8/13/2019 ALIS 51(4) 145-151

1/7

Annals of Library and Information Studies 51 4; 2004; 145 1 51

CUSTOMER S PERCEPTION OF SERVICE QUALITY IN LIBRARIES

Manjunatha KLibrarianT.A. Pai Management InstituteManipal - 576 104KarnatakaEmail: manjunath@mail.tapmLorg

Service quality assesses performance of products andservices from customers perspective. A library has bothtangible products and intangible services. Assessing Servicequality as management technique is of recent origin and newto Library and Information Science LIS) professionals. Today,the library customers are open to multiple sources ofinformation and expect quality material within shortestpossible time irrespective of the format of information. Theweb technologies and commercial information serviceproviders have impelled libraries to be customer focussedfor their survival. Proper understanding of customersperceptions along service quality dimensions is essential forLIS professionals to recognize the customer expectations.Aligning the products/services to meet customer expectationswoul? result in reduced gaps in perceptions of service qualityIn this paper, the authors briefly explain the concept of servicequality; trace its development and highlight some of the resultsof an empirical study on service quality in academic librariesis presented ..INTRODUCTIONGood service to customersl is one of the primarygoals .of service organisations like libraries and isthe ability of any service provider to providepromised products/services. Libraries areessentially learning organisations stimulatingacademic and research activities by providingaccess to world-class information resources.Traditionally, the success of any library is measuredin terms of the size of its collection, staff, andbudget. But in the present day competitive world,the libraries need to go beyond the traditionalmodes of assessments and apply marketingtechniques for understanding customerrequirements. Customer focus in services deliveryis essential for satisfying the customers. Thesuccess depends on customers' perceptions orICustomers refer to library user s.The term customer user orreader is used synonymously.Vol 51 No 4 December 2004

Shivalingaiah DReaderDepartment of Library and Information ScienceMangaloreUniversityMangalagangotri - 574 199,Karnatakajudgement on the quality of products/servicesprovided by the service personnel in libraries. Aservice quality is the measure of how well tproducts/ services delivered meet customeexpectations.CONCEPT AND DEVELOPMENT OF SERVICQUALITYThough quality is a much studied subjectmanufacturing as well as service sectors, thereno universally accepted definition to define qualiThe definition of quality is subjective, personal achanges from person-to-person, place-to-placeorganization- to-organ ization, situation- to-situatioand time-to-time. However, ConformanceStandards and Fitness for Use are the classdefinitions of quality [1].The quality as a subject of academic interest tomomentum in 1950s as a result of the studiesthe subject of quality by management gurus lDeming, Juran, Crosby, Taylor, Feigenbaum, aPeters [2]. However, the concepts of quality wemainly applied to products in the manufacturinsector.Due awakening of consumerism in 1980s, tquality of service as a subject of academic interecaught the attention of marketing professionals athey attempted to define service quality frocustomers' perspective. Experts like Kotler, LevGr6nroos, Garvin, Cronin, Taylor, Teas, RuParasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry have contributeto the growth of the subject and many models wedeveloped on its measurement. The teamParasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (hereafter PZhad conducted several research studies to definservice quality and identify the criteria th

8/13/2019 ALIS 51(4) 145-151

2/7

Manjunatha and Shivalingaiah

customers use while evaluating the service qualityin service organisaitons. They define service qualityas the extent of discrepancy between customers'expectations or desires and their perception of whatis delivered [3]. In other words, it is the comparisonof what customers expect before the use of productservice with their experience of what is delivered.This definition has been widely quoted and referredin service marketing literature.While conducting the studies in many serviceindustries PZB noticed that the uniquecharacteristics of services such as intangibility,inseparability, perishability and heterogeneity, whichdifferentiate them from the goods, often becomeproblematic during assessment. Finally, theydeveloped an instrument called SERVQUAL tomeasure service quality in organizations. Theyidentified ten potentially overlapping dimensions orcriteria that customers used to judge service quality.The original ten dimensions identified weretangibles, reliability, responsiveness, competence,courtesy, credibility, security, access,communication, and understanding of customer [4].SERVICE QUALITY DIMENSIONS ANDSERVQUALService Quality DimensionsThe original ten dimensions identified by PZB werefurther consolidated into five broad dimensions ofservice quality namely Tangibles ReliabilityResponsiveness ssurance and Empathy thatcustomers consider for evaluating the quality ofproducts/services. These dimensions aredescribed as follows: Tangibles: Appearance of physical facilities,

equipment, personnel and communicationmaterials . This includes organisation's physicalfacilities, their equipments, appearance of theirpersonnel and appearance of communicationmaterials used to promote their products/services.

Reliability: Ability of the organization to performthe promised service dependably andaccurately . It means that the serviceorganization performs the service right the firsttime and honours all its commitments.

146

Responsiveness: Willingness oforganisation's staff to help customers andprovide them with prompt service . This referstimeliness and promptness in providing theservice.

Assurance: Knowledge, competence andcourtesy of employees and their ability toconvey trust and confidence in the customertowards the service firm . Competency refersto the possession of required skills andknowledge to perform the service. Courtesyinvolves politeness, respect, friendliness,honesty and trustworthiness of contactpersonnel.

Empathy: Caring, individualized attention thefirm provided its customers . It includes theapproachability, ease of contact of serviceproviders and making of efforts to understandthe customer needs.

The designers observed that these dimensionscapture the key features of service quality and thesedimensions are also known as SERVQUALdimensions. These dimensions widely referred inservice marketing and service quality literature.SERVQUAL is essentially a questionnaire with aset of 22 statements spanning across fivedimensions covering key issues of service quality.It has two sets of similar statements of which, thefirst set seeks customers' views in an idealenvironment (E) and second set allows thecustomers to compare their expectations withservice deliveries of specific organisation (P). Foexample, the sample statements are given below:Sample ExpectationStatement (E)The SERVQUALinstrument measures the servicequality as difference between P and E (P minus E)The negative score of P-E indicates the shortfall ogap in service performance from customerperspectives and the organisations should takesincere interest to address those gaps. The modecontains a separate section to rank the fivedimensionspn their mla.tive importance tocustomers. The instrument was designed in 1985and refined in 1991. After series of successful testsin hotel, telephone, automobile and bankingservices, they recommended that SERVQUAL is

Ann Lib In Stu

8/13/2019 ALIS 51(4) 145-151

3/7

Sample ExpectationStatement (E) .Sample PerceptionStatement (P)Sample ExpectationStatement (E)Sample PerceptionStatement (P)

CUSTOMER S PERCEPTION OF SERVICE QU ALITY IN LIBRARIES

The staff in a good library will always be willing to help the users1 2 3 4 5(1-least; 5- maximum)The staff in my library is always willing to help me1 2 3 4 5The staff in a good library will giveprompt service to users1 2 3 4 5The staff in my library gives me prompt service.1 2 3 4 5

the reliable instrument, which Gould be applied toany service organizations by adopting suitableterminology.SERVQUAL was not without any criticism. It wascriticised for its method of P-E computation, asquality is subjective. Despite critici.sms, theinstrument emerged as a reliable tool to measureservice quality and increasingly caught the attentionof researchers and service organizations. In 1990sthe SERVQUAL based research studies weretraced in other service organisations includinglibraries.PPLIC TION OF SERVQU L IN LI R RIESThe concept of quality and customer service is nota new phenomenon for LIS professionals as it isrooted in library philosophy and principles. Forexample, Ranganathan s laws of library scienceparticularly the fourth law SAVE THE TIME OFTHE READER implicitly focus on quality of libraryproducts/services from customers perspective [5].This law views the quality through efficientcatalogues, self-instructive signal guides,knowledgeable staff, proper shelving, error freerecords, good documentation service, andadequate finance. According to McNicol Quality =Acquired Information Resources (right resources)made readily accessible in optimal time (right time)at least cost [6]. Coogan also notes that obtaininginformation quickly is the main concern of userswho want their library to be state-of-the-art andresponsive to their needs Knowledgeable staffprovides seamless access to information regardless .of format, whether the user in the library or at aremote location [7]. The viewpoints expressed byRanganathan, McNicol and Coogan emphasize oncustomer focus in library activities. Though thequality concept is rooted in library principles, theVol 51 No 4 December 2 4

study of service quality as a managementphilosophy is of recent origin to LIS Professionals.The applications of SERVQUAL have been tracein the LIS discipline from 1990s. The studies havvaried from testing one service (Inter Library Loanto testing the whole range of library services. Thinstrument has been used in academic, public anspecial libraries.The empirical studies using SERVQUAL aprincipal survey instrument were found to bconducted by Hebert [8], White, Ables and Niteck[9], Nitecki [10], Hernon [11], Tan and Foo [12], anWalters [13].The SERVQUAL based user-surveys carried ouby Cardiff University Libraries [14], Sterling EvanLibrary [15] and Virginia University Library [16] alsreveal the validity of the instrument to measureservice quality in library settings.Pitt, Watson and Kavan [17, 18] used the instrumento measure service quality in information systemsenvironment. Another significant development wathe design of L1BQUAL+ by the AssociationResearch Libraries (http://www.arl.org) which waadapted from SERVQUAL by making necessarymodifications to suit libraries particularly for the ARmember libraries.Most of the above-mentioned studies accept thvalidity of the SERVQUAL instrument and suggesthat the instrument can be used in libraryenvironment with little caution and changes coulbe made in the instrument to suit local environment.SERVICE QU LITY IN THE INDI N CONTEXTIn Indian library scenario, the concept of assessingservice quality from customers perspective is sti

14

8/13/2019 ALIS 51(4) 145-151

4/7

Manjunatha and Shivalingaiah

Ann Lib Inf St

Fig. 1- Ranking of Relative Importance of SERVQUALDimensions (n=1252)

Reliabil~y29

Responsiveness2

ErTl>athy13Assurance

17

The results presented through above two figuresdisclose that the reliability was consistently ranked

Figure 2 reveals that the highest ranking patternfor reliability was consistent across all the studies.But the results related to tangibles were varyingbetween the studies. While tangibles ranked as theleast important dimension in the previous studies,it was not ranked as least in this study.

omparison with Other StudiesThe results of this study relating to relativeimportance of dimensions were further comparedwith those of previous studies conducted by LISprofessionals in library setting along with the originastudy conducted by PZB. The comparative figuresare presented graphically in Figure 2.

ANOVA and T-tests were carried out to determinethe significance of differences in ranking patternamong customer disciplines (engineering,medicine, science, social science) and categories(faculty, researchers and students). The resultsrevealed that the differences in customer ran kingsbetween and within the groups were statistically novery significant indicating the homogeneity inpreferences among the academic communityirrespective of type of education pursued.

model express that: ...we are confident that thenumber one concern of the customers todayregardless of type of service is reliability and thefacet that matters the least to current customers inassessing quality of service is tangibles [20]. Firspart of the statement was sustained by this studyalso, but the second part (i.e. ranking of tangibles)did not match indicating the important role tangiblesplay in developing countries like India.

This study observed that among the fivedimensions, the reliability ranked as the mostimportant dimension followed by responsiveness,tangibles, assurance and empathy in that order ofimportance. PZB the originators of SERVQUAL48

Relative Importance of SERVQU L DimensionsAs mentioned earlier, PZB identified five dimensionsnamely, tangibles, reliability, responsiveness,assurance and empathy, which customers employwhile evaluating service quality. They assessed therelative importance of five dimensions by askingrespondents to allocate a total of 100 points acrossthe five'dimensions according to how important theyperceive each dimension. Similarly, in this studyalso, based on pilot study, the respondents wereasked to weigh each dimension by allocating a totalof 10 points among five dimensions. Then thepercentage of average score of each dimensionwas calculated. The ranking of relative importanceof dimensions is presented in Figure 1.

The study was conducted to investigate the qualityof library and information services from customers'perspective in eight academic libraries situated inDakshina Kannada and Udupi districts of KarnatakaState. The libraries in sampling frame were servingcustomers of postgraduate education in Medicine,Engineering, Science and Social Sciencedisciplines. The sample population consisted offaculty members, research scholars andpostgraduate students. The study used an adaptedSERVQUAL as the principal instrument for datacollection. The questionnaires ware selfadministered at respective institutes and mailed tothose who were not available on campus. The studyreceived 1252 responses, which constituted theprimary data input for analysis and interpretation.Customer expectations and perceptions of servicequality were measured as guided by SERVQUALmodel. The research findings related to customers'ranking of relative importance of SERVQUALdimensions and gaps in customers perceivedservice quality are discussed in following sections.

in its infancy. Results of an empirical studyconducted on service quality in academic librarieswere revealing and a few of them are beingdiscussed in following sections [19].

8/13/2019 ALIS 51(4) 145-151

5/7

CUSTOMER S PERCEPTION OF SERV ICE QUALITY IN LIBRARIES

Relative Importance of DimensionsEJThis study n= 1252

40.035.030.025.020.015.010.0

5.00.0

Dimensions

11III Tan Foo n= 69o V.Univ n= 682o Stg.Evan n=198 Nitecki n=336liEIWhiten=14211III Hebert n=130oZBPn=1936

Note: 1. n = represent the number of respondents of the study.2. (Sequence Left to right), Manjunatha [19]; Tan Faa [12] White [16], Coleman [15], Nitecki,Danuta [10]; White [9], Hebert [8], Zeithaml, Parasuraman and Berry [3]

Fig. 2 - Comparison of Relative Importance of SERVQUAL Dimensionsas the most important criterion from customersperspectives while evaluating service quality. Thisstudy's results were congruent with that of previousstudies including the original study conducted byPZB. This implies that in service organizations,customers attach top priority to reliability of theservice and any short fall might result in frustrationand strained relationship with the service provider.Berry and Parasuraman also express thatinteracting with frustrated customer can demoralizestaff and might decrease their enthusiasm to servecustomers [21].Regarding tangibles unlike previous studies, it wasranked third most important criteria in this studyindicating the crucial role they play in developingcountries like India. This dimension might havebeen taken for granted in developed countries.Customers Perceived Service Quality P-E)The SERVQUAL measures of service quality aremeasured in terms of difference betweencustomers' perceptions (P) and expectations (E).The magnitude of difference between themmeasures how well the facilities and servicesprovided in the library match the customerVol 51 No 4 December 2004

expectations. The negative score of 'P minus E(P- E) indicates the shortfall in perception of servicquality. PZB noted, More negative the SERVQUALscore, more the service quality shortfall in the eyeof customers . The P - E score also termed as gapThe gap scores computed in this study are shownin Table 1Table 1 indicates that reliability the most importandirpension from customers' eye received the mosnegative score (mean -0.63). Responsiveness thsecond most important dimension had the secondmost negative score (-0.55). Empathy (-0.53) antangibles (-0.43) too had significant negativescores. Assurance had the least negative score0.26 .Weighted GapThe relative importance scores for SERVQUALdimensions were obtained from respondents firsto identify the relative rating of each dimension ansecond, to compute weighted average SERVQUALscore. The weighted score for each dimension wacomputed as guided by originators of theinstrument. The overall unweighted mean P -scores resulted in a negative disconfirmation scorof -0.48. This score was further widened to -0.5

14

8/13/2019 ALIS 51(4) 145-151

6/7

Manjunatha and Shivalingaiah

Table 1Gaps in Perceptions of Service Quality along SERVQUAL Dimensioos (n=1252)

SI.No Dimensions Expectationerceptionifferencetd.Dev. Percentean - P- Eeliability 4.16.530.63.786Responsiveness.10.540.55.823Empathy 3.93.390.53.822Tangibles 4.07.640.43.828Assurance 3.87.610.26.871 4.02.540.48.6500

Table 2 - Mean Gap Scores (weighted & Unweighted) along SERVQUAL Dimensions (P-E)SI.No Dimensions Relative

UnWt. Wt.Mean Mean

ImportanceUnWt. Wt.Mean Mean

Expectation- EUnWt. Wt.Mean Mean

Perception-PP - E (Gap)

Wt.Gap

12345

Reliability 0.29 4.16Responsiveness 0.21 4.10Tangibles 0.20 4.07Assurance 0.17 3.87Empathy 0.13 3.93Overall 1.00 4.02

1.24 3.530.87 3.540.81 3.640.65 3.610.51 3.394.07 3.54

1.05 - 0.630.75 - 0.550.71 - 0.430.61 - 0.260.44 - 0.533.55 - 0.48

- 0.19- 0.12 0 10 0 04 0 07 0 52

36.623.518.513.208 2

100 0

Note: 1. Un.Wt: Unweighted mean score, V\ eight: Weighted mean score; WGap : percentage in overall weighted gapscore

when the weighted average scores were 1considered. The unweighted and weighted meanscores are shown in Table 2.The figures presented in Table 2 reveal that thereliability received maximum negative score inunweighted as well as weighted scores.esponsiveness had the second most negative 2score. angibles and empathy too had significantgaps.Factors that Influence ustomers Perceptionof Service Quality

The five SERVQUAL dimensions, overacustomer satisfaction level, and word-ofmouth recommendations have direcimpact on customers' perceptions of librarservice quality. The correlation betweenthem is positive and highly significant.The experience with ~pecific elementstangibles such as nature of library holdingstype of facilities, building space and easof access might moderate customerperception of quality in libraries.

The customers' perception on library will be formedover the period while interacting with the existingsystem. Customers' overall opinion about the libraryfacilities and services primarily depends on theirown experience in the library. Regression andANOVA tests were carried out in this study toidentify the factors that might influence thecustomers' perceptions of service quality. Theresults of the study revealed interesting factors thatcould influence or moderate the same. A fewfactors are summarized below:-150

3 The customers' demographiccharacteristics, such as customers' agestatus, past experience; frequency of visitto the library and time spent in a visit to thlibrary could directly influence the perceivequality.

ON LUSIONThe customer satisfaction and perceptionsquality depends on the extent to which customeexpectations are matched by products/services

Ann Lib Inf S

8/13/2019 ALIS 51(4) 145-151

7/7

CUSTOMER S PERCEPTION OF SERVI CE QUALI TY IN LIBRARI ES

delivered by the library. Customers attach toppriority to reliability of the service andresponsiveness from service personnel. They alsoexpect that the library should be equipped with goodresources and consistent services. Understandingcustomers preferences along service qualitydimensions reveal their priorities and addressingthe same would reduce the gaps in service quality.Good words of appreciation from satisfiedcustomers will bring more loyal users to the library.This warrants service providers sincerity, selfinterest and commitment to serve the customers.The periodic customer.surveys will give insights intothe areas that require more attention.Managing service quality is not a fad but acommitment from top management for continuousimprovement. We need to possess leadershipqualities to motivate our library staff to provideprompt services to customers and should take fulladvantage of technology to provide promisedservices on time and should not raise customerexpectations with false or unrealistic promises.R F R N S

1. FEATHER [John] and STURGES [Paul]. InternationalEncyclopaedia of Information and Library Science. 2ndEd. 200 3. Routled ge; L ond on.

2 BROPHY [Peter] and COULING [Kate] Quality Managementand Library Science: for information and library managers1997 J aico Publishing House; Mum bai

3. ZEITHAML [Valarie A]; PARASURAMAN [A] and BERRY[Leonard L]. Delivering quality service: Balancingcustomers perceptions and expectations. 1990. TheFree Press; New York.4. Ibid

5. RANGANATHAN [S R]. Five Laws of Library Science.1988. Sarada Endowment Scheme for Library Science;Bangalore.

6. McNICOL [Annette]. Achieving Quality through theCollection. Paper Presented at ASEAN-COCI seminaron Quality for all for ASEAN Senior Librarians held onNovember 19-22, 1997. Singapore; 1-10.

7. COOGAN [Elizabeth] et al Ser vice to Users Task ForceReport submitted to Brown University Library duringOcto ber 199 8; p1 -30.

Vol 51 No 4 December 2004

8. HEBERT [Frangoise]. Quality of Interlibrary BorrowingServices in Large Urban Public Libraries in Canada.The sis su bmitte d t o Un ive rsity of Tor onto , To ron to f or thaward of Doctoral Degree. 1993.

9. WHITE [Marilyn OJ, Abels [ Eilee n G] a nd Nitecki [Da nutaA]. Measuring Customer Satisfaction and Quality oService in Special Libraries. Report of the researchproject submitted to University of Maryland. 1994.

10. NITECKI [Da nuta A]. An Assessme nt of the App lica bilityof SERVQUAL Dimensions: A Customer based criteriafo r evalua ting q uality of se rvices in Acade mic Libra ries.Th esis submit ted to Univer sit y o f Mar yland, Maryla nd fothe award of doctoral degree. 1995.

11. HERNON [Peter] and Altman [Ellen]. Service Quality iAcademic Libraries. 1996. Ablex Publishing CorpNorwood; New Jersey.

12. TAN [Pey Lin] and FOO [Schbert]. Service QualityAssessment: A case study of A Singapore StatutoryBoard Library. Singapore JI of Library and InformationManagement 28; 1999; 1- 23.

1 3. WALTERS [Mitch el] et l Designing a Customer ServiceSu rvey I nstru ment fo r use in Acade mic med ical libra riesPaper Presented at the 19th Annual Meeting of MedicaLib rar y Asso ciation h eld on May 1 4-20 , 199 9 at Chicago

14. CARDIFF UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES. Report of ServiceQuality Survey at Cardiff University Libraries. Repordownlo aded fro m In tern et. 1 996 .

15. COLEMAN [Vicki] et al Towards TQM Paradigm:SERVQUAL to Measur e Lib rary Service Qua lity. Reporof library survey carried out at Sterling Evans librariesduring 1994). ollege and Research Librar ies 58, 31997; 237-251.

16. WHITE [Lynda S]. A Service Quality Survey at thUnive rsity o f Virg in ia Lib rary: Repor t o f th e unpu blishedsurvey conducted in 1998 at two Virginia UniversityLibraries.

17. PITT [Leyland F]; WATSON [R T] and KAVA~ [C BService Quality: A measure of Information SystemsEffectiveness. MIS Quarterly 1 9, 2 ; 19 95; 17 3-1 87.

18. PITT [Leyland F]; WATSON [R T] and KAVAN [C BMeasuring Information Systems Service Quality:Concer ns f or a Complete Can vas. MIS Quarterly 21,2;1997; 209-221.

19. MANJUNATHA [K]. Quality of Library and InformationSe rvices: A st udy of Customer Satisfa ction in Aca demicLibraries. Thesis submitted to Mangalore University,Mang alaga ngot ri f or the a ward of Doctor al Degr ee 2002

20. ZEITHAML [Valarie A], et al. Op. cit21. BERRY [Leonard L] and PARASURAMAN [A]. ServiceMarketing. 1991. Free Press; New York.

15