Eric Ackermann, “LibQUAL+® and the Evolution of ‘Library as Place’ at Radford University, 2002–2008,” in Building Effective, Sustainable, Practical Assessment: Proceedings of the 2008 Library Assessment Conference, Seattle, Washington, August 4–7, 2008, eds. Steve Hiller, Kristina Justh, Martha Kyrillidou, and Jim Self (Washington DC: ARL, 2009): 43–49, http://libraryassessment.org/bm~doc/proceedings-lac-2008.pdf. 5 Charts 1 and 2 show floating bar charts where the blue box defines the “zone of tolerance”—the RLI 271 19 LibQUAL+® and the “Library as Place” at the University of Glasgow ( C O N T I N U E D ) AUGUST 2010 RESEARCH LIBRARY ISSUES: A BIMONTHLY REPORT FROM ARL, CNI, AND SPARC