Let users judge the

quality of faculty
library services
Boris Snoj and
Zdenka Petermanec
Introduction
Nowadays librarians find themselves in a
situation where they cannot just be satisfied
with the classical orientation of offering books
and periodicals, but where they also have to
consider their target users. The main aim of
this article is to stimulate librarians in their
thinking about this new role they have been
given more or less unwillingly by the
advent of new informational technologies,
globalization of supply, new competitors and
not least by the needs and expectations of
their users.
The role of libraries in the current
environment
At the end of the 1960s Bell alerted us about
the coming of the post-industrial society,
which was later more precisely termed the
``service society'', or, picking up on the
dominant new technology of our age, the
``information society'' (Snoj, 1992, p. 9).
What counts in such a society is not physical
or mechanical strength, but intellectual and
professional knowledge, based on the power
of information. Its efficiency is not measured
by quantitative standards but in terms of life
quality, harmonised with nature.
Libraries were once the major players in the
information industry, dominating the field for
centuries. According to Line (Jordan, 1998,
p. 31) throughout history libraries were
mainly responsible for collection and
processing procedures and engaged almost
exclusively with themselves. Until recently
they did not feel the pressure of market forces
and did not depend on the successful selling
of their services.
Today, however, trends are different.
Academic research libraries are confronting a
watershed of change, more compelling than
anything encountered by the world of
scholarship since the advent of the printing
press in the fifteenth century (Cook and
Thompson, 2000, p. 248). Owing to the
accelerated pace of change in their
environment, they are increasingly confronted
with problems of survival and development.
As informational centers they are but one
group of players in competition with
increasing numbers of others, such as
vendors, publishers, mass media, online
services and the Internet, each of them
The authors
Boris Snoj is Professor of Marketing and
Zdenka Petermanec is the Head of Library, both at the
Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Maribor,
Slovenia.
Keywords
Academic libraries, Library services, Marketing,
Service levels, Service quality, Slovenia
Abstract
The introduction stresses the role of the library in the
environment and the importance of marketing thinking in
the management practice of libraries. The main
characteristics of library services as well as the
importance and the definition of the perceived quality of
services are dealt with. Reveals the current situation
concerning research into service quality in libraries, and
focuses on the structure of importance and the level of
the service quality components in the library at the Faculty
of Economics and Business at the University of Maribor,
Slovenia. Discusses the reasons for the project and its
goals, analyzes the results and submits proposals for the
improvement of the overall service quality in libraries.
Electronic access
The research register for this journal is available at
http://www.mcbup.com/research_registers
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is
available at
http://www.emerald-library.com/ft
Feature article
314
New Library World
Volume 102
.
Number 1168
.
2001
.
pp. 314324
# MCB University Press
.
ISSN 0307-4803
seeking a unique market niche and
competitive edge (Weingand, 1997, p. 32).
In Slovenia libraries do not engage in the
marketing of their core services the offering
of knowledge and facilitating access to
knowledge to different market segments
governed by the market forces of supply and
demand. Because of this, their services have a
low status and are undervalued, a situation
made more complex by the fact that benefits
for users derived from library services are
difficult to measure and hence to manage.
The competitive position of Slovenian
libraries is further complicated by the fact
that, unlike many of their competitors, they
are financed by the state or its agencies.
Therefore for many public opinion makers
they represent a ``necessary evil'', although
those segments of society who are responsible
for libraries swear to their social importance.
Resources given by the state are usually
scarce. To win these resources libraries have
to compete with numerous public
organizations (schools, museums, theaters,
research institutions, hospitals, the army, etc.)
These scarce resources have to be allocated
among different activities that generate
different costs. Such limited resources
determine their objectives, strategies and
activities (White, 1997, p. 116).
Education services at all levels in Slovenia
are still free of charge. This strengthens the
attitude that the value of library service is
something of little consequence, as it is free.
In numerous developed countries education
services often have to be paid for directly by
users, whose expectations of library services
are consequently higher than for those paying
indirectly through taxes (Broady-Preston and
Preston, 1999, p. 126).
Besides the intensified competition among
libraries and other public institutions for
funds, there are additional trends making the
situation even more challenging for libraries:
.
rising user expectations;
.
rising user sensitivity to the ``soft'' service
components, to the value of services
offered, and to their quality;
.
the boom of information technology;
.
the innovation explosion and the
acceleration of new knowledge;
.
the globalization of competition in all
major industries; and
.
organizational restructuring with
boundaries between functional areas
becoming more blurred.
Users of library services, confronted with
wider choice are becoming more and more
demanding. The more services that libraries
offer under market conditions, the more they
come to understand that their mission is to
provide continuous satisfaction for their
users. They are becoming aware of the fact
that their existence depends on their
relationship with the users of their services.
The current routine use of computers, e-mail
services and the Internet has amalgamated
jobs into global informational networks, and
libraries have become a key part of this
infrastructure. The relationship between the
users and the suppliers of library services will
depend to a large extent upon the way that
libraries redefine themselves to meet these
challenges.
Libraries are confronted with rapidly rising
and changing demands of the different
stakeholder segments on the one hand, and
the stagnating levels of marketing, financial,
and human resource management knowledge
on the other hand. If they want to survive and
progress to a successful future, they need to
invest far more in acquiring business
knowledge.
If they do not, they may:
.
become inefficient and ineffective in the
performance of their activities;
.
retain the attitude of being automatically
entitled to the resources from the state
budget;
.
have no capacity for communicating with
relevant target segments about their
competitive advantages; and
.
continue to reach key decisions on the
basis of unverified, fuzzy assumptions.
The importance of marketing knowledge
in the management of library services
Owing to trends in the library environment,
marketing knowledge has gained a special
status in the management of libraries.
However, it is symptomatic that libraries do
not use this knowledge correctly even in the
most developed countries (Fialkoff, 1998,
p. 82). Libraries need marketing knowledge to:
.
develop new services or make changes of
the existing ones to satisfy their users
better;
.
improve their organizational status and
image to different stakeholders; and
thereby
.
improve their performance in general.
315
Let users judge the quality of faculty library services
Boris Snoj and Zdenka Petermanec
New Library World
Volume 102
.
Number 1168
.
2001
.
314324
Librarians need to comprehend marketing
orientation as well as have know-how of
marketing as a process.
As services comprise the fundamental
offering of the library, it is appropriate to
emphasize the meaning of the Latin word
``service''. This term consists of different
meanings such as: to work for somebody, to
serve somebody, to attend somebody, to take
care for somebody, to help, to satisfy, to
perform, etc. (Snoj, 1998, p. 32). All services
have to be essentially open towards the party
in exchange they have to be marketing-
oriented. Marketing-minded librarians should
continuously ask themselves fundamental
questions about the users of their services
such as: who they are, what they need, why
they need something, in what way they need
it, why they chose this service and not the
competitors', what components of the service
are important to them, how satisfied they are
with these components, what is the value of
components to them, which factors influence
their evaluation and choice of services, etc.
(Rowley, 1998, p. 81; Weingand, 1997,
pp. 14-21).
From the marketing perspective, the aims of
library services are to:
.
understand and satisfy user needs;
.
learn about the processes of information
searching; and
.
facilitate mutual dependence of the
parties in exchange processes,
respectively to allow the greatest possible
freedom in their interactions
(Mendelsohn, 1997, p. 551).
It is contact personnel in libraries who are in
frequent and close contact with users of their
services that have a pervasive impact on users'
perceptions of overall service value and
quality.
Contact employees must be both motivated
and able to:
.
deliver services at a professional level
giving accurate, clear, and available
information which at the least meets
users' expectations;
.
perform services on time;
.
recover when there has been a service
failure;
.
monitor, detect and satisfy users'
expectations regarding special
requests;
.
behave in ways that make users feel
secure and justly treated; and
.
act as supervisors and colleagues of
``internal users'' who are involved in
co-producing the service (Snoj, 1998,
p. 167; Weingand, 1997, p. 27).
Characteristics of library services
Services are interactions among people. Their
eminent characteristic is that they are bundles
of activities or processes. From the
perspective of the user, library services are
becoming more and more complex entities of
physical things (tangibles) and processes
(intangibles).
When managing library services, librarians
must understand their basic characteristics:
.
the nature of the process;
.
intangibility;
.
perishability;
.
variability;
.
user involvement in the performance;
.
people as part of the experience;
.
that users do not obtain ownership; and
.
the importance of time.
Users have problems in the conceptualization
of library services and, therefore, also in their
assessment. Usually they assess the value and
the quality of services on the basis of those
attributes upon which they feel they have the
capability for assessment, and they need
tangible clues to do this. Consequently, the
attributes of physical evidence, library image,
the impression made by contact employees,
and the soft attributes of library service
(knowledge, courtesy, friendliness, politeness,
empathy, promptness, accuracy,
individualized attention, ability to convey trust
and confidence) turn out to be strategically
important components of efficient and
effective management of library services.
Library services cannot be separated from
those who deliver the service or from active
user involvement during the time of service
delivery. Such involvement of personnel and
users in the operational system makes it
difficult to standardize and control service
variability and consequently this intensifies
user sensitivity towards service quality.
The importance and the definition of
perceived services quality
Neither the tangible product or service or the
known market is the starting point for
316
Let users judge the quality of faculty library services
Boris Snoj and Zdenka Petermanec
New Library World
Volume 102
.
Number 1168
.
2001
.
314324
management. What counts is value of the
offer perceived by users. This value is usually
different from the one perceived by the
supplier (Drucker, 2000). Therefore
librarians have to understand the difference
between the expected and perceived value
and quality of their services.
Better library performance depends on
numerous external and internal factors such
as the status of library in the external
environment, the degree of library
management autonomy in decision-making,
the professional level of managers and
employees, the internal quality of work life,
and employee loyalty. However, it undeniably
depends on the level of quality of library
services as perceived by users.
According to the results of numerous
research projects (Parasuraman et al., 1990;
Christopher, 1992; Zeithaml and Bitner,
1996; Kandampully, 1998; Snoj et al., 1999,
pp. 159-60) customers are becoming more
and more sensitive to service elements and the
overall quality of organizational output.
There is enormous evidence from studies
that high quality enhances profitability,
improves productivity, and strengthens the
competitive position (Cina, 1990; Heskett et
al., 1990; Teboul, 1991; Whiteley, 1991;
Lawrence and Early, 1992; Snoj, 1992;
Quinn and Humble, 1993; Anderson et al.,
1994; Iacobucci et al., 1994; Caruana et al.,
1995; Donaldson, 1995; Zeithaml and Bitner,
1996; Kandampully, 1998). Offering a high
quality service is one visible way by which an
organization can distinguish itself from its
competitors in building a close relationship
with customers and attaining a competitive
advantage (Durvasula et al., 1999, p. 133).
The quest for superior quality of its offerings
is one of the most important strategic
priorities confronting top management in all
kinds of organizations.
Thus concepts such as perceived quality,
customer satisfaction, perceived value and
customer loyalty have become mainstream in
managerial decisions (Gro nroos, 1998, p.
330). In consequence, long-term partnership
relations are facilitated by this effort invested
in perceived quality, customer satisfaction,
perceived value and customer loyalty (Snoj et
al., 1999, p. 36).
These concepts serve also as operational
goals for organizational effectiveness (Broady-
Preston and Preston, 1999, p. 125) and are
well documented pillars of the ``service profit
chain'' (Heskett et al., 1997)[1].
The construct of quality as conceptualized
in the service literature centers on the concept
of quality mainly from a marketing
perspective. Therefore, it deals with the
concept of perceived quality of service.
Perceived quality is defined as the consumers'
judgement about an entity's (service's) overall
excellence or superiority (Rowley, 1998,
p. 325).
The definition of quality is a difficult
problem because, throughout history,
technology has been built upon a human
ability to specify, measure and control
different concepts. As long as these concepts
can be specified on the basis of objectively
measurable phenomena like length, weight,
hardness, frequency, etc., we can set
standards and develop control procedures
based on these standards. But how should the
degree of excellence, luxury and satisfaction
or delight be translated into specifications and
standards (Snoj, 1995, p. 96)?
A comparison between the desired service
and the perceived service (the perceived
service superiority gap) reflects service quality
(Oliver, 1996, pp. 168-70).
Customer satisfaction, on the other hand, is
distinct from service quality assessments in
that satisfaction results from a comparison
between the predicted service (the level of
service customers believe is likely to occur)
and the perceived service.
Total quality in its broadest sense is
couched in the customers' subjective
understanding rather than in an objective
understanding of quality. So, the final
judgement is made by a human being from a
subjective point of view. However, mixed
findings exist in the literature regarding the
causal direction between these two constructs
(Lee et al., 2000, p. 222).
The present situation in the research of
service quality
The seminal literature on performance
measurement of library services has quite a
long history. Cullen points out that librarians
have, over the years, with varying degrees of
enthusiasm, attempted to measure or
demonstrate the quality of the service they
provide (Broady-Preston and Preston, 1999,
p. 124).
317
Let users judge the quality of faculty library services
Boris Snoj and Zdenka Petermanec
New Library World
Volume 102
.
Number 1168
.
2001
.
314324
Traditionally, the evaluation criteria of the
Association of Research Libraries (ARL)
emphasised objective descriptions of
collection sizes and other expenditure-driven
metrics. The same goes for libraries in
Slovenia as well. But more recently there has
been ``increasing pressure on libraries to
assess the degree to which their services
demonstrate criteria of quality''. The
emphasis on these measures of services
provided to library clientele requires librarians
not to equate ``quality'' merely with collection
size (Cook and Thompson, 2000, p. 248).
Unfortunately, relatively few measures that
can be used to evaluate customer perceptions
of library service have been developed (Cook
and Thompson, 2000, p. 248). Several
individual libraries have conducted
independent measures of user satisfaction and
characteristics of library use, but there are no
systematic reporting mechanisms for the
results among research libraries (Cook and
Thompson, 2000, p. 248).
Reasons for and goals of the research on
the importance and the level of service
quality components in a faculty library
The research study aimed to contribute to the
current efforts in the measurement of the
complex phenomenon of perceived quality of
faculty library services. At the same time there
was an attempt to establish some of the
fundamental elements required for the
management of the faculty library to control
the effects of their decisions in the field of
perceived service quality.
The most important reason for this choice
was the fact that importance profiles and
levels of service quality elements are positively
correlated in their impact on the perceived
value of the service, which has a pervasive
impact on business success (Brown, 1997,
p. 66).
In this way ISO standards and the IFLA
references (ISO/FDIS 11620, 1997; IFLA,
1996) can be supplemented by the results of
this research project in a faculty library in
Slovenia.
This principle was followed: ``what cannot
be measured cannot be controlled, what
cannot be controlled cannot be successfully
managed''.
The goals of the research were the:
.
identification of the importance levels of
faculty library service quality according to
groups of components;
.
assessment of the level of perceived
faculty library service quality according to
groups of components;
.
assessment of differences between
importance levels and levels of perceived
quality according to groups of
components;
.
assessment of the overall service quality in
a faculty library; and
.
determination of propositions from
interviewees for the improvement of
library services.
However, it is not the quantitative results that
are important for managerial decisions in
libraries, but rather the gaining of a new
understanding which could serve the
management in this faculty library as a
platform for the improvement of its services.
In addition, it can help other libraries in the
assessment of their own services.
Methodology
In researching the faculty library service
quality components, a list of 45 items was
used[2]. These were developed on the basis of
a list of service quality attributes derived from
preliminary interviewing of the student
population in the Faculty of Economics and
Business at the University of Maribor, which
was then corrected by reference to the most
commonly used components of service
quality in the library services literature
(Hernon and Altman, 1996; Calvert and
Hernon, 1997; ISO/FDIS 11620, 1997;
SERVQUAL/RATER scale in Hernon and
Altman, 1996 pp. 106-7; IFLA, 1996).
Thus the items were placed in five groups of
service quality components:
(1) physical surroundings, ambience;
(2) equipment and information technology;
(3) collection;
(4) information and library services; and
(5) staff.
The importance and the level of quality of
these components was measured by a
questionnaire using a five-point Likert scale
from ``1 = not important at all'' to ``5 = very
important''.
In the assessment of the overall faculty
library service quality a five-point Likert scale
318
Let users judge the quality of faculty library services
Boris Snoj and Zdenka Petermanec
New Library World
Volume 102
.
Number 1168
.
2001
.
314324
was employed using as the extremes ``1 = very
bad'' and ``5 = very good'' quality.
The results of the survey were processed by
means of the statistical package SPSS.
The structure of users' sample
The sample of respondents was chosen from
the users of library services. They can be
divided into three main segments students,
professors and assistants, and external
visitors. The data were collected from
respondents from all three groups who were
both regular visitors of the library and were
available during the period of data collection.
A representative sample of 393 respondents
participated in the study. They represented 8
per cent of all potential users of the faculty
library services.
Procedure
Primary data was collected through a written
questionnaire which was completed by
chosen users during classes and in the library,
under conditions of confidentiality, with
anonymity being guaranteed.
Interviewing was conducted in two stages,
the first being implemented at the end of the
study year, in May 2000, and the second at
the beginning of Spring exam period, in June
2000. This interviewing period was
deliberately chosen as a time of the study year
where students' usage of the library services
reaches its peak.
Results and discussion
Figure 1 shows mean scores of importance of
45 service quality components synthesized
into five major groups of components for all
groups of respondents. The results from
Figure 1 reveal that the ``staff'' group of
components was assessed as the most
important service quality group of
components followed by ``equipment and
information technology'' and ``collection''.
Surprisingly low scores were given to the
groups of components ``physical surroundings
and ambience'' and ``information and library
services''. The nature of a library service
requires users to stay for relatively long
periods and therefore there should be
appropriate physical surroundings and
ambient conditions. This result was
particularly surprising considering that the
physical surroundings of this faculty library
are not appropriate at all, especially regarding
its location and space allocation.
Even more surprising to the researchers was
the score given to the group of components
``information and library services''. Can it be
ascribed to its close link with the highly scored
``staff'' dimension or to a relatively high
degree of user autonomy?
The group of components ``staff'' was given
the highest score. Among individual variables
included in this component the most highly
scored were: ``professionalism'' followed by
``ease of communication'', ``reliability'' and
``appropriate attitude towards users''.
Within the group of components
``equipment and information technology'' the
respondents gave the highest score of
importance to ``computer service''.
Within ``collection'' respondents gave the
highest score to ``adequate number of
textbooks''.
Within ``physical surroundings and
ambience'' ``lighting'', ``ventilation'',
``marking on slips or labels'' and ``work
conditions'' score equally as the most
important components, whereas low scores
were given to ``furniture'' and ``library
location''.
The highest scores within the group of
components ``information and library
services'' were given to ``the use of Internet
and Ultranet'' and ``the facility to make a
reservation'', whilst the lowest scores were
given to ``classic list catalogue''.
As a comparison, from a study done in one
of the academic libraries in the USA, the six
Figure 1 Average importance levels according to groups of service
quality components
319
Let users judge the quality of faculty library services
Boris Snoj and Zdenka Petermanec
New Library World
Volume 102
.
Number 1168
.
2001
.
314324
most important dimensions of perceived
service quality are summarized:
(1) staff answer the questions accurately;
(2) materials are in their proper places on
well marked shelves;
(3) the library has current books and
journals;
(4) information about library materials is
accurate;
(5) equipment such as terminals,
photocopiers and printers are in operating
condition; and
(6) one feels safe and comfortable in the
library (Hernon and Altman, 1996,
p. 77).
From the individual service quality
components of the 45 components in this
study, the highest scores for importance
(arranged by order of importance) were given
to:
.
adequate number of titles available for
those frequently demanded X 4.71)
(X represents the ``mean value'' of the
scores);
.
ease of access to books and journals
(X 4.65);
.
staff professionalism (X 4.64);
.
the use of Internet and Ultranet (X 4.63);
.
up-to-date collections (X 4.60); and
.
the facility to make reservations (X 4.50).
The comparison of results from both studies
(the study done in one of the academic
libraries in the USA and this study) reveals
that three items correspond to the importance
of ``collection'', one to ``staff'' and one to
``equipment and information technology''.
Interestingly, the profiles of the most
important components of library activities
were almost identical in both cases.
Figure 2 shows mean scores for the level of
perceived quality for groups of its
components. The results indicate that the
``staff'' group of components was given the
highest score not only with regard to the level
of importance, but also for its level of the
perceived service quality. The obsolescence of
``equipment and information technology'' and
the inappropriateness of ``physical
surroundings and ambience'' are evident from
the scores of their levels of perceived quality.
Interestingly, scores given to ``staff'' and
``information and library services'' were also
high when an assessment regarding
administrative and other services was made
using a representative sample of faculty
professors and assistants at the same faculty in
another project relating to the international
evaluation of the faculty performance in 1999
(Z

izmond, 1999).
Among individual variables within the
group of components ``staff'', the highest
scores for quality were given to:
``professionalism'' followed by ``appropriate
attitude towards users'', ``correct answers'',
``ease of communication'' and ``appearance'',
and the lowest scores were given to:
``understanding of user's specific needs''.
Within the group of components
``information and library services'' the
respondents gave the highest score for the
level of perceived quality to ``the facility to
make reservations''.
Within ``collection'' the highest scores were
given to ``the connection of collection to study
programs'' followed by ``up-to-date
collections'' and ``free access''.
Within the group ``physical surroundings
and ambience'', surprisingly, the highest score
was given to ``library location'' whilst among
the items with the lowest score were
``ventilation'', ``lighting'', ``the number of
study places'' and ``conditions for individual
work''.
Items with the lowest scores within the
group of components ``equipment and
information technology'' were ``classic list
catalogue'' (which has recently been less
used) and ``the offering of OPAC and other
specialized databases'' (note that users'
knowledge of these is still very modest and
librarians should pay greater attention to the
education of users about the possibilities of
this information technology).
From the individual service quality
components out of all 45 components in our
study, the highest scores regarding the level of
Figure 2 The level of perceived quality according to groups of
components
320
Let users judge the quality of faculty library services
Boris Snoj and Zdenka Petermanec
New Library World
Volume 102
.
Number 1168
.
2001
.
314324
perceived quality were given to the following
items:
.
informational links with other libraries
(X 4.17);
.
personnel appearance (X 4.06);
.
computer search for items through
OPAC (X 4.05).
However, the lowest scores were given to:
.
number of study places (X 2.19);
.
number of computers (X 2.64); and
.
ventilation in the library (X 2.79).
It is obvious from Figure 3 that the level of
importance of perceived library quality within
all groups of components exceeds the level of
their perceived quality. The relatively highest
difference exists in the group ``equipment and
information technology''.
Analysis of the differences among individual
items reveals that the highest difference exists
in ``the adequate number of copies of titles''
and in ``the impact of users on the forming of
the collection''.
The reasons for these differences could be:
.
low level of communication between
librarians and users;
.
low level of librarians' knowledge of
users' needs and expectations;
.
neglect on the part of professors in
informing the librarians about obligatory
literature;
.
lengthy book processing procedure; and
.
inadequate number of copies of titles (not
enough copies of titles that are in high
demand).
Other reasons that are almost out of the
librarians' control could be the level of
technical sophistication of equipment and
information technology, the condition of the
physical surroundings, library location and
financial support. However, one of the
weapons for library management to alleviate
the users' expectations as far as the
importance and the level of the quality of
faculty library services is concerned is the
proper use of communication channels.
Regarding the content of Figure 3, four
possible solutions for the management of
faculty library services are:
(1) Where an individual item within the
group of components is given a relatively
low score regarding the level of its quality
(value < 3), and it is relatively not
important to the management (value < 3)
then this item can be improved, but not at
the expense of other items or by raising
the costs of running the library.
(2) Where an individual item within the
group of components is given the
relatively high score regarding the level
of its quality (value > 3), and it is
relatively unimportant to the
management (value < 3 ) then the
implementation of this item should not be
changed.
(3) Where an individual item within the
group of components is given a relatively
low score regarding the level of its quality
(value < 3), but it is relatively important
to the management (value > 3) then the
management of the library should take
care to improve it and regularly monitor
its improvement.
(4) Where an individual item within the
group of components is given a relatively
high score regarding the level of its quality
(value > 3), and it is relatively important
to the management (value > 3) then the
library and the faculty should use it as an
important component of its competitive
advantage.
The mean value of the overall faculty library
service quality from the aggregate of all
respondents was X = 3.67. The highest score
was given by professors and assistants, whilst
other groups assessed it at approximately
same but slightly lower level (Figure 4).
The most frequent proposals of the
respondents were those regarding the
improvement of low scored items of faculty
library service quality, such as the need for a
new enlarged library capacity, better ambient
conditions, new, more efficient equipment
and information technology, more computer
units and more books, longer opening hours
and friendlier personnel.
Figure 3 The assessment of differences between importance levels and
levels of perceived quality according to groups of components
321
Let users judge the quality of faculty library services
Boris Snoj and Zdenka Petermanec
New Library World
Volume 102
.
Number 1168
.
2001
.
314324
Limitations
However, in assessing the implications of this
research project its limitations must be
acknowledged:
.
the research project dealt only with a
sample of users in one faculty library in
Slovenia;
.
the research did not include all the users,
but only those willing to participate,
this fact could bring some deviation of
results;
.
in gathering data, a quantitative method
was used which alone cannot produce
correct results without the help of a
qualitative method;
.
in this paper, quantitative performance
measurement indicators, such as the
scope of the collection, its efficiency and
effectiveness which are among factors of
interest to the management of
organizations and other stakeholders are
not discussed;
.
some other data, analyses and results are
also not presented. However, they are
dealt with in a broader study (the
assessment of the levels of importance
and the levels of perceived quality
regarding different segments of faculty
library users, the frequency and length of
visits to the library, reasons for the
recommendation of library services to
potential users and the importance of user
training related to new library services)
(Petermanec, 2000).
Therefore the generalization of these findings
beyond the immediate population observed
should be taken with caution and should not
be understood as representing the situation
pertaining to faculty libraries in Slovenia in
general.
Conclusions
General definitions of the mission and
fundamental activities of libraries in modern
society are well known. Nobody would dare
to question their existence. However,
environmental dynamism is putting an
increasing pressure on libraries to deploy
more knowledge from business disciplines, if
they want to survive and prosper. In so doing
they can improve their image, reduce
inefficiency, increase the value and perceived
quality of their services, and provide for needs
of users, motivate employees and improve
their job satisfaction. Employees can be a
crucial asset for sustainable competitive
advantage in the management of libraries.
This fact was confirmed by the authors'
study.
It is well known that faculty libraries affect
the quality of student life, but this fact is not
always acknowledged by the academic
community. In the first instance, library
managers have had to satisfy faculty
management, which has usually recruited less
capable and low-paid personnel.
Consequently, perceived high quality service
has not been among the important criteria of
faculty library performance.
It is evident from the results that the quality
of faculty library services is a dynamic concept
that should be continuously monitored, with
special attention given to the assessment of
differences between the importance levels and
levels of perceived quality for identified
groups of components.
The continuous assessment of perceived
quality is one of the necessities confronting
management in all types of organizations.
However, in so doing there exists a crucial
difference between profit-oriented
organizations and libraries. Whilst the goal of
the quality assessment in the case of for-profit
organizations is to attain the highest profit
possible, the goal of libraries in such
assessment is to prove their social usefulness.
The empirical part of the study was not
intended to use an exact, statistically
sophisticated approach in data description.
Instead, it tried to synthesize the results in a
manner that can be easily comprehended by
librarians:
.
When comparing the results from the
study in Slovenia with the results of
similar studies carried out in developed
countries (USA, UK, New Zealand, etc.),
Figure 4 The assessment of the overall service quality in a faculty library
322
Let users judge the quality of faculty library services
Boris Snoj and Zdenka Petermanec
New Library World
Volume 102
.
Number 1168
.
2001
.
314324
it is obvious that the profiles of the most
important components of library activities
are almost identical in all cases.
.
The authors propose that researchers use
a combination of quantitative and
qualitative methods in order to avoid
limitations and to get better results in
measuring the complex, subjective
grounded concept of perceived service
quality.
.
The management of libraries should
introduce efficient work procedures and
change information technology from a
necessary evil into a really helpful servant.
.
The relatively low level of perceived
quality should be an early warning signal
for changes in library management.
Library managers should introduce
changes with prudence.
.
Library managers should strive to deploy
a user-focused attitude in their employees
through their own example. Librarians
should capitalize on the use of feed-back
information.
.
After an analysis of the assessment of
library performance, results have to be
submitted in the best possible way to
library personnel, to the users of library
services and to the management of the
wider organisation of which the library is
a part.
.
Librarians should be innovative and
forego traditional ways of approaching
professional problems and instead be
prepared to take the risk of making
changes.
Notes
1 Relations among profit, growth, customer loyalty,
customer satisfaction, service value, employee
productivity, employee loyalty, employee
satisfaction and internal quality of work life are well
documented in representative research of Heskett,
Sasser, Jr. and Schlessinger published under title
The Service Profit Chain in 1997.
2 For further detail see Petermanec (2000).
References
Anderson, E.W., Fornell, C. and Lehmann, D.R. (1994),
``Customer satisfaction, market share, and
profitability: findings from Sweden'', Journal of
Marketing, No. 58, pp. 53-66.
Broady-Preston, J. and Preston, H. (1999), ``Demonstrating
quality in academic libraries'', New Library World,
Vol. 100 No. 1148, pp. 124-9.
Brown, T.J. (1997), ``Using norms to improve the
interpretation of service quality measures'', The
Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 11 No. 1,
pp. 66-80.
Calvert, P. and Hernon, P. (1997), ``Surveying service
quality within university libraries'', The Journal of
Academic Librarianship, September, pp. 408-15.
Caruana, A., Pitt, L. and Morris, M. (1995), ``Are there
excellent service firms and do they perform well'',
Services Industries Journal, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 33-55.
Christopher, M. (1992), The Customer Service Planner,
Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
Cina, C. (1990), ``Five steps to service excellence'', The
Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 4 No. 2,
pp. 39-47.
Cook, C. and Thompson, B. (2000), ``Reliability and
validity of SERVQUAL scores used to evaluate
perceptions of library service quality'', The Journal
of Academic Librarianship, Vol. 26 No. 4,
pp. 248-58.
Donaldson, B. (1995), ``Customer service as competitive
strategy'', Journal of Strategic Marketing, No. 3,
pp. 113-26.
Drucker, P. (2000), ``Managerski izzivi v 21. stoletju''
(``Management challenges for the 21st century,
1999''), GV zalozba, Ljubljana.
Durvasula, S., Lysonski, S. and Mehta, S.C. (1999),
``Testing the SERVQUAL scale in business-to-
business sector: the case of ocean freight shipping
service'', The Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 13
No. 2, pp. 132-50.
Fialkoff, F. (1998), ``Marketing 101-again'', Library
Journal, December, p. 82-3.
Gro nroos, C. (1998), ``Marketing services: the case of a
missing product'', Journal of Business and Industrial
Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 4/5, pp. 322-38.
Hernon, P. and Altman, E. (1996), Service Quality in
Academic Libraries, Ablex Publishing, Norwood, IL.
Heskett, J.L., Sasser, W.E. Jr and Hart, C.W.L. (1990),
Service Breakthroughs Changing the Rules of the
Game, The Free Press, A Division of Macmillan,
New York, NY.
Heskett, J.L., Sasser, W.E. Jr and Schlesinger, L.A. (1997),
The Service Profit Chain, The Free Press, New York,
NY.
Iacobucci, D., Grayson, K.A. and Ostrom, A.L. (1994), ``The
calculus of service quality and customer satisfaction:
theoretical and empirical differentiation and
integration'', in Swartz, T.A., Bowen, D.E. and
Brown, S.W. (Eds), Advances in Services Marketing
and Management, Vol. 3, pp. 1-68.
IFLA (1996), Measuring Quality: International Guidelines
for Performance Measurement, IFLA Publication No.
76, Bowker-Saur, New Providence, NJ.
ISO/FDIS 11620:1997(E) International standard,
Information and documentation, Library
performance indicators (final draft).
Jordan, P. (1998), The Academic Library and Its Users,
Gower, Aldershot.
Kandampully, J. (1998), ``Service quality to service loyalty:
a relationship which goes beyond customer
services'', Total Quality Management, Vol. 9 No. 6,
pp. 431-43.
323
Let users judge the quality of faculty library services
Boris Snoj and Zdenka Petermanec
New Library World
Volume 102
.
Number 1168
.
2001
.
314324
Lawrence, D.M. and Early, J.F. (1992), ``Strategic
leadership for quality in health care'', Quality
Progress, Vol. 25, April, pp. 45-51.
Lee, H., Lee, Y. and Yoo, D. (2000), ``The determinants of
perceived service quality and its relationship with
satisfaction'', Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 14
No. 3, pp. 217-31.
Mendelsohn, J. (1997), ``Perspectives on quality of
reference service in an academic library'', RQ,
Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 544-57.
Oliver, R.L. (1996), Satisfaction. A Behavioral Perspective
on the Consumer, McGraw-Hill Company, New
York, NY.
Parasuraman A., Zeithaml V.A. and Berry L.L. (1990), An
Empirical Examination of Relationships in an
Extended Service Quality Model, Marketing Science
Institute, Cambridge, MA.
Petermanec, Z. (2000), ``Vrednotenje kakovosti knjiz nic nih
storitev" (``Evaluation the quality of library
services''), master theses, Filozofska Fakulteta,
Ljubljana.
Quinn, M. and Humble, J. (1993), ``Using service to gain a
competitive edge the PROMPT approach'', Long
Range Planning, No. 26, pp. 31-40.
Rowley, J. (1998), ``Quality measurement in the public
sector: some perspectives from the service quality
literature'', Total Quality Management, Vol. 9
No. 2/3, pp. 321-35.
Snoj, B. (1992), ``Storitve v menjalnih procesih in model
primerjalne analize njihove kakovosti na primeru
zdravilis c Republike Slovenije'', (``Services in
exchange processes and the comparative model of
their quality the case of health spas in Slovenia''),
Dissertation, Faculty of Economics and Business,
Maribor.
Snoj, B. (1995), ``The profiles of importance of service
quality components in health spas'', Der Markt,
Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 95-104.
Snoj, B. (1998), Management Storitev (Management of
services), Visoka s ola za management, Koper.
Snoj, B., Mumel D. and Male, V. (1999), ``Analiza
pomembnosti sestavin zaznane kakovosti storitev v
dveh slovenskih naravnih zdravilis c ih'' (``Analysis of
the importance of perceived quality of services in
two health spas in Slovenia''), Marketing conference
of Slovenian Marketing Association (DMS),
Portoroz , pp. 159-64.
Teboul, J. (1991), Managing Quality Dynamics, Prentice-
Hall International, London.
Weingand, D.E. (1997), Customer Services Excellence: A
Concise Guide for Librarians, ALA, Chicago, IL and
London.
White, H.S. (1997), ``Marketing as a tool for
destabilization'', Library Journal, 15 February,
pp. 116-7.
Whiteley, R.C. (1991), The Customer Driven Company
Moving from Talk to Action, Addison-Wesley
Publishing, Reading, MA.
Zeithaml, V.A. and Bitner, M.J. (1996), Services
Marketing, The McGraw-Hill Companies, New York,
NY.
Z

iz mond, E. (Ed.) (1999), Samoevalvacija (Self-evalvation),

Univerza v Mariboru, Ekonomsko-poslovna
fakulteta, Maribor.
324
Let users judge the quality of faculty library services
Boris Snoj and Zdenka Petermanec
New Library World
Volume 102
.
Number 1168
.
2001
.
314324