putting the customer first
TRANSCRIPT
Putting the Customer First!Managing Customer Satisfaction
Dr. Hannelore Vogt
Bertelsmann StiftungGütersloh 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 orienta-
tion, 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 (MEF-
FERT/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 accor-
dingly (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 »warm-
up,« 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
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
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 answe-
red by Marianne Brent.
Germany
Bertelsmann Foundation, Gütersloh
http://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/Medienpartner
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 answe-
red by Klaus-Peter Boettger.
Bremen
http://www.stadtbibliothek-bremen.de
E-mail: [email protected]
For further information, see Questionnaire Enclosure 3. The questionnaire was answe-
red 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
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 ans-
wered by Joanne Horner.
Another example:
Christchurch
http://www.ccc.govt.nz/
27
For further information, see Questionnaire Enclosure 5. The questionnaire was answe-
red by Sue Sutherland and Mary Powels.
Australia
Brisbane
http://www. brisbane.qld.gov.au
For further information, see Questionnaire Enclosure 6. The questionnaire was answe-
red 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 furt-
her 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
Customers
Complaintstimulation
Complaintreceipt
Complaint processingand reaction
Complaint analysis
Complaint managementcontrolling
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
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-to-
date, 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
Cost categories
cost of complaint stimulation
cost of complaint receipt
cost of complaint processing
cost of complaint reaction
cost of complaintcontrolling
Activity (example)
advertisementsInternetbrochures
training
external trainersinfo-center
complaint systemcomplaint form
compensation offerspresentscomplaint letters
control systemsanalyzing programs
Cost factor
communication costs
staff costs(internal/external)
administration costs
administration costs
staff and operating costs
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
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
United Kingdom
London, Bromley
http://www.library.bromley.gov.uk
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, com-
plaints) available in all libraries22.
45
Feedback box in the CityLibrary Helsinky
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.
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
Feedback boxin Bromley
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
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
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 2000-
May 2001 14 8 25 48 95
April 2001-
March 2002 3 10 8 38 59
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
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
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
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/
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
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/
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
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 self-
awareness 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 »trust-
worthiness« 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, Beck-
Wirtschaftsberater im dtv, 50808, Munich.
BROPHY, Peter/Kate COULLING (1996): Quality Management for Information and
Library Managers, Hampshire.
BRUHN, Manfred/Christian HOMBURG (editors) (1999): Handbuch Kunden-
bindungsmanagement, 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, Beck-
Wirtschaftsberater 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 Kultur-
Management, July issue, Handmarke D 1.3, Stuttgart
– (2001a): Kultur-Marketing. Marketingkonzepte für Kulturbetriebe, Beck-
Wirtschaftsberater 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 kind-
lichen 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 independen-
ce 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 consulta-
tions. 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 the library.
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
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 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 satisfactionwith library services and staffing). According to library manager David Brockhurst, standards for mystery shoppingare being considered for inclusion in the next version.
2 In 1993, the UK Library Association published a »Charter for Public Libraries,« specifying quality standards withregard to inventory, services and staff (BROPHY/COULLING 1996:180-181).
3 Chapter 3 discusses in detail methods for analyzing and optimizing customer preferences which are particularly relevant for libraries.
4 See also GARCIA/CHIA (2002).5 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 itunclear how to realize this so-called »closeness to the visitor.«
6 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.
7 More than 20 different studies prove this (HOMBURG/GIERING/HENTSCHEL 1999:93-96).8 This is a project of the Bertelsmann Foundation, carried out between 1992 bis 1996. 18 libraries of various sizes
participated (WINDAU 1997:7).9 See Materials Enclosures 1 and 2.10 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).
11 Benchmarking is the measuring of one’s own performance and standards with those of the (best) competitior(s)(HEINRICHS/KLEIN 2001:27).
12 Some examples can be found in the appendix.13 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.14 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.15 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).16 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.17 The results are summarized in: Bromley libraries development report. October 2002, 21-22. The report can be
requested from Bromley.18 In Germany, the company HOP Warenhandels- und DienstleistungsGmbH, Glasberg 3, 94353 Haibach, has
experience with libraries.19 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..20 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.21 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).
22 Bromley is a borough in the south of London. It has approximately 300,000 inhabitants, who have 15 libraries attheir disposal – one main library and 14 branches.
23 Barnet is a relatively large borough in the north of London. In contrast to Bromley, however, it does not have a mainlibrary but 17 branches.
24 Sutton is a borough in the south of London; it has a main library and eight branches.25 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.«26 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 ser-
vices 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 cost-
effectiveness, 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 ans-
wers 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 authori-
zed 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 Yes
• Customer opinion poll 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 bud-
get 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 com-
plaint 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 far-
reaching 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
126
Materials Enclosure 11: Barnet Complaint Form Staff
Materials Enclosure 12: Barnet Comment Card
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