Introduction
The study topic generates a few queries that need responding prior to evaluating the basic concern to bridge the gap between client anticipations and service delivery. The queries include: which clients? Which gap? Various clients have various library requirements and anticipations.
It is necessary, thus, to ensure the study and concerns emerging from the study deal with challenges facing clients. Management feedbacks regarding all potential gaps between assumed anticipations and assumed service delivery must be tailored toward meeting the values of the specific client groups.
It will in addition be vital in identifying what is the library expectation for the client segments under study, for in the absence of this there cannot be definite gap in library provision to address. As described earlier, various clients can have various library needs.
Library managers may embark on researching a single service, and look into how this particular provision could be enhanced to reflect the different client groups that utilize such a service. Nevertheless, it is possible that the generality of service requires to be taken into account, and the most significant service bearing the largest gap becomes the centre for interest.
The paper proposes various procedures and study methods that can be utilized in identifying service needs and in measuring service delivery that can offer the gap assessment. Whereas the paper discusses an exact method, Client Value Detection, generally, the paper draws upon an extensive collection of service measure, promoting and library and information science (LIS) literature, in providing a basis to adopt the action plan needed for bridging a gap in client needs and service delivery.
Lastly, the paper discusses a few of the crucial recruitment concerns, particularly based on the library customs, that require to be dealt with if a change is to be applied in minimizing the gaps between client expectations and what is actually offered in a new setting of constant quality enhancement.
Library services have various client groups and it may not seem practical in addressing concerns for all client segments. The service delivery and promoting literature assess the significance to understand clients of a particular company. This is especially vital in a service industry like a university library. Various clients imply various service expectations (Ryan, 2006).
For example in a university environment, the client groups can be classified into wide portions: undergraduate level and postgraduate level learners; research level learners; teaching personnel and non-teaching staff. Nevertheless, it is feasible to further subdivide any of the above segments.
For example, undergraduate level could be further subdivided based on: discipline (e.g. business studies, education etc); methodology (part-time and full-time); demographic feature (native and foreign students; fresh and mature entrants; women and men learners; special students; etc).
In a public library environment, the client groups can be divided into: infant; young child; teenage; young adult; adult; aged citizen; physically impaired; parent; business and other members of the community; etc. A unique collection would in addition be capable of identifying various client groups. Indeed, any library facility could come up with numerous client groups.
It is crucial in identifying which client groups are to be considered prior to commencing any research. A pragmatic decision may be needed in deciding on client segments to be explored. Which is the biggest client group served? Which client set is bearing many challenges? How much funds are available for the study? What is the duration of the study?
With no serious consideration of such concerns, the study carried out could be ineffective in identifying beneficial information for mangers to act. Increasing client fulfillment and enhancing library quality, through bridging gaps between expected degree of service delivery and client perception, is a continuous role. Basically, all client groups should be explored; nevertheless, this is not realistic in most situations. Thus, study regarding the different client groups should be the main concern in maximizing profits.
Literature Review
Parasuraman et al. (1985) carried out influential study regarding quality management and its association with reducing production expenditures and enhancing output, which are necessary for the manufacturer of the products.
The authors identified three basic concerns: that service values are harder for the customer to analyze in relation to the value of tangible products; service quality perceived outcome based on relationship between client needs and real service delivery; and value assessments are not only based on the performance but in addition include assessment of the entire process of delivery (Parasuraman et al. 1985).
The significance attached to both the process and the real result of the delivery actions, has a strong link to the findings of Lam et al. (2004) that in a non-product sector, for example a library, each of the relationships and actions, the procedure, either with a resource (e.g. journal) or an academic personnel, can both fulfil and frustrate customers.
Nitecki (2007) established SERVQUAL which factors in the views of clients and the comparative significance of service elements. It was introduced through the study carried out by Nitecki in 2007 regarding the gap framework of service dimensions. The methodology utilized in developing SERVQUAL comprises surveying clients on core service attributes and then relating the results to a real organization.
SERVQUAL was utilized broadly in service organizations, comprising a few library provisions. Parasuraman et al. (1985) present an inventory of articles indicating experimental study on the utilization of SERVQUAL in a library setting. SERVQUAL was initially implemented at the Texas college library, where Dole carried out research encompassing service quality views of clients in 2001. Due to his knowledge in utilizing the tool, he established Lib-QUAL with the assistance of the not-for-profit organizations in 2002 (Dole, 2002).
Studies have identified a well-built relationship between client contentment, client value and quality of service. McKnight and Berrington (2008) and Thompson (2009) assert that the outcome from the value-fulfilment relationship proposes that in enhancing client contentment, service organizations can focus their energy to improve the value identified by clients through aiming at features bearing great significance level.
They argue that providers can address such crucial flaws that seriously deter their attempts in enhancing client value. By reducing those flaws, service providers could enhance value and consequently client contentment (McKnight & Berrington, 2008). These findings by McKnight and Berrington are wholly underpinned through the Client Value Detection study described in this research.
In fact, the study identified that a client identifies irritations and/or flaws associated with a service that he/she in addition values. There are direct correlations between the irritation and value. Therefore, through aiming at minimizing irritants, there are matching enhancements in value for the client (Spreng & MacKoy, 1996).
The library collection has numerous indications regarding library service value and client contentment (e.g. Cullen, 2001; Andaleeb & Simmonds, 1998; Phipps, 2001), and service delivery identification in academic library environment (e.g. Ryan, 2006; McKnight and Berrington, 2008) as a way to assess whether a library service satisfies the client. LibQUAL, the quality assessment tool described earlier, is often cited regarding client contentment in library collection (e.g. Gatten, 2004; Woodberry, 2006).
While implicitly indicating client fulfilment, the determination of quality of service has been utilized to imply client contentment (Holbrook, 1994). This is mainly crucial while discussing about the utilization of quality tools regarding LIS, because the library quality marks can be understood to be indicators of client contentment (Thompson 2009).
Phipps (2001) and Cullen (2001) assert that determining client contentment is the frequently utilized measure of library quality. Nevertheless, it is likely to get more marks during client contentment reviews and fail in meeting the anticipations of library clients (Dole, 2002).
A customer can claim he/she is contented with an item or service but still not faithful to the supplier. Levels of contentment and contemplation of entire aspects participating in satisfying are therefore critical, as Spreng and MacKoy (1996) claimed that a fully contented customer is five times expected to remain faithful to his/her provider in relation to a partially contented client.
An additional criticism regarding focussing only on client contentment is that the effect of the quality assessment tool may not determine the willingness of library management and academic personnel that will result in constant enhancement in resources and values (McKnight, 2006).
Determining client contentment is vital, but it is a multiple stage process. The perception regarding constant enhancement has to be connected with the policy of all libraries since the environment is quickly shifting and the customer anticipations are changing with time.
To understand client value will enable continuous struggle for quality enhancement since quality targets and improvement strategies and action plans can be established for delivering these qualities without the ongoing requirement of determining contentment as such (McKnight & Berrington, 2008).
Definitions
Service quality is described as the worldwide examination or mind-set of general success in service provision. Therefore, service quality refers to the variation between views of a service delivered by providers and clients’ anticipation (Parasuraman et al., 1985). Nitecki (2007) described service quality as the meeting or exceeding client anticipations, or as the variation between service anticipations and client perspective.
Client contentment is described as the level of individuals felt condition as a result of relating a service’s expected performance against their own perceptions. Client service coordination refers to management of services so as to suit customer expectations. Delivery measures refer to the aspects necessary for giving customers value. Effective strategy refers to a policy or practice that is both sustainable and cost-effective and collections refer to library resources (Cullen, 2001).
Methodology
This project utilizes a qualitative approach to identify gaps in library service provision, indicating the disparity between what a client need from the service and the evaluation of existing delivery for that set of services. Basically, the procedure would in addition employ academic library personnel in the study procedure in order that there are higher chances of comprehending of client opinions (Neuman, 2012).
An evaluation of LibQUAL and the Client Value Detection methodology is described in table 1, based on individual incident of utilization of the described methods. The institutional needs were described by the researcher in the capacity as institution head.
Table 1: An evaluation of library performance methods vs. institutional needs
Source: as described in Thompson, 2009, p. 28.
As indicated above (table 1), the coverage of outcomes utilizing LibQUAL tool is complicated. Some authors have condemned the complicatedness of this reporting mechanism. Thompson (2009) highlighted the complexity to interpret the information and graphical representations presented through the LibQUAL tool.
Examples of the Client Value Detection graphs are described below (Fig. 1). The Client Value detection procedure is costly compared to LibQUAL methodology, because of the inclusion of an extrinsic facilitator and the time spend by library personnel.
Figure 1: Graph showing learner Score of Value vs. Performance
Source: as described in Phipps, 2001, p. 638.
The uniqueness of the above comments is that dependence on tools like LibQUAL may fail in providing all the information that is likely to be collected from a client regarding the specific gap in library performance that exists from his/her opinion. A tool to measure performance and value that utilizes survey queries is only as useful as the value of the phrasing of the queries and in addition the suitability of the intended purpose of these queries.
Although the study acknowledges that the quality assumption provided by clients utilizing the Client Quality Detection procedure is same as the measure identified through LibQUAL review tool, a client does express a set of irritations that is not captured by LibQUAL (Thompson, 2009). In addition, this set of irritations and verbal response identified during the Client Quality detection inductions aid plan strategies that can be utilized in addressing the performance gaps.
Data Collection/Analysis
Ryan (2006) describes quality designing as an extraordinary technique to detect the major success aspects in an organization through obtaining opinions of chosen groups of users in an organized response meeting. A key variation between methods like LibQUAL and Client Quality Detection is the lack of structured review queries; the procedure commences with a plain paper and gives a client an opportunity of describing performance.
Client Value detection inductions are implemented for all special client segments, in order that contributors in an induction all originate from a single segment (e.g. postgraduate students). There are at least 15 users in every meeting due to the need of ensuring efficient deliberation at different sections of the induction process (Ryan, 2006).
In the initial stage of the Client Quality Detection meetings, the participant, in secret and independently, utilize a manual in identifying the most vital nuisances that he/she perceives regarding the current library performance. The user then transfers these nuisances onto individually drafted texts and scores the severity of all irritants (Scale of 1-9) and how often the irritants occur. This set of nuisances, on the drafted texts, is collected right away for evaluation at the end of the induction period.
Then the participant is directed through a modeling quiz, where he/she is requested to express his/her opinion regarding excellence of either a service or a product. The workbook is utilized in capturing views and concepts, and then the independent user’s set of concerns/qualities is transferred onto individually drafted texts.
The participant is then allowed to place his/her drafted texts, with a single concept in each text, onto an empty flipchart, in which the facilitators lead a procedure of generating thematic sets utilizing a similarity chart, which compiles a sensible list comprising alike opinions that originated from the contributors’ modeling quiz. The facilitators then seek a title regarding each subject set based on reviewed feedbacks (Nitecki, 2007).
The Client Quality Detection study process uses two important software: OptionFinder® which is a workshop feedback model, using wireless methodology that mixes consultation voting, tallying, tabulating, and information coverage instruments; and iThink® which is utilized in generating a model for simulating performance procedures and events; identifying the effects of any newly integrated service, process or practice.
The headlines based on the subject sets are transferred onto OptionFinder® and customer feedbacks are captured through pairing each headline/quality with the remaining values utilizing the imposed set relation model. The qualities and irritations in an independent quiz are formalised and rated, with 100 representing the greatest ranking value or irritation, and the remaining aspects represented as a % of the greatest ranking value or irritant.
At the induction, small groups comprising of user’s personnel (≤5) contribute in the induction, but as independent participants. A staff votes at the induction on how he/she expects the client to ballot, therefore creating a gap evaluation between a client view regarding quality and the client opinion of performance based on propositions from the user’s personnel. The results are graphed as described in figure 2 and 3.
Figure 2: Hierarchy of Irritants-Students-Gap Chart
Source: as described in Phipps, 2001, p. 639.
Figure 3: General Hierarchy of Value-Performance-Gaps
Source: Spreng & MacKoy, 1996, p. 209
Despite the study tool, it is evident that service coordination plan requires addressing the performance concerns that are greatly needed by users and in which there is an important gap in service delivery (Nitecki, 2007). Doing contrary may lead to misused energy and finances for small gain for the user.
Figure 2 (Pareto Graph) provides a good representation of which quality attributes need to be explored with a view of ascertaining whether amendments to performance can be implemented. Ideally, the first four greatest values represent roughly 70/100 of the total value, while the last six lowest values represent only 10/100 of client quality. Aiming at the other performance sections would not yield substantial enhancement for client views of quality service.
The Client Quality Detection graphs fails in giving an overall indication on contentment, but, via the Active Framing procedure, library personnel propositions on their capability of reducing Irritants and improving quality based on the hierarchy representations, are generated utilizing the iThink® model.
Models like action or activity paradigms with constant service controlling are needed for ensuring follow-up on all operational plans implemented with a view of bridging the identified gap in library performance. Individual delivery frameworks and evaluation actions for library personnel in addition offer the basic support and coaching needed in enabling the establishment of fresh knowledge essential for amended or improved service provision. These realistic concerns are supported by McKnight and Berrington (2008) as being significant.
Conclusion
The study description comprises the approach of narrative library management as explained by Thompson (2009). The study process involving Client Value Detection needs the dynamic contribution of provider personnel that results to the narrative within the management; the connecting of action plans to the specific attributes and frustrations originating from clients; the thematic differentiating needed for an amendment of policies that positions the client at the central position of the library performance and the appreciation of what clients experience and views of what they expect.
The significance to develop and enact communication strategies that begin prior to and continue after the study is completed is in addition emphasized. Also the gap found between personnel considerations regarding client perspectives of service significance and delivery must serve as an avenue for personnel commitment when initiating the change policy.
The expenditure on carrying out Client Value Detection study was identified as an obstacle to its application. Because of the significance of involving service provider personnel in the change procedure, the money spend could be assumed to be training investment rather than an expense. Engaging library personnel in the Client Quality Detection guidelines and in the follow up procedures, and in the generation of a narrative that corresponds to the study findings assists in fostering this important institutional practice.
References
Andaleeb, S., & Simmonds, P. (1998, March). Explaining user satisfaction with academic libraries: Strategic Implications. College and Research Libraries, pp. 156-166.
Cullen, R. (2001). Perspectives on user satisfaction surveys. Library Trends, 49(4), 662-686.
Dole, W. (2002). LibQUAL+™ and the small academic library. Performance Measurement and Metrics, 3(2), 85-95.
Gatten, J. (2004). Measuring consortium impact on user perceptions. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 30(3), 222-228.
Holbrook, M. (1994). The nature of customer value: An axiology of services in consumption experience. In R. Rust & R. Oliver (Eds.), Service Quality: New Directions in Theory and Practice (pp. 21-71). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lam, S., Shankar, V., Erramilli, M. & Murthy, B. (2004). Customer value, satisfaction, loyalty, and switching costs: An illustration from a business-to-business service context. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32(3), 293-311.
McKnight, S. (2006). Involving the customer in library planning and decision-making. In P. Brophy, J. Craven & M. Markland (Eds.), Libraries without walls 6: Evaluating the distributed delivery of library services (pp. 4-13.), London: Facet Publishing.
McKnight, S. & Berrington, M. (2008, March). Improving customer satisfaction: Changes as a result of customer value discovery. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, pp. 33-52.
Neuman, W. (2012). Basics of social research: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson; Prentice Hall.
Nitecki, D.A. (2007) SERVQUAL: Measuring Service Quality in Academic Libraries [Association of Research Libraries]. Web.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V., & Berry, L. (1985). A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. Journal of Marketing, 49(2), 41-50.
Phipps, S. (2001). Beyond measuring service quality: Learning from the voices of the customers, the staff, the processes, and the organization. Library Trends, 49(4), 635-661.
Ryan, P. (2006). Good Libraries use Evidence: Cultivating a Culture of Assessment and Evidence Based Decision Making in Academic Libraries. Web.
Spreng, R. & MacKoy, D. (1996). An empirical examination of a model of perceived service quality and satisfaction. Journal of Retailing, 72(2), 201-214.
Thompson, B. (2009). LibQUAL+ changing library service quality: The origins/birth of LibQUAL+®. Web.
Woodberry, E. (2006). Benchmarking and statistics: Cheap, useful and fairly valid. Web.