| 1. | 11/9/2007 8:54:00 PM | Every two years at Nipissing/Canadore (especially if we can alternate with LibQUAL Light). |
| 2. | 11/9/2007 8:55:00 PM | Every 3-5 years |
| 3. | 11/9/2007 8:56:00 PM | I think the three-year span would work well for the consortial survey. Second choice would be for every two years. |
| 4. | 11/9/2007 8:58:00 PM | We plan to alternate with a local custom survey or focus group on a specific issue. |
| 5. | 11/13/2007 2:11:00 PM | UO would likely do it in every 2 to 3 years. I do not have strong preference for one or the other. |
| 6. | 11/16/2007 1:23:00 PM | I plan to repeat the LIBQUAL survey every 4 or 5 years. That should be adequate to monitor changes but not too often to result in “survey burnout”. |
| 7. | 11/26/2007 11:13:00 PM | Every 2nd or 3rd year would be my preference. Changes are happening in libraries so quickly, that to leave it much longer may not provide the information we need. |
| 8. | 11/27/2007 1:18:00 PM | Nous souhaitons nous synchroniser avec les autres établissements de la CREPUQ |
| 9. | 11/27/2007 2:23:00 PM | Every two years, because it would take up to a year to develop new strategies for fulfilling expectations and then another year to implement them; the second year would determine if expectations have been a success in the eyes of the user community. |
| 10. | 11/27/2007 2:54:00 PM | would like to run it again in 2009 |
| 11. | 12/4/2007 7:36:00 PM | If the survey was shorter I think every two years could feasible. |
| 12. | 12/5/2007 9:19:00 PM | I also see value in collecting service satisfaction information, particularly comments, continuously. |