Adjusting Servqual Model in a High Education Library Service

ADJUSTING SERVQUAL MODEL IN A HIGH EDUCATION LIBRARY SERVICE

Among the quantity of services provided by public high education system in México, there is possible to improve it systematically by cyclical measurements between perceptions and expectations.

Adjusting and applying a questionnaire at the library service users in the Center of Exact Sciences and Engineering of the University of Guadalajara, México and using servqual model proposed by Zeithaml, Parasuraman & Berry it was possible to determine these gaps and analyze the parameters a).- Service factors b).- Expectations-Perceptions c).- Quality perception index d).- Satisfaction matrix.

We’ll show whit the results about the perception quality and determining by this mean strengthens and weaknesses, it enhances to the high direction to design improvement goals and its associated plans.

Key words: SERVQUAL; Quality management; Service management, High Education.

Mtra. Claudia Castillo Cruz [email protected] Department of Industrial Engineering CUCEI Universidad de Guadalajara Blvd. Marcelino García Barragán # 1421. Esq. Calz. Olímpica Guadalajara, Jalisco, México (33) 13785900 Ext: 27431.

Luis Antonio Delgadillo Gutiérrez [email protected] Department of Industrial Engineering CUCEI Universidad de Guadalajara Blvd. Marcelino García Barragán # 1421. Esq. Calz. Olímpica Guadalajara, Jalisco, México

Mtra. Graciela Lara López [email protected] Department of Computational Sciences CUCEI Universidad de Guadalajara Blvd. Marcelino García Barragán # 1421. Esq. Calz. Olímpica Guadalajara, Jalisco, México (33) 13785900 Ext: 27736.

POM 2011 - Twenty Second Annual Conference, Reno, Nevada, U.S.A. April 29 – May 2, 2011 ADJUSTING SERVQUAL MODEL IN A HIGH EDUCATION LIBRARY SERVICE

ABSTRACT

It is intended to adjust and apply a questionnaire to evaluate the quality of service in the Centre for Information and documentation of the CUCEI.

Knowing the differences between expectations and perceptions of the service it will be possible to act in order to consistently improve the quality of service.

For the implementation of the questionnaire it is considered the servqual model proposed by Zeithaml, Parasuraman & Berry making adjustments to its application to users of the Service Center librarian for information and documentation of the CUCEI.

Gaps between expectations and perceptions were Identified using a lickert scale and analyzing parameters like: a) Service factors b) Expectations-Perceptions c) Quality perceptions index d) Satisfaction matrix

Results permitted to establish weaknesses and strengths of the librarian system, giving elements to the Administration to design improvement actions and their associated plans.

INTRODUCTION

In the CUCEI, like in other centers of the University network, it is important to measure and evaluate objectively and constructively services librarians to enhance the improvement of its management, despite other efforts made in terms of other generic quality models that are being developed today.

Measuring the quality of services is a matter relevant to the activities of the CUCEI, However, unlike the quality in products, measuring the dimensions of quality of services is more complex, because there is no physical evidence, as in the case of goods, you can inspect and evaluate before i).- Be on the market ii).- having been purchased by the customer. For a service, evaluation occurs at the same time that it receives and is exercised by the user.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Different models developed to measure the quality of services are much more recent than those applied to physical assets, SERVQUAL model dates from the middle of the 80´s which means that in this specific field there are many aspects to develop.

The definition and measurement of quality have proved to be particularly complex in the area of services, since the fact that the quality is a concept still undefined must be added the difficulty for the intangible nature of the services (GRONROOS, 1994).

Gronroos' Perceived Service Quality model

In Gronroos' Perceived Service Quality model, expectations are a function of market communications, image, word of mouth, and consumer needs and learning, whereas experience is a product of a technical and functional quality, which is filtered through the image.

 Grönroos' Perceived Service Quality model

Gronroos more clearly shows the existence of a perception gap, although there is no suggestion of "delighting" only of narrowing the gap. However the model has more practical application as it shows factors that contribute to each side of the gap. It demonstrates that the supplier can affect both sides of the gap – most notably by managing customer expectations. In addition it illustrates that the customer experience is a product of the image of supplier quality, not just the actuality. Clearly marketing as well as process and technical quality has an effect on the perception gap.

Still, the quality has become a key piece of the tertiary sector and your search has led many researchers to develop possible definitions and design models on the same (BUTTLE, 1996).

In the literature on the subject, the model has wider dissemination is the so-called model of the impairments (1985,1988 PARUSARAMAN, ZEITHAML and BERRY) which defines the quality of service as a function of the discrepancy between the expectations of consumers on the service to receive and their perceptions of the service actually provided by the company.

In common with the Grönroos model it shows the perception gap (Gap 5) and outlines contributory factors. In this case expected service is a function of word of mouth communication, personal need and past experience, and perceived service is a product of service delivery and external communications to consumers.

Parasuraman et al. GAP model (Zeithaml 1996)

Originally, this tool is composed of ten dimensions: reliability, responsibility, competence, accessibility, courtesy, communication, credibility, safety, understanding and tangible elements. In 1988 they diminished structure, arguing the unquestionable presence of five categories: tangible elements, appearance of the physical facilities, equipment, personnel and communication materials. Reliability, is to provide the service promised so reliable and carefully; Responsiveness, available staff to help users and provide a rapid, service; Security, knowledge and attention skills displayed by the employees to inspire credibility and confidence; And Empathetic, understanding efforts to understand the perspective of using individual attention. Thus, the final structure of the scale consists of a total of 22 items, used both to study the expectations as customers perceptions.

CRITICISMS of the SERVQUAL later this proposal arose a series of works interested in both the number of dimensions of quality, as well as: (a) qualitative treatment from the perspective of the client; (b) the analysis of the quality from various scientific fields such as psychology, sociology or anthropology; (c) the establishment of higher levels of scientific sophistication and rigorous methodology; and finally, (d) the development of quantitative theoretical models (Buttle, 1994).

With Carmen Maria Salvador Ferrer, some authors consider difficult have reached a consensus on the concept given the emerging nature of the service (Edvarson, 1988) and the vagueness of the interaction between the client and the type of service (staff, equipment, environment, etc.).

With the multitude of elements involved (Reeves and Bednar, 1995;) Sasser, Olsen and Wyckoff, 1978) and many drivers of high levels of quality, is necessary to combat the ambiguity of the term. According to the definition of quality of service of Reeves and Bednar (1994). Because of its comprehensive nature, concerns four modes of design quality:

Excellence. It is the best in full or absolute sense. This category considers concentrator organizations in efforts to achieve optimal results that enhance the image of institutional quality and achieve acceptance and commitment of employees.

Value. Quality is determined by several factors, price and accessibility. This approach benefits the internal efficiency and effectiveness external at the time that meet customer expectations.

Conformity with the specifications. Quality so its measure serves for achieving objectives at various time points is conceived. Meeting the expectations of users. Here suggests that high levels of quality will be achieved if you cover the expectations of users. This creates problems of reliability and validity in construct (Buttle, 1994), given that the judgments issued by clients fluctuate over time as function of the service. This proposal focuses on the subjective criteria of clients (Cronin and Taylor, 1992, 1994;) Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry, 1985), i.e., provides information on the characteristics or attributes used by users to evaluate the quality. The purpose of the company or institution is adapting the service to the needs and wishes of customers, providing the resources and capacities available within the Organization.

One way of applying this model is through their adaptation and adjustment, this being that is intended to develop and validate specifically for the CUCEI.

This work applies a modified SERVQUAL model to learn about the perception of the users of the key elements in the quality of the librarian University Service distinguishing features of the service and professional skills. Thus, through analysis of average look the characteristics of a quality service. In line with other works, the results show that the service the customer cares about efficiency, tangibility and structuring. While it focuses on competencies and the treatment of professional skills.

The aim of this work is to verify is the validity of the modified SERVQUAL model of external indicators of perception of the service through a questionnaire in the area of the CUCEI library.

METHODOLOGY.

Parasuraman et al, Proposed as underlying dimensions of the quality of Service: tangible elements, reliability, responsiveness, security and empathy. Table 1 presents the meaning of each of these dimensions.

Table 1: Dimension's meaning of the SERVQUAL model Dimension Meaning tangible elements(T) Appearance of the physical facilities, equipment, employees and materials communications Reliability(RY) Ability to provide accurately the service promised Responsiveness(R) Desire to help the customers and serve them quickly Security(A) Knowledge of the service provided and courtesy of employees as well as his ability to convey confidence to the customer Empathy(E) Individualized customer attention

Adapted these five dimensions were stratified 29 items shown below as the modified SERVQUAL model DIMENSION 1: TANGIBLE ELEMENTS DIMENSIONInstallations appearance,2:RELIABILITY equipment, Personnel and communication materials Ability toTitles provide appropriate promised to service every area of study  EasyQuantity of finding of tittles books or other materials on the shelf  QuicklyActualized service Editions  PeriodPhisical of statusloan materials home  NumberAppropriate of materials study environmental in lending  AvailabilityAppropriate of signalization computer equipment for online public catalog lookup  AvailabilityAdecuated of ilumination equipment in area of computation  ProperClean installationsfunctioning of computer equipment  EasyHours to And use dayspublic of catalog service on line  ClarityEnvironmental of the information temperature in online public catalog  Consultation of Digital Library resources  Clarity of information in Digital Library  Usefulness of Digital Library resources

DIMENSION 3: RESPONSE CAPABILITY Provision and employees will help the user to provide the service  Staff guides and helps you locate and obtain information  Understaffed

DIMENSION 4: ASSURANCE Knowledge and care and skills shown by the staff to inspire credibility and confidence  The library staff is personally identifiable  Staff demonstrated knowledge of his work  Staff carry out their work efficient.

DIMENSION 5: EMPATHY Individual attention that offer library users  Staff are available to deal with requests and suggestions  The staff is attentive and friendly treatment

The above dimensions obtained after a factor scores (P-E) analysis of 29 items of quality of service included in the questionnaires used to measure the views of users which incorporated its empirical, study shows the items had been previously identified through meetings with groups of users of the service.

Once we have calculated the mean scores (P-E) for each dimension of the 29 items evaluating both expectations and perceptions, it is possible to perform the following quantitative analysis:

Methods The study population is 11,000 students at the Centre of exact sciences and engineering of the University of Guadalajara in 2009. This University has thirteen degrees, including a postgraduate, area and is located in the municipality of Guadalajara in Western Mexico. Subjects were students in general Engineering, A total of 300 students were selected for multi-stage sampling. The subjects were randomly selected.

The instrument was an adaptation of the SERVQUAL survey. The original SERVQUAL survey was specifically designed to assess organizations and businesses in the service sector. Some changes were made to adapt this study's survey to an academic setting. This adaptation of the SERVQUAL survey was made up of twenty-nine parallel likert scale items measuring five postulated dimensions of service quality, which consist of tangibles (10 items), reliability (12 items), responsiveness (2 items), assurance (3 items), and empathy (2 items). This questionnaire was tested in a sample of students at the Center of Exact Sciences and Engineering of the University of Guadalajara. Its content validity and reliability was determined by them. Alpha coefficients are:

Dimensions tangibles reliability responsiveness assurance empathy Coefficient 0.84 0.87 0.83 0.84 0.82

The students were first asked to rate the librarian services quality (students' perceptions of current condition). To do so they were asked to select one response in each item including very good, good, moderate, poor and very poor. They were then asked to rate how important each item is to the quality of service provided (students' expectations of optimal condition). In order to do this, the students selected one response including very important, important, moderate, less important and least important. They were told that most important is equal to highest expectation and least important is equal to lowest expectation here. Each item was scored from 1 to 5 with 1 representing very poor/least important and 5 representing very good/very important. In each dimension, the scores of the items were added up and the result was divided by the number of its items. The score of perceptions and expectations of students in each dimension was from 1 to 5. The difference between perceptions (P) and expectations (E), (P-E = Q) represents the measure of service quality (Q). Where Q is negative, a service gap exists. However, where Q is positive, students' expectations are greater than their perceptions.

Descriptive statistics, paired t-test, Wilcoxon, Friedman and ANOVA were utilized to evaluate and analyze the data by SPSS13 software. The means were used to compare the students' perceptions and expectations of educational service quality and the gap between them. This study was approved by the Coordination of Bibliotecarian development of the CUCEI. The procedures of the study were explained to all subjects, and all provided informed consent.

Results The results indicated that in all five SERVQUAL dimensions, there were negative quality gaps. The least and the most negative quality gap means were in the reliability and empathy dimensions respectively. There were significant differences between perceptions and expectations of students in all five SERVQUAL dimensions (p < 0.001). Also statistically there were significant differences between negative quality gaps in all five SERVQUAL dimensions (Friedman test: X2 = 86.4, p < 0.001). The differences between negative quality gaps in each of the five SERVQUAL dimensions, except between assurance dimension and empathy and tangibles dimensions, were significant (p < 0.001). These dimensions, with regard to negative quality gaps, can be classified into three groups, so that the responsiveness dimension is placed in one group, the assurance, empathy and tangibles dimensions are placed in another group, and the reliability dimension is placed in a third group.

Discussion The aim of this study was to determine the quality gap of educational services using a modified SERVQUAL instrument among students in CUCEI. As the results show in all of the five SERVQUAL dimensions, there is a negative quality gap. This confirms the results of the SERVQUAL studies. Negative quality gaps mean students' expectations are greater than their perceptions, and it indicates dissatisfaction. Thus, improvements are needed across all five SERVQUAL dimensions.

The negative quality gaps in all of the five SERVQUAL dimensions and their items indicate that in order to improve educational services quality, some measures need to be taken. The greatest negative quality gap was in the responsiveness dimension. This dimension indicates the school's willingness to help students and provide prompt services; it also reflects the sensibility and cautions to students' demands, questions and complaints.

Conclusion The negative quality gap in service dimensions can be used as a guideline for planning and allocation of resources. Thus, the five SERVQUAL dimensions can be classified to three priority groups for allocation of resources and organizational attempts to eliminate or reduce negative quality gaps, so that the responsiveness dimension is placed in the first priority, the assurance, empathy and tangibles dimensions are placed in the second priority, and the reliability dimension is placed in the third priority. If the afore mentioned priorities are taken into account and the quality gap is attended to, the resultant improved will benefit other dimensions as well; the negative quality gap (or quality improvements) in one dimension, in the customers' viewpoint, can affect the negative quality gaps (or quality improvements) in other dimensions.

Due to the diversity of courses and educational levels in other universities and having different facilities, equipment, staff and faculty members, the results of this study are not generalizable to all. Hence it is recommended that every university carry out a similar study so that a model with more conformity will be produced for planning to improve educational services quality.