Developing a service performance assessment system to improve service quality of academic libraries

Abstract

This article proposes an assessment model for the evaluation and improvement of the service performance of academic libraries. It presents a Service Performance Control Matrix (SPCM), an instrument to report the level of service performance and to simultaneously provide strategic directions to sustain, improve or recover service quality. SPCM also provides a guideline for determining the order of improvement for service. The model is applied to five public university libraries in Bangladesh, using a modified version of the SERVQUAL questionnaire. This questionnaire asks students to indicate their opinions on desired, minimum, and actual service performance by the university library on a 7-point Likert scale. The results of this study indicate the applicability of the SPCM model in determining the service quality of academic libraries. With more research effort, we expect this model to be evolved as a practical solution to assessing library service performance worldwide.

Keywords

Academic libraries case study library performance service improvement Service Performance Control Matrix (SPCM)service quality SERVQUAL

Introduction and background

Service quality is considered to be a critical measure of organizational performance. Businesses are increasingly aware of the importance of service and product quality to attract new customers and to retain existing customers. Excellent service quality and high customer satisfaction have become extremely important issues and challenges for service industries (Hung et al., 2003). Due to an increasingly competitive and dynamic educational environment, higher education is recognized as a service industry which emphasizes meeting the expectations and needs of students (Cheng and Tam, 1997). It is thus imperative for university libraries to identify and deliver what is important to their students. Bawden et al. (2005: 454) noted that ‘the evaluation of library services is a topic, and an activity, of importance in all countries with established library services’. Turk (2007) stated that assessment activities in academic libraries are more imperative today than ever before.

Numerous studies on service quality have examined the question of how best to measure this construct in order to facilitate the effective delivery of high-quality service (Parasuraman et al., 1988; Yang, 2007). Businesses often rely on consumers’ perceptions of service quality to identify their strengths and weaknesses and to devise appropriate improvement strategies (Chen, 2012; Chen et al., 2011). Many service quality models are available to assist business organizations to identify service items that require improvement (Hung et al., 2003). Still, most of these models seem incomplete. In particular, some models are unable to effectively prioritize improvement goals (see Chen et al., 2006). Additionally, businesses generally determine enhancement priorities based on low satisfaction attributes rather than considering actual customer requirements (Yang, 2003). It can be argued that while this approach may lead to improvement in some quality attributes that are causing dissatisfaction it does not necessarily address the main concern of the customers.

Many indicators of performance measurement models are available in the literature, such as Importance Satisfaction Model (Yang, 2003), Service Quality Matrix (Hung et al., 2003; Lin et al., 2005), Performance Control Matrix (Chen et al., 2007; Lin et al., 2006), etc. The present study develops a performance assessment and improvement model that aims to determine the service items which meet users’ expectations and the items which require improvement. It also suggests measures which may assist librarians to recover service performance or sustain the existing service situation. To analyze the model, the study surveys users’ desired, minimum and actual service opinions at five public university libraries in Bangladesh using a modified version of the five-dimensional SERVQUAL instrument.

Literature review

Higher education is a dynamic, fast growing service industry. The academic library is often considered as the ‘heart’ of this industry. It provides a place for students and faculty to pursue study and research. Hence, it is recommended that an academic library must understand its users’ needs by providing appropriate types of service (Cullen, 2001; Simmonds and Andaleeb, 2001). Johnson (1998) further stated that focusing on student satisfaction not only enables universities to re-engineer their organizations to adapt to student needs but also allows them to develop a system for continuously monitoring how effectively they meet or exceed student requirements.

Defining the quality concept

There are many definitions of service quality. One of the most commonly used explains service quality as the extent to which a service meets customers’ expectations. Service quality can thus be defined as the difference between customer expectations of service and their perceptions of service provision. If expectations are greater than performance, then perceived quality is less than satisfactory and hence customer dissatisfaction occurs (Parasuraman et al., 1985). Zeithaml et al. (1990) noted that to deliver high quality service, it is imperative to monitor customer perceptions of service quality continually, identify causes of service quality shortfalls, and take appropriate actions to improve service quality. Emphasizing customer value, Hernon and Altman (1996: 6) state, ‘quality is in the eyes of the beholder…. If customers say there is quality service, then there is. If they do not, then there is not. It does not matter what an organization believes about its level of service.’

Since services are intangible, inseparable, heterogeneous and perishable (Parasuraman, 1986), measuring service quality cannot be achieved objectively (Patterson and Johnson, 1993). Chen (2012) suggests that business must rely on consumers’ perceptions of service quality to identify their strengths and weaknesses if they are to devise appropriate improvement strategies. The SERVQUAL scale, a tool for measuring service quality developed by Parasuraman et al. (1985; 1988; 1991; 1994), has been used widely in service industries such as banking, hospitals, tourism, and in library and information centres for more than two decades. Many researchers (Ahmed and Shoeb, 2009; Satoh et al., 2005; Shoeb, 2011) have used SERVQUAL to develop appropriate instruments for measuring service quality in academic libraries. Although SERVQUAL is widely used in service quality assessment, the scale is subjected to serious criticism particularly in the use of its ‘difference score’ in the information service sector (Cronin and Taylor, 1992; Van Dyke et al., 1997). Another criticism of the scale is the lack of a clear linkage between satisfaction and perceived service quality (Duffy and Ketchard, 1998).

Service quality model

Although there have been efforts to study service quality, there has been no general agreement on the measurement of the concept. The majority of the research to date has attempted to use the SERVQUAL methodology in an effort to measure service quality. This model uses three column formats, for example, desired service expectation (DE), minimum service expectation (ME), and perception of actual service performance (P). It enables services to ascertain two types of quality gaps – a measure of service superiority (MSS) that is the discrepancy between perception and desired service expectation (P-DE); and a measure of service adequacy (MSA) that is calculated as the difference between perception and minimum service expectation (P-ME). In the SERVQUAL model, a thorough understanding of the customer’s two types of expectations is vital. In an early study, Halstead et al. (1994) noted that if customers do not have well-formed expectations, such a measurement of expectations and thus any disconfirmation may not be valid. Correspondingly, Goodman (2009) stated that customer error or unreasonable expectations are one of the typical causes of customer dissatisfaction. Miller et al. (2007) found that users’ expectations are both consistent and relatively high. In such conditions, there should be an alternative measure that will be the conciliator between users’ two types of expectations. Bower and Dennis (2007), therefore, calculated overall ranking of service items using the formula Overall Rank score = (Minimum Rank score + Desired Rank score)/2, that is, (ME+DE)/2. This formula may provide an exact mediator between users’ two levels of expectations.

Quality factors for academic libraries

The quality of academic libraries, according to Pindlowa (2002), is connected to services and products as well as staff, facilities and space. This is consistent with Hernon, Nitecki and Altman's (1999) findings that include three areas of quality: resources (information content), organization (service environment and resource delivery) and service delivered by staff. Andaleeb and Simmonds (1998) found that service quality of academic libraries is associated with resources, competence, responsiveness, demeanour and tangibles. Ahmed and Shoeb (2009) determined that quality of library service includes the effects of service (organizational), collection and access, library as a place, and the effect of service (personal). This is closely related to Nagata et al.’s (2004) study. Nadiri and Mayboudi (2010), used the LIBQUAL+^TM (an expansion of the SERVQUAL) scale that shows library service quality is associated with the service provided, information control and library as a place. Consistent with Ahmed and Shoeb’s (2009) and Satoh et al.’s (2005) findings, a recent study by Shoeb (2011) found only three dimensions such as service, collection and access and library as a place.

SPCM – the conceptual framework

To establish the best strategy for evaluating and improving service quality, this article proposes a service performance assessment model shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Service Performance Control Matrix (SPCM). P = Perception of service performance; ME = Minimum expectation; RE = Real expectation; DE = Desired expectation.

As indicated in Figure 1, the proposed SPCM consists of four major zones:

X = performance evaluation zone;

Y = study area zone;

Z = service strategy implementation zone;

A = zone of action or recommendations zone.

To assess the degree of service performance, the X zone is categorized into four zones – problematic (X₁), improvement (X₂), maintain (X₃), and excellent (X₄). Accordingly, the Z zone is classified into four zones corresponding to each X zones, for example, (Z₁) corresponds to ‘prompt action to recover service performance’; (Z₂) corresponds to ‘seeking improvement of service performance’; (Z₃) refers to ‘maintain service performance strictly’; and (Z₄) corresponds to ‘sustain service performance as it is’. For imposing improvement criteria, the items located into each (X) zone are addressed by the adjacent (Z) zone. Consequently, the items of each study area (Y zone) corresponding to each of the (X) zones are addressed by the adjacent (A) zone to achieve the recommendation. The recommendations for service items must be set up according to strategic directions that are described in the Z zone. The two parallel arrows used in the SPCM model indicate the highest and lowest range of service performance and improvement priority for service items. The arrows also indicate that the lowest range of service item requires the highest improvement priority. The performance appraisal method based on the proposed SPCM is explained in Table 1.

Table 1.

Service Performance Control Matrix (SPCM).

Performance evaluation zone			Service strategy implementation zone
Performance Index	Formula (f)	Nature of performance	Service strategy implementation zone
Excellent zone	P>=DE	Expectation exceeded	Sustain service performance as it is
Maintain zone	P>=RE≠DE	Expectation met	Maintain service performance strictly
Improvement zone	P>=ME≠RE	Need met	Seeking improvement
Problematic zone	P<ME	Need unmet	Prompt action to recovery of performance

Performance of service item(s) represented by X₁: ‘problematic zone’ indicates that these are unable to meet users’ minimum needs. Attributes in this zone, therefore, require prompt action to recover service performance. Performance of service items located in (X₂: ‘improvement zone’) report the ability to meet users’ needs but require improvement of existing performance. The service items falling into X₃: ‘maintain zone’ indicates that the service performance meets users’ expectations. This suggests the authority to strictly maintain such levels of performance. Attributes accorded X₄: ‘excellent zone’ reveal that the performance of the service items in this zone has exceeded users’ expectations for service quality. These are the most influential items of the SPCM model. It also suggests that it would be the authority that should aim to sustain this level of performance. In the current SPCM model, the lowest range of service performance requires the highest priority for improvement. This is somewhat consistent with Chen et al.’s (2006) statement ‘if an organization possesses abundant resources, general improvements can be made; however, if resources are limited and only a few items can be improved, some items have to be selected as priorities’ (cited in Chen et al., 2011: 5384).

Methodology

Research framework and design

For obtaining users’ opinions for service performance, the study used Andaleeb and Simmond’s (1998) five-dimensional modified SERVQUAL instruments (see Table 2). A total of 26 service items are used in five service dimensions. Respondents indicate their opinions in three columns, for example, desired service expectation (DE), minimum service expectation (ME), and perception of service performance (P) on a 7-point Likert-type scale. The study used SPSS for data analysis. Cronbach’s Alpha values were obtained to determine the reliability of the questionnaire items. The values for desired service expectation DE (α) = 0.9495, minimum service expectation ME (α) = 0.9660 and perception of service performance P (α) = 0.9598 met the criteria with standardized alpha values, which is greater than the necessary value 0.70 as proposed by Nunnally and Bernstein (1994). This indicates good reliability of the overall questionnaire items.

Table 2.

The modified SERVQUAL dimensions.

Dimension	Statement	No. of items
Resources Code: (Res)	All the reading materials including technological equipment and facilities, availability of updated services and library employees;	7
Competence Code: (Com)	Knowledge and ability of library employees to answer all questions dependably and accurately;	5
Responsiveness Code: (Resp)	Willingness to assist library users and provide prompt service;	5
Demeanour Code: (Dem)	Behaviour and courtesy of employees, and their friendliness to library users;	4
Tangibles Code: (Tan)	The physical facilities including internal environments, right positioning of materials, and others;	5

Questionnaire distribution and data collection

A total of 650 questionnaires were distributed to the students in five public universities (see Table 3). The questionnaires were administered by a group of undergraduate students from Dhaka University. A total of 488 (75.08%) questionnaires were completed and returned.

Table 3.

Frequency distribution of questionnaires.

Name of the university	Frequency distribution of questionnaires
Name of the university	Distributed	Returned	Returned (%)	Rejected	Valid	Valid (%)
Dhaka University (DU)	200	176	88	18	158	89.77
Jahangirnagar University (JU)	100	99	99	01	98	98.99
Rajshahi University (RU)	100	94	94	21	73	77.66
Chittagong University (CU)	100	69	69	00	69	100
Jagannath University (JNU)	150	50	33.33	03	47	94
	650	488	75.08%	43	445	68.46%

The collected data were primarily checked to ensure validity and accuracy; 43 questionnaires were found either incomplete or the items were rated with the same score across all service items. Data from these questionnaires were not included for the analysis. Thus, a total of 445 (68.46%) questionnaires were considered as valid and used for further analysis.

Data analysis and computation

The survey data analyzed were based on descriptive statistics of users’ expectations and perception scores. To ensure the diagnostic capabilities of SPCM model, users’ overall expectations were also computed as the ‘Real service expectation’ (RE) in this study. The RE is calculated as the average score of DE and ME, ie. RE = (DE+ME)/2. The study applies the SPCM model to identify and evaluate the performance of service items with respect to users’ needs. The order of improvement priorities was also determined, that is, the lowest range of service performance requires highest improvement priority. To establish the SPCM as a service performance assessment model, the surveyed data were statistically examined. To compare the difference between users’ perceived experiences and their expectations, for example, P&DE, P&RE, and P&ME, separate non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-ranks test (Z statistic) was used.

Results and findings

Respondents’ profile

Respondents’ demographic profile, presented in Table 4, shows that male respondents 279 (62.84%) formed the largest group in gender distribution. It also reveals that the largest proportion of students (42.02%) stated that they visited the library whenever they need, followed by daily users (33.93%).

Table 4.

Respondent’s demographic information.

		DUL	JUL	RUL	CUL	JNUL	N
Gender	Male	125	57	43	40	14	279 (62.84%)
	Female	32	41	30	29	33	165 (37.16%)
Frequency of library	Daily	35	41	22	31	22	151 (33.93%)
visit	2/3 days a week	18	12	15	17	20	82 (18.43%)
	At least once a week	5	4	6	9	1	25 (5.62%)
	Whenever I need	100	41	30	12	4	187 (42.02%)

DUL = Dhaka University Library; JUL = Jahangirnagar University Library; RUL = Rajshahi University Library; CUL = Chittagong University Library; JNUL = Jagannath University Library.

Separate Pearson Chi-square tests were applied to determine any significant difference between male and female students in terms of their library visits; there is no significant difference between male and female students in terms of their library visits in any of the university libraries surveyed.

Identify and evaluate the performance of service items

The mean scores for the service items from each university are presented in Table 5. The results indicate that most scores in DUL, RUL, CUL, and JNUL fell below the average score, that is, 4.00. On the other hand, most scores in JUL are found to be higher than the minimum scores. Users’ opinion on service items have been mapped onto SPCM (see Figure 2).

Table 5.

Mean scores of users’ opinions.

		DUL				JUL				RUL				CUL				JNUL
Item Code	Statement	DE	RE	ME	P	DE	RE	ME	P	DE	RE	ME	P	DE	RE	ME	P	DE	RE	ME	P
Resp-1	Willingness to help users	6.09	4.96	3.82	3.02	6.17	5.10	4.03	4.25	6.22	5.35	4.47	3.84	6.00	4.97	3.93	2.76	6.49	5.02	3.55	3.17
Resp-2	Giving personal attention to users	5.72	4.67	3.62	2.87	6.08	5.03	3.97	4.16	6.08	5.23	4.38	3.92	6.18	5.16	4.14	3.03	6.49	5.02	3.55	3.17
Resp-3	Giving quick & timely service to users	6.03	4.99	3.94	3.20	6.24	5.12	3.99	4.24	6.37	5.47	4.57	3.89	6.13	5.05	3.97	2.58	6.59	5.11	3.63	3.17
Resp-4	Keeping users informed	5.75	4.71	3.67	2.95	6.12	4.96	3.79	3.91	6.19	5.32	4.44	3.88	6.16	5.05	3.94	2.72	6.62	5.07	3.51	3.04
Resp-5	Sincerity of employees on the job	6.11	5.02	3.92	3.16	6.27	5.15	4.02	4.28	6.28	5.41	4.54	3.94	6.14	5.13	4.12	2.86	6.66	5.17	3.68	3.04
Com-6	Ability to make quick solution	5.89	4.76	3.63	3.10	6.19	5.05	3.91	4.16	6.17	5.23	4.29	3.71	6.16	5.08	4.00	2.67	6.47	4.97	3.47	3.15
Com-7	Academic fitness of employees	5.99	4.93	3.86	3.40	6.17	5.05	3.93	4.47	6.23	5.34	4.45	3.92	6.13	5.10	4.07	2.64	6.60	5.06	3.52	3.11
Com-8	Professional skills of employees	6.11	5.03	3.94	3.49	6.18	5.05	3.92	4.23	6.22	5.36	4.49	3.82	6.30	5.15	4.00	2.83	6.36	4.93	3.49	3.21
Com-9	Ability to guide the users properly	5.99	4.92	3.85	3.29	6.11	4.94	3.77	4.26	6.25	5.34	4.42	4.06	6.07	4.96	3.84	2.76	6.49	4.96	3.43	3.15
Com-10	Ability to understand users’ problems	5.95	4.85	3.75	3.18	6.18	5.01	3.83	4.15	6.32	5.40	4.47	3.96	6.13	5.08	4.03	2.78	6.51	5.03	3.55	3.13
Dem-11	Courtesy & friendliness of employees	6.04	4.97	3.90	3.38	6.21	5.11	4.00	4.28	6.22	5.35	4.48	4.18	6.15	5.08	4.01	2.71	6.49	4.91	3.32	3.21
Dem-12	Customer care skills	5.92	4.85	3.78	3.17	6.24	5.14	4.04	4.32	6.25	5.34	4.43	3.86	6.24	5.06	3.88	2.78	6.32	4.91	3.49	3.38
Dem-13	Reliable personality	5.91	4.88	3.84	3.47	5.99	4.96	3.92	4.12	6.18	5.33	4.48	3.77	6.16	5.12	4.07	2.75	6.62	4.98	3.34	3.17
Dem-14	Customer empathy	5.70	4.70	3.70	3.27	6.05	4.95	3.85	4.32	6.24	5.33	4.42	3.78	6.16	5.10	4.03	2.75	6.57	5.05	3.53	3.34
Res-15	Sufficient number of documents	5.95	4.78	3.60	3.83	5.78	4.71	3.63	3.98	6.32	5.25	4.17	4.11	5.97	4.92	3.87	2.91	6.47	4.87	3.26	2.66
Res-16	Up to date resources	5.89	4.80	3.71	3.32	5.93	4.81	3.69	3.86	6.33	5.32	4.30	3.79	6.18	5.20	4.21	2.68	6.55	4.95	3.34	2.79
Res-17	Usefulness of resources/collections	5.90	4.92	3.93	3.68	6.04	4.90	3.75	4.00	6.30	5.29	4.28	3.92	6.37	5.25	4.12	2.72	6.55	4.98	3.40	2.89
Res-18	Easy access to documents	6.05	4.97	3.88	3.63	6.27	5.04	3.80	4.06	6.49	5.48	4.47	4.54	6.34	5.19	4.03	2.70	6.47	4.98	3.49	2.96
Res-19	Latest information services & facilities	6.07	5.01	3.94	3.22	6.16	5.01	3.85	3.94	6.23	5.24	4.25	3.88	6.18	5.08	3.97	2.57	6.43	4.99	3.54	3.09
Res-20	E-resources availability & accessibility	5.83	4.79	3.74	3.03	6.25	5.08	3.90	3.86	6.21	5.23	4.24	3.81	6.28	5.21	4.13	2.14	6.45	5.01	3.57	3.06
Res-21	Sufficient modern technological tools	5.99	4.88	3.77	3.11	6.14	4.96	3.78	3.98	6.37	5.26	4.15	3.76	5.99	4.94	3.88	2.22	6.51	5.06	3.60	3.11
Tan-22	Appropriate study environment	6.30	5.23	4.15	3.78	6.33	5.19	4.04	4.68	6.37	5.56	4.74	4.39	6.20	5.19	4.18	2.81	6.45	5.05	3.64	3.09
Tan-23	Adequate space for study & learning	6.28	5.29	4.29	3.60	6.44	5.33	4.21	4.53	6.42	5.58	4.74	4.55	6.38	5.20	4.01	2.65	6.55	5.03	3.51	3.17
Tan-24	Documents are in the right place	6.16	5.11	4.05	3.55	6.23	5.14	4.04	4.28	6.47	5.55	4.62	4.21	6.10	5.09	4.07	2.53	6.55	5.05	3.55	3.19
Tan-25	Users can complain & suggest easily	5.92	4.87	3.82	2.99	6.08	5.04	3.99	4.22	6.36	5.46	4.56	3.82	6.13	5.04	3.94	2.49	6.60	5.11	3.62	3.21
Tan-26	Suitable & convenient library hours	6.29	5.28	4.27	4.32	6.34	5.25	4.15	4.53	6.44	5.61	4.77	4.60	6.38	5.26	4.13	2.96	6.64	5.12	3.60	3.36

DUL = Dhaka University Library; JUL = Jahangirnagar University Library; RUL = Rajshahi University Library; CUL = Chittagong University Library; JNUL = Jagannath University Library; P = Perception of service performance; ME = Minimum expectation; RE = Real expectation; DE = Desired expectation.

Figure 2.

Evaluating service performance using SPCM model. P = Perception of service performance; ME = Minimum expectation; RE = Real expectation; DE = Desired expectation; DUL = Dhaka University Library; JUL = Jahangirnagar University Library; RUL = Rajshahi University Library; CUL = Chittagong University Library; JNUL = Jagannath University Library.

Figure 2 shows that no service items for any university library go beyond the improvement zone, that is, no university library has the ability to satisfy users’ expectations even for a single service item. In terms of individual service performance of each university library, the result suggests that all items for DUL except ‘sufficient number of documents’ and ‘suitable and convenient library hours’, and RUL except for ‘easy access to documents’ do not meet users’ needs. The entire service items for CUL and JNUL do not meet users’ needs. On the other hand, all service items for JUL excepting ‘e-resources availability and accessibility’ demonstrate the ability to meet users’ minimum service needs.

To compare the differences between users’ perceived services (P) and their expectations (DE, RE and ME), separate Wilcoxon signed-ranks tests (Z statistic) were conducted (Table 6). The result of the comparison between P&DE and P&RE shows that all perceived (P) scores are negatively signed after ranking with two-tailed significant value p<0.05 across the universities. This finding indicates that the perceived scores are significantly lower than DE and RE scores. On the other hand, the comparison between P&ME shows that 25 perceived (P) scores in JNUL, two items in DUL and one item in RUL are negatively signed with two-tailed significant difference (p<0.05) for several items, which suggests that these services meet students’ minimum expectations. Overall, the results of the study indicate the efficacy of SPCM in assessing the service quality of academic libraries.

Table 6.

Results of Wilcoxon signed-ranks test (Z statistics).

Item Code	DUL			JUL			RUL			CUL			JNUL
Item Code	P&DE	P&RE	P&ME	P&DE	P&RE	P&ME	P&DE	P&RE	P&ME	P&DE	P&RE	P&ME	P&DE	P&RE	P&ME
Resp-01	–10.541*a	–9.259*a	–4.833*b	–8.322*a	–6.657*a	–2.017*a	–7.077*a	–6.516*a	–3.199*b	–7.139*a	–7.200*a	–5.601*b	–6.050*a	–5.998*a	–4.039*b
Resp-02	–10.449*a	–9.700*a	–5.132*b	–8.078*a	–6.259*a	–1.575a	–6.796*a	–6.333*a	–3.259*b	–7.211*a	–7.086*a	–5.893*b	–6.127*a	–5.935*a	–2.852*b
Resp-03	–10.327*a	–9.457*a	–4.937*b	–8.251*a	–6.085*a	–1.246a	–7.156*a	–6.309*a	–2.572*b	–7.303*a	–7.156*a	–5.591*b	–6.002*a	–5.998*a	–2.455*b
Resp-04	–10.310*a	–9.320*a	–4.876*b	–8.419*a	–6.417*a	–1.887a	–7.261*a	–6.783*a	–3.734*b	–7.254*a	–7.194*a	–6.355*b	–6.053*a	–5.932*a	–3.139*b
Resp-05	–10.364*a	–9.271*a	–4.865*b	–8.372*a	–7.029*a	–1.154a	–7.093*a	–6.852*a	–3.645*b	–7.322*a	–7.138*a	–5.771*b	–6.097*a	–6.008*a	–3.399*b
Com-06	–10.254*a	–8.788*a	–3.136*b	–8.373*a	–5.303*a	–4.073*a	–7.156*a	–6.436*a	–3.055*b	–7.330*a	–7.144*a	–6.296*b	–6.078*a	–5.931*a	–2.732*b
Com-07	–10.196*a	–9.126*a	–3.476*b	–8.330*a	–6.892*a	–2.582*a	–7.083*a	–6.462*a	–3.400*b	–7.233*a	–7.271*a	–5.982*b	–6.057*a	–5.879*a	–1.985*b
Com-08	–10.442*a	–9.351*a	–4.035*b	–8.518*a	–6.216*a	–4.100*a	–7.029*a	–6.174*a	–2.107*b	–7.317*a	–7.027*a	–5.075*b	–6.056*a	–6.010*a	–2.285*b
Com-09	–10.338*a	–9.201*a	–4.110*b	–8.245*a	–6.994*a	–2.661*a	–6.964*a	–6.432*a	–2.945*b	–7.146*a	–7.248*a	–6.107*b	–6.075*a	–5.999*a	–2.655*b
Com-10	–10.455*a	–9.147*a	–3.630*b	–8.427*a	–6.468*a	–1.822a	–8.427*a	–6.561*a	–3.329*b	–7.311*a	–7.260*a	–6.206*b	–6.092*a	–6.007*a	–2.615*b
Dem-11	–10.059*a	–8.942*a	–3.451*b	–8.142*a	–6.112*a	–2.188*a	–6.860*a	–6.000*a	–2.006*b	–7.176*a	–7.085*a	–5.946*b	–6.055*a	–5.685*a	–.791b
Dem-12	–10.690*a	–9.793*a	–4.055*b	–8.268*a	–6.285*a	–1.923a	–7.128*a	–6.693*a	–3.391*b	–7.108*a	–6.903*a	–4.877*b	–6.046*a	–5.933*a	–.803b
Dem-13	–10.093*a	–8.712*a	–3.092*b	–8.058*a	–6.491*a	–1.856a	–7.090*a	–6.814*a	–4.225*b	–7.190*a	–7.071*a	–5.911*b	–6.092*a	–6.018*a	–1.329b
Dem-14	–10.094*a	–8.752*a	–3.086*b	–8.035*a	–5.004*a	–3.281*a	–7.143*a	–6.701*a	–3.566*b	–7.261*a	–7.131*a	–5.919*b	–6.087*a	–5.999*a	–1.437b
Res-15	–9.635*a	–6.258*a	–1.481a	–8.322*a	–6.289*a	–2.806*a	–6.985*a	–5.716*a	–.223b	–7.261*a	–7.141*a	–5.152*b	–6.069*a	–6.017*a	–4.772*b
Res-16	–10.204*a	–8.421*a	–2.459*b	–8.214*a	–6.605*a	–1.538a	–7.146*a	–6.368*a	–2.654*b	–7.229*a	–7.200*a	–6.578*b	–6.059*a	–5.999*a	–3.896*b
Res-17	–10.145*a	–8.569*a	–1.936b	–8.283*a	–7.094*a	–2.308*a	–7.140*a	–6.630*a	–2.250*b	–7.258*a	–7.208*a	–6.100*b	–6.055*a	–6.004*a	–3.682*b
Res-18	–10.249*a	–8.427*a	–1.790b	–8.471*a	–7.064*a	–2.092*a	–6.862*a	–6.081*a	–.543a	–7.198*a	–7.109*a	–6.358*b	–6.041*a	–5.927*a	–3.180*b
Res-19	–10.273*a	–9.201*a	–4.238*b	–8.322*a	–7.347*a	–.818a	–7.232*a	–6.729*a	–2.405*b	–7.201*a	–6.978*a	–5.734*b	–6.051*a	–5.926*a	–2.887*b
Res-20	–10.063*a	–8.775*a	–4.375*b	–8.294*a	–7.589*a	–.175b	–6.846*a	–6.104*a	–1.929b	–7.264*a	–7.233*a	–6.673*b	–6.061*a	–6.006*a	–3.870*b
Res-21	–10.278*a	–9.017*a	–4.043*b	–8.361*a	–6.931*a	–1.747a	–7.191*a	–6.477*a	–1.991*b	–7.300*a	–7.238*a	–6.505*b	–6.092*a	–5.946*a	–3.667*b
Tan-22	–10.187*a	–8.383*a	–2.498*b	–7.953*a	–3.651*a	–3.719*a	–6.763*a	–6.149*a	–2.260*b	–7.199*a	–7.141*a	–6.062*b	–6.048*a	–5.995*a	–3.788*b
Tan-23	–10.168*a	–8.895*a	–4.212*b	–8.145*a	–5.501*a	–2.109*a	–6.934*a	–5.803*a	–1.179b	–7.278*a	–7.196*a	–6.460*b	–6.066*a	–6.004*a	–2.607*b
Tan-24	–10.468*a	–8.829*a	–2.923*b	–8.459*a	–6.605*a	–1.733a	–7.260*a	–6.889*a	–3.124*b	–7.270*a	–7.148*a	–6.565*b	–6.070*a	–6.002*a	–2.633*b
Tan-25	–10.368*a	–9.185*a	–4.838*b	–8.173*a	–6.227*a	–2.043*a	–7.235*a	–7.028*a	–4.348*b	–7.298*a	–7.139*a	–6.316*b	–6.058*a	–5.936*a	–2.744*b
Tan-26	–9.755*a	–6.316*a	–.362a	–8.379*a	–5.839*a	–2.751*a	–6.381*a	–5.597*a	–1.486b	–7.299*a	–7.195*a	–5.265*b	–6.051*a	–5.999*a	–1.773b

Note: a = based on negative ranks; b = based on positive ranks; *Significant at p<0.05 (2-tailed).

The effect of service performance using the SPCM method is summarized in Table 7. This indicates that no service items in any of the university libraries are found to be within maintain or excellent zones. The majority of items for DUL and RUL, all items for CUL and JNUL, but only one item ‘e-resources availability and accessibility’ for JUL, fall within the (X¹) problematic zone. These items are not at all capable of meeting users’ needs. These university libraries need prompt action to recover their performance. Whilst all of JUL with the exception of ‘e-resources availability and accessibility’, and only two items of DUL (e.g. ‘sufficient number of documents’ and ‘suitable and convenient library hours’) and one item of RUL (e.g. ‘easy access to documents’) are shown to have better perceived performance and are capable of meeting users’ minimum needs, these services also require improvement as they are on the border of the (X²) improvement zone adjacent to the problematic zone.

Table 7.

Result of SPCM in meeting users’ needs for service.

Item Code	Statement	Meeting users’ service needs
Item Code	Statement	DUL	JUL	RUL	CUL	JNUL
Resp-1	Willingness to help users	Unmet	Met	Unmet	Unmet	Unmet
Resp-2	Giving personal attention to users	Unmet	Met	Unmet	Unmet	Unmet
Resp-3	Giving quick and timely service to users	Unmet	Met	Unmet	Unmet	Unmet
Resp-4	Keeping users informed	Unmet	Met	Unmet	Unmet	Unmet
Resp-5	Sincerity of employees on the job	Unmet	Met	Unmet	Unmet	Unmet
Com-6	Ability to make quick solution	Unmet	Met	Unmet	Unmet	Unmet
Com-7	Academic fitness of employees	Unmet	Met	Unmet	Unmet	Unmet
Com-8	Professional skills of employees	Unmet	Met	Unmet	Unmet	Unmet
Com-9	Ability to guide the users properly	Unmet	Met	Unmet	Unmet	Unmet
Com-10	Ability to understand users’ problems	Unmet	Met	Unmet	Unmet	Unmet
Dem-11	Courtesy and friendliness of employees	Unmet	Met	Unmet	Unmet	Unmet
Dem-12	Customer care skills	Unmet	Met	Unmet	Unmet	Unmet
Dem-13	Reliable personality	Unmet	Met	Unmet	Unmet	Unmet
Dem-14	Customer empathy	Unmet	Met	Unmet	Unmet	Unmet
Res-15	Sufficient number of documents	Met	Met	Unmet	Unmet	Unmet
Res-16	Up to date resources	Unmet	Met	Unmet	Unmet	Unmet
Res-17	Usefulness of resources/collections	Unmet	Met	Unmet	Unmet	Unmet
Res-18	Easy access to documents	Unmet	Met	Met	Unmet	Unmet
Res-19	Latest information services and facilities	Unmet	Met	Unmet	Unmet	Unmet
Res-20	E-resources availability and accessibility	Unmet	Unmet	Unmet	Unmet	Unmet
Res-21	Sufficient modern technological tools	Unmet	Met	Unmet	Unmet	Unmet
Tan-22	Appropriate study environment	Unmet	Met	Unmet	Unmet	Unmet
Tan-23	Adequate space for study and learning	Unmet	Met	Unmet	Unmet	Unmet
Tan-24	Documents are at the right place	Unmet	Met	Unmet	Unmet	Unmet
Tan-25	Users can complain and suggest easily	Unmet	Met	Unmet	Unmet	Unmet
Tan-26	Suitable and convenient library hours	Met	Met	Unmet	Unmet	Unmet

DUL = Dhaka University Library; JUL = Jahangirnagar University Library; RUL = Rajshahi University Library; CUL = Chittagong University Library; JNUL = Jagannath University Library.

To establish the order of improvement priority for individual service items, the degree of users’ expected and perceived opinions (see Table 5) were compared using the SPCM method. The priority for improving current performance levels for each individual service item is shown in Table 8. It is observed, that for DUL that most of the items that require top priority for improvement are staff-related. Most of the top priority items for improvement by JUL are related to resources. The top priority items for RUL are related to staff and resource factors, and for CUL improvement priorities are related to resources and physical environment factors. Overall, the majority of items requiring top improvement priority are related to resources.

Table 8.

Priority ranking for improving performance of service items.

Item Code	Statement	Priority ranking of individual service item
Item Code	Statement	DUL	JUL	RUL	CUL	JNUL
Resp-1	Willingness to help users	4	16	9	17	15
Resp-2	Giving personal attention to users	1	11	14	26	16
Resp-3	Giving quick and timely service to users	11	15	13	6	17
Resp-4	Keeping users informed	2	3	11	13	5
Resp-5	Sincerity of employees on the job	8	18	17	23	6
Com-6	Ability to find quick solution	6	12	1	9	13
Com-7	Academic fitness of employees	17	23	15	7	10
Com-8	Professional skills of employees	19	14	7	22	21
Com-9	Ability to guide the users properly	14	17	19	18	14
Com-10	Ability to understand users’ problems	10	10	18	19	12
Dem-11	Courtesy and friendliness of employees	16	19	21	12	22
Dem-12	Customer care skills	9	21	10	20	26
Dem-13	Reliable personality	18	9	3	15	18
Dem-14	Customer empathy	13	22	4	16	24
Res-15	Sufficient number of documents	25	5	20	24	1
Res-16	Up to date resources	15	2	5	10	2
Res-17	Usefulness of resources/collections	23	7	16	14	3
Res-18	Easy access to documents	22	8	26	11	4
Res-19	Latest information services and facilities	12	4	12	5	8
Res-20	E-resources availability and accessibility	5	1	6	1	7
Res-21	Sufficient modern technological tools	7	6	2	2	11
Tan-22	Appropriate study environment	24	26	23	21	9
Tan-23	Adequate space for study and learning	21	24	24	8	19
Tan-24	Documents are in the right place	20	20	22	4	20
Tan-25	Users can complain and suggest easily	3	13	8	3	23
Tan-26	Suitable and convenient library hours	26	25	25	25	25

DUL = Dhaka University Library; JUL = Jahangirnagar University Library; RUL = Rajshahi University Library; CUL = Chittagong University Library; JNUL = Jagannath University Library.

Discussion and conclusions

The main aim of this study was to develop an assessment model to evaluate the service performance of academic libraries. As part of this, a tool called Service Performance Control Matrix (SPCM) was developed to report the level of service performance and to provide strategic directions to sustain, improve or recover service performance. To determine the appropriateness of the SPCM model, data were gathered from five university libraries in Bangladesh. A modified version of the five-dimensional SERVQUAL (e.g. resources, competence, responsiveness, demeanour, and tangibles) formed the questionnaire. The results of this study indicate that SPCM could be used to assess the service performance of academic libraries. It could also provide a guideline for administrators to determine the order of priority to be given to an individual item for improving the service quality.

The research findings provide a deep insight into the existing performance of the university libraries studied from many service attributes. With resource constraints on academic libraries in developing countries, it is essential to determine priorities for service improvement. This study shows how to establish improvement priorities for service items based on SPCM. This can be used as an essential indicator to devise an appropriate strategy for improving service quality of academic libraries. Our research argues that SPCM could provide a broad–based assessment of service effectiveness from the users’ points of view by tracking trends and performance across the academic libraries. Moreover, it could help with planning the most appropriate and feasible assessment strategy for each of the service items that make up service quality.

Limitations and future research directions

There are a number of limitations in the design of this study. First, the number of respondents from several participating universities was low compared to the total number of students in those universities. Secondly, most students responding to the survey do not seem to use the library on a regular basis. More representation from regular library users could perhaps illustrate the SPCM model better. Thirdly, the model provides directions for service improvement but it does not show how and in what ways the service items could be improved.

Despite these limitations, the results of this study suggest that SPCM could provide a broad-base framework for assessing library service performance. Future research should seek to examine the applicability of SPCM to different types of libraries and information institutions. Another area for future research is understanding the relationship between internal service quality, that is, employee satisfaction with services rendered by the service provider and external customer satisfaction as well as other constructs, such as employee service orientation and how to incorporate these in the current SPCM. With more research effort, we expect the SPCM to be evolved as a practical solution to assessing library service performance worldwide.

References

Ahmed

SMZ

Shoeb

MZH

(2009) Measuring service quality of a public university library in Bangladesh using SERVQUAL. Performance Measurement and Metrics 10(1): 17–32.

Andaleeb

Simmonds

(1998) Explaining user satisfaction with academic libraries: Strategic implication. College & Research Libraries 59(2): 156–167.

Bawden

Petuchovaite

Vilar

(2005) Are we effective? How would we know? Approaches to the evaluation of library services in Lithuania, Slovenia and the United Kingdom. New Library World 106(1216/1217): 454–463.

Bower

Dennis

(2007) How to get more from your quantitative LibQUAL+^TM dataset: Making results practical. Performance Measurement and Metrics 8(2): 110–126.

Chen

(2012) Integrating service quality model in quality improvement: An empirical study of employees satisfaction for hot spring industry. Information Technology Journal 11(5): 658–665.

Chen

Yang

Lin

Yeh

(2007) Service quality attributes determine improvement priority. TQM Magazine 19(2): 162–175.

Chen

Yang

Shiau

Wang

(2006) The development of an employee satisfaction model for higher education. TQM Magazine 18(5): 484–500.

Chen

Yeh

Chen

(2011) Integration SERVQUAL model and performance control matrix to improve service quality for the hot spring industry. African Journal of Business Management 5(13): 5378–5387.

Cheng

Tam

(1997) Multi-models of quality in education. Quality Assurance in Education 5: 22–31.

10.

Cronin

Taylor

(1992) Measuring service quality: A re-examination and extension. Journal of Marketing 56(3): 55–68.

11.

Cullen

(2001) Perspectives on user satisfaction surveys: Academic libraries. Library Trends 49(4): 662–686.

12.

Duffy

Ketchard

(1998) Examining the role of service quality in overall satisfaction. Journal of Managerial Issues 10(2): 240–255.

13.

Goodman

(2009) Strategic Customer Service: Managing the Customer Experience to Increase Positive Word of Mouth, Build Loyalty, and Maximize Profits (1st edn). New York, NY: American Management Association.

14.

Halstead

Hartman

Schmidt

(1994) Multisource effects on the satisfaction formation process. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 22(2): 114–129.

15.

Hernon

Altman

(1996) Service Quality in Academic Libraries. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.

16.

Hernon

Nitecki

Altman

(1999) Service quality and customer satisfaction: An assessment and future directions. Journal of Academic Librarianship 25(1): 9–17.

17.

Hung

Huang

Chen

(2003) Service quality evaluation by service quality performance matrix. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence 14(1): 79–89.

18.

Johnson

(1998) Customer Orientation and Market Action. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

19.

Lin

Chen

(2005) Evaluation of performance in introducing CE marking on the European market to the machinery industry in Taiwan. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management 22(5): 503–517.

20.

Lin

Chen

Jang

(2006) Performance evaluation of introducing QS-9000 to the Taiwanese semiconductor industry. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 27(9/10): 1011–1020.

21.

Miller

Jones

Winick

(2007) Proceedings of the Second Midwest United States Association for Information Systems. Springfield, IL (18–19 May).

22.

Nadiri

Mayboudi

SMA

(2010) Diagnosing university students’ zone of tolerance from university library services. Malaysian Journal of Library & Information Science 15(1): 1–21.

23.

Nagata

Satoh

Gerrard

Kytomaki

(2004) The dimensions that construct the evaluation of service quality in academic libraries. Performance Measurement and Metrics 5(2): 53–65.

24.

Nunnally

Bernstein

(1994) Psychometric Theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

25.

Parasuraman

(1986) Customer-orientated organizational culture: A key to successful services marketing. In: Venkatesan

Schmalensee

Marshall

(eds) Creativity in Services Marketing: What’s New, What Works, What’s Developing. Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association, pp. 73–77.

26.

Parasuraman

Berry

Zeithaml

(1991) Refinement and reassessment of SERVQUAL scale. Journal of Retailing 67(4): 420–450.

27.

Parasuraman

Zeithaml

Berry

(1985) A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. Journal of Marketing 49(Fall): 41–50.

28.

Parasuraman

Zeithaml

Berry

(1988) SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing 64(1): 12–40.

29.

Parasuraman

Zeithaml

Berry

(1994) Reassessment of expectations as a comparison standard in measuring service quality: Implications for future research. Journal of Marketing 58: 111–124.

30.

Patterson

Johnson

(1993) Disconfirmation of expectations and the gap model of service quality: An integrated paradigm. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior 6: 90–99.

31.

Pindlowa

(2002) High-quality information services to users as the fundamental necessity for building a modern information society in the European Union. In: EBIB Electronic Information Bulletin for Librarians (No. 2). Available at: http://ebib.oss.wroc.pl/english/grant/pindlowa.php (accessed 20 May 2005).

32.

Satoh

Nagata

Kytomaki

Gerrard

(2005) Evaluation of the university library service quality: Analysis through focus group interview. Performance Measurement and Metrics 6(3): 183–193.

33.

Shoeb

MZH

(2011) Identifying service superiority, zone of tolerance and underlying dimensions: Service quality attributes in a private university library in Bangladesh. Library Review 60(4): 293–311.

34.

Simmonds

Andaleeb

(2001) Usage of academic libraries: The role of service quality, resources, and user characteristics. Library Trends 49(4): 626–634.

35.

Turk

(2007) Building a culture of quality assurance in the libraries of the University of Ljubljana. New Library World 108(3/4): 177–182.

36.

Van Dyke

Kappelman

Prybutok

(1997) Measuring information systems service quality: Concerns on the use of the SERVQUAL questionnaire. Management Information Systems (MIS) Quarterly 21(2): 195–208.

37.

Yang

(2003) Improvement actions based on the customers’ satisfaction survey. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence 14(8): 919–930.

38.

Yang

(2007) A systems approach to service development in a concurrent engineering environment. Service Industries Journal 27(5): 635–652.

39.

Zeithaml

Parasuraman

Berry

(1990) Delivering Quality Service: Balancing Customer Perceptions and Expectations. New York, NY: Free Press.