Putting The Customer First

Putting the Customer First! Managing Customer Satisfaction

Dr. Hannelore Vogt

Bertelsmann Stiftung Gütersloh 2004

Contents Preface / Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6

1

Introduction: Basics of Customer Orientation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9

1.1 Term and Current Status of Customer Orientation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9

1.2 Customer Satisfaction – a Key Factor for Customer Retention . . . . . . . .

10

1.3 Customer Retention in Non-Profit Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12

2

General Conditions in Public Libraries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16

2.1 Customer Orientation and Customer Retention in Public Libraries . . . .

16

2.2 Problems with Realizing Customer Orientation in the Field of Libraries .

18

3

Methods for Establishing and Optimizing Customer Satisfaction . . . . . .

20

3.1 Focus Groups Discussion – in Discourse with the Customers . . . . . . . . .

20

Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

23

United Kingdom: London/Bromley, London/Sutton, London/Brent . . . . .

23

Germany: Gütersloh/Bertelsmann Stiftung, Mülheim/Ruhr, Bremen . . . .

26

New Zealand: Wellington, Christchurch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

27

Australia: Brisbane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

28

3.2 Mystery Shopping – More Quality through Test Customers . . . . . . . . . .

28

Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

30

USA: Englewood/Colorado, Modesto/Kalifornien . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

30

Germany: Gütersloh, Würzburg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

33

The Netherlands: Delft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

34

New Zealand: Waitakere, Wellington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

35

United Kingdom: Ballymena/Northern Ireland, London/Bromley, London/Sutton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

38

London/Brent 3.3 Complaint Management as a Success Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

39

Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

44

Germany: Gelsenkirchen, Gütersloh, Bremen, Würzburg Finland: Helsinki . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

44

United Kingdom: London/Bromley, London/Barnet, London/Sutton, West Lothian Libraries/Scotland, Ballymena/Northern Ireland . . . . . . . .

45

New Zealand: Wellington, Christchurch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

50

Singapore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

51

USA: Denver/Colorado, Seattle/Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

51

2

4

Conclusions and Outlooks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

52

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

54

The Author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

65

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

66

Enclosures Questionnaire Enclosures (supplementary material for case studies) Materials Enclosures (samples from different libraries)

3

Table of Questionnaire Enclosures (Supplementary material for case studies)

Questionnaire Enclosure 1:

Focus Groups Questionnaire, London/Brent, UK

Questionnaire Enclosure 2:

Focus Groups Questionnaire, Mülheim/Ruhr, Germany

Questionnaire Enclosure 3:

Focus Groups Questionnaire, Bremen, Germany

Questionnaire Enclosure 4:

Focus Groups Questionnaire, Wellington, New Zealand

Questionnaire Enclosure 5:

Focus Groups Questionnaire, Christchurch, New Zealand

Questionnaire Enclosure 6:

Focus Groups Questionnaire, Brisbane, Australia

Questionnaire Enclosure 7:

Mystery Shopping Questionnaire, Modesto/California, USA

Questionnaire Enclosure 8:

Mystery Shopping Questionnaire, Gütersloh, Germany

Questionnaire Enclosure 9:

Mystery Shopping Questionnaire, Würzburg, Germany

Questionnaire Enclosure 10: Mystery Shopping Questionnaire, Waitakere, New Zealand Questionnaire Enclosure 11: Mystery Shopping Questionnaire, Wellington, New Zealand Questionnaire Enclosure 12: Mystery Shopping Questionnaire, Ballymena/Northern Ireland, UK Questionnaire Enclosure 13: Mystery Shopping Questionnaire, London/Brent, UK Questionnaire Enclosure 14: Complaint Management Questionnaire, Gelsenkirchen, Germany Questionnaire Enclosure 15: Complaint Management Questionnaire, Gütersloh, Germany Questionnaire Enclosure 16: Complaint Management Questionnaire, Bremen, Germany Questionnaire Enclosure 17: Complaint Management Questionnaire, Ballymena/Northern Ireland, UK Questionnaire Enclosure 18: Complaint Management Questionnaire, Christchurch, New Zealand Questionnaire Enclosure 19: Complaint Management Questionnaire, Denver, USA Questionnaire Enclosure 20: Complaint Management Questionnaire, Seattle, USA

4

Table of Materials Enclosures (Samples from different libraries)

Materials Enclosure 1:

IFLA: The Public Library Service. Guidelines for Development. Customer Care

Materials Enclosure 2:

Checklist for customer orientation

Materials Enclosure 3:

Sample Service Standards (based on mystery shopping)

Materials Enclosure 4:

Checklist for Mystery Shoppers

Materials Enclosure 5:

Selpig Mystery Shopping Guidelines

Materials Enclosure 6:

Sutton, Mystery Shopping Sample Questions

Materials Enclosure 7:

Sample Complaint / Compliment Form

Materials Enclosure 8:

Category System for Complaint Analysis

Materials Enclosure 9:

Barnet Customer Complaints Form

Materials Enclosure 10: Barnet, Guidance for dealing with complaints Materials Enclosure 11: Barnet Complaint Form Staff Materials Enclosure 12: Barnet Comment Cards Materials Enclosure 13: Sutton Talk Back Form Materials Enclosure 14: Singapore Online Feedback Materials Enclosure 15: Denver, Form for Praise and Criticism

5

Preface/Executive Summary »Customer satisfaction« – already old hat for many libraries? Unfortunately not! When searching the specialist librarian press for terms such as »customer satisfaction« or »customer orientation,« HERNON/ALTMAN (1998:8) state that they found hardly anything. They classify the available literature as »[...] overwhelmingly, even oppressively, behaviorally based: uses, not users, system performance, not patron perception.« Furthermore, the terms customer satisfaction and service quality are often used as synonyms. This leads to clarity and precision problems during the realization process. The fact that libraries seldom discuss the topic sufficiently points to a corresponding need for basic information. The aim of library work is to satisfy as many customers as possible by utilizing resources optimally. Numerous studies prove that satisfied customers relate their positive experience to three people, whereas dissatisfied customers tell eleven to thirteen people about their negative experience (KOTLER et.al. 1999:297). Hence it is up to four times more likely to create a negative image than a positive one. Customer orientation and customer satisfaction are highly significant, as a satisfied customer is the best promotion and image carrier. Libraries need to take action with regard to customer satisfaction, since, in the face of ever increasing competition in the leisure, education and culture sector, they must retain their ground and present themselves to their customers as an attractive option. The future will not primarily be about having edited as large a number as possible of media and information in high quality. Instead what will be relevant will be having as many highly satisfied (regular) customers as possible. The business sector has known this for a long time now and has responded accordingly. Marketing has undergone a fundamental change over the last few years. »Influence marketing« has been replaced by »relationship marketing«. The information age has made it easier than ever before for customers to find information about competing products. The focus, therefore, is increasingly on positive customer relationships. The spotlight is not on creating sales, but on creating trust. That is why marketing expert, Philip Kotler, views the service provider – in this case the library – more as a »gardener,« who grows and nurtures customer relationships, rather than as a »hunter,« who chases customers. Customer satisfaction and customer retention are therefore also future tasks for public libraries. However, this challenge can only succeed if the entire library team is committed to and practices the principles of customer orientation. Further education, training, employee information, an open discussion culture and delegation of responsibility are elementary prerequisites for success.

6

In order to allow the specialist librarian audience an accelerated start into the field, the current business literature on the topic is evaluated first. The report then presents methods for establishing and optimizing customer orientation, which in some cases are not yet widespread but are practicable for as many libraries as possible. The report supplies a selection of best practices with contact options and an extensive multi-lingual bibliography for in-depth studies and realization of the topics. For quicker orientation, the individual methods are presented in a unified way and followed by case studies from several countries and continents. When selecting the case studies, importance was laced on choosing both large and small libraries. During a study term in London, more in-depth knowledge was gained and expert interviews were conducted in several libraries. Since the 1980s there have been attempts in the UK to establish quality management in libraries. Awarding successful libraries with the »Beacon Council Award« or the »Charter Mark Award« is part of this process as well as establishing quality standards1 and developing »Customer Charters.«2 In all the above publications and in the criteria for the mentioned awards, customer orientation and customer satisfaction play a key role. Focus group discussion is highly valued in Anglo-American librarianship. This is demonstrated by the fact that between 1990 and 1997, around ninety articles on this topic were published in the English-speaking specialist librarian press (GLITZ 1998:21). In the German librarian practice, however, focus groups are hardly present: during the research for this report, only one article was found in the German-speaking specialist press (GLÄSER/KRANZ/LÜCK 1998:1912-1921). But even in the English-speaking world, focus group discussion is mainly used in college and university libraries, much less in public libraries. These reasons, together with its quick and cost-efficient realization and its numerous fields of application, were the decisive factors for including this qualitative assessment method in the report. «Mystery Shopping,« »Silent Shopping« or »Test Shopping« as it is known in Germany, is a technique for detecting weaknesses in an enterprise. Using systematic observation, so-called silent, secret or mystery shoppers turn up as anonymous test customers who test stock and customer service without prior notice. Mystery shopping allows the »view from outside«; it is a good tool to counteract professional blinders and offers an opportunity to retain customers and improve internal processes. Experience in libraries was predominantly positive, especially in the USA and New Zealand. In Europe, however, the technique is still rather uncommon. For handling complaints professionally, whether they are justified or not, libraries need complaint management. Complaints offer the opportunity to get to know one’s own weaknesses better and to react to weak points fairly quickly. Complaint management is one of the qualitative methods for measuring customer satisfaction and

7

normally delivers more up-to-date, relevant and cost-efficient information about customer dissatisfaction than elaborate surveys. Complaints often result in specific recommendations for action. Research for this report showed that most libraries still disregard the significance of handling complaints in a planned and structured manner. Therefore the theoretical basics of complaint management are explained first, followed by library-relevant tools for stimulating complaints and a number of tried case studies. Libraries have very different customers – as determined by age and social structure. This requires a diverse procedure when it comes to determining their needs. Young people of puberty age from the suburbs must be addressed differently to the working bank employee who spends their lunch break in the library. For this reason, the methods used must be designed and chosen according to specific target groups. Therefore, focus group interviews for children or youths should be structured according to their age; a young mystery shopper would certainly notice quite different things to an adult customer – so corresponding guidelines must be established. This report, with its short, theoretical outlines and numerous case studies from practice, attempts to offer suggestions for libraries developing their own tailor-made solutions. Empirical customer surveys have not been included since ample material is already at hand and, in any case, this method is relatively time-consuming and expensive.

8

1 Introduction: Basics of Customer Orientation 1.1 Term and Current Status of Customer Orientation The market is constantly changing: the situation is marked by new competitors, unforeseen communication channels, globalization, but also by rapidly changing technology. The main problem of today’s economy is its overcapacity – not products, but customers are in short supply while the available products and services are becoming more and more similar. This process already started in the 1970s, when the transition from the seller’s to the buyer’s market took place – attention was no longer focused on the product but on customer preferences. This markedly increased the significance of customer orientation. Since then, marketing has changed from classical make-and-sell marketing to sense-and-response marketing: enterprises examine customer preferences3 first and react to them with the corresponding products and services. KOTLER/JAIN/MAESINCEE (2002:11-14) point out two tendencies: standardization on the supply side and individualization on the demand side. Service enterprises, and libraries among them, increasingly react to this individualization with personalized services.4 As early as the 1980s, the debate on the topics of customer orientation and customer satisfaction intensified in the USA. In the English-speaking world, PETERS/ WATERMAN5 and ZEITHAML/PARASURAMAN/BERRY6 led the way in this field. Business literature uses many different definitions for the term customer orientation (BRUHN 1999:7-10); it has proven practicable to use as wide an interpretation as possible: «Customer orientation is the comprehensive, continuous establishing and analysis of customer expectations as well as their internal and external realization into both entrepreneurial performance and interactions intended to establish stable and economically profitable customer relations in the long-term«: (BRUHN 1995:393). The definition can also be applied to non-profit industries even if their main goal is not to establish »economically profitable« customer relations. According to this definition, customer orientation is regarded as a management task: meanwhile it is undisputed that customer orientation is a core success factor for an enterprise remaining in business; surveys in libraries and other non-profit companies confirm this. Nevertheless, there are still considerable shortcomings with regard to customer orientation, especially in Germany. BRUHN (1999:1) sees the decisive factor »[...] in the lack of a comprehensive, integrative concept [...]«: This also holds true for many libraries:

9

There may be a number of individual measures in use, but often a conclusive overall concept is missing. KLEIN (2001a:10) sees a decisive success factor in bundling already existing, positive approaches and integrating them into a comprehensive marketing strategy – one that includes customers, staff and products.

1.2 Customer Satisfaction – a Key Factor for Customer Retention The positive connection between customer satisfaction and customer retention (MEFFERT/BRUHN 2000:156) is a given fact.7 The nature of this connection, however, is neither simple nor unidimensional, but very complex. HOMBURG/GIERING/ HENTSCHEL (1999:104) point out, for example, that a satisfied customer is not inevitably a loyal customer. GIERL (1993:90) also points this out: «[...] not even satisfaction with the product protects from disloyalty; satisfied customers in particular change brands all the time.« Customer satisfaction does not automatically lead to customer retention; it is, however, a pre-requisite. Depending on how strongly they are manifest, certain influencing factors strengthen or weaken the process. The following results are of interest to libraries: • The relationship between customer satisfaction and customer retention is weaker the stronger the competitive intensity, i.e. satisfied customers are less loyal if there is a large number of competitors. • The service provider can employ deliberate customer retention measures, such as bonuses and gifts, to strengthen the relationship between customer satisfaction and customer retention. Often, however, it is the optimal usage of the marketing mix tools which is relevant for a positive relationship. • The person of the decision-maker is a decisive factor. The connection between customer retention and customer satisfaction was found to be stronger the higher the respective age and income (HOMBURG/GIERING/HENTSCHEL 1999:99-103). Other authors are also critical towards a unidimensional viewpoint between customer satisfaction and customer retention. STAHL (1998:152) quotes three decisive factors – must factors, plus factors, should factors. • Must factors cause dissatisfaction when they do not fulfill customer expectations, they do not, however, lead to satisfaction when carried out successfully. Institutions which offer only basic services only generate weak customer retention and have a high fluctuation rate. Example: a reserved book is put aside and the user notified in written form.

10

• Plus factors do not cause dissatisfaction if they do not exist as the customer does not expect them. If they exist, the customer is surprised or even enthused: Satisfaction starts here. Example: the library offers to send the reserved book by post or by courier. • Should factors are located between the plus and the must factors and create satisfaction, indifference or dissatisfaction, depending on how strongly they are manifest. Example: the library customer who reserved a book is notified immediately by e-mail or text message when the book is returned. With scarce resources, which is the rule in many libraries, the must factors have to be carried out first, followed by the should factors. Plus factors only make sense when they come last, as they are intended to cause positive effects with the customers by offering additional services. Customer satisfaction is the result of a permanent comparative process: subjective experience and perceptions (IS) are compared with expectations and goals (SHOULD) and this leads to: • Customer dissatisfaction • Customer satisfaction • Customer enthusiasm (SIMON/HOMBURG 1997:38 ff.). What is interesting in this context is the fact that quality expectations of library customers are influenced very strongly by any previous experience with the institution or by reports from third parties. The image of the institution, and thus the development of a role model, i.e. corporate identity and corporate design, plays a key role here: «A user who for any reason does ›not feel right’ when using your library’s services, is more likely to develop (and later spread) a lower quality perception and thus a worse image than a user who can overlook tangible ›errors’ thanks to an obliging atmosphere.« (HOBOHM 2002:3/5.3.1) A high level of quality is achieved when customers are satisfied or expectations are exceeded. Only this creates »customer enthusiasm,« leading to strong loyalty and causing positive word-of-mouth propaganda. In 2001, the Bremen city library concluded that: »Word-of-mouth propaganda attracts lots of customers.« In a survey among new customers, the city library in Bremen established that word-of-mouth propaganda is the best advertising means by far. Slightly more than half of those asked revealed that they had been »tempted« into visiting the city library by friends, acquaintances or family members. The city library in Bremen concluded that: »Satisfied customers seem to speak positively in family circles and amongst friends about the city library’s program [...]« (Bremen city library internal paper).

11

Numerous studies prove that satisfied customers relate their positive experience to three people, whereas dissatisfied customers tell eleven to thirteen people about their negative experience (KOTLER et.al. 1999:297). Hence it is up to four times more likely to create a negative image than a positive one. Customer orientation and customer satisfaction are highly significant, as a satisfied customer is the best promotion and image carrier. HOBOHM (2002:3/5.3.2) sees a need for action for libraries here: «The future will not be about having edited as large a number as possible of media and information in high quality, but about having as many highly satisfied (long-term) customers as possible.« Customer satisfaction is therefore also a future task for public libraries.

1.3 Customer Retention in Non-Profit Institutions Numerous surveys show that satisfaction does not necessarily influence a customer’s future behavior. It is a lot more important to generate positive attitudes and images for the present and the future, i.e. customer retention. In the late 1990s it was proven for the first time that customer satisfaction has a positive effect but that customer retention is far more significant for success (REICHHELD/SASSER 1998:137-149). Marketing policy considerations therefore place the highest significance on customer retention. The strongly dialog-oriented industries of the services sector assign special importance to the handling of customers (MEFFERT/BRUHN 2000:155-157). In public-oriented institutions such as libraries, customer retention is influenced mainly by the dialog with customers rather than other satisfaction factors. In the service industry, customer retention is more easily achieved through personal relationships than in the consumer goods industry, as staff-related factors have always been more predominant here. Customer retention is composed of previous behavior (purchasing and recommendation behavior) and the intended behavior (intentions on repurchasing, additional purchasing and recommendation intentions) (HOMBURG/GIERING/HENTSCHEL 1999:103). It seems useful to differentiate between customer retention and customer loyalty. Customer loyalty describes the demand-side perspective only, while customer retention is possible on both the demand and the supply side (HOMBURG/BRUHN 1999:8). The definition of customer retention by HEINRICHS/KLEIN (2001:32) makes it clear that programs for customer retention constitute a management process: «Visitor retention management can be defined as the systematic analysis, planning, execution and control of all measures directed at the current patrons of a cultural

12

institution with the objective of maintaining an exchange relationship with these visitors in future and/or nursing this relationship yet more intensely.« Over the past few years, customer retention has been widely recognized in business research and practice. The »Operational Comparison of Public Libraries« in Germany established for the first time the rate of new registrations and of fluctuations as indicators for customer retention (WINDAU 1997:66-69).8 The new registration rate illustrates how many new customers were acquired by the library over a certain period of time; the fluctuation rate shows the proportion of regular customers. The project libraries had an average rate of new registrations of between three and four percent; the average fluctuation rate was almost 24 percent. Thus German libraries are far from the ideal state of zero migration: to retain as many customers as possible. One reason may be that many libraries have relatively young and mobile readers. The marketing sciences have undergone a fundamental change over the last few years. The relationship between service provider and customer, which was formerly rather unidimensional and targeting short-term success, is being replaced by an integral and dynamic view: »Influence marketing« has been replaced by »relationship marketing«. The information age has made it easier for customers than ever before to find information about competing offers. Positive customer relationships are therefore increasingly in focus (KOTLER/JAIN/MAESINCEE 2002:23). What is new is the strategically planned perspective in which mutual trust plays an important role. Establishing trust is seen as a pre-requisite for any permanent relationship, to both external and internal partners. This viewpoint focuses on explaining and designing customer relationships. The relationship between supplier and customer is seen as an exchange process. In order to achieve optimum exchange relationships, the whole team has to feel dedicated towards customer orientation and identify with the enterprise (MEFFERT 2000:24-26). The transition from transaction-oriented marketing, which concentrates on customer acquisition, to relationship marketing is identified by the following factors: • Abandoning field-related marketing for comprehensive (integral) marketing. • Shifting the focus from customer acquisition to customer retention. • Not only end customers count, but staff (internal customers), personnel acquisition markets, influencing markets (e.g. lobbyists) or mutiplicators are also relevant (PAYNE/RAPP 1999:4-5)

13

Measures for customer retention contain not only product optimization but also relate to the relationships between all partners involved. Higher customer retention is profitable for libraries in a number of ways: • Legitimation for the carrier – and thus inventory saving • Improved calculation of earnings and lower spending • More targeted offer planning • Higher customer loyalty • More openness towards new offers • Higher error tolerance • Positive attitude towards the institution and positive remarks about it • More interest in participation and dialog with the institution, e.g. focus groups discussions (KLEIN 2001b:4-6) Over the last few years, the competition for the citizens’ disposable income has intensified. The market for cultural and spare time activities is characterized by a surplus of supply, hence a typical buyer’s market. If a cultural institution wants to place its offers successfully, it has to know exactly what the preferences of its customers are and adjust its offers accordingly (KLEIN 1999:9). The citizens can choose from a variety of spare time activities; therefore cultural institutions should design their offers to be as attractive and unique as possible in order to keep on re-winning their customers. This is their only means of legitimizing their raison d’être and their sponsorship by the authorities. The German sociologist Gerhard SCHULZE (1992:507) states: «From the perspective of those on the demand side for events, there is no difference between publicly or privately produced event offers. For those demanding an event, the creation background for these goods is sociologically not relevant. [...] Public and private event offers have to stand up to the same selection criteria by the end consumer – therefore there is no difference between theater, cultural center, museum on the one hand and amusement arcade, comics and the gym on the other hand.« The significance of customer retention is illustrated by the figures of the Reading Foundation (2000:20) on regressing library usage or the service deficits in German museums found in the model project »Effective Structures in the Field of Museums« by the Bertelsmann Foundation (GÜNTER/JOHN 2000:8). If libraries do not want to become marginalized, they need to develop their offers with the readers, not just for them. The objective should be to turn customers from users and participants into advisers and performers, i.e. partners (GÜNTER/JOHN 2000:10). Working with focus groups, complaint management or customer surveys are methods for realizing this approach.

14

Following these ideas consistently will create a particularly intense relationship between staff and patrons and ideally will help develop into a relationship of trust as a basis for a permanent relationship. Library customers will know that they can be very certain of receiving the most suitable information there. In this case, the »trustworthiness« of the institution and staff will develop into a special resource. Creating trust between customers and staff will be one of the future tasks of public libraries. This challenge can only be successfully answered if the whole team feels dedicated to the principles of customer orientation.

15

2 General Conditions in Public Libraries 2.1 Customer Orientation and Customer Retention in Public Libraries9 According to Philip Kotler, who defines marketing as a mutual exchange relationship, a library customer is someone who gets in contact with the library in whatever form. Their purpose might be to express a wish, to use the library building, to take part in cultural library offerings or to find information – thus forwarding information is also an exchange process. The definition of a customer far exceeds that of a borrower. The Internet has even rendered physical presence superfluous in the definition of a customer: those who access the library website are customers or »virtual visitors.« The Internet and online catalogs allow a mutual relationship between library visitors and the library in a virtual way. In the opinion of BROPHY/COULLING (1996:39), the problems of some library staff with the term »customer« expresses a specific attitude toward the person before the counter: «Use of libraries has been seen as a co-operative enterprise with very definite obligations and responsibilities being placed on those who avail themselves of the ›privilege‹.« In the end, it is not terminology that matters; the positive attitude for meeting the »exchange partner« is a lot more important – be it a real or a virtual partner. In addition, a well-planned, integrative concept is a decisive factor for successful customer orientation. In Germany, the job description for librarians, »Libraries in 2000,« makes reference to customer orientation: «Service offerings as needed for diverse customer groups are the central task of all library-related activities. The consistent orientation toward customer interests becomes the foremost principle« (BDB 1998:55). Customer orientation must be part of the general library philosophy and reflect a basic attitude towards the customers. Customer orientation means to look at all aspects of the library from the customer’s point of view and to make customer expectations the yardstick for library action in the framework of their public assignment. The following statement from the German job description is of interest: «It is performance alone that wins and, above all, retains customers« BDB 1998:55).

16

This is the first time that a librarian thesis in Germany points to the necessity of customer retention. In the Anglo-American area this development started earlier. There are trade standards there, whereas Germany is lacking the relevant general guidelines.10 In a 2000 survey by the »Library and Information Commission,« 81 percent of the interviewed public libraries in the UK said they were taking part in best-value initiatives and 69 percent had participated in service benchmarking (STRATFIELD et.al. 2000:6-8).11 There are commonly accepted standards in the UK and as early as 1993, the UK Library Association developed an initial model of a »Service Charter« for public libraries.12 Apart from these qualitative yardsticks, they defined an index for measuring performance in the service sector. The principles set down in the country-wide »Charter for Public Libraries« contained the following fields (BROPHY/COULLING 1996:179-182): • Dialog and discourse with the users (see focus group interviews) • Complaint management • Surveys among users and non-users • User-friendly access such as weekend opening hours, delivery service, suitability for people with special needs, labeling in different languages, etc. • Integration of (ethnic) fringe groups • Publication and monitoring of fixedly defined service standards • Customer-oriented, inventory-related standards such as inventory calculation or up-to-date quotas • Special rooms for children and youths, study places, group rooms • Information service (often in cooperation with the town council) • Further training programs for library usage by all target groups • Staff: Further training, addressability, name tags, standards for minimal waiting times, etc. The above is a collection of standards for optimization of services according to quality management guidelines; further approaches are not contained. BROPHY/COULLING (1996:44) name a number of techniques for establishing customer expectations, such as suggestion and complaint management, benchmarking or focus groups: «The involvement of customers in focus groups or user panels, again provided there is sufficient freedom and support for customers to express their real concerns, is another powerful tool.« In Germany, quantitative approaches are currently the most common methods in use for measuring customer orientation. The library index (BIX) of the Bertelsmann Foundation, a benchmarking project with public libraries of all sizes participating,

17

establishes in the target dimension »customer orientation« purely quantitative criteria such as visits and borrowings per inhabitant, goods handling and yearly opening hours; qualitative aspects such as customer satisfaction are considered only indirectly (BERTELSMANN STIFTUNG 2000:6). On an international level, the IFLA »Guidelines for Public Libraries« should be mentioned; in the section »Customer Care« they point to the fact that customers should be integrated into the process of service development: «Customers should be involved in service development • by asking them through surveys what services they use and require • by analyzing and responding to users’ complaints • by ensuring the input received from users is considered in the development of policy and procedures • by providing feedback to users about the effects of their input on service development • by providing suggestion boxes and a complaints procedure« (IFLA 2000:16-17).

2.2 Problems with Realizing Customer Orientation in the Field of Libraries On principal, customer expectations should be met; the individual benefit should always comply with the library’s assignment. When a customer asks for a certain media, this wish can only be granted if this media complies with the library’s assignment content-wise and furthermore if demand from other customers is to be expected. In this context, COLBERT (1999:8) differentiates optimization from maximization. While the maximization process is targeted at the highest benefit, optimization is aimed at the best benefit possible. Libraries are about the best customer satisfaction possible, while at the same time maintaining their public assignment. Customer orientation is based on a mutual exchange between service provider and customer. Theoretically, many libraries have recognized this, but there are still large discrepancies between demand and reality. When optimizing customer orientation, there are numerous management-related difficulties apart from psychological impediments with the staff: • Incorrect self-assessment about the degree of customer orientation already achieved • Lack of information about the customer structure • Individual aspects are considered too strongly / measures are not networked • Long-term, strategic planning is missing • Deficits in measuring customer satisfaction

18

• Problems with implementing customer orientation • Identifying customer retention with customer satisfaction (HOMBURG/WERNER 1998:107). There has been a change of perspective in commercial marketing, one that has a lasting effect on non-commercial marketing and necessitates new, additional efforts. Customer retention becomes the decisive element. All too often, marketing focuses on acquiring customers rather than retaining existing ones (KOTLER i.e. 1999:423). Customer retention. It is the last point in the above list which points to the problem. As was already mentioned – a satisfied customer is not yet a loyal customer.

19

3 Methods for Establishing and Optimizing Customer Satisfaction 3.1 Focus Groups Discussion – in Discourse with the Customers Description Focus group discussion, a qualitative method of customer survey, is a special form of group discussion used mainly in the Anglo-American area for such purposes as measuring quality in libraries. On the topic of customer satisfaction, questions about general satisfaction with the library performance such as staff friendliness, quick service and opening hours can play a major role (GLÄSER/KRANZ/LÜCK 1998).14 Focus group discussion can also be used as a tool for market analysis and planning new offers. Focus group discussion can be carried out with the customers and the library staff: »Focus groups are also very useful in understanding employees as customers« (WALTERS 1994:81). In libraries, focus group discussion can center on the following questions (WINKENDICK 2002:7): • Customer evaluation of library stock • Behavioral pattern of the customers when using the Internet • Assessment of library services by the customers • User behavior when searching for information • Customer reaction to new service offers • Establishing findings about customer needs for the development of new library services • Establishing customer needs for the library’s interior design • Demand for further library staff training • Effects of organizational changes in the personnel field Purpose Focus groups allow intense group interviews. If carried out regularly, they can reveal developments which permit improved adaptation of the stock to customer needs.

20

Realization Procedure During the preparatory stage, the research topic must be defined clearly; then discussion guidelines can be developed and a stimulus determined. A provocative statement, a film, a text or a short problem summary can act as a stimulus. The prepared stimulus helps to establish the topic at the beginning of the discussion. The stimulus is used as a »warmup,« to start a discussion and create a common base for the group (DÜRRENBERGER/BEHRINGER 1999:5). The discussion guidelines should contain about ten to twelve logically coordinated questions.15 The discussion should be recorded on tape. Then a moderator and group members are selected and location and time for the focus group discussion are coordinated. It must be decided whether to assign a professional moderator or to use a member of the library staff. Using an internal employee may be the most cost-efficient way, but poses the danger that the discussion participants may not speak freely or that the moderator cannot handle criticism objectively. A recommendable alternative would be to use a colleague from another library. It must be ensured that the person in question has the required knowledge of moderation techniques. External experts have this knowledge, the disadvantage may be a lack of specialist knowledge. An external moderator always needs to receive a thorough introduction to the library and the topic under review. In the American literature, the number of participants is limited to six to eight people, in Germany, nine to twelve participants are recommended (WINKENDICK 2002:17). With larger groups, individual talking time is restricted, thus limiting the depth of the discussion. The final decision for the group size will be based on the questions being asked and the interest in the findings. The groups should be as homogenous as possible, including socio-demographic factors. The attitude on the examination topic, however, may vary. General Conditions There must be a targeted selection of the interview participants. The library is quite a suitable location for the discussion, since »[...] places from one’s own environment which can be associated with the discussion topic make it easier for the participants to get into the right discussion mood [...]« (WINKENDICK 2002:18). A nice atmosphere should be created and all participants should be able to see one another. Important: serve drinks and a snack, hand out name tags, install microphones and/or video cameras and inform the participants that the session is being recorded. After the session, each participant should receive a small gift.

21

Timeframe One important criteria is the number of discussion rounds, this number can vary depending on the topic under review. A single discussion should not exceed approximately 90 to 120 minutes (DÜRRENBERGER/BEHRINGER 1999:13). Discussions should be carried out until no new theories or arguments come up. In order to achieve satisfying results, half a dozen group discussions are normally sufficient (MORGAN 1997:43). One focus group discussion, however, is not sufficient. »When the data have come from just one group, it is impossible to separate the content of the discussion from what was unique about that group« (KRÜGER 1998:82). Evaluation Apart from technical recordings through audio and video tape, the data are also collected in writing, possibly supplemented by a questionnaire. The data are edited by transcription. The data from the focus group discussion are normally analyzed with regard to their content. MORGAN (1997:58-63) lists different forms of analysis: the descriptive approach is primarily about representing the opinion spectrum of the discussion participants; the hypothesis-driven analysis focuses on statements referring to the content of the previously established hypotheses and the explorative approach is about the ntuitive exploration of a topic. One objective could be to formulate hypotheses to be used as questions in later surveys (WINKENDICK 2002:23). Perspectives Benefit / Success factors This approach begins with the customer: the customer can be involved with the creation of the offer; a dialog develops between the customers and the library. Group dynamics and interaction reveal much more information than was originally sought. The target group can be defined quite precisely. The method can be carried out with little effort, cost-efficiently and quickly. The library staff can be involved with the planning, realization and evaluation; this helps to save costs. The interviewer is far less likely to influence the interviewees than in a face-to-face interview. All age groups and a wide range of topics are suitable for this method. Focus group interviews can also be used as an element of public relations: the library uses this to express that it is interested in the opinion of its customers; publishing the results helps to attract the public’s attention. Focus group discussions are also very helpful for groups less suited for written surveys, such as children, as the ability to read and write is not a prerequisite for this method.

22

Problems It is not permissible to generalize focus group statements, since qualitative data cannot be generalized into statistically representative statements. There is the risk of conforming results due to group loyalty, individual opinions have a lesser influence. The odd opinion leader may gain control of the discussion. Another potential problem may be the moderator: if steering the discussion too little, the participants may digress from the topic; if steering too strongly, the exchange between the participants may suffer. Consequences The planning phase is of decisive importance, as the most important decisions for the realization of the discussion take place here. The person of the moderator must be selected with great care. Suggestions Can also be realized by small libraries. If the method is used for measuring quality, it should be carried out regularly. Focus group interviews form the basis for customer research. With a good selection of discussion participants, they deliver genuinely new assessments about the library’s stock while at the same time helping achieve customer retention and acting as a targeted public relations tool. Case Studies United Kingdom London, Bromley http://www.library.bromley.gov.uk [email protected] Bromley has been working with focus groups for many years. Discussions were triggered by planned changes, service improvements and market analysis. Target groups included inactive customers, users of the music library or youths. There was only one session per topic. In the beginning, the focus groups were directed by an external coach; now the quality manager at Bromley has passed a number of training programs and can moderate focus groups himself if necessary. The costs for an externally directed group start at 1,500 Euro (without an upper limit!). If you plan to hold regular focus groups, it is well worth investing in further training of the staff.

23

Per topic, about three to four different groups consisting of eight people were invited for about 11/2 hours. Each participant received 30 Euro for participating. The composition of the group was dependent on the respective topic, generally a homogenous composition was aimed at. The sessions were logged and recorded on tape. Careful planning and coordination with the moderator are decisive factors for success. Examination topic and target group must be clearly defined. Apart from this, the library works together regularly with a set »user group« whose composition corresponds to the user structure. Among others, the sessions yielded the following results or consequences: • Inactive customers16 provided valuable information for retaining active customers. Many found the presentation too confusing, the ambience too old-fashioned, etc. • Presentation and indexing system were improved. • The results helped to make it easier for the staff to accept changes17 Comments from the quality manager: Focus groups are better than surveys as they require less time and money and yield better results: »You get the real reason what’s in their heart. The results have far more depth.« »They will not give you all the answers but rather the particular views of those recruited.« London, Sutton http://www.sutton.gov.uk [email protected] In July 2002 the Sutton library carried out focus group discussions with non-users. It was a joint activity together with seven other City Council institutions. The council employed a company called MORI for this activity; they chose people who had previously participated in City Council surveys and provided an evaluation of the discussions at the end. Each participant was paid 30. The objectives were improvement of the service quality and market research for new services. Four groups consisting of ten people each met for two hours per appointment. Three groups were non-users of the library: 1. 18- to 24-year-old workers with or without a qualification, and people from the lower income bracket 2. 25- to 45-year-olds from the same social class 3. 50- to 70-year-old office and factory workers with a qualification.

24

The fourth group consisted of library users – 45- to 65-year-old academics and office workers. This group was also requested to compare how much the viewpoints of library users and non-library users differ. Analysis summary, evaluation and results representation (Sutton city library): The focus group participants found the library service positive, even the non-users felt that the service was excellent value for money. «In my opinion, the libraries in this area are fantastic« (non-user). The users appreciated most the wide range of books and other media such as the audio division, the comfortable atmosphere in the library and the library staff, who were always willing to help the users even when they were obviously under pressure. All participants knew the »traditional« borrowing of media in libraries, but were not aware that there is the possibility to use photocopiers and fax machines, that some libraries offer homework supervision for children and that the Sutton city library is open on Sunday afternoons. The participants felt that public relations in the form of advertising, open days and exhibitions might get more people to use the library. Non-users indicated that they were not using libraries for personal reasons («I don’t need a library«) and not for fear of contact. More elaborate querying exposed a few problems: • A large number of indicators suggested that people have too little time to visit libraries. The suggestion to extend the opening hours was happily accepted. • Younger non-users often have old-fashioned ideas of libraries »you’re afraid to ask questions because it is so quiet in here.« Older users had the impression that not enough was being done to make libraries attractive to younger people »it is like a Rolls Royce without a children’s car seat.« • The library is often purely regarded as a place for obtaining information or for reading and studying, but not for leisure and relaxation to be visited for pleasure. MORI suggests expanding the range of information and communication technology to make the library more attractive to younger people. This conclusion was confirmed not only by the focus groups but also by other examinations carried out by MORI. Older patrons generally have to be shown how to use the PC. Other participants, however, very much appreciated being able to use computers and PCs in the library. Cost played an important role here; 1.5 was regarded as a reasonable price for one hour of Internet usage.

25

Another example: London/Brent http://www.brent.gov.uk/Library E-mail: [email protected] For further information, see Questionnaire Enclosure 1. The questionnaire was answered by Marianne Brent. Germany Bertelsmann Foundation, Gütersloh http://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/Medienpartner [email protected] Survey among young customers as part of the »Media Partners: Library and School« project. The German infas Institute for Applied Social Sciences developed guidelines for the Bertelsmann Foundation, for focus groups with school-aged children centered on six topics (the original discussion guidelines can be requested from the Bertelsmann Foundation). First, the moderator and the assistant briefly introduce themselves and the project; then the school-aged children introduce themselves (hobbies, reading interests, media usage; games to get to know the younger children), followed by the discussion along the guidelines. Four different age groups were set up for the project-related groups: 6- to 8-year-olds, 9- to 12-year-olds, 13- to 15-year-olds, and over-16-year-olds. The groups were further divided by types of schools. The group size was a bit smaller than that for adults, as the children need more help. The discussion with the two younger groups should not exceed 45 minutes, with the children aged 13 to 15 it should take around 60 minutes, while there are no restrictions for the focus group discussions for the oldest group to take 90 minutes. There should always be an incentive for the children to participate – such as a CD voucher or going out for a pizza together (popular practice in the USA). Carrying out focus groups with children and youths in Germany is subject to data protection regulations. For surveys among minors, the written consent of their legal guardians is required. If the discussions are tape-recorded, an additional consent for storing the discussion is required. The most sensible way is to write to the parents, enclosing the required form for signing. The focus group discussions were carried out by infas in 2003 in various libraries. Results of the experience gained can be obtained from Heike Lander, the project leader.

26

Other examples: Mülheim an der Ruhr http://www.stadt-mh.de E-mail: [email protected] For further information, see Questionnaire Enclosure 2. The questionnaire was answered by Klaus-Peter Boettger. Bremen http://www.stadtbibliothek-bremen.de E-mail: [email protected] For further information, see Questionnaire Enclosure 3. The questionnaire was answered by Marianne Brauckmann. For information on the customer survey by the Bremen city library, visit: http://www.stadtbibliothek-bremen.de/portrait/auswertung.pdf New Zealand Wellington http://www.wcc.govt.nz [email protected] Joanne Ward, head of the Wellington City Libraries, writes: »Which target groups? We think this question is asked the wrong way around. Everyone qualifies! We have focus groups with 7- to 70-year-olds.« The topics range from general satisfaction surveys to very specific questions about the needs of youths from Samoa or of families in the suburbs. Focus group discussion is used not only as the sole tool for collecting data, but also as a supportive element in connection with other methods. In Wellington, the focus group interview is one of many methods for customer surveys. The method is selected according to the relevant need for information: »Some information needs are best answered by survey, others by focus groups, yet more still from analysis of historical quantitative usage statistics (or all of three!). So matching the methodology to the nformation need is important.« For further information, see Questionnaire Enclosure 4. The questionnaire was answered by Joanne Horner. Another example: Christchurch http://www.ccc.govt.nz/ [email protected]

27

For further information, see Questionnaire Enclosure 5. The questionnaire was answered by Sue Sutherland and Mary Powels. Australia Brisbane http://www. brisbane.qld.gov.au [email protected] For further information, see Questionnaire Enclosure 6. The questionnaire was answered by Christine Mackenzie.

3.2 Mystery Shopping – More Quality through Test Customers Description «Mystery Shopping,« »Silent Shopping« or »Test Shopping« as it is known in Germany, is a technique for detecting weaknesses in an enterprise. Using systematic observation, so-called silent, secret or mystery shoppers turn up as anonymous test customers who test stock and customer service without prior notice. Specifically in the USA, this industry is booming: in three years, the number of providers increased there by 25 percent: in total, there are 500,000 test customers out and about. TITTEL (2002) says that Europe is a good five years behind with regard to mystery shopping. In the field of libraries, test customers have been mainly used to examine the quality of information services. Purpose Mystery shopping allows a »view from outside.« It is a good tool to counteract professional blinders and offers an opportunity to retain customers and improve internal processes. It helps to identify areas which already work well, and those which still need improvements. Some libraries, for example, use it as a preparation for seminars on customer orientation. Realization Procedure The library looks for a suitable company with experience in the field,18 or cooperates with another library for this purpose.

28

General Conditions The method is relatively easy to apply and if used systematically, regularly and on a long-term basis, produces decent results. The costs amount to about 500 to 1000 Euro per individual library or branch library. Timeframe Depending on the size of the library, the test visit may take a few hours or even a whole day, and should be repeated in regular intervals; every one or two years would be ideal. Evaluation The results gained within the framework of a fixed evaluation scale can be used in further test visits as a control yardstick for internal comparison and for benchmarking. The latter specifically when libraries team up for a comparison ring. Perspectives Benefits Identification of weaknesses in customer contact and offer through external advisors. Higher customer satisfaction and closer customer retention in the medium-term. Problems Mystery shopping is a sensitive matter as it can easily lead to considerable irritation and mistrust if the team feels controlled and monitored. The key is to make it understood that the point is not individual control and monitoring, but rather finding potentials for improvement in the system. The goal is optimal customer orientation. The evaluation by a test customer is a subjective impression and, if carried out just once, a momentary one only. The aim is therefore to define assessment criteria as objectively as possible. Success Factors Information and participation of all members of staff – even the library management. Consequences It cannot be a once-only activity. The results have to be discussed in the team and internal indexes and standards should be developed from them. Mystery shopping can lead to a short-term service quality improvement; to prevent the effectiveness of the method from wearing off, the standards and indexes have to be updated continually. The staff need to see the relevant consequences and experience praise and motivation.

29

Suggestions Mystery shopping can be recommended as a method to establish the library’s customer orientation, which takes little time and is quite economical. With a low budget, libraries can »mystery shop« one another (case study London, Bromley). It must be carefully considered, however, whether librarians can still assume a customer’s viewpoint or whether they regard the visited library too strongly from their professional standpoint.19 The Wellington, New Zealand approach is also interesting. A kind of »mixed model« is practiced there. »Real« customers are asked about a library visit about their experience (see below). Case Studies USA Arapahoe Library District, Englewood, Colorado http://www.arapahoelibraries.org [email protected] In the evaluation process, secret shopping is only one element along with surveys and focus groups. The intention was a comparison of one’s own impression with that of an outsider, and optimization of the existing service offer: »We thought of the survey as a way to enhance our image and alert staff to those little extras that make a good staff exceptional.« Due to reasons of fairness, all members of staff – from those behind the counter to the management – were »tested« by a company familiar with the topic and informed about the measure beforehand. The precise date of the visit was not disclosed. This significantly improved the acceptance through the staff. The following was assessed: 1. First impression 2. Customer friendliness 3. Inquiries by telephone 4. Issuing desk 5. Physical circumstances (room, media, etc.) 6. Staff Specific examination criteria were developed for each department. The library management, for example, was tested for their reaction to phone calls, complaints and questions; for the staff behind the counter, the focus was on their personal dealings with the customers. The test customers based themselves on an assessment scale with 3 or 5 levels. Examination criteria included cleanliness, orderliness, atmosphere, visitor frequency, but also the first impression of the staff when dealing with the customers. This included

30

complaisance, helpfulness, friendliness, but also advisory quality. Examination criteria also included the outer surroundings, such as parking, gardens or suitability for people with special needs. Special focus was placed on customer orientation and customer service. An exciting question was: do theoretical and practical experience correlate? How does the staff react in problem cases, cases involving reminders or fees? Do they provide sufficient explanations and information, do they practice the level of customer friendliness called for in the guiding principle and the mission statement? Results / Evaluation The results were documented in two ways. Apart from general recommendations on communication, layout of the rooms and staff, results for the specific branch library were also established. The Arapahoe Libraries were very satisfied with the results as a whole. Together with the staff, the library management celebrated the established strengths; suggestions for improvement, such as a better labeling and indexing system, clearer instructions on the use of computers or modified duty rosters during peak times were discussed in the team. This resulted in new solutions with improved adjustment to the customers; communicative weaknesses were tackled by relevant further training. In future, test visits are supposed to take place every two or three years to check whether the introduced measures were successful. The results were also used to define service standards (see also Customer Charter). Many measures has already been implemented but have not yet been integrated into the formulation of the target objective or only very broadly. These »Public Service Standards« were discussed with all members of staff, they are defined clearly and are easy to check. The standards include: • All members of staff always wear name tags. • Phone calls are answered after 3 to 5 rings. • Small talk among staff ends immediately when a customer enters. Résumé by project member Marlu Burkamp: »[...] we recommend other libraries give it a try, too« (BURKAMP/VIRBICK 2002:56-57). The positive element in the Arapahoe Libraries project is the fact that it is not a singular activity, but evaluable indexes and standards were developed from it. They can be monitored by the library itself and were integrated into their yearly reporting system. Stanislaus County Free Library (SCFL), Modesto, California http://www.stanislauslibrary.org [email protected]

31

Excellent customer service is part of the vision, mission and the general SCFL library philosophy. It uses mystery shopping to gain data and evaluate their services. It started off at the main office and later involved all 12 branch libraries. As one of the first libraries in the USA, SCFL started the project in the winter of 1996. Mystery shopping was initiated by the Chamber of Commerce. The library gladly accepted the offer, but knew no more than that the examination would take place but not when. Some weeks later, the library management received a commented assessment, including a comparison of the library’s customer service with other service providers and shops in Modesto. The results were presented in a team meeting of all members of staff and were found to be far below their self-assessment. Even though some assessments were not entirely understood, it was generally agreed that there was in fact room for improvement. Workshops about the topic of customer orientation for all members of staff, based on the mystery shopping results, were an important consequence. After the first mystery shopping and the workshops, service standards (Materials Enclosure 3) were developed for each department and each work area. The fact that these standards had been set up by the employees themselves, and not simply been ordered by the management, played an important role. Based on this, library-specific guidelines for mystery shopping were developed, which was now to be carried out in the branch libraries as well. (Sample Questionnaire, see Materials Enclosure 4). In Modesto, mystery shopping was not carried out by an agency, but by two volunteers who had finished a corresponding training program beforehand. Apart from the service questionnaire, they also had prepared information inquiries. Vanessa Czopek, Stanislaus County Librarian, recommends: «Find mystery shopper volunteers who are already library-literate and experienced library users. Seek them from all walks of life and of all ages. Explain the form to them, the purpose of the process, and tell them what to look for and why it is important to serving customers. Reward them for their time and effort on behalf of the library.« After all branch libraries had been tested (the examination was anonymous for the staff, as the test form included neither time nor day), all the results were summarized in a form and presented to the branch library head during a team meeting. The meeting was about pointing out trends and openly discussing possibilities for improvement. Naturally, each branch library head could ask to view the individual results and discuss them. This was important for a more detailed illustration of the circumstances which may have led to a negative assessment. As the answers were not evaluated on a scale but simply using »yes« or »no,« they really only reflected a tendency – but this was obvious: »They were what they were – just a small glimpse of service at a particular moment in time.«

32

SCFL classifies »mystery shopping« as a »snapshot« for showing trends and triggering discussions. It is not seen as an indicator for staff faults but as a tool for optimizing customer orientation (CZOPEK 1998:370-375). In a personal assessment, Vanessa Czopek explicitly pointed out to respect the staff, to listen to them, to ease fears and to celebrate success with them. It is important to present clearly and openly that the results will not influence their personal assessment. The first run should be handled with special care: »I would suggest this be implemented very carefully and with caution.« For further information, see Questionnaire Enclosure 7. The questionnaire was answered by Vanessa Czopek. Germany City library, Gütersloh http://www.stadtbibliothek-guetersloh.de E-mail: [email protected] The Gütersloh city library was visited by a specialist service company on request of the Bertelsmann Foundation (see also Würzburg). Talks with customers and personal impressions about the rooms and the atmosphere were assessed with points from one to ten during an initial, relatively short (1 hour) visit, then summarized and commented on. Work places, places to sit, shelving system, media presentation, customer friendliness and name tags were examined. The library management received praise, but also constructive criticism and seemed quite impressed by the experiment. For further information, see Questionnaire Enclosure 8. The questionnaire was answered by Bernd Hatscher. City library Würzburg http://www.stadtbuecherei-wuerzburg.de [email protected] Just like the Gütersloh city library, the Würzburg city library also cooperates with the company HOP Warenhandels- u. Dienstleistungs GmbH [Glasberg 3, 94353 Haibach, phone: +49 (0) 9964 64000, fax: +49 (0) 9964 640032, e-mail: hop-haibach@ t-online.de]. So far, one test visit has taken place. Further visits are very welcome, as a sound picture can only be drawn after three or four visits. Nevertheless, the »view from outside,« i.e. the customer’s view, is interesting even for the first visit.

33

At the request of the management consultancy, the staff were not informed prior to the visit. In retrospect, all employees thought it »funny« that a test customer had visited the library. Each employee received the full test report. It was anonymized, not even the day of the visit could be identified. The results were discussed during a team meeting. Many of the findings were building-related (e.g. only limited advertising possible on the outside as it is a historically protected building; central location but little usable space) and were difficult to change, but some suggestions from the test customer could be realized. The assessment confirmed that the city library team has a very high level of customer orientation. The staff felt their activity had now also been recognized by an independent entity. The results were used for image advertising, specifically with the management. The test visit focused on the following questions: how strongly does the library orient itself towards the customers? How do the staff behave towards the customers? The visit was based on the following catalog of criteria, based on service criteria common for the non-profit-area: For further information, see Questionnaire Enclosure 9. The scale was created by the company HOP Warenhandels- u. Dienstleistungs. The test visit is based on a differentiated evaluation form. The Netherlands Delft city library http://www.obdelft.nl/body.htm [email protected] In the Netherlands, the journalist Wendy de Graaff visits one library per month as a »mystery guest« and writes about it in the Dutch library magazine »Bibliotheekblad« ([email protected]). She assesses the building, furnishings, atmosphere, media inventory (qualitative and quantitative), personnel, service, opening hours, logistics, PC and Internet equipment, fees, etc.; during her visit, the journalist also interviews several library customers and includes their comments in her article. In a so-called »rapport« she summarizes the editorial part along with her experience in note form. As an example, here is the comment from a Dutch librarian: »Many libraries fear her, for her judgment can be pretty harsh.« In 2002, the libraries Wendy de Graaff visited included Delft, Lelystad and Arnhem: Delft: http://www.obdelft.nl/body.htm [email protected]

34

The »mystery report« can be found on the homepage of the Delft library and was published in »Bibliotheekblad« 19/2002 (GRAAFF 2002). Lelystad: Bibliotheekblad, 15/16/2002, 12-15. Arnhem: Bibliothekblad 18/2002, 14-17. New Zealand Waitakere Library http://www.waitakerelibs.govt.nz [email protected] Waitakere hired a company for survey and evaluation; the library’s input consisted of helping with the formulation of the questions. For extensive information, see Questionnaire Enclosure 10. The questionnaire was answered by Su Scott. Wellington http://www.wcc.govt.nz [email protected] For extensive information, see Questionnaire Enclosure 11. The questionnaire was answered by Joanne Horner. United Kingdom North-Eastern Education & Library Board (NEEB), Ballymena, Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland http://www.neelb.org.uk [email protected] The library cooperates with a company called SpotCheck, which has already carried out several surveys in all 38 branch libraries, focusing on customer orientation, A team of mystery shoppers was used who visited the libraries and made »mystery calls.« Before the company started its research, there was a briefing session between the members of the NEEB and SpotCheck. The method was used in 2000 for the first time, then training courses on customer orientation were held for the staff. The second survey took place in fall 2002.

35

The results are used for benchmarking and internal comparisons. The company compiles a report for each single visit and an overall report with suggestions for service optimization; comparisons with the previous report and comparisons between the individual branch libraries are also included. The survey form was structured into the following sections: 1. Telephone 2. First Impressions 3. Customer Awareness 4. Computer Offers and Computer Skills of the Staff 5. Services 6. Service at the Counter 7. Overall Impression. The assessment scale for each question ranges from 0 = poor to 10 = excellent. In the »Telephone« section, for example, a predefined question was asked and the whole conversation then assessed according to 14 categories (items). These items included how often the phone rang, how the telephone was answered, whether there were waiting times, whether the correct information was given, etc. The »First Impressions« (25 items) were mainly related to the surroundings, the building, cleanliness, equipment and orderliness, while the section »Customer Awareness« (26 items) was primarily related to the behavior of the library staff. The sections »Computer« and »Services«, with 6 and 8 items, focused on the equipment and their condition. The questions about the »Service at the Counter« (12 items) supplemented and extended the impressions from the »Customer Awareness« section – specific concerns of the counter area such as waiting times, friendliness and the appearance of the personnel. The »Overall Impression« resummarized in 9 items basic and inter-sectional findings: »The staff seemed skilled and knowledgeable« or »The staff were proactive in offering assistance to users.« The NEEB questionnaire makes a very positive and well thought-through impression. For more detailed information, see Questionnaire Enclosure 12. The questionnaire was answered by Nicola McNee. London, Bromley http://www.library.bromley.gov.uk [email protected] The quality manager in Bromley uses mystery shopping frequently. In cooperation with six other London boroughs, Bromley has been carrying out mystery shopping for a few years, with the libraries testing one another. Therefore, the results can also be used for

36

benchmarking. In one »shopping cycle,« not all borough libraries are visited, but only those of comparable sizes. The same checklists are used in all locations and the same questions asked when testing the information service. Each library is visited by two people, i.e. library staff from two other boroughs. At the end of their test visit, they have to agree on a unified assessment. The following categories are examined: Physical, Customer Care, Stock & Services, IT, Staff Knowledge, based on a scale from one to ten and supplemented by comments. There are explanations of what to look for specifically during the test visit for each category examined (Selpig Mystery Shopping Guidelines; see Materials Enclosure 5). At the moment the checklists are being reworked, as the focus will be more on testing the service than the staff knowledge (e.g. at the information counter) in the future. The motto is: »Mystery Shopping as an assessment of the quality of the service.« Per participating library, about four to five employees were used for mystery shopping. They receive corresponding training before the visits. The test rounds ideally take place three times a year and last half an hour each. Apart from the results of the mystery shopping itself, which the quality manager realistically calls a »snapshot,« he sees a further training effect with the library staff who do the »shopping« (knowledge enrichment). The employees’ horizons are broadened and they are provided with positive stimuli or see how things shouldn’t be. The quality manager does not regard it as problematic that the employees involved cannot be truly neutral in the sense that they see the libraries they visit from the standpoint of an expert in the field, and not from that of a customer. Limited staff resources which can be devoted to such activities and a low level of professionalism do, however, represent potential problems. He regards the following points as additional positive aspects of this method: quick results, practical, less bureaucratic, staff are more willing to accept suggestions from colleagues than from external consultants, cost-efficient. As no external coaches are required for this approach, no additional costs are incurred by such services. On the other hand, however, the costs for sending internal staff on test visits and the assessment of these visits must be taken into account. The entire staff is informed that a test visit will take place within the next two months. The head librarians are informed of the results and pass these findings on to their staff. According to the quality manager, the staff have virtually no objections to this approach as it is made clear right from the start that the service system as a whole is being tested, and not individual persons.

37

London, Sutton http://www.sutton.gov.uk [email protected] Mystery shopping was conducted on the Council level in Sutton for the first time in November 2002. Visits were made to both the main library and its branch locations. An external tester was commissioned with the job and provided with a checklist that the library had developed in advance. At seven pounds per hour plus expenses, the costs for the coach were relatively low. According to the responsible project manager, the careful selection and briefing of the tester are of critical importance. The Sutton library is critical in regard to staff from one library conducting such visits at other libraries. The test persons’ close personal association with the library system is cited as a negative aspect, as the results could be biased by preset expectations. The first test round focused primarily on the quality of the information service and the friendliness with which this service was provided. Factors such as the wearing of name tags, general hospitality and waiting times were also checked, however. In addition to the checklist, the test person also had a selection of questions with detailed instructions to ensure correct answering (Sample Questions; Materials Enclosure 6). In addition to the standardized answers, the comments (i.e. »[...] they did fill in the gaps«) proved especially helpful in the evaluation process. The results from the individual branch libraries were presented for comparison in table format. The branch managers were informed of the results in a team session. Libraries in which there were obvious weak points were visited by the quality manager and suggestions for improvement were developed together. The branch manager informed the staff that test visits would take place over the course of the following two months. It was made clear that no »tricks« would be used in this method, but that the test person would be a »perfectly normal visitor.« There were no objections from the staff, as the employees are accustomed to inspections, data collection and surveys as a result of the continuous and consistent evaluation of service quality. The quality manger responsible for the operation assessed the result as positive. He compared the test visit approach with an oral survey – both yield only a momentary snapshot of an individual person. In addition, he stated that the specific time point of the visit was of no relevance to the individual customer – he or she experiences only the service given at this specific time, just like the test customer. If the service is not optimal at this time point, then the library still has room for improvement. He regards it as especially positive that this approach focuses on the »customer’s viewpoint.« Due to good experience with the procedure, a mystery shopping visit is to be conducted once a year in the future – with an optimized checklist.

38

Another example: London/Brent http://www.brent.gov.uk/Library E-mail: [email protected] For further information, see Questionnaire Enclosure 13. The questionnaire was answered by Marianne Brent.

3.3 Complaint Management as a Success Factor Description Complaint management is one of the qualitative customer satisfaction measurement methods used to ascertain what satisfaction problems are present among customers (KOTLER/BLIEMEL 2001:61). There are several steps in this method: stimulation, receipt, processing and reaction, analysis and complaint management controlling.

Customers

Complaint stimulation

Complaint receipt

Complaint processing and reaction

Complaint analysis

Complaint management controlling

Ill. 1: Task areas in complaint policy (WIMMER/ROLEFF 1998:279) The term »complaint« has a more or less negative connotation. MILNER (1996:4) therefore suggests using the term »feedback,« which permits both positive and negative associations. «Stop calling them complainers! They are critics, allies, consultants – anything as long as it reflects their contribution to the success of the organization.«

39

Just like complaints, compliments and praise should also be recorded as they contribute significantly to employee motivation (see Materials Enclosure 7 for a sample form). HERNON/ALTMAN (1998:79) therefore refer to »Compliment and Complaint Management.« Purpose Customer satisfaction studies prove that up to 25 percent of customers are dissatisfied with their purchasing experiences, but only approximately five percent actually complain. 95 percent of all dissatisfied customers may not submit a complaint, but 90 percent of them will not return. A low number of complaints can thus not be equated with customer satisfaction. Dissatisfied customers assume that their complaints will not achieve anything, do not know to whom complaints should be submitted or are of the opinion that the effort is not worth it. A satisfactory solution is found for only approximately half of the complaints or problems. Customers whose complaints have been satisfactorily addressed subsequently have a better relationship with the institution than customers who never had a reason to complain. Professional complaint management is an effective customer retention tool. Swift problem solving is especially relevant: 52 percent (in the case of serious complaints) and no less than 95 percent (in the case of minor complaints) will then return to the same company (KOTLER/BLIEMEL 2001:793-794). These figures illustrate how important good complaint management is, even though it does not provide a complete picture of customer satisfaction or dissatisfaction. Realization Procedure Consistent complaint stimulation and the precise evaluation of complaints are the basis of complaint management. Employees must be sensitized for complaints, for example through discussion and conflict training or specialist literature20, as it has been proven that the degree of future customer satisfaction is often determined by the behavior exhibited when the complaint is submitted (HOMBURG/WERNER 1998:115). The customer should notice that complaints are welcomed. This can be signalized, for example, through clear information on appropriate complaint channels provided in publications, on posters, membership cards, etc. as well as by means of the explicit request to voice complaints. The following are conceivable methods of complaint stimulation: • Service hotline • Contact via e-mail • Feedback form on homepage

40

• News forum (Internet) • Complaint possibility in OPAC • Complaint possibility (postbox, counter, pinboard) • Desire book, complaint card, form • Customer opinion poll • Survey on the homepage • Touch screen in the library • Feedback sheet after events or tours • Personal contact with staff A potential advantage of the pinboard and the news forum is that they encourage dialog among customers; a potential disadvantage of this method is that it may make other customers aware of deficits. Small material incentives such as vouchers or free tickets have proven a successful method of written complaint stimulation. The more ways a customer has to complain the better. In the service sector, complaints are usually submitted orally. In the consumer goods industry, on the other hand, complaints are more often submitted in writing or over the telephone. Multimedial submission of complaints will be on the rise in the future with increasing use of the Internet. The goal of complaint processing must be to find the best possible solution to the problem. For customers, the decisive factor is how fairly or accommodatingly they are treated. Libraries can offer small compensation gifts for minor problems in the information and service area; the employees must decide what form of compensation is the most appropriate on a case-by-case basis. When it comes to compensatory action, it is frequently not the financial value of the compensation that is of key importance, but the type of reaction or behavior displayed by the employee (BRUHN 1999:181-193). Complaint management can, to a certain extent, be kept consistent through standardized forms or responses such as reply letter templates. An individual reply is optimal, however. Complaints can be evaluated by quantitative and qualitative means. The quantitative measurement of complaints concentrates, among other things, on the frequency with which the problems occur and their relevance to the customers (frequency-relevance analysis)21, qualitative methods examine the underlying reason for the complaints (STAUSS/SEIDEL 1998:173ff.) (see Category System for Complaint Analysis, Materials Enclosure 8). This structurized complaint analysis can help identify existing deficiencies and eliminate their causes. Complaint management thus contributes to improving customer satisfaction.

41

General Conditions The combination of centralized and decentralized complaint processing is ideal for libraries. The principle of »complaint ownership« should be followed in the public area (counter, information) where most oral complaints are made and swift solutions to problems are necessary. According to this principle, the employee to whom the complaint is submitted is then responsible for its processing. Employees should be sensitized to the fact that complaints represent an opportunity for improving the library’s services through special training seminars. They should be granted an appropriate amount of decision-making freedom here. The problem should then be passed on to the central complaint processing office (which can also be only one person) on a standardized form for statistical evaluation. Timeframe Complaints should always be processed as soon as possible after they are received. If the problem cannot be cleared up immediately, the person submitting the complaint should be provided with a brief feedback. Swift decisions must often be made, which is why the complaint department should be a management level staff unit or located in the »Central Services« department. An agreement on targets should be in effect in regard to maximum reaction time. Evaluation Complaint policy includes the evaluation of task and cost-benefit controlling. In task controlling, objective, testable standards and performance indicators should be stipulated for activities related to complaint policy. These could, for example, be the precisely defined brief timeframe for reaction to complaints in regard to unjustified delinquency notices in media borrowing. Cost-benefit controlling can be used to determine approximate costs, the resulting benefit is more difficult to measure, however. The complaint management activities presented in the following graphic and the resulting cost factors are also transferable to public libraries.

42

Cost categories

Activity (example)

Cost factor

cost of complaint stimulation

advertisements Internet brochures

communication costs

cost of complaint receipt

training external trainers info-center

staff costs (internal/external)

cost of complaint processing

complaint system complaint form

administration costs

cost of complaint reaction

compensation offers presents complaint letters

administration costs

cost of complaint controlling

control systems analyzing programs

staff and operating costs

Ill. 2: Complaint management cost categories (BRUHN 1999:195) Perspectives Benefit Professional complaint management is essential for a customer-oriented library. Even though its benefit is not easy to access, the specialist business literature is in unanimous agreement that active complaint management contributes significantly to customer orientation, especially in the service sector. Studies conducted within the framework of the »Schweizer Kundenbarometer« (graphical representation of customer satisfaction) have shown that customer satisfaction and customer retention are significantly higher among persons who complain than persons who do not (BRUHN 1999:178). Problems Drawing the conclusion that »few complaints mean satisfied customers« is tempting but erroneous, as only a fraction of unsatisfied customers actually complain. Customers who complain are often negatively stereotyped by employees, as complaints are regarded as negative criticism of their personal performance. Success Factors Complaints offer the opportunity to better identify one’s own weak spots. They are significantly less expensive instrument than customer surveys. They provide more up-todate, more specific and often more relevant information on customer satisfaction than do expensive and time-consuming surveys and often generate direct suggestions for action as well.

43

Suggestions Libraries in which systematic complaint management is nonetheless impossible to implement should at least conduct regular surveys among their employees or provide feedback forms for the employees. Possible subjects include: What complaints have you been confronted with in the last four weeks? Cite a few examples. Even if the results are not representative, it is possible to at least draw certain conclusions with regard to the type and frequency of complaints. It is critical that patrons are expressly encouraged to voice their complaints, regardless of the form, and that a reply is given and a subsequent solution to the problem implemented as quickly as possible.

Case Studies Germany Gelsenkirchen http://www.stadtbibliothek-ge.de/ E-mail: [email protected] For further information, see Questionnaire Enclosure 14. The questionnaire was answered by Friedhelm Overkaemping. Gütersloh, http://www.stadtbibliothek-guetersloh.de [email protected] For further information, see Questionnaire Enclosure 15. The questionnaire was answered by Bernd Hatscher. Other examples: Bremen http://www.stadtbibliothek-bremen.de E-mail: [email protected] For further information, see Questionnaire Enclosure 16. The questionnaire was answered by Marianne Brauckmann. Würzburg http://www.stadtbuecherei-wuerzburg.de E-mail: [email protected]

44

The Würzburg city library has been operating professional complaint management since June 2003. A feedback box (similar to Helsinki) and a virtual complaint form are available. Roughly 200 forms were submitted during the first three months – approximately 160 in paper form and 40 as e-mails. The form contains the columns »Praise, Question, Criticism, Suggestions«. It has an e-mail address field and an answer option that customers can check. Of the answers, 45 percent were suggestions, 29 percent praise, 25 percent criticism, and only one percent questions. The box is emptied every day, and the forms are answered within three days. The forms are evaluated statistically and forwarded to the appropriate colleagues for processing. The date on which the forms are processed is recorded in the statistics. Having one person alone be responsible for the correct procedure has proved successful. The feedback box and feedback form provide valuable information and suggestions for optimizing services. The high level of praise – some of the particularly complimentary feedback is hung on the employee pin board – motivates the team. Finland City library Helsinki http://www.lib.hel.fi [email protected] United Kingdom London, Bromley http://www.library.bromley.gov.uk [email protected] Bromley offers different feedback possibilities: a call center from the City Council or electronically on the City Council’s Website (www.bromley. gov.uk), which keeps statistics on the total number of complaints and comments, as well as through feedback forms (compliments, comments, complaints) available in all libraries22. Feedback box in the City Library Helsinky

45

The title of the feedback program is »T.A.L.K. BACK« (Take Advantage Let Us Know) and has a very specific appearance with its own logo (a green triangle) which helps to make the feedback boxes placed in various locations in the library easier to identify.

Feedback box in Bromley

A ring binder containing the feedback forms has been attached to the central feedback box in the reception area. This procedure also makes it possible for other patrons to review submissions and add their own comments if so desired. Patrons are also given other, more private answer options, however: • I would like to receive an answer in the feedback binder. • I would like to receive a personal answer. • I do not expect an answer. • The form should not be placed in the feedback binder.

46

The boxes are emptied every day, patrons are guaranteed a maximum reaction time of five days. Naturally it is impossible to solve all problems within this time period, but an initial answer can be provided and a guarantee given that the complaint or suggestion will be looked into more closely. In the case of justified complaints, the library offers compensation in the form of free services (free borrowing of AV media for which there is otherwise a charge). The forms are also available at the counter. The staff thus have the opportunity to record oral comments and pass them on to the responsible quality manager. Each month, the quality manager registers all incoming forms according to different categories – the type of feedback (compliment, comment, complaint, etc.) as well as through which channel the complaint was submitted (form, oral, letter, electronically). According to this evaluation, the feedback form is currently the most commonly method. The staff are offered regular training seminars for handling complaints and dealing with difficult customers. London, Barnet23 http://www.libraries.barnet.gov.uk [email protected] [email protected] The City Council has established a sample complaint management system in which the libraries have been integrated. There is a complaint team with set contact partners (Customer Liaison Officers or CLOs) and a service hotline for the entire borough. This team uses computers to aid in their work and keeps centralized statistics – the libraries also pass on their statistics to them. They have developed a brochure on the topic of complaints that is available in ten different languages as well as in large-print, Braille and on tape. It contains a practical, detachable complaint form which can also be used as an envelope (Materials Enclosure 9). Entitled »Barnet Solutions. The new complaints team that’s here to help you,« the seven-page brochure provides information about the various channels for submitting complaints and names of contact persons. Online complaints are also accepted. Customers can take advantage of this opportunity by clicking on »Contact us,« then »Your right to complain« and finally »Complaints form.« It is interesting to note that complaining is accentuated as a »right« here. «Barnet Solutions« is a newly created team (CLOs, see above) on the Council level which works in accordance with precisely defined criteria. Employees from all departments, including library workers from different levels, were trained by this team (among others) and received extremely well organized course material (including a 26-page »Course Handbook on Complaint Management«) which is available on request

47

in Barnet. Especially helpful for personnel with customer contacts is the included material like the »Checklist for Complaints,« the »Managers’ Guidelines for Responding to Complaints« as well as the »Guidelines for Handling Complaints for Staff on the Front Line« (Materials Enclosure 10). The complaint management process is divided into three levels, which are also shown in the complaint brochure »Barnet Solutions.« The goal is to process as many complaints as possible right away on the first level. If this is not possible, then the guidelines for the next two levels come into effect. The complaints are then processed on the next higher level: Step 1: Customers are encouraged to take their complaint directly to the agency to which it is addressed, for example the library. This agency is then required to process the complaint within a maximum of fifteen business days. If this is not possible, the patron must receive a message within two days indicating that there will be a delay, the reason for the delay and when he or she can expect a final answer. Library staff have a very well organized and compact complaint form which they can use to record and categorize complaints; this is later used for statistical purposes (Materials Enclosure 11). Step 2: The patron is encouraged to take the answer he or she received on Level 1 to the »Head of Service,« the manager of the Customer Relationship Department. Processing is guaranteed within ten days. Step 3: The customer is sent to the next higher administration level (with address); processing is likewise guaranteed within ten days. In addition to the possibilities described above, the library also offers a »Library Services Comment Card« which is intended more for comments and suggestions than for complaints (Materials Enclosure 12). According to the responsible »Customer Liaison Officer« Bob Hellen, who is also responsible for complaint management, customers like to use this contact method. One comment on a »Comment Card« randomly selected by the author read: »Thank you for the opportunity to comment.« The »Comment Cards« are processed and evaluated by the individual head librarians, the results are then passed on to Bob Hellen. The example in the Enclosures (Materials Enclosure 13), the statistical evaluation from the Chipping Barnet Library, shows how simple and transparent the analysis and documentation of complaints can be. The following categories were taken into account: entry number, type of commentary, date, necessity of reply, responsible department, reply or solution possibility. The complaint management process in Barnet is exemplary and could easily serve as a model for others. Nearly all of the procedures used by Barnet City Council can be adapted to other libraries.

48

London, Sutton24 http://www.sutton.gov.uk [email protected] There is also a central complaint processing office at the City Council in Sutton. The motto here is also: »Compliment, Comment, Complain« – thus encouraging not only complaints, but praise and general comments as well. A brochure and a corresponding note on the homepage (www.sutton.gov.uk/council/comments/comments.htm) provide information about the available channels. A 3-step model is used in Sutton, similar to the one in Barnet. The communication channels are: telephone, fax, letter, e-mail or face-to-face. The maximum reaction time on Level 1 is 20 business days (the initial reaction must take place within a maximum of five days; within three days for complaints), a reaction time of 40 business days is guaranteed on Level 2. In addition, the »Customer Relationship Management« department on the Council level has recently begun operating a very professional call center, that in the mid-term future is supposed to process also inquiries and complaints with regard to the library. A proprietary software program was developed for this purpose. It is subdivided into highly differentiated categories and directly linked with the residents’ registration office. The call center is still being set up yet is already exemplary. Feedback forms entitled »Talk back« are available in the library (Materials Enclosure 14). The reverse side is also used for a brief socio-demographic survey. The feedback is evaluated and analyzed by the library’s quality manager on a monthly basis. He or she is also responsible for ensuring that feedback results in long-term solutions and improved service. The decline in the number of complaints show that the effort is worth it. Library Services Date

Service Failure Staff Behaviour Criticism of Policy

Other

Total

April 2000May 2001

14

8

25

48

95

3

10

8

38

59

April 2001March 2002

Just like his/her colleagues in the two above mentioned London boroughs, the quality manager of the Sutton library assessed it as being significantly important and reported on positive experience. Professional complaint management is one of the criteria which must be met in order for the library to be eligible for national prizes for outstanding service quality such as the Beacon Council or Charter Mark Award.25 The library in Sutton has received both awards in the past few years.

49

West Lothian Libraries, Scotland http://www.westlothian.gov.uk/libraries [email protected] The West Lothian Council offers specials forms (conventional and online) for complaints which also cover the West Lothian libraries. A form for comments and complaints is available on the homepage by clicking on: »Public services,« then »library lending services« and finally on »comments.« A direct link from the library Website is currently underway. The library also offers its own forms. They contain an express list of some of the service standards as well as demonstrating the desire for further improvement. The library form does not specifically refer to complaints – only comments or suggestions are mentioned. According to George Kerr, however, the »comments« also include complaints. These are systematically evaluated and used for further improving our service. North Eastern Education and Library Board, Ballymena, Northern Ireland http://www.neelb.uk/documents/pdfs/customer-services-and-standards.pdf [email protected] The North Eastern Education and Library Board has put together a very successful brochure which can also be downloaded as a pdf file. This brochure cites the service standards while at the same time encouraging customers to make suggestions for improvement or submit complaints. The head librarian is expressly quoted as saying: «A dissatisfied customer is not a luxury we can afford. We must endeavor to ensure that all our customers’ needs are satisfied insofar as it is within our power and resources to do so.« An approach similar to that seen in the previously mentioned libraries is also suggested here and a timeframe set. Complaints are also statistically evaluated and consistently used to improve service quality. For further information, see Questionnaire Enclosure 17. The questionnaire was answered by Nicola McNee. New Zealand Wellington http://www.wcl.govt.nz/about/services/customercharter.pdf [email protected]

50

Customer Complaint Management System based on the standards stipulated in the library’s Customer Charter (can be downloaded from the homepage); with reporting and statistics. This area is specifically mentioned in the Customer Charter and attention is drawn to the importance of complaints. The Charter guarantees the processing of complaints within three days. Christchurch http://www.ccc.govt.nz/ [email protected] For further information, see Questionnaire Enclosure 18. The questionnaire was answered by Sue Sutherland and Mary Powels. Singapore National Library Board http://www.lib.gov.sg [email protected] Online feedback questionnaire on service quality: »Please let us know how we can improve the quality of our services« (Materials Enclosure 15). Online: http://www.nlb.gov.sg/Feedback/feedback.asp Call Center: 24-hour helpdesk or e-mail service [email protected] USA Denver Public Library http://www.denver.lib.co.us/ [email protected] Customer feedback form: Denver Public Library Customer Suggestions (see also WALTERS 1994:51-57; and Materials Enclosure 16).26 An e-mail form for submitting comments or complaints is available on the homepage. For further information, see Questionnaire Enclosure 19. The questionnaire was answered by Evelyn Connor. Seattle Public Library http://www.spl.org [email protected] For further information, see Questionnaire Enclosure 20. The questionnaire was answered by Andra Addison.

51

4 Conclusions and Outlooks The general social conditions for library work are undergoing a profound change. Globalization (of information too), gradual individualization and the development in information channels and technologies, among others, are hallmarks of this change. In the long term, only those who know how to competently use and contribute to the resources of the future – knowledge and information – will be able to cope in the information society. Libraries, therefore, face an important task for safeguarding the future: they offer access to up-to-date information channels and information technologies for all sectors of the population and thus contribute to better equality of opportunity within society. However, they also have to actively inform their patrons of this! What the public wants from libraries is also changing: on the one hand, because the general conditions have changed and on the other, because of the diversity of existing choices in leisure time options. Libraries must discuss their role intensively with their customers if they are to continue competing in the leisure time and information market. The cultural and spare time activities sector is usually characterized by a surplus of supply, hence a typical buyer’s market. If a cultural institution, such as a library, wants to position its services successfully, then it must know the needs of its visitors intimately and orient its services accordingly. People can choose between a wide range of spare time activities and it behooves the libraries to make their offers and services so attractive and distinctive that they keep winning new patrons, because from the perspective of those on the demand side for events, there is no difference between publicly or privately produced event offers. The offers must therefore stand up to the same end consumer selection criteria in so far as there is no difference between libraries or culture centers on the one hand and games arcades and fitness studios on the other (SCHULZE 1992:507). Even if libraries have already achieved a high degree of customer orientation, i.e. if they are already thinking »like a customer,« they can still go one step further. If libraries do not want to become marginalized in our society in the long term, they need to develop their offers with the readers, not just for them, and turn their patrons from users and participants into advisers and performers, i.e. partners. This new selfawareness depends on a reciprocal relationship and dialog; customer orientation thus takes on a completely new dimension.

52

This type of work creates a particularly intense relationship between staff and patrons. Ideally a relationship of trust will develop which will be the basis for a permanent relationship, in other words, visitor retention. In this case, visitors to libraries know that they can be certain of getting the best and most helpful information possible: The »trustworthiness« of the institution and the staff will then develop into a special resource. Winning and keeping the trust of visitors is one of the future tasks of public libraries. Patience, time and competence, as well as the continuous nurturing of relationships and mutual respect are key elements in building trust and customer retention. Modern business management offers a wide and proven range of tools for ensuring visitor retention; some selected models have been presented in this work (VOGT 2002:33-35).

53

Bibliography General literature BDB (Bundesvereinigung Deutscher Bibliotheksverbände) (Pub.) (1998): Bibliotheken und Bibliothekare im Wandel. Berufsbild 2000, authored by the Arbeitsgruppe Gemeinsames Berufsbild of the BDB, headed by Ute Krauß-Leichert, Berlin. BERTELSMANN FOUNDATION (Pub.) (2000): BIX. Der Bibliotheksindex, Gütersloh. BORCHARDT, Peter et al. (1987): Eine Marketingkonzeption für Öffentliche Bibliotheken, dbi-Materialien, 71, Berlin. BEST, Heidi (1996). BRUHN,

Manfred

(1982):

Konsumentenzufriedenheit

und

Beschwerden.

Erklärungsansätze und Ergebnisse einer empirischen Untersuchung in ausgewählten Konsumbereichen, Frankfurt/M. – (1995): Internes Marketing als Baustein der Kundenorientierung. In: Die Unternehmung, Vol. 49, No. 6, 381-402. – (1999): Kundenorientierung. Bausteine eines exzellenten Unternehmens, BeckWirtschaftsberater im dtv, 50808, Munich. BROPHY, Peter/Kate COULLING (1996): Quality Management for Information and Library Managers, Hampshire. BRUHN, Manfred/Christian HOMBURG (editors) (1999): Handbuch Kundenbindungsmanagement, 2nd updated and expanded edition, Wiesbaden. COLBERT, Francois (1999): Kultur- und Kunstmarketing. Ein Arbeitsbuch, Vienna, New York. DBI (Deutsches Bibliotheksinstitut) (Pub.) (1992a): Die effektive Bibliothek. Endbericht des Projekts „Anwendung und Erprobung einer Marketingkonzeption für öffentliche Bibliotheken,« Vol. I: Texts, editing: Peter BORCHARDT, dbi-Materialien, 119, Berlin.

54

– (1992b): Die effektive Bibliothek. Endbericht des Projekts „Anwendung und Erprobung einer Marketingkonzeption für öffentliche Bibliotheken,« Vol. II: Appendixes, editing: Peter BORCHARDT, dbi-Materialien, 119, Berlin. EKZ

(Einkaufszentrale

für

öffentliche

Bibliotheken)

(Pub.)

(1993):

Benutzerorientierung, Marketing, Bestandsaufbau, ekz-konzepte, 1, Reutlingen. GIERL, Heribert (1993): Zufriedene Kunden als Markenwechsler. In: Absatzwirtschaft, Vol. 36, No. 2, 90-94. GLÄSER; Christine/ Brigitte KRANZ/ Katharina LÜCK (1998): „Das wissen wir doch am

besten,

was

die

Benutzer

wollen.«

Fokusgruppeninterviews

mit

Bibliotheksbenutzern zum Thema „Elektronische Informationsvermittlung im BIS Oldenburg«. In: Bibliotheksdienst, No. 11. GÜNTER, Bernd/Hartmut JOHN (Ed.) (2000): Besucher zu Stammgästen machen. Neue und kreative Wege zur Besucherbindung, Publikationen der Abteilung Museumsberatung, No. 9, Schriften zum Kultur- und Museumsmanagement, Bielefeld. HEINRICHS, Werner/Armin KLEIN (2001): Kulturmanagement von A – Z. 600 Begriffe für Studium und Praxis, 2nd completely revised and expanded edition, BeckWirtschaftsberater im dtv, 5877, Munich. HERNON, Peter/Ellen ALTMAN (1998): Assessing Service Quality. Satisfying the Expectations of Library Customers, Chicago, London. HERNON, Peter/John R. WHITMAN (2001): Delivering Satisfaction and Service Quality. A Customer-based Approach for Libraries, Chicago, London. HOBOHM, Hans-Christoph (2002): Kundenbindung und Qualitätsmanagement. In: HOBOHM/UMLAUF, Handmarke 3/5. HOBOHM, Hans-Christoph/Konrad UMLAUF (editors) (2002): Erfolgreiches Management von Bibliotheken und Informationseinrichtungen. Fachratgeber für Bibliotheksleiter und Bibliothekare, Hamburg.

55

HOMBURG, Christian/Annette GIERING/Frederike HENTSCHEL (1999): Der Zusammenhang

zwischen

Kundenzufriedenheit

und

Kundenbindung.

In:

BRUHN/HOMBURG:1999:81-112. HOMBURG; Christian/Harald WERNER (1998): Kundenorientierung – Mit System. Mit Customer Orientation Management zu Profitablem Wachstum, Frankfurt /M. INTERNATIONAL

FEDERATION

OF

LIBRARY

ASSOSIATIONS

AND

INSTITUTIONS (IFLA) (Pub.) (2000): The Public Library Service. Guidelines for Development. Online: http://www.ifla.org/VII/s8/proj/gpl.htm KLEIN, Armin (1999): Marketing für öffentliche Kulturbetriebe. In: Handbuch KulturManagement, July issue, Handmarke D 1.3, Stuttgart – (2001a): Kultur-Marketing. Marketingkonzepte für Kulturbetriebe, BeckWirtschaftsberater im dtv, 50848, Munich. – (2001b): Besucherbindung im öffentlichen Kulturbetrieb. Traditionelle und innovative Formen. In: Handbuch Kultur-Management, Lieferung Mai, Handmarke D 1.12, Stuttgart. KOTLER, Philip/Friedhelm BLIEMEL (2001): Marketing-Management. Analyse, Planung, Umsetzung und Steuerung, 10th revised and updated issue, Stuttgart. KOTLER, Philip / Dipak C. JAIN / Suvit MAESINCEE (2002): Marketing der Zukunft. Mit „Sense and Response« zu mehr Wachstum und Gewinn, Frankfurt, New York. KOTLER, Philip et. al. (1999): Grundlagen des Marketing, Munich. MANN, Andreas (1998): Erfolgsfaktor Service. Strategisches Servicemanagement im nationalen und internationalen Marketing, Gabler Edition Wissenschaft: Forum Marketing, Wiesbaden. MEFFERT; Heribert (1982): Kundendienstpolitik als Marketinginstrument. In: Kundendienst-Management. Entwicklungsstand und Entscheidungsprobleme der Kundendienstpolitik, Frankfurt/M.

56

MEFFERT, Heribert/Manfred BRUHN (2000): Dienstleistungsmarketing. Grundlagen, Konzepte, Methoden, 3rd completely revised and expanded edition, Wiesbaden. MITTROWANN, Andreas (2000): Die Bibliothek als Wissenslotse. In: Forum. Nachrichten aus der Bertelsmann-Stiftung, 27. PAYNE, Adrian/Reinhold RAPP (editors) (1999): Handbuch Relationship Marketing. Konzeption und erfolgreiche Umsetzung, Munich PETERS; Thomas J./Robert H. WATERMAN (1982): In Search of Excellence. Lessons to learn from America’s Best Run Companies, New York. REICHHELD, Frederick F./Earl W. SASSER (1998): Zero-Migration. Dienstleister im Sog der Qualitätsrevolution. In: BRUHN/HOMBURG: 137-149. SIMON, Hermann/Christian HOMBURG (Hrsg.) (1997): Kundenzufriedenheit, 2nd ed., Wiesbaden. SCHULZE, Gerhard (1992): Die Erlebnisgesellschaft. Kultursoziologie der Gegenwart, 2nd ed., Frankfurt/M. and New York. SKRAMSTAD, Harold K. (1999): An Agenda for American Museums in the Twenty-First Century. In: Daedalus, Vol. 123, 3. STAHL, Heinz K. (1998): Modernes Kundenmanagement. Wenn der Kunde im Mittelpunkt steht, Praxiswissen Wirtschaft, Vo. 47, Renningen – Malmsheim. STEINMANN, Horst/Georg SCHREYÖGG (2000): Management. Grundlagen der Unternehmensführung. Konzepte, Funktionen, Fallstudien, 5th ed., Wiesbaden. STIFTUNG LESEN (Pub.) (2000): Leseverhalten in Deutschland im neuen Jahrtausend. Eine Studie der Stiftung Lesen in Zusammenarbeit mit: Börsenverein des Deutschen Buchhandels, Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, SPIEGEL-Verlag, Stiftung Presse-Grosso, Zeitungs Marketing Gesellschaft, Mainz. STREATFIELD, David et. al. (2000): Best Value and Better Performance in Libraries, Library and Information Comission Research Report, 52, Twickenham.

57

VOGT, Hannelore (2002): Besucherorientierung in Öffentlichen Bibliotheken – Perspektiven für das 21. Jahrhundert. Dissertation, Pädagogische Hochschule, Ludwigsburg. WALTERS, Suzanne (1994): Customer Service. A How-to-Do-it Manual for Librarians, London. WEINGAND, Darlene E. (1997): Customer Service Excellence. A Concise Guide for Librarians, Chicago, London. WINDAU, Bettina (Ed.) (1997): Betriebsvergleich an Bibliotheken. Meßergebnisse, Richtwerte, Handlungsempfehlungen, Gütersloh. ZEITHAML, Valerie A./Anantharanthan PARASURAMAN/Leonard L. BERRY (1992): Qualitätsservice. Was Ihre Kunden erwarten – was Sie leisten müssen, Frankfurt/M. et. al.

Complaint management CURRY, Ann (1996): Managing the Problem Patron. In: Public Libraries, 35, 3, May/June, 181-188. FAIRFAX COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY (publisher) (1997): Problem Behavior Manual, 2nd ed.; Fairfax. Abstract: Outlines procedures for addressing a wide range of situations. For each scenario, the manual defines the problem, lists the action to be taken and designates the people responsible for carrying out each step. HEYD, Sigrid (1998): Beschwerdemanagement als Instrument der Kundenorientierung. Master’s thesis, Stuttgart. Online: http://machno.hdm-stuttgart.de/~heyd/diplom.html KLEIN, Armin (2000): Professionelles Beschwerdemanagement im Kulturbetrieb. In: Handbuch Kultur-Management, May issue, Handmarke D 4.8, Stuttgart. MCNEILL, Beth/Denise J. JOHNSON (Ed.) (1996): Patron Behaviour in Libraries. A Handbook of Positive Approaches to Negative Situations, Chicago.

58

MILNER, Eileen (1996): Complaints : who needs them? In: Public Library Journal, 11, 1-4. Abstract: After defining the terms »complaint« and »feedback« and general discussion withn regard to complaints in the UK’s public service sector, ideas are presented on the topic of »complaint and feedback systems« based on the »Citizen’s Charter« (1991) and which have a special application for public libraries: (1) Research on the quality and quantity of complaints and ensuing feedback, (2) Creating an effective system, (3) Training staff to handle complaints and various forms of feedback, (4) Complaints as a source of management information with the goal of improving library services. STAUSS, Bernd/Werner SEIDEL (1998): Beschwerdemanagement. Fehler vermeiden, Leistung verbessern, Kunden binden, 2nd ed., Munich. WIMMER, Frank/René ROLEFF (1998): Beschwerdepolitik als Instrument des Dienstleistungsmanagements. In: BRUHN/MEFFERT 1998:265-285.

Focus groups CONNAWAY, Lynn S (1996): Focus Groups interviews. – In: Library administration and management. pp 10, 4, 231. DÜRRENBERGER, Gregor/Jeanette BEHRINGER (1999): Die Fokusgruppe in Theorie und Anwendung, Stuttgart. GLÄSER; Christine/ Brigitte KRANZ/ Katharina LÜCK (1998): „Das wissen wir doch am

besten,

was

die

Benutzer

wollen«

oder

Fokusgruppeninterviews

mit

Bibliotheksbenutzern zum Thema „Elektronische Informationsvermittlung im BIS Oldenburg.« Ein Erfahrungsbericht. In: Bibliotheksdienst, 32, 11, 1912-1921. GLITZ, Beryl (1998): Focus groups for libraries and librarians, New York. GREENBAUM, Thomas L. (1998): The Handbook for Focus Group Research, 2nd ed., Thousand Oaks. HEINZEL; Friederike (2000): Kinder in Gruppendiskussionen und Kreisgesprächen. In: Methoden der Kindheitsforschung. Ein Überblick über Forschungszugänge zur kindlichen Perspektive, 117-130, Weinheim, Munich.

59

KRUEGER, Richard A./Mary Anne CASEY (2000): Focus groups. A practical guide for applied research, 3rd ed., Focus Group Kid, 2, Newbury Park. LAMNEK, Siegfried (1998): Gruppendiskussion. Theorie und Praxis, Weinheim. LINE, Maurice B. (1996): What do people need of libraries, and how can we find out? In: Aust. Acad. Res. Libr., 27, 2, 77. Abstract: Analysis of the terms »needs«, »wants«, »demand« and »usage« as well as a summary of generally recognized findings in user research (demand for user friendliness, varying requirement situations of different user groups, wide spread inability of users to articulate their actual needs); advantages and disadvantages of different demand assessment methods and written surveys, interviews, focus groups as well as demand assessment by the library personnel as a »market research team« (also among private acquaintances). Thoughts on the library of the future, which is characterized by less despendence on the physical presence of information sources and increased independence of distances. LOOS, Peter/Burkhard SCHÄFER (2001): Das Gruppendiskussionsverfahren. Theoretische Grundlagen und empirische Anwendung, Opladen. MORGAN, David L. (1997): Focus Groups as qualitative research, Newbury Park. PARANG, Elisabeth (1997): Using Focus Groups to match user expactations. – In: The serials librarian. 31, 1 / 2, 335 ff. ARBEITSKREIS DEUTSCHER MARKT- UND SOZIALFORSCHUNGSINSTITUTE (Pub.)

(1995):

Richtlinie

für

die

Aufzeichnung

und

Beobachtung

von

Gruppendiskussionen und qualitativen Einzelinterviews. Online: http://www.admev.de/pdf/R_01D.PDF RODGER, Joey (1999): Leadership, Libraries, and Literacy Programs. A Report of Focus Group Research. Online: http://www.urbanlibraries.org/standards/leadship.html WINKENDICK, Panja (2002): Fokusgruppendiskussionen als qualitative Methode der Kundenbefragung in Bibliotheken. Entwicklung eines Leitfadens am Beispiel des Projektes „Medienpartner Bibliothek und Schule«, unpublished Master’s thesis for

60

degree in Librarianship, Information Science Faculty, University of Applied Sciences Cologne. YOUNG, Vicky (1993): Focus on focus groups. A step-by-step guide to running focus groups, College Research Library News, 54, 7, 391-394. Abstract: Experiences of a U.S. university library with focus groups in the initial phase of user studies. An explanation of the advantages of such groups is provided. A list of 12 steps to the successful collection of extensive data material.

Mystery shopping BURKAMP, Marlu/Diane, E. VIRBICK (2002): Through the eyes of a secret shopper. Enhance service by borrowing a popular business technique. In: American Libraries, Nov., 56-57. Cornwall Library Service Annual Library Plan. SECTION 7 – Rolling Action Plans and Targets. Online: http://www.cornwall.gov.uk/Library/LibraryPlan/Plan7.3.htm CZOPEK, Vanessa (1998): Using mystery shoppers to evaluate customer service in public libraries. In: Public Libraries, Nov/Dec, Vol. 37, No. 6, 370-375: GRAAFF, Wendy de (2002): Bibliotheek Delft. Gezellige leeshal en geweldige informatiepunten. In: Bibliotheekblad, 19, 2002. HAAS, Alexander (2001): Wie entsteht Beratungsunzufriedenheit? Ergebnisse einer Mystery Shopping-Studie im Gebrauchsgüterhandel. In: Der moderne Verbraucher – neue Befunde zum Einkaufsverhalten, Gesellschaft für Innovatives Marketing, 87-106. JANSSON, Britta-Lena (1997): A Swedish survey of the quality of reference services. In: Scandinavian Public Library Quarterly, 30, 3, 7-11. Abstract: In October/November 1995, the quality of information services in Swedish public libraries was tested in a field study conducted by the Swedish National Council for Cultural Affairs. This was an undercover study conducted through direct consultations. The advantages of the method are defended. They are, however, subject to certain limitations. The data were collected in such a manner that they cannot be connected with a specific library or person. A total of 50 libraries were selected and all of them

61

asked the same six questions. 81 correct answers were given to the 300 questions. No library answered six or just five questions correctly. Two libraries answered four of the questions correctly. One of these libraries was a mid-sized library, the other a small library. The working hypothesis that the information service was functioning at a respectable level was thus not confirmed, nor was the hypothesis confirmed that larger libraries provide better information. The article furthermore discusses the possible importance of the environment, observations made during the visits, possible reasons for the quality level and suggestions as to how it can be raised. The findings triggered an energetic and constructive discussion in Swedish libraries. JARVIS, Evelyn/Terry KENDRICK (1997): Smile, you might be on candid camera : How can you really know what kind of response library users get when requesting various forms of information? In: Libr. Assoc. Rec., 99, 9, 484-485. Abstract: This article first describes the growing responsibilities and acceptance of library and information services in the UK. It then looks in detail at the institutions in the county of Northamptonshire, whose 44 information offices attempt to provide all desired information but cannot assess how well these services are received by the public. In fall 1994, the provisioning of information was tested and evaluated by four »undercover investigators« – after previous discussion with the union and staff. Special attention was paid to how the users were treated. The results provided the basis for a training program focusing on types of media, access and processing times. Following the training course, the test was repeated in 1996 with good results. NEWHOUSE, Ilisha (2002): Mystery Shopping Made Simple. North Eastern Education and Library Board (Pub.): Library service annual report. (contains references to mystery shoppers. Online: http://www.neelb.org.uk/libraryservice/annualreport/pdfs/lsar9900.pdf PLATZEK, Thomas (1997): Mystery Shopping. »Verdeckte Ermittler« im Kampf um mehr Kundenorientierung. In: Wirtschaftswissenschaftliches Studium, 26, 7, 364-366. Poynter, James M. (2002): Mystery shopping. Get paid to shop, 4th ed., Denver. RAPPOLD, Judith (2000): Get Paid to Shop: Opportunities in the Mystery Shopping Business 2nd ed., Austin.

62

– (2002): Starting Your Mystery Shopping Business, Austin. Abstract: Judith Rappold formed Business Resources in May 1984 to provide customer service training and consulting services to rapidly growing organizations. Shortly after forming the company, she developed a customer service evaluation (mystery shopping) system. Her company has designed service evaluation programs and performed thousands of evaluations for private corporations, government, and non-profits. She is founder of the International Association of Service Evaluators, an organization devoted to professionalism and quality improvement in mystery shopping. She has instructed and developed programs at the University of Texas, Austin Community College, and Baylor University. SPRIBILLE, Ingeborg (1998): Die Wahrscheinlichkeit, in einer Bibliothek eine nützliche bzw. zufriedenstellende Arbeit [! Antwort] zu bekommen, ist »fifty-fifty«. Ergebnisse einer Evaluation des Auskunftsdienstes. In: Bibliothek, 22, 1, 106 – 110. Online: http://webdoc.gwdg.de/edoc/aw/bfp/1998_1/106-110.pdf Abstract: A method for evaluating information service developed in Canada combines the test and undercover observation methods. The criterion for the quality evaluation of the information service is not the number of questions answered correctly, but the degree of user satisfaction. This satisfaction is more dependent on the quality of interaction with the information service than one might suppose. The Canadian findings were confirmed in a corresponding evaluation in Stuttgart conducted by students. The students indicated receiving a useful or satisfactory answer in less than 50 percent of test cases. The librarians’ lack of communication and interview competency played an especially important role here. STUCKER; Cathy 2002): The Mystery Shopper’s Manual, published by Special Interests Publishing. THOMAS,

Joy

(2000):

Mystery

shoppers

at

Online:http://www.csulb.edu/~senate/assessment/grants/thomas_99.pdf TITTEL, Silke (2002): Mystery shopping. Online: http://www.zeit.de/2002/33/Leben/200233_mystery_shopper.html

63

the

library.

Abstract: Customer service article in the German newspaper »Die Zeit.« Mystery shoppers disguised as customers test the customer friendliness of service personnel in the USA. WILSON, Alan M. (1997): Mystery shopping. An exploration of current practice, University of Strathclyde Department of Marketing, Working paper series, Glasgow.

64

The Author Dr. Hannelore Vogt earned her diploma in Librarianship in Stuttgart in 1981. After working briefly at the university library in Würzburg, she became the head librarian of the city library in Bad Mergentheim. In 1993, she completed her second degree, a Magister Artium (M.A.), in the subjects of Cultural Management, Cultural Science and Art History. The topic of her Master’s thesis was »Marketing for Public Libraries.« She has been head librarian of the city library in Würzburg since 1993, where she is responsible for library and staff management. Her initial responsibilities in Würzburg included supervising the construction and renovation of the library, introduction of EDP and reorganization of the operational procedure. In 2003, she received her doctorate in Cultural Management on the subject of Visitor Orientation. She is a member of the DBV Library Management Commission, on the advisory council of the Bavarian Library Association and a member of the Bertelsmann Foundation’s International Network of Public Libraries. The city library in Würzburg was chosen as »Library of the Year 2003« by the DBV and the ZEIT Foundation. It also achieved first place in the nationwide ranking of German city libraries (library index) and was awarded the Bavarian state government’s »Bavarian Online Prize 2003«. Contact: [email protected] City library Würzburg Marktplatz 9 97070 Würzburg Phone: + 49 (0) 931 3722297 Many thanks to my colleague and project co-worker Roger Spörke.

65

References 1

2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 10

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

22 23 24 25 26

In 2000, the »Department for Culture, Media and Sport« created the »Standards for Modern Public Libraries« (online at: www.culture.gov.uk), which also address the topic of customer satisfaction (Section 4: User satisfaction with library services and staffing). According to library manager David Brockhurst, standards for mystery shopping are being considered for inclusion in the next version. In 1993, the UK Library Association published a »Charter for Public Libraries,« specifying quality standards with regard to inventory, services and staff (BROPHY/COULLING 1996:180-181). Chapter 3 discusses in detail methods for analyzing and optimizing customer preferences which are particularly relevant for libraries. See also GARCIA/CHIA (2002). In their work »In Search of Excellence,« PETERS/WATERMAN (1982) examine success factors of an enterprise and find that customer closeness is an essential aspect. The authors mention a large number of examples but they leave it unclear how to realize this so-called »closeness to the visitor.« Another pioneering work is »Quality Service« by ZEITHAML/PARASURAMAN/BERRY (1992). As early as 1983, the research team worked on a comprehensive study on the subject of service quality. More than 20 different studies prove this (HOMBURG/GIERING/HENTSCHEL 1999:93-96). This is a project of the Bertelsmann Foundation, carried out between 1992 bis 1996. 18 libraries of various sizes participated (WINDAU 1997:7). See Materials Enclosures 1 and 2. Examples worth mentioning can also be found in Scandinavia. Finland is the trailblazer for uniform guidelines; as early as 1928 it was the first country in Scandinavia to have a library law. The current law is based on the Library Act (604/1998) and the Library Decree (1078/1998). Benchmarking is the measuring of one’s own performance and standards with those of the (best) competitior(s) (HEINRICHS/KLEIN 2001:27). Some examples can be found in the appendix. The terms focus group discussion and focus group interview are used as synonyms; in the English-speaking literature mostly the terms »focus group« or »focus group discussion« are used. The authors talk of their positive experience with focus group interviews in the field of libraries, refer to specialist English librarian literature and present interview guidelines. The discussion is initiated with an introductory question, followed by one or two transitional questions, up to five key questions and one or two concluding questions (WINKENDICK 2002:12-13). Inactive customers were chosen according to the following criteria: (a) Used the library in the past two years, but not more often than twice in the past year; (b) still use books; (c) between 20 and 40 years of age. The results are summarized in: Bromley libraries development report. October 2002, 21-22. The report can be requested from Bromley. In Germany, the company HOP Warenhandels- und DienstleistungsGmbH, Glasberg 3, 94353 Haibach, has experience with libraries. The pros and cons of this viewpoint are reflected by the examples of London Bromley and London Sutton. Depending on the personal viewpoint, the decision may be for one or the other approach.. Taking part in the online course »The Customer in Focus« from the Bertelsmann Foundation and the Einkaufszentrale für öffentliche Bibliotheken (Purchasing Headquarters for Public Libraries) is recommended. Possible subjects include: Average amount of time needed to solve the problem. Number of instances which the customer passes through. Percentage of unsolved problems. Fluctuation rate of complainers, etc. (HERNON/ ALTMAN 1998:97). Bromley is a borough in the south of London. It has approximately 300,000 inhabitants, who have 15 libraries at their disposal – one main library and 14 branches. Barnet is a relatively large borough in the north of London. In contrast to Bromley, however, it does not have a main library but 17 branches. Sutton is a borough in the south of London; it has a main library and eight branches. In order to receive the Charter Mark Award, libraries must take action in such areas as »Consult and involve« or »Putting things right, when they go wrong.« Walters divides the complaints into categories, assesses them in percentages and then defines priorities for dealing with the individual problems. Problems are then solved in a fixed team composed of staff from all levels.

66

ENCLOSURES

Questionnaire Enclosures (Supplementary material for case studies)

Materials Enclosures (Samples from different libraries)

67

Table of Questionnaire Enclosures (Supplementary material for case studies)

Questionnaire Enclosure 1:

Focus Groups Questionnaire, London/Brent, UK

Questionnaire Enclosure 2:

Focus Groups Questionnaire, Mülheim/Ruhr, Germany

Questionnaire Enclosure 3:

Focus Groups Questionnaire, Bremen, Germany

Questionnaire Enclosure 4:

Focus Groups Questionnaire, Wellington, New Zealand

Questionnaire Enclosure 5:

Focus Groups Questionnaire, Christchurch, New Zealand

Questionnaire Enclosure 6:

Focus Groups Questionnaire, Brisbane, Australia

Questionnaire Enclosure 7:

Mystery Shopping Questionnaire, Modesto/California, USA

Questionnaire Enclosure 8:

Mystery Shopping Questionnaire, Gütersloh, Germany

Questionnaire Enclosure 9:

Mystery Shopping Questionnaire, Würzburg, Germany

Questionnaire Enclosure 10: Mystery Shopping Questionnaire, Waitakere, New Zealand Questionnaire Enclosure 11: Mystery Shopping Questionnaire, Wellington, New Zealand Questionnaire Enclosure 12: Mystery Shopping Questionnaire, Ballymena/Northern Ireland, UK Questionnaire Enclosure 13: Mystery Shopping Questionnaire, London/Brent, UK Questionnaire Enclosure 14: Complaint Management Questionnaire, Gelsenkirchen, Germany Questionnaire Enclosure 15: Complaint Management Questionnaire, Gütersloh, Germany Questionnaire Enclosure 16: Complaint Management Questionnaire, Bremen, Germany Questionnaire Enclosure 17: Complaint Management Questionnaire, Ballymena/Northern Ireland, UK Questionnaire Enclosure 18: Complaint Management Questionnaire, Christchurch, New Zealand Questionnaire Enclosure 19: Complaint Management Questionnaire, Denver, USA Questionnaire Enclosure 20: Complaint Management Questionnaire, Seattle, USA

68

Questionnaire Enclosure 1: Focus Groups Questionnaire, London/Brent, UK

Focus Groups Questionnaire What was the purpose of the focus groups? As part of wider research, e.g. for a Best Value Review of Libraries, Museum and Archive undertaken this year. What were the topics / questions? Accessibility of libraries – site, opening hours, services provided, etc. Did you hire an external coach? We used the Council’s consultation team. How often were focus groups held about the same topic? They were usually one-offs At which location? How long did they take? At several locations around the borough including the Town Hall. One hour. What results were achieved? What conclusions were drawn? The results of this focus group fed into our research for the Best Value Review. It is clear that marketing of services is key as there were some major gaps in people’s knowledge of what we have to offer. Opening hours were also mentioned as something that could be improved. We increased our opening hours again in September this year by 11percent across the borough. How much did it cost? Not sure – not paid for by our service Did problems occur? Don’t think so Was it difficult to get participants? We have a Citizen’s Panel in Brent who volunteer for things like focus group sessions, so no. Were there gifts for the participants? Yes, I believe there was a small financial incentive. Are focus groups planned for the future? Not yet How did you evaluate the results? Evaluated for us by our policy and planning unit. The results were added to other research and formed an assessment report which we then presented to the Council with some major recommendations for the library service.

69

Questionnaire Enclosure 2: Focus Groups Questionnaire, Mülheim/Ruhr, Germany

Focus Groups Questionnaire What was the purpose of the focus groups? As part of the »Media Partners: Library and School« project What were the topics / questions? What is expected of the library Did you hire an external coach? Yes, 2, from infas How often were focus groups held about the same topic? Twice At which location? How long did they take? City library, about 11/2 hours each What results were achieved? What conclusions were drawn? The raw results did not become available until a short while ago; no conclusions yet. How much did it cost? Unknown, as throughout the project, the costs were covered by the ministry or the Bertelsmann Foundation Did problems occur? No Was it difficult to find participants? No Were there gifts for the participants? No, but this has already been added internally as a suggestion Are focus groups planned for the future? Yes Did evaluation take place? Yes

70

Questionnaire Enclosure 3: Focus Groups Questionnaire, Bremen, Germany

Focus Groups Questionnaire What were the topics / questions? A district library’s program of services; children’s section, new main library Did you hire an external coach? Yes How often were focus groups held about the same topic? Once or twice At which location? How long did they take? In the library in question. They lasted two to four hours. What results were achieved? What conclusions were drawn? Change the program of services structures How much did it cost? One-off fees for coaching came to approximately EUR 1,000. Did problems occur? No Was it difficult to find participants? No Were there gifts for the participants? Up to now no, but we plan to do so from 2004. Are focus groups planned for the future? Yes Did evaluation take place? Underway, as some groups are still running

71

Questionnaire Enclosure 4: Focus Groups Questionnaire, Wellington, New Zealand

Focus Groups Questionnaire What was the purpose of the focus groups? We hold a huge range of focus groups. Basically they fall into 3 main types: a) To get ideas for relative priorities for new developments, or to gather more longer range strategic information. These are more free-ranging discussions in style. b) To gather specific customer input into a new initiative under development. c) To identify or develop further specific customer satisfaction issues. What were the topics / questions? As you will ascertain from the three types above, this is totally dependent on the purpose, type and topic. For type A, open-ended questions largely predominate. The general format is to set the scene – this could be relation of a strategic challenge e.g. how could we attract more people to the library, should the publicly funded institution library be proactive (i.e. spend rate-payers’ money on promotion) in this; is there an optimum usage level – or do we really want an aim of 100percent; a business direction we should put more energy into... Type B is the most directed, although there is always an opportunity for customers to provide any kind of response. Typical format/questions would be some kind of presentation of the new initiative e.g. new electronic science databases, followed by discussion of expected use, what customers identify as advantages/disadvantages of each, how would they use them, development suggestions etc. Type C is a mix. Typically starts with the satisfaction issue at quite a high level, but can delve into quite a lot of detail depending on the focus group response. Did you hire an external coach? No, but one person involved is a staff member who is not part of the project and who fills this kind of role. This person is present, and we don’t use any kind of hidden mirrors etc. to observe behaviors/responses! How often were focus groups held about the same topic? Depends on the scale of the topic. For example, if relating to information services (i.e. which involved a wide range of people), then several parallel ones were held. If fairly defined, e.g. classical music web-page, then just one, and that would do us for a while. The »next« website focus group may be on the MyLibrary initiative etc. Or if it is a larger scale project, we may have one focus group at the early development stage,

72

another just before go-live, and another still 3 months down the track. Usually we invite different people, but we have had one focus group which almost became a ›series‹ in itself, as we wanted to see their perceptions of how satisfaction changed over time since some changes were made. At which location? How long did they take? Usually at a library location – mostly at Central Library. A few have been at schools. Most range from around an hour to an hour and a half. What results were achieved? What conclusions were drawn? Mostly two kinds of results are recorded: a) The actual responses/discussion points raised. Not exactly a running record, but even if an issue is raised by only one person, then we have a record of that. b) The overall summary or conclusion of the group per issue. While this is more subjective, it is useful for other staff who were not present to glean the flavor of the meeting, and sometimes it’s not obvious from just a) as we don’t record head nodding etc. Where the focus groups form a part of a more formal consultation process, then these are sent back to the participants for checking. But that happens more rarely. Focus group information is just one strand that we use to feed into library/ organizational development. So we don’t follow the results slavishly as if they were highly randomized representative samples. We use them to gain a customer perception on issues, and to identify ideas or customer solutions. Those in type B and C are usually the easiest to track results and consequences – we either act on the suggestion or don’t. For example – we had a customer discussion on our MyLibrary initiative. Apart from some really positive feedback, there were two strong recommendations – a) include news site links. This one could be actioned immediately and was. b) extend MyLibrary email advice to indicated when my favorite journal title comes into the library. As we get several thousand titles this one would eat up a lot of resources for us to consider administering for free which is what they wanted, and anyway we did not wish to offer what was, in effect, personal subscriptions to library journals in a public environment. However, it was important for us to know that that was still at the top of their wish list, and for us not to provide that would affect customer satisfaction in some way. Often it helps us to identify another issue, e.g. if the suggestion is xyz, but we’re already doing xyz, then the action is not to do xyz, but to revise our publicity/promotion.

73

How much did it cost? The only costs have been a bit of staff time and thought, together with about 20-50 Dollar for food, plus the »free« tokens. Did problems occur? Not sure what is meant here. None spring to mind. Participants only share what they want to about themselves. If there was one problem, it’s that they’re quite popular – attendees from one ask to be put on »the list« (there isn’t one) to be rung for the next one, but we don’t really want them to become too hugely advantaged about the process and library functions – otherwise they are not typical library users. Was it difficult to get participants? No. We recruit children and youth through schools. For adults, depending on the type – we either put up a sign in the library, e.g. calling all science fiction readers – help us improve; or just select people from random in the telephone book if a more general topic is in question. Were there gifts for the participants? Yes – usually some kind of token which we have tried to link into the library, e.g. 10 free video issues. We’ve also worked in with other Council departments when appropriate for participants. For example, when we had children, we gave away free zoo passes. We’ve never given outright presents, e.g. wine, money. Are focus groups planned for the future? Yes frequently. Not every project has a focus group, but it is imperative that the customer need is well established and that customer input is gained at some stage. Focus groups are not the only method we use, but its advantages are its relative costeffectiveness, and the ability to talk with customers over some of the how/why type questions that can be difficult to do in other forms of feedback mechanisms. How did you evaluate the results? See above for discussion under results evaluation. Results form part of the project information and are usually incorporated into the project proposal, or evaluation report as appropriate. Quite often it’s simply confirmation of staff’s existing plans.

74

Questionnaire Enclosure 5: Focus Groups Questionnaire, Christchurch, New Zealand

Focus Groups Questionnaire What was the purpose of the focus groups? Usually around looking for improvements to service, or ideas for new services. Also focus group work when new libraries are being proposed. Chat groups held in 2000. Knowledge of library services and resources. Value of libraries within the community. Did you hire an external coach? We did use an external consultant to help staff become familiar with the process. Yes, to train internal facilitators. How often were focus groups held about the same topic? We had a series at different libraries. But haven’t done this on a regular basis. Change in Marketing Manager who had a different emphasis. 2 per year at each library At which location? How long did they take? Central and several community libraries. About 2 hours from set-up to end. But the actual focus group about an hour. What results were achieved? What conclusions were drawn? As with anything like this, trying to leverage improvement is not always easy. If we got one good idea, or we got data we could use to support or guide a decision, then it was worth it. How much did it cost? Modest – some for the original facilitator – otherwise staff time and some costs in running the focus group, e.g. coffee and biscuits etc. Was it difficult to get participants? Yes – people are busy and it is not always easy to get a good representation of customers. Sometimes you run the risk of only getting those who have a particular »hobby horse« or axe to grind (Hope you know those expressions). Yes, tended to get older people or dedicated library users.

75

Were there gifts for the participants? I don’t think so – just morning tea. Supper was provided. Are focus groups planned for the future? Not at the moment. We have been doing more survey work than focus group work. Future use is currently being considered as part of a wider project. How did you evaluate the results? Documented the findings then looked for conclusions that we could draw.

76

Questionnaire Enclosure 6: Focus Groups Questionnaire, Brisbane, Australia

Focus Groups Questionnaire What was the purpose of the focus groups? Brisbane City Council Library Services uses focus groups to concentrate on particular areas (e.g. small business, satisfaction with online library catalogue, more detailed analysis of satisfaction with library services). Did you hire an external coach? Yes, AC Nielsen is a commercial provider of surveys. How often were focus groups held about the same topic? Once At which location? How long did it take? At their offices, about 2 hours. What results were achieved? What conclusions were drawn? Achieved good information on the particular topics, leading to more informed decision making. How much did it cost? 10,000 AUD – 20,000 AUD depending on the depth of the survey and the complexity. Did problems occur? No Was it difficult to get participants? AC Nielsen gets people, I don’t think they have any problems. Were there gifts for the participants? AC Nielsen pay participants (about 100 AUD we think). Are focus groups planned for the future? Not in the immediate future. How did you evaluate the results? Results evaluated and presented by AC Nielsen.

77

Questionnaire Enclosure 7: Mystery Shopping Questionnaire, Modesto/California, USA

Mystery Shopping Questionnaire How did you inform your staff? Staff helped plan it. Information was taken to and discussed at the Branch Managers’ meetings before shopping began. How was the reaction? Mixed. Some were fearful, others were enthusiastic. They felt better when they knew that the results would have no effect on their performance appraisals. What are the positive aspects of this method? Better acceptance by staff, suggestions for improvement from them. What could evoke problems? Union issues. A supervisor not understanding the purpose of the shopping and then taking poor performance out on the employee. How often did you practice mystery shopping? Once a year for several years. Did you use an external coach? Yes, in the second year to help us rewrite the questions and assign weight/points to each one. Did you practice mystery shopping with other libraries (to check each other)? We used this method internally at 12 of our 13 branches, not with any other external libraries. How much did it cost? Staff time, volunteer time, and some for the consultant. Approx. 100-500 Dollar. Were there measurable improvements after practicing it? Which? Yes, we found out where we needed to do more training. Were able to see trends as answers improved over time. Better awareness of safety issues.

78

How did you evaluate the success? Responses were tallied with a weighted point system. Can you recommend it? Why? Yes. It is unobtrusive if done well. It was an opportunity to have the public involved as volunteers and for the staff to see their service from the public’s point of view. The results were measurable. Why did you stop it? It did not have the support of the (then new, now former) county librarian. She did not see the value or thoroughly understand the process or how to utilize the results.

79

Questionnaire Enclosure 8: Mystery Shopping Questionnaire, Gütersloh, Germany

Mystery Shopping Questionnaire How did you inform your staff? We didn’t. Not even about the intention or the idea. In this case the idea was not ours, but came from the Bertelsmann Foundation. How was the reaction? We are very satisfied with the result, the criticized points were eliminated or were outside our scope of influence (building faults). Thus the reaction was one of great surprise, but positive and even humorous. What are the positive aspects of this method? In my opinion, it is always positive if assessments are carried out independently, without professional or operational blinders. It allows a look at the situation from a completely new viewpoint. What could evoke problems? It should be agreed to use the results only within the library as external viewers may easily misinterpret the results. In the case of Gütersloh, the reception area was assessed, which, due to building defects, seemed confusing with a folding screen and a table. The judgment is correct, but if viewed uncritically, may lead to the conclusion that pieces of furniture were placed arbitrarily in the middle of the room. How often did you practice mystery shopping? Once Did you practice mystery shopping with other libraries (to check each other)? No Were there measurable improvements after practicing it? Which? Yes, the furnishing was changed and, from a customer point of view, improved. The result was used to enhance motivation by pointing out the positive effect of customer friendliness. This yielded »pride« in one’s own performance. How did you evaluate the success? The result was discussed in a group of managing staff and then all employees were informed.

80

Can you recommend it? Why? Yes. It detected weaknesses which were being overlooked by the staff. Positive results are an independent and unprejudiced confirmation. Why did you stop it? It was planned as a one-off event. Continuing is out of the question for financial reasons as the library operation as a whole is questioned and priorities need to be established. It does not mean that we would not welcome a new measure.

81

Questionnaire Enclosure 9: Mystery Shopping Questionnaire, Würzburg, Germany

Mystery Shopping Questionnaire External How to get there How do I get to the library as a pedestrian/motorist/cyclist? Corporate Identity How consistent is it and how stringently has it been realized in its various aspects? Accessibility and availability What are the opening hours? What communication media are available, including out-of-hours? Furnishing How sensible are the locations of counters, shelves, information points, Internet access points, settees, tables, chairs? Presentation and offer of books What media are on display? Orientation systems How do the customers find their way within the building or through one shelf? Customer segments What does the library offer for these customers?

Internal First impression What impression do customers gain when they enter the library for the first time? Acceptance How do the residents of Würzburg accept/regard the library?

82

Atmosphere How are human relations within the library, within the team? Well-being What is done for the customers’ well-being? Talks with customers How are customer inquiries handled verbally? Conflict solutions How are difficult situations handled?

83

Questionnaire Enclosure 10: Mystery Shopping Questionnaire, Waitakere, New Zealand

Mystery Shopping Questionnaire How did you inform your staff? Staff were informed both verbally and in writing. The verbal approach was in team meetings at each library site where the philosophy and the process was discussed with the staff. The input from the staff during these meetings enabled us to modify the methodologies to improve the process. Once the process was finalized, we wrote a document that explained the process and this document was available in each site as a permanent record to refer to in the future. How was the reaction? The reaction was reasonably positive. ›Mystery Shopper‹ was just one of a number of new performance appraisal processes being introduced, and the appraisal methods that had been in use for a number of years were also being reviewed and revamped or discarded. I believe that, on the whole, staff were positive about the ›mystery shopper‹ performance assessment method for a number of reasons – firstly because the staff themselves were requesting an improvement to the performance assessment process; our previous approach to performance appraisal was more or less non-existent. Secondly, because the staff value their strong customer service ethic and they believed the mystery shopper results would validate what they saw as their outstanding customer service abilities and would be a tangible acknowledgement of this. What are the positive aspects of this method? As the mystery shoppers have no association with the libraries and no previous encounters with the libraries or staff in those libraries, then the staff do see this as being an impartial and unbiased assessment method. The person doing the judging has no motive for being anything other than objective. In addition, mystery shopper results are a way for staff to be able to ›look from the outside in‹ rather than the ‘inside out’ and get a customer perspective on what is done and how it is done. It is a chance to have a customer-centric viewpoint on the library’s services and processes. What could evoke problems? I think the obvious one would be if the staff viewed this as a chance for management to ›spy‹ on staff. The staff would need to have buy-in to mystery shopping being

84

introduced, so the way that the whole concept was presented to staff would have to be as a tool to assist the staff to identify areas for improvement and acknowledge excellence. How often did you practice mystery shopping? We have planned to undertake a mystery shopper appraisal every six months. As we have just introduced this, we have so far only completed a single appraisal in the libraries but we have been using this method with our Citizens Advice Bureaux (also managed under the library management structure) for just over 2 years. Did you use an external coach? Is the company that undertakes the mystery shopping exercise and the assessement of the results an external company? Yes. Is all of the training and coaching of staff done by an external company? No – we do buy in expertise as required from private training providers but a fair degree of training and coaching is also done in-house. Did you practice mystery shopping with other libraries (to check each other)? Each of the libraries in our system uses mystery shopper as do all of our Citizens Advice Bureaux. We do not seek to benchmark any results from the mystery shopper exercise with other library systems, nationally or internationally. Nor would we intend to, as our objective is not to create a competitive environment across our city’s library system or to see our libraries needing to compete with any other city’s library system. The corporate culture that exists in our libraries would not endorse this spirit of competitiveness. In fact, the results of any one library are not shared with any of the other libraries in our system. The confidentiality of the results was a stipulation by the staff when they agreed to mystery shopper being introduced. Mystery shopper is a process to guide the staff in a particular site to assess their customer service performance and to guide and focus their continuous improvement, and so the results would not be of value to any other libraries and the converse is also true. How much did it cost? Management prepared the questions and developed the structure (we were able to base our planning on the mystery shopper structure that was created by a private consultancy company for the Citizens Advice Bureaux) and the results we were able to have assessed in-house as we have a department of our Council which employs statisticians and professional market analysts, so the only costs incurred were for the ›shoppers‹ which

85

cut our costs considerably. The one mystery shopper exercise that we have done so far has cost us in total 1,000 Dollar for all eight libraries. Were there measurable improvements after practicing it? Which? Yes. It did identify where we needed to concentrate our coaching and training efforts and it did identify which staff lacked understanding of policies, and which policies and practices needed review because customers found them confusing and irksome. How did you evaluate the success? We are suspending any judgement at this point as we are waiting to amass a sufficient body of information from at least 2 years of trialling mystery shopper exercises before we critically review the process and determine if it has any value for us. However, just anecdotal response from staff and the result of the shopper exercise makes us keen to continue. The results are helping us to target improvements and staff did appreciate hearing the good and the bad and know where to focus their efforts. Can you recommend it? Yes • It is a valuable tool for gaining an objective customer perspective on our policies, processes and methods. • It does give management a system-wide overview on the customer service standards of the staff • It gives the staff an insight into how their customer service is perceived by a customer • It informs and guides coaching and training staff in customer services • It assists continuous improvement processes and assists in the review of the delivery of service standards • It works in conjunction with other appraisal methods to review staff performance. Why did you stop it? We haven’t. Mystery shopper will be continuing.

86

Note: One aspect of Waitakere Library & Information Services you will need to take into account to understand why we need to use third party appraisal processes is because our libraries have a self-directed team structure. There is no senior management or staff with any seniority on site in any but our largest libraries. So, although we do have performance appraisal processes which are peer-to-peer and we do have a management structure, of course, some appraisal is top down. Because there isn’t a manager at library sites, we also do need to have independent assessment of staff performance and a process to be able to assess the overall performance of the whole team.

87

Questionnaire Enclosure 11: Mystery Shopping Questionnaire, Wellington, New Zealand

Mystery Shopping Questionnaire How did you inform your staff? General information during team time. Part of whole customer information gathering picture. Staff had the opportunity to decide the methodology and what aspects they’d like shopper to focus on. In effect, all our customers are mystery shoppers. How was the reaction? Mixed. Some staff thought it was a very good idea to identify issues. Some felt very threatened and felt it was an underhand method even though it was unlikely that individuals would be identified, and general details would be communicated in advance. What are the positive aspects of this method? Enables staff to receive information on the »whole customer experience« (not just the professional library competencies) from the perspective of the customer, e.g. staff member talked too softly.. which would have otherwise been overlooked by staff. Good positive reinforcement when it goes well. What could evoke problems? • Need to be careful to identify the purpose and then match the planned experience to that i.e. the task not to have a twist in the tail • How results are communicated, and to whom • Using it to address a specific known customer service issue (I think there are better methods for that) How often did you practice mystery shopping? Very rarely in its »pure« form. However, we are inclined to the following variation which is kind of half survey, half mystery shopping. Regularly, a random sample of real customers who had queries the previous week are contacted and asked several questions, including open-ended questions, about how their request was handled by library.

88

Did you use an external coach? No, but quite different parts of the organization can be used to perform coaching or shopping roles. Do you practice mystery shopping with other libraries (to check each other)? No How much did it cost? We have only used (unknown) staff from other parts of the organization or see customer variant above, so costs were very low. Were there measurable improvements after practicing it? Which? Comments/results are given to the relevant site team to follow up. This usually involved having team discussions, or was just actioned, e.g. one comment made that the foyer of library looked messy and uninviting – so this was immediately improved by contacting cleaners and improving landscaping. More than 98percent of comments were positive so the only thing to action has been »Well done«! How did you evaluate the success? Number and types of specific issues raised (both positive and negative) that we otherwise would not have been so aware of. Can you recommend it? Why? We would recommend the customer variant (contacting actual clients) for their experiences over the »planted shopper«. Staff are much more comfortable with this approach, and it fulfills most of the information aims of the exercise.

89

Questionnaire Enclosure 12: Mystery Shopping Questionnaire, Ballymena/Northern Ireland, UK

Mystery Shopping Questionnaire How did you inform your staff? Through staff team meetings. How was the reaction? Staff were concerned about being judged by an outsider. What are the positive aspects of this method? Along with other measures (like CIPFA Plus), it can chart improvements needed and made in customer care practice. Can be used as supporting evidence for UK Government standards for customer care in the public services. Can be used to identify training needs of staff. Can be used to identify problem libraries and plan improvements with the co-operation of staff. What could evoke problems? As it is only a »snapshot« some libraries could perform badly on the day. If the Mystery shoppers are not good at acting the part, they can be recognized by staff. Staff then find it difficult to behave normally with them. If a library receives a low score, staff morale could be affected. How often did you practice mystery shopping? Twice – in 2000 and 2002. Did you use an external coach? No Did you practice mystery shopping with other libraries (to check each other)? No How much did it cost? Approx 4,000 pound.

90

Were there measurable improvements after practicing it? Which? General scores improved overall from an average of 77percent in 2002 to 85percent in 2002. However, some problems identified during the first survey in 2000 were identified again in 2002. The Library service has not had a culture of proactively promoting its services. Staff did not try to discover if the mystery shopper was a member of the library or ask them to join. How did you evaluate the success? We are currently considering how to evaluate outcomes in a more formal way. Can you recommend it? Why? Yes, as long as its limitations are recognized and staff can appreciate its positive effect. Why did you stop it? We haven’t stopped it but will be reconsidering whether it is value for money.

91

Questionnaire Enclosure 13 Mystery Shopping Questionnaire, London/Brent, UK

Mystery Shopping Questionnaire How did you inform your staff? We belong to a West London group of libraries and as part of this we conduct a mystery shopping exercise every year on our information and enquiry service. We do not inform staff in advance of the date of the exercise. We do inform them afterwards of the results – via team brief meetings. How was the reaction? As the results were not too good this year, the reaction was disappointment – but also a determination that this is something we can tackle and get right next time. We do not operate a ›blame culture‹ here but hope to learn from our mistakes and build on our strengths. What are the positive aspects of this method? Impartial assessment of service delivery, measured in the same way. What could evoke problems? Obviously if the mystery shopper is recognized! Or if criteria used are seen to be unfair. But we get around this by ensuring that we are involved with the criteria setting and that neutral shoppers are used (usually officers from our partner councils). How often did you practice mystery shopping? Annually Did you use an external coach? Sorry – not sure what this means. See answers above Did you practice mystery shopping with other libraries (to check each other)? Yes – see above. How much did it cost? Staff time only. Were there measurable improvements after practicing it? Which? There are measurable outcomes, e.g. a new training course which is being rolled out across the borough.

92

How did you evaluate the success? See above. Can you recommend it? Why? Yes, if you are consistent with the approach, and you have neutral shoppers with no vested interest in the outcome. Why did you stop it? We haven’t!! – Will continue it.

93

Questionnaire Enclosure 14: Complaint Management Questionnaire, Gelsenkirchen, Germany

Complaint Management Questionnaire (a) What instruments do you use for complaint stimulation? • Contact via e-mail • Feedback form on homepage • Complaint possibility in OPAC • Customer opinion poll • Personal contact with staff (b) How do you prepare staff for complaint receipt? Through: • Training • Discussion and conflict training Do you have standardized registration methods (questionnaires, checklists)? No (c) Do you have a special office or person in charge of complaint processing? Where is it located in your library? Department or section manager Are there targets for response time or a time factor for handling complaints? Standards for all facets of librarianship – including complaint management – are defined in work groups and continuously improved. (d) Complaint analysis: Do you analyze complaints by: • Content (type of complaint, customer data, level of annoyance) Yes • Method of handling (how the complaint was submitted, person receiving the complaint or time at which it was received)? No

94

Questionnaire Enclosure 15: Complaint Management Questionnaire, Gütersloh, Germany

Complaint Management Questionnaire (a) What instruments do you use for complaint stimulation? • Contact via e-mail – yes, fixed e-mail address • Complaint possibility (postbox, counter, pin board) – yes, postbox • Desire book, complaint card, form – yes, desire book and the opportunity to request from the staff a letter of complaint for the management • Customer opinion polls – yes, though infas (as part of BIX), last conducted in 2001 • Feedback sheet after events or guided visits – yes, after every event (b) How do you prepare staff for complaint receipt? • Training seminars – yes, for certain positions, but there is still much room for improvement Do you have standardized registration methods (questionnaires, checklists)? No (c) Do you have a special office or person in charge of complaint processing? Where is it located in your library? Yes. The first instance is one of the librarians on duty, the second instance is the deputy management, the third instance is the management Are there targets for response time or a time factor for handling complaints? No, but a response is always provided right away – at most within 24 hours Do you offer compensation gifts for your customers? No

95

Questionnaire Enclosure 16: Complaint Management Questionnaire, Bremen, Germany

Complaint Management Questionnaire (a) What instruments do you use for complaint stimulation? • Service and complaints hotline: At the moment, I am the point of contact. From December 1st of this year, we will be launching an »offensive« on our homepage, for example, with photos of the »Ideas Management« team (that we are currently putting together), and an invitation to customers: »What you’ve always wanted to tell us ...« • Contact via e-mail: Already available via our homepage • Feedback form on the homepage: Available from 01.12.03 (part of the »offensive« mentioned above) • News forum (Internet): Available from 01.12.03 • Complaint possibility in OPAC: Not planned • Complaint possibility (postbox, counter, pin board): Available from 01.12.03 • Desire book, complaint card, form: Individual actions have already been undertaken (pilot projects) at specific libraries; these are planned for all libraries with the opening of new main library in 2004 • Customer opinion poll: Already conducted for different topics and with different customer groups (also non-customer opinion poll); other actions ongoing • Feedback sheet after events or tours: Being planned • Personal contact with staff: Planned introduction is the opening of new main library in 2004 • Other ......................................................................................................................... (b) How do you prepare staff for complaint receipt? • Training (further education focus for 2003: all staff with customer contact were trained at 1-2 day seminars) • Discussion and conflict training, as well as training seminars on customer-friendly telephone interaction have been held since the second quarter of 2003. Most staff will have completed their training by the end of 2003. • Correspondence courses: None! • Specialist literature: I put together literature recommendations for staff for specific target groups • Other Do you have standardized registration methods (questionnaires, checklists)? Yes

96

(c) Do you have a special office or person in charge of complaint processing? Where is it located in your library? The »main contact« until 01.12. is me. We deliberately chose someone from the higher management levels (our management team consists of the director, the deputy director, the head of the main library and me with management responsibility for the decentralized libraries and the area of Customer Relationship Management). This year, we created a new team (reporting to me) with a specially employed team leader which will dovetail the areas »Reminders« and Customer Relationship Management. Ideas Management also comes under this area, as do complaint processing, customer surveys, non-customer analyses, focus groups (the first for children, for example, have been running since Oct. 2003) and the internal library checks, which comprise random, standardized library evaluations; our libraries are visited, without advance notice, by the CRM team staff and trainees and they are evaluated in a structured fashion by means of a checklist ... so, overall, we use a comprehensive approach and not just individual customer-specific complaint processing ... which is reactive as a matter of priority ... Are there targets for response time or a time factor for handling complaints? Yes: 48 hours maximum for customer mails (we aim to reduce this to 24 hours in 2004!); Telephone complaints are processed immediately or within a maximum of 24 hours by customer callback; 5 days for complaints sent to us via conventional letter post; Response time standards do not apply to complaints made in person. Staff are authorized to present the customer with a suitable solution immediately... Do you offer compensation gifts for your customers? In some cases, yes ... there is no structured procedure as yet ...it is still being discussed in-house (d) Complaint analysis: Do you analyze complaints by: We analyze complaints based on the possibilities of changing something (this can be process-oriented or can be based on a change in staff behavior ... What is important is the degree of success: Our aim – of turning »complainers« into satisfied regular customers – has a 100percent success rate! • Content (type of complaint, customer data, level of annoyance) • Method of handling (how the complaint was submitted, person receiving the complaint or time at which it was received)?

97

(e) Evaluation This will be structured for our entire system as of 2004 only when the full team is in place and the new main library is opened. At that point, extensive controlling, including a customer database and cost-benefit analyses, will come into effect in this area!

98

Questionnaire Enclosure 17: Complaint Management Questionnaire, Ballymena/Northern Ireland, UK

Complaint Management Questionnaire (a) Which instruments do you use for complaint stimulation? • Contact via E-Mail Yes • Form on the homepage Yes • Desire book, complaint card, forms Yes • Customer opinion poll Yes • Feedback sheet after events or guided visits of the library Yes (b) How do you prepare your staff for complaint receipt? • Training Yes • Other .......Team meetings to discuss procedures..... Do you have standardized registration methods (questionaires, check lists)? Yes (c) Do you have a special office or person in charge of complaint processing? Where is it located in your library? Yes. Middle managers and Chief Librarian Are there targets for a response time or a time factor for handling complaints? Yes Do you offer compensation gifts for your customers? No (d) Complaint analysis: Do you analyze complaints by: • Content (type of complaint, customer data, level of annoyance) Yes • Method of handling (how the complaint was submitted, person receiving the complaint or time at which it was received)? Yes (e) Evaluation Do you pursue controlling through measurable standards and achievement indicators? No Do you perform cost-benefit analysis like those shown in the graphic? No

99

Questionnaire Enclosure 18: Complaint Management Questionnaire, Christchurch, New Zealand

Complaint Management Questionnaire (a) Which instruments do you use for complaint stimulation? • Contact via E-Mail Yes • Form on the homepage Feedback form on the homepage • Complaint possibility (postbox, counter, pinboard) Annual surveys in the libraries and the council www.ccc.govt.nz/ResidentsSurvey/2002/ • Desire book, complaint card, forms • Customer opinion poll

Yes

Yes

• Feedback sheet after events or guided visits of the library Yes • Personal contact with the staff

Yes

• Other ..........May be the same as no.1 but we also have a phone service which allows people to make their complaint that way (b) How do you prepare your staff for complaint processing? • Training

We are currently looking at a training opportunity which focuses on

having the skills to ask the right questions. • Discussion and conflict training

Yes

• Other ....We have mostly trained around our Customer Promise which I will send you a copy of electronically. Do you have standardized registration methods (questionaires, check lists)? Mixed – we have very good procedures for the Central City Library – not for Community Libraries and we intend to do something about this! (c) Do you have a special office or person in charge of complaint processing? Where is it located in your library?

Central City Library Manager – and each Community

Librarian. Library Manager is the last resort for complaints. Are there targets for a response time or a time factor for handling complaints? Yes – but they are not well policed I am afraid.

100

Do you offer compensation gifts for your customers? Depends on the complaint. Sometimes a customer will be given a free reserve of an item if their complaint has been in connection with this aspect of our service. Sometimes we give library bags or pens if it is our fault. (d) Complaint analysis: Do you analyze complaints by: • Content (type of complaint, customer data, level of annoyance) • Method of handling (how the complaint was submitted, person receiving the complaint or time at which it was received)? In Central Library only. By content rather than method. We analyze all our customer forms into complaints, compliments and suggestions, and then further analyze them by type of complaint, e.g. collections, staff, etc. (e) Evaluation Do you pursue controlling through measurable standards and achievement indicators? We certainly look for improvements that might be suggested by complaints.

101

Questionnaire Enclosure 19: Complaint Management Questionnaire, Denver, USA

Complaint Management Questionnaire (a) Which instruments do you use for complaint stimulation? • Contact via E-Mail Customers can send email to us. • Complaint possibility (postbox, counter, pinboard) We have a Dear Rick letter (to our City Librarian). However public service staff answer most of them with either a letter or a return phone call. • Customer opinion poll We have asked for this at various times for our on-line reference service. • Other ... Evaluation forms are often used for special projects or programs. (b) How do you prepare your staff for complaint processing? • Discussion and conflict training Through discussion with managers. Do you have standardized registration methods (questionaires, check lists)? Only for Library Cards but not for complaints. (c) Do you have a special office or person in charge of complaint processing? Where is it located in your library? Most of them come directly to the Director of Library Services. Are there targets for a response time or a time factor for handling complaints? We try to turn them around immediately but some of them go out to a dept or branch to answer. These take longer. Do you offer compensation gifts for your customers? No (d) Complaint analysis: Do you analyze complaints by: • Content (type of complaint, customer data, level of annoyance) We do look at the issue to see if we are getting a lot of complaints about a certain issue. (e) Evaluation

No.

102

Questionnaire Enclosure 20: Complaint Management Questionnaire, Seattle, USA

Complaint Management Questionnaire (a) Which instruments do you use for complaint stimulation? Service and complaint hotline We used a complaint hotline when we closed for two, one-week periods because of budget cuts. Contact via E-Mail Yes. Form on the homepage No, but we are considering one in our plans for our redesigned Web site. Newsforum (Internet) No Complaint possibilities in the OPAC No Complaint possibility (postbox, counter, pinboard) No Desire book, complaint card, forms Forms Customer opinion poll Yes Feedback sheet after events or guided visits of the library Yes. Always used after instruction is given to groups by staff members. Personal contact with the staff Yes. There is always a staff member or manager available to meet directly with the public about a complaint, regardless of the nature of the issue. (b) How do you prepare your staff for complaint processing? • Training See next bullet. • Discussion and conflict training We have had training to deal with »problem« patrons and we have had safety training for all our staff. • Correspondence course No * Specialized literature No

103

Do you have standardized registration methods (questionaires, check lists)? No. (c) Do you have a special office or person in charge of complaint processing? Where is it located in your library? Typically, complaints are handled by each department, unless it deals with policy or a system-wide issue, then it might go to the Communications Office, City Librarian’s Office or the Library Board. The City Librarian’s Office probably gets the bulk of letters addressing operational issues, such as library hours and library cuts. Are there targets for a response time or a time factor for handling complaints? Most managers try to handle a complaint within 48 hours because we believe a timely response is best. If it is a letter, we try to craft a response within 10 days. Do you offer compensation gifts for your customers? If people complain about charges on their accounts and are vocal, they may be able to get fines reduced or charges reduced if they bring back all or most materials in selected cases. (d) Complaint analysis: Do you analyze complaints by: • Content (type of complaint, customer data, level of annoyance) We do on issues. For example, if they are letters in response to a particular building project, or Internet filtering policy. • Method of handling (how the complaint was submitted, person receiving the complaint or time at which it was received)? No. (e) Evaluation Do you pursue controlling through measurable standards and achievement indicators? I don’t think so. A comment from one manager: I think that new managers in public service jobs could be convinced to • handle as many complaints as possible at their own location and really »manage« this part of the communication for their agency as part of their role with that community of users; • learn to ask for help to handle routine customer complaints and comments received (as a writing and communication exercise) and then to deliver the actual response themselves; instead of just passing them on to someone else to respond to – whether it is another manager or their boss who probably have their own load of correspondence to deal with already.

104

Table of Materials Enclosures (Samples from different libraries)

Materials Enclosure 1:

IFLA: The Public Library Service. Guidelines for Development. Customer Care

Materials Enclosure 2:

Checklist for customer orientation

Materials Enclosure 3:

Sample Service Standards (based on mystery shopping)

Materials Enclosure 4:

Checklist for Mystery Shoppers

Materials Enclosure 5:

Selpig Mystery Shopping Guidelines

Materials Enclosure 6:

Sutton, Mystery Shopping Sample Questions

Materials Enclosure 7:

Sample Complaint / Compliment Form

Materials Enclosure 8:

Category System for Complaint Analysis

Materials Enclosure 9:

Barnet Customer Complaints Form

Materials Enclosure 10:

Barnet, Guidance for dealing with complaints

Materials Enclosure 11:

Barnet Complaint Form Staff

Materials Enclosure 12:

Barnet Comment Cards

Materials Enclosure 13:

Sutton Talk Back Form

Materials Enclosure 14:

Singapore Online Feedback

Materials Enclosure 15:

Denver, Form for Praise and Criticism

105

Materials Enclosure 1

IFLA: The Public Library Service. Guidelines for Development Customer Care The policies and procedures of the library should be based on the needs and convenience of the users and not for the convenience of the organization and its staff. Quality services can only be delivered if the library is sensitive to the needs of its users and shapes its services to meet those needs. Satisfied users are the best advocates of the library service. The public library should have a positive policy of customer care. This means ensuring that in all policy planning, design of libraries and of systems, preparation of operational procedures and drafting of information and publicity material a positive effect on the user should be a prime objective. The following actions should be elements in a customer care policy. • The image projected by all libraries must be neutral and objective • Staff should be courteous, friendly, respectful and helpful at all times • There should be a regular program of staff training in customer care • Jargon should be avoided in all forms of communication, verbal and written • Staff should have a friendly and informative telephone manner • Methods of communication with the users must be provided, e.g. billboard, bulletins, web-site • Library services should be properly planned, adequately prepared and reliable • The design of the library should be as convenient and inviting as possible • Opening hours should be convenient for the users • Open public access catalogs should be available on the Internet so that the user can access services from home and outside opening hours • There should be efficient renewal and reservation services • Services should be delivered beyond the library building when users’ needs require it • Users should receive a response in the shortest possible time. Letters and other forms of communication should be answered promptly and courteously • Equipment should be provided to make library use convenient e.g. drop-in boxes for returning materials out of hours; self-service issue and return equipment in the library; answering machines for communicating with the library out of hours • Where resources allow, good quality electronic equipment should be provided in the library including special equipment for the partially sighted and hearing impaired.

106

User Participation Customers should be involved in service development • by asking them through surveys what services they use and require • by analyzing and responding to users’ complaints • by ensuring the input received from users is considered in the development of policy and procedures • by providing feedback to users about the effects of their input on service development • by providing suggestion boxes and a complaints procedure. INTERNATIONAL

FEDERATION

OF

LIBRARY

ASSOSIATIONS

AND

INSTITUTIONS (IFLA) (Pub.) (2000): The Public Library Service. Guidelines for Development, 16-17. Online: http://www.ifla.org/VII/s8/proj/gpl.htm

107

Materials Enclosure 2: Checklist for Customer Orientation

50 Tips for Retaining Customers According to WALTERS (1994:103-110); HOBOHM (2002:3/5.10). 1. Create a service culture: Each employee should be aware that he/she contributes to customer satisfaction. 2. Have a service vision: Service and customer orientation as the library’s ›guiding principle.‹ 3. Complete participation: Everyone is included in this philosophy, from the management to the staff. 4. Lay down the service policy in writing: No instructions without exceptions, however – every employee has the ability to overstep the rules for the benefit of the customers. 5. Employees are ‘empowered’: They have the decision-making freedom to respond to customer needs in concrete situations. 6. Further training for employees: The Basis of Good Customer Care! 7. Make service policy public: Let the customer know that efforts are being made to achieve ideal customer satisfaction. 8. Hire ›good‹ staff. 9. Reward loyalty: Both customers and employees should receive recognition for their commitment to the library. 10. Measure performance: Measure productivity and effectiveness in reference to the standards and make the results public. 11. Mutual training: Employees should be able to perform each other’s jobs. 12. Rotation: Let employees also perform tasks from other areas in order to create a broader understanding of interconnections. 13. Create easy access: User-friendly technology and tools. 14. Customer-friendly telephone service: Try calling your library – are callers really helped? Can you hear whether the person who answered the phone is smiling? 15. Flexible rules: The only rule is that the customer is king – support your staff in making independent decisions. 16. Customer education: Every customer contact simultaneously informs and educates about the services the library offers.

108

17. React appropriately to complaints: The first step should be to ›accept‹ the customers’ irritation, listen carefully to them, ensure them that everything possible is being done to resolve the problem, thank them for having complained. 18. Obtain customer reactions: Acquire systematic information on what the user / customer thinks of the service offers and how they experience these services (surveys, user meetings, reply cards) – make the results public. 19. Age-specific customer orientation: Customer needs change at different stages of life. 20. Suggestions for improvement: In particular those employees with contact to customers should contribute their ideas. 21. Act in a consistent and fair manner: One does not always have to agree with the customer, but one should follow a consistent policy. 22. Keep service offers realistic: Don’t promise too much, disappointments have farreaching consequences and positive surprises create greater customer loyalty. 23. The customer should benefit from the service: Customers need more than just friendly service, they need solid, correct information. 24. High-tech with the human touch: High-tech makes the human touch and understanding customer support all the more important. 25. Talk to customers: Always approach customers first and ask them what they are looking for, offer assistance. 26. Everyday service management: How can it be made easier for the staff to serve customers? 27. The cost of a lost customer: All forms of positive support are important. Unsatisfied customers tell others about their dissatisfaction 11 times. 28. Monitoring of the competition: Not only of other information providers, but monitoring of competition for public funding as well. 29. Market research: One can never have enough information about one’s customers. 30. Know the users’ needs: Learn about the information behavior, wants and expectations of the users – keep up with changes. 31. Find out which employees are the customers’ favorites: Identify the employees who interact best with customers and use them as examples. 32. Communication: Communicative competency is a critical factor: Continual personal training is essential. 33. Smile: It makes both you and your communication partner feel good. 34. Take customers seriously: Every customer is individually important, make sure they know it! 35. Cite customer experience in public relations work: Case studies with real customers illustrate the quality of service best – the customers involved will appreciate this.

109

36. Customer groups: Establish user councils or customer representative delegations and include them in your work. 37. Superior performance: Average service is not enough, only the best is good enough for your library. 38. Employees and colleagues are customers too: Internal customers are just as important. 39. Let customers know that they are being cared for, e.g. with mailing campaigns or greeting cards sent to selected supporters / sponsors. 40. Make results public: ‘Publicize’ employee recognition and customer comments. 41. The crowning touch: Always go the extra mile to provide the service you yourself would like to receive (24-hour service, information preparation, active information, etc.) 42. Recognition and reward program for employees: Don’t just talk about problems, discuss positive evaluations on a systematic and routine basis. 43. Breaks: Good customer contact is very demanding, so the employees involved need time to refresh their spirits. 44. Slogan: Come up with a powerful slogan that sums up your readiness to provide service and which customers can easily remember. 45. Mix work and fun: Don’t neglect rituals and social life. 46. Negative feedback: Challenge customers to submit critical comments. 47. Freedom from prejudice: Take delight in the differences among your customers. 48. Appearance and atmosphere: How are the library staff dressed? Is the library clean, are the media well organized? Look at the library through the eyes of a customer. 49. Comfort and attractiveness: Furnishings and ergonomics of the work stations, light, design, etc. 50. Library terminology: Avoid jargon (OPAC, RAK, URL, etc.)

110

Materials Enclosure 3: Sample Service Standards (based on mystery shopping)

Source: Stanislaus County Free Library

111

Materials Enclosure 4: Checklist for Mystery Shoppers

112

113

Source: Stanislaus County Free Library

114

Materials Enclosure 5: Selpig Mystery Shopping Guidelines

115

116

117

Materials Enclosure 6: Sutton, Mystery Shopping Sample Questions

118

119

Materials Enclosure 7: Sample Complaint and Compliment Forms

Source: HERNON/ALTMAN (1998:84-87)

120

Materials Enclosure 8: Category System for Complaint Analysis

121

Source: HERNON/ALTMAN (1998:92-94)

122

Materials Enclosure 9: Barnet Customer Complaints Form

123

Materials Enclosure 10: Barnet, Guidance for dealing with complaints

124

125

Materials Enclosure 11: Barnet Complaint Form Staff

Materials Enclosure 12: Barnet Comment Card

126

Materials Enclosure 12: Barnet Comment Cards

127

Materials Enclosure 13: Sutton Talk Back Forum

128

Materials Enclosure 14: Singapore Online Feedback

129

130

Materials Enclosure 15: Denver, Form for Praise and Criticism

131

Source: WALTERS (1994:51-52)

132