Rocky Mountain Chapter Special Libraries Association RMSLA.ORG - Serving Colorado, Utah, Wyoming & South Dakota

Home Join SLA Join Chapter Email List Contact Us

RMSLA ROCKY MOUNTAIN CHAPTER MEMBER SURVEY

September 13, 2002

Submitted by Marcia J. Rodney

For a Print Ready copy of this Survey - Click here for the Adobe Acrobat® / PDF Version.

 

Introduction

In June 2002 the Rocky Mountain chapter of RMSLA decided to poll its membership as to preferences regarding meeting location, scheduling, and programming in an effort to provide members with greater value for their dues and plan programs more in line with member interests. It was decided to electronically distribute a brief survey.

Primary Findings

§Members decidedly want programs on research techniques.

§Location is a key issue in deciding whether to attend a meeting. Downtown Denver is the most popular location, and almost all respondents value seeing other special libraries.

§Cost is a concern. RMSLA may wish to consider planning more of a mix of wholly sponsored events, smaller scale programs, and member fee (or meal purchase) events.

Sample

The survey was distributed via the e-mail list of the RMSLA Rocky Mountain chapter members, which includes some non-members as well. The exact number of subscribers fluctuated over the month long period of reminders, but remained in the vicinity of 160-170 names. There were 45 complete responses, a response rate of approximately 25%. Some members do not subscribe to the list.

Methodology

A brief, 13 question multiple choice survey covered member preferences with regard to meeting location, time, day, program, cost, duration, and food choice. Frequencies and crosstabulations were computed to determine preferences of all respondents and to compare the answers of those who had attended meetings during the past year against those who hadn’t. The sample was too small to take statistical significance into consideration. Comments were solicited in several categories. All comments, solicited or not, are included below.

Findings

All comments are provided as received. All but three respondents are current SLA members. Two were former members and one is considering joining.

Attendance

The overwhelming majority of respondents, more than 70%, had attended a chapter meeting during the past year, as illustrated in Table 1. Location and scheduling are the most frequently cited reasons for not attending (see Table 2).

 

 

 

 

Comments by non-attendees:

§time

§notification too late to make travel plans

§Just not motivated enough - plus need easy access parking, as I'm handicapped

§I've been too busy with ARMA this past couple of yrs. Not enough time for SLA.

§I live in Colorado Springs, and the commute to Denver and/or northern suburbs is the primary reason i don't attend RMSLA meetings.

§Very often not enough warning is given on meeting time and place for those who
live far from Denver.

 

 

Programming

 

In this question, respondents were given seven possibilities plus Other, and asked to rank their top three choices. Many respondents neglected to rank their selections. In Table 3 ranked selections were weighted as follows: first choice = 3, second choice = 2, third choice = 1. Unranked selections were scored as 1. These scores were then summed to provide an overall score.

 

Following this methodology, programming preferences scored as follows:

 

 

It’s important to point out that while research techniques was a runaway first choice by a factor of almost 3, the difference between marketing and competitive intelligence was quite small, while among non-attendees the second and third choices are separated by one vote.

 

Comments by non-attendees:

·    upcoming technology and trends

·    new trends

 

Comments by attendees:

 

·    Would love more programs in southeast Denver, unless there aren't enough of us in that area.

·    tech issues

·    Innovative changes at other special libraries

·    Program is most important to me, then time of day. Location is secondary.  Food not that important, but munchies make it easy to come directly from work. Also I don't like to see too many expensive dinners on the yearly chapter schedule.

·    The last meeting I attended was when Cindy with Sun Microsystems and Janet with Dialog were the speakers.  I was disappointed that we waited an hour before starting.  By the time Janet was up, people seemed to have lost interest.  I felt like our time was not respected by waiting so long to start the program.

·    innovations other members have tried; really pinning down how to measure Return on Investment

·    I like to learn about projects or initiatives that are happening in the library and information world, e.g., SLA programs we've had on the digitization project, GIS, virtual reality. Trends and issues also interest me--the broader picture.

·    How to write a business plan; How to conduct a user survey; ROI; Demos of value-added tools; Presentation skills

 

 

 

TIME OF DAY

 

Respondents were asked to choose one from four possible time slots for meetings, or Other. Two-thirds of all respondents and of attendees and non-attendees as individual groups preferred late afternoons and early evenings on weekdays.

 

 

 

 

Comments by non-attendees:

§If I'm driving from Colorado Springs to Denver, a mid-day meeting is the easiest for me to attend.  Late afternoons and evenings are just too much of a hassle, given the T-Rex traffic obstacles.

 

Comments by attendees:

§a variety of times is good, because you can attract some different people at different times.  For years I never went to a meeting because I was unwilling to go to an evening meeting and they were always after work

§I like late afternoon, early evening, but I think changing the time sometimes is nice.  Variety would help include more people. Lunch times sometimes would be good.  Different weekdays.

§10:00am-3:00pm

 

 

 

DAY OF WEEK

 

Among all respondents and non-attendees, Wednesday was the overwhelming favorite while the group of just attendees almost equally favored Wednesday and Thursday. This question did not permit ranking. In instances that a respondent ranked answers, the response was eliminated from the sample.

 

 

 

 

LOCATION

 

Once again this was an answer that called for ranked responses, and in many instances respondents ignored this instruction. In Table 6, ranked selections were weighted as follows: first choice = 3, second choice = 2, third choice = 1. Unranked selections were scored as 1. These scores were then summed to provide an overall score. Responses were summed a second time, with one point allowed for each mention. The rankings did not vary.

 

Following this methodology, both attendees and all respondents overwhelmingly favor downtown Denver, with the north side of town (Interlocken and Boulder County) in second place. While non-attendees also predominantly favor downtown Denver, they were equally divided between the west side (Golden, Lakewood) and the south side of town (Denver Tech Center). Unfortunately, while RMSLA has many members in Utah, only a few answered the survey. Membership numbers are fewer in Colorado Springs, Fort Collins, South Dakota and Wyoming.

 

 

Comments on location by non-attendees:

·    Salt Lake City

·    Colorado Springs

·    Salt Lake City? Kidding, anywhere in Denver with more than two or three weeks notice.

 

 

Comments by attendees:

 

·    Denver-Boulder Metro anywhere is fine.  Will travel to Co.Spgs. & Ft. Collins if program sounds relevant.

·    I like meeting in different locations. It is the meeting topic and time of the meeting, rather than the distance, which affects my decision to attend.

·    I like the variety in places where the meetings are held. I'm more interested in seeing different libraries than in the distance I have to drive to get there.

·    places with good parking. again , a variety is important

·    Central Denver, i.e. not necessarily "Downtown," but in Denver

 

 

 

 

TYPE OF LOCATION

 

There was little variation among responses. Nearly 80% of respondents, or 35 overall, chose member library or an office building as their preferred type of location. Only three, or less than 7%, prefer a restaurant.

 

Comments by non-attendees:

 

·    no preference; any is OK as long as there is adequate free parking

·    Hard to listen to talks at a restaurant?  Maybe not if a separate room....

 

 

TYPE OF FOOD

 

While this question specifically addressed type of food service, it was another approach to determining the value that members expect to get for their RMSLA dollars. A majority, both overall and within the attendance subcategories, definitely prefers some sort of food

 

 

 

Comments by non-attendees:

§I'd consider any of the above, depending on time, location, and topic

§depends on time of day and nature of meeting

§But still need a place to sit down

 

Comments by attendees:

§it depends where we meet

§depends on location. light buffet in a library; two or three choices, one price, at a restaurant

 

 

FEES – REGULAR MEETING

 

 

The majority of respondents, both attendees and non-attendees, clustered around in the range of $10-$25, with a not insignificant cluster in the $35 range.

 

Comments by non-attendees:

§Outside speakers are what I would want most!  So cost is somewhat relative.

§I almost picked e, SLA seems to charge for every meeting. CoALL rarely does. This is one of the reasons I quit going. I can see a charge for a dinner or special event but not for every single chapter meeting. It gives the appearance of getting nothing for our dues. I was member-at-large at one time & I am aware of how little we got from HQ but the constant costs & push for vendor sponsorship for everything drove me off.

§$5 or less, unless it's a restaurant where I pay out of pocket, after all for some of us there would be travel expenses as well.

§I wouldn't want to pay if it's a vendor marketing event.

 

 

Comments by attendees:

 

§I'd say skip the refreshments for some meetings/programs.  Also don't have banquets -- well, maybe one/year.

§Not sure at this time. I am leaning toward $10-$15, depending.

 

 

FEES – SPECIAL MEETING

 

The majority of respondents, both attendees and non-attendees, clustered around the $51-$99 range, but many are willing to pay more for a special event.

 

 

 

Comments by non-attendees:

§I'm willing to pay more for a really relevant topic or longer seminar, but prefer to stay close to $100

 

 

Comments by attendees:

 

§$100-$249 if food is included

 

 

 

LENGTH OF MEETING

 

A typical chapter meeting typically includes networking from 5:00pm – 6:00pm, followed by one hour for a meal and 90 minutes of program and/or business meeting. Slightly more than half of all respondents indicated a preference for this format, as seen in Table 10. More than a third of non-attendees preferred the same format or one with a longer presentation.

 

 

 

Comments by non-attendees:

 

·    depends on topic

 

 

OTHER PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITY

 

More than one RMSLA survey respondent attends meetings from the following professional groups:

 

 

ADDED COMMENTS

 

Comments by non-attendees:

 

§The other main reason I quit going was that most of the meetings were north or west and the topics weren't enough of a draw to get me to drive an hour or so from downtown & then get home so late.

§I would like to learn more on Competitive Intelligence and Strategic Info Mgnt. (practical ways of implementing in an organization, building profiles, etc.)  Also, getting and retaining top management support for info management programs.

 

Comments by attendees:

 

§I really appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback about chapter meetings.  On occasion, I get excited about a particular topic and make arrangements to attend.  Unfortunately, it does not seem like time/effort well spent.  I cannot give you any more specifics than what I have already mentioned.  This seems like a well designed survey and I hope it is helpful in improving chapter meetings.

§I would like to see more formalization of networking -- special user and interest groups that could be invoked when working with employers to improve services.  Example:  Competitive Intelligence -- such a group could validate the participant's interest in or expertise in the activity beyond the ability of the individual to prove it.  The group could also help find or develop metric standards that would confirm the member's usefulness to the employer.

§One of the reasons that I am not currently a member is that there were not many programs offered near me that were of interest. Last year was a big change in that regard - and I attended several meetings (I live on the north end of the metro area and work downtown) So now I am thinking about joining again - but the junk mail that I know I will get from SLA HQ is a major deterrent. I will be contacting SLA HQ about this - but I am pretty sure it will not make any difference.

§Have appreciated business sponsorship of meetings to keep costs down &
it's always interesting to see other workplaces.

§Though I wasn't able to attend this year, Colleague Connection has been one of my most valuable experiences.  More cross-specialty meetings on common topics would appeal to me.

Information technology and software reviews/forecasting would be of interest.

Info causes could be motivational, too.  Like how to support public and academic libraries during their funding crisis and cutbacks.

Disclaimer Copyright©1999-2006 SLA. All rights reserved. Send comments and submissions to webmaster "at" rmsla.org http://rmsla.org